Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #603266 > unrolled thread

Ion drive for aircraft imminent.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-01 11:09 -0400
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-01 08:51 -0700
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-01 14:27 -0400
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-01 22:01 -0400
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 09:16 -0400
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-03 08:33 -0700
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 07:29 -0400
            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 07:35 -0400
              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 12:20 -0700
                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-06 12:23 -0500
                  Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-06 16:28 -0500
                  Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 19:13 -0700
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 11:52 -0700
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 10:16 -0700
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-01 18:16 +0000
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-01 18:44 -0400
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-02 22:31 -0500
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-03 07:27 -0500
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-11-03 09:26 -0400
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-03 12:04 -0500
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 18:03 -0700
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 15:28 -0400
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-04 21:03 +0000
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-01 18:19 +0000
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-01 14:13 -0700
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-02 00:00 +0000
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-01 22:05 -0400
            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-02 02:54 +0000
              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-02 20:20 -0400
                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2016-11-03 02:24 +0100
                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 02:02 +0000
                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-11-03 07:41 -0400
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-01 19:10 -0500
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-01 22:06 -0400
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-11-01 19:12 -0700
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-02 02:57 +0000
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 14:24 -0700
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 10:35 -0400
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:39 +0000
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-06 13:12 -0500
            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-06 19:54 +0000
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 11:37 -0700
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-01 19:08 -0500
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2016-11-02 00:33 -0800
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-11-03 01:05 -0700
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:43 +0000
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 15:38 -0400
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Bill Martin <wwm@wwmartin.net> - 2016-11-02 11:47 -0700
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 09:28 -0400
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 09:48 -0400
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-03 08:41 -0700
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-03 12:22 -0500
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 16:09 -0400
            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-04 21:09 +0000
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-07 07:29 -0500
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-07 18:37 +0000
            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-11-07 15:31 -0500
              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-07 21:46 +0000
                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-11-07 18:18 -0800
                  Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 03:39 +0000
                    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-11-07 20:51 -0800
                      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 07:13 +0000
                        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-08 12:28 -0500
                        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-11-08 13:33 -0800
                          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 22:05 +0000
                            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-08 18:45 -0500
                              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-09 00:13 +0000
                                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-08 19:46 -0500
                                  Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-09 01:05 +0000
                            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-11-09 18:26 +0000
                              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-09 20:03 +0000
                        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 19:21 -0700
                          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 08:40 +0000
                            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 02:55 -0700
                              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-14 06:02 -0500
                                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 11:31 +0000
                                  Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 05:54 -0700
                                    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 13:47 +0000
                                      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 12:35 -0700
                                        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-15 00:04 +0000
                                  Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-14 13:37 -0500
                                    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 18:52 +0000
                                      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-14 14:56 -0500
                                        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 13:17 -0700
                                    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-14 12:53 -0600
                                      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 19:19 +0000
                                    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 18:57 +0000
                              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 11:27 +0000
                                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 05:52 -0700
                                  Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 13:56 +0000
                                    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 12:47 -0700
                                      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 23:58 +0000
                                        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 22:07 -0700
                                          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-11-15 20:34 -0500
                                            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 21:42 -0700
                                              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-16 09:05 +0000
                                                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 02:13 -0700
                                                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-16 20:32 -0500
                      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 16:37 -0800
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:49 +0000
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 10:00 -0400
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:51 +0000
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-06 16:37 -0600
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2016-11-07 02:28 +0100
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:03 -0500
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-08 11:17 -0600
            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 17:53 +0000
            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-13 12:09 -0500
              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-13 12:04 -0600
                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-13 20:34 -0500
                  Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-13 20:12 -0600
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 17:37 +0000
            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-13 10:53 -0500
              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-13 12:09 -0600

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#604748

In article <hghWz.176740$2P.173948@fx38.am4>, spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk 
says...
> 
> On 14/11/16 11:02, Jeff Findley wrote:
> > In article <0g2j2chkqnifba356q8ek0cvesu22mn07i@4ax.com>,
> > fjmccall@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
> >>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
> >>>
> >>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
> >>> airliners :)
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
> >>>
> >>
> >> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
> >> with an engine.
> >
> > True.  Whether it is a tow plane (like seems common in the US), a motor
> > on a winch for a cable launch (common in Europe, or so I'm told), or
> > even "self tow" (engine or motor and propeller on the glider) a glider
> > would have a hard time getting off the ground without some sort of
> > engine/motor.
> 
> False. See my other reply for videos of examples.

"Gravity, bungees, and (in true Fred Flintstone style)
horses are also used."

In other words a bio-mechanical engine and to examples of converting  
potential energy to kinetic energy.  So, a glider still can't be 
launched without inputting some sort of energy which comes from 
somewhere.  I suppose a large headwind might suffice, if you like taking 
off backwards with respect to the ground.  

> (But in Europe winches are more common than tugs, and
> a typical release height is 2kft, but higher is possible.
> A normal tug release height is 2kft, sometimes 3kft)
> 
> 
> > And before anyone mentions that a glider can stay aloft pretty much "all
> > day" by riding thermals, yes it can.  But, if you're spending all day
> > searching for the best thermals, you're not spending any time going from
> > point A to point B, so they're not terribly useful as transportation.
> 
> True, but they are a damn sight more fun :)
> 
> (Besides, ISTR sailing ships seem to have been
> used for transportation, even though they were
> sometimes becalmed :) )

Fun is not a practical transportation device.   It's awfully hard to get 
a glider to fly arbitrary routes thousands of miles long.  It's trivial 
with a jet airliner.

Jeff
-- 
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.  
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, 
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604751

On 14/11/16 18:37, Jeff Findley wrote:
> In article <hghWz.176740$2P.173948@fx38.am4>, spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk
> says...
>>
>> On 14/11/16 11:02, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>> In article <0g2j2chkqnifba356q8ek0cvesu22mn07i@4ax.com>,
>>> fjmccall@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>>>> airliners :)
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>>>> with an engine.
>>>
>>> True.  Whether it is a tow plane (like seems common in the US), a motor
>>> on a winch for a cable launch (common in Europe, or so I'm told), or
>>> even "self tow" (engine or motor and propeller on the glider) a glider
>>> would have a hard time getting off the ground without some sort of
>>> engine/motor.
>>
>> False. See my other reply for videos of examples.
>
> "Gravity, bungees, and (in true Fred Flintstone style)
> horses are also used."
>
> In other words a bio-mechanical engine and to examples of converting
> potential energy to kinetic energy.  So, a glider still can't be
> launched without inputting some sort of energy which comes from
> somewhere.  I suppose a large headwind might suffice, if you like taking
> off backwards with respect to the ground.
>
>> (But in Europe winches are more common than tugs, and
>> a typical release height is 2kft, but higher is possible.
>> A normal tug release height is 2kft, sometimes 3kft)
>>
>>
>>> And before anyone mentions that a glider can stay aloft pretty much "all
>>> day" by riding thermals, yes it can.  But, if you're spending all day
>>> searching for the best thermals, you're not spending any time going from
>>> point A to point B, so they're not terribly useful as transportation.
>>
>> True, but they are a damn sight more fun :)
>>
>> (Besides, ISTR sailing ships seem to have been
>> used for transportation, even though they were
>> sometimes becalmed :) )
>
> Fun is not a practical transportation device.   It's awfully hard to get
> a glider to fly arbitrary routes thousands of miles long.  It's trivial
> with a jet airliner.

Sure, but what does that have to do with the original point,
viz "Remove the engines and airplanes don't go up."
The can, and do, go up - occasionally higher than commercial
airliners other than Concorde.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604784

In article <2KnWz.136226$EP.47973@fx23.am4>, spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk 
says...
> > Fun is not a practical transportation device.   It's awfully hard to get
> > a glider to fly arbitrary routes thousands of miles long.  It's trivial
> > with a jet airliner.
> 
> Sure, but what does that have to do with the original point,
> viz "Remove the engines and airplanes don't go up."
> The can, and do, go up - occasionally higher than commercial
> airliners other than Concorde.
> 

Look at the *original* topic.  I.e. the subject line:

    Ion drive for aircraft imminent.

In other words, an ion *engine*.  Somewhere along the way the original 
topic got distorted and has become a love/hate glider fest.

Jeff
-- 
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.  
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, 
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604794

Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote in
news:MPG.3293e10094c00b47989864@news.eternal-september.org: 

> In article <2KnWz.136226$EP.47973@fx23.am4>,
> spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>> > Fun is not a practical transportation device.   It's awfully
>> > hard to get a glider to fly arbitrary routes thousands of
>> > miles long.  It's trivial with a jet airliner.
>> 
>> Sure, but what does that have to do with the original point,
>> viz "Remove the engines and airplanes don't go up."
>> The can, and do, go up - occasionally higher than commercial
>> airliners other than Concorde.
>> 
> 
> Look at the *original* topic.  I.e. the subject line:
> 
>     Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
> 
> In other words, an ion *engine*.  Somewhere along the way the
> original topic got distorted and has become a love/hate glider
> fest. 
> 
Topic drift? That _never_ happens on usenet.

-- 
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland: 
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604752

On 11/14/2016 12:37 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
> In article <hghWz.176740$2P.173948@fx38.am4>, spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk
> says...
>>

>> True, but they are a damn sight more fun :)
>>
>> (Besides, ISTR sailing ships seem to have been
>> used for transportation, even though they were
>> sometimes becalmed :) )
>
> Fun is not a practical transportation device.   It's awfully hard to get
> a glider to fly arbitrary routes thousands of miles long.  It's trivial
> with a jet airliner.
>
> Jeff
>

I had a boss once that flew a glider for sport and would go from arizona 
to california non stop, getting thermals on the way.
too risky for me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604768

On 14/11/16 18:53, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
> On 11/14/2016 12:37 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
>> In article <hghWz.176740$2P.173948@fx38.am4>, spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk
>> says...
>>>
>
>>> True, but they are a damn sight more fun :)
>>>
>>> (Besides, ISTR sailing ships seem to have been
>>> used for transportation, even though they were
>>> sometimes becalmed :) )
>>
>> Fun is not a practical transportation device.   It's awfully hard to get
>> a glider to fly arbitrary routes thousands of miles long.  It's trivial
>> with a jet airliner.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
> I had a boss once that flew a glider for sport and would go from arizona to
> california non stop, getting thermals on the way.
> too risky for me.

IIRC the world record is >3000km, the UK record is >1000km,
and in the UK 300km is "a good afternoon's flying".

It isn't all /that/ risky - unless you choose to make
it so.

I was happy for my daughter to go solo before she
could start to drive a car, and was glad she
didn't do something dangerous like horse riding,
and merely broke her knee skiing :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604755

On 14/11/16 18:37, Jeff Findley wrote:
> In article <hghWz.176740$2P.173948@fx38.am4>, spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk
> says...
>>
>> On 14/11/16 11:02, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>> In article <0g2j2chkqnifba356q8ek0cvesu22mn07i@4ax.com>,
>>> fjmccall@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>>>> airliners :)
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>>>> with an engine.
>>>
>>> True.  Whether it is a tow plane (like seems common in the US), a motor
>>> on a winch for a cable launch (common in Europe, or so I'm told), or
>>> even "self tow" (engine or motor and propeller on the glider) a glider
>>> would have a hard time getting off the ground without some sort of
>>> engine/motor.
>>
>> False. See my other reply for videos of examples.
>
> "Gravity, bungees, and (in true Fred Flintstone style)
> horses are also used."
>
> In other words a bio-mechanical engine and to examples of converting
> potential energy to kinetic energy.  So, a glider still can't be
> launched without inputting some sort of energy which comes from
> somewhere.

Sure. Does that come as a surprise to anyone that has
done even a little science?


> I suppose a large headwind might suffice, if you like taking
> off backwards with respect to the ground.

I've had zero groundspeed when ~2kft from the ground;
if I had pushed a little closer to the stall I would
have been going backwards. Nothing unremarkable there.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604697

On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>
>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>> airliners :)
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>
>
> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
> with an engine.

Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes: commercial
airliners often take /decades/ to catch up with the technology
used in gliders, e.g. composites, wingtips, and lightning
strike protection.

Secondly, neither winches nor tugs will take a glider up
to 10k/20k/30k/ft (40k/50kft in rare cases!) - and can't
even get there on their own! It is unusual for a tug to take
a glider above 3kft over here; 2kft is the normal release
height.

Finally, you have too little imagination about how to launch
a glider. Gravity, bungees, and (in true Fred Flintstone style)
horses are also used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la3rb9LfG0Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxbdXqEvxE0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86rOfjhsIIM

Now, what was that about "up there" and "without an engine"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604703

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>
>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>> airliners :)
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>
>>
>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>> with an engine.
>
>Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes:
>

Nope.  No engine means they aren't an airplane.  An airplane is a
fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle.

>
>Secondly, neither winches nor tugs will take a glider up
>to 10k/20k/30k/ft (40k/50kft in rare cases!) - and can't
>even get there on their own! It is unusual for a tug to take
>a glider above 3kft over here; 2kft is the normal release
>height.
>

So?

>
>Finally, you have too little imagination about how to launch
>a glider. Gravity, bungees, and (in true Fred Flintstone style)
>horses are also used.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la3rb9LfG0Q
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxbdXqEvxE0
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86rOfjhsIIM
>
>Now, what was that about "up there" and "without an engine"?
>

Yes, you can build a glider, move it to the launch site by ox cart,
and throw it off a cliff.  You can lift it with balloons.  You can
even try farting magic pixie dust on them.  But that's not how they're
usually transported and launched.


-- 
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
 territory."
                                      --G. Behn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604716

On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>>
>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>>> airliners :)
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>>> with an engine.
>>
>> Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes:
>>
>
> Nope.  No engine means they aren't an airplane.  An airplane is a
> fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle.

That might be /your/ definition, but it is only valid
in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to
converse with other people, it helps to use words in
a standard way. The first google result gives:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane
airplane
noun
1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the
upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its
fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion,
etc.
2. any similar heavier-than-air aircraft, as a
glider or helicopter.


>> Secondly, neither winches nor tugs will take a glider up
>> to 10k/20k/30k/ft (40k/50kft in rare cases!) - and can't
>> even get there on their own! It is unusual for a tug to take
>> a glider above 3kft over here; 2kft is the normal release
>> height.
>>
>
> So?

It disproves your contention that aircraft need engines
to go up.


>> Finally, you have too little imagination about how to launch
>> a glider. Gravity, bungees, and (in true Fred Flintstone style)
>> horses are also used.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la3rb9LfG0Q
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxbdXqEvxE0
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86rOfjhsIIM
>>
>> Now, what was that about "up there" and "without an engine"?
>>
>
> Yes, you can build a glider, move it to the launch site by ox cart,
> and throw it off a cliff.  You can lift it with balloons.  You can
> even try farting magic pixie dust on them.  But that's not how they're
> usually transported and launched.

True, and balloons have been used, but I'm skeptical
about pixie dust. But those are separate points not
related to whether you need engines to go up.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604781

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>>>> airliners :)
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>>>> with an engine.
>>>
>>> Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes:
>>>
>>
>> Nope.  No engine means they aren't an airplane.  An airplane is a
>> fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle.
>
>That might be /your/ definition, 
>

Yeah, because I own a dictionary.  You should try buying one.

>
>... but it is only valid
>in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to
>converse with other people, it helps to use words in
>a standard way. The first google result gives:
>
>http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane
>airplane
>noun
>1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the
>upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its
>fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion,
>etc.
>

There you go.  If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to
use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary
definitions.

>
>2. any similar heavier-than-air aircraft, as a
>glider or helicopter.
>
>
>>> Secondly, neither winches nor tugs will take a glider up
>>> to 10k/20k/30k/ft (40k/50kft in rare cases!) - and can't
>>> even get there on their own! It is unusual for a tug to take
>>> a glider above 3kft over here; 2kft is the normal release
>>> height.
>>>
>>
>> So?
>>
>
>It disproves your contention that aircraft need engines
>to go up.
>

Except gliders, while aircraft, are not airplanes.  Nice try changing
the wording to claim I said something I didn't say, though.  Now, how
many of those gliders left the grounds or got to their launch point
without an engine?

>
>>
>>> Finally, you have too little imagination about how to launch
>>> a glider. Gravity, bungees, and (in true Fred Flintstone style)
>>> horses are also used.
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la3rb9LfG0Q
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxbdXqEvxE0
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86rOfjhsIIM
>>>
>>> Now, what was that about "up there" and "without an engine"?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, you can build a glider, move it to the launch site by ox cart,
>> and throw it off a cliff.  You can lift it with balloons.  You can
>> even try farting magic pixie dust on them.  But that's not how they're
>> usually transported and launched.
>>
>
>True, and balloons have been used, but I'm skeptical
>about pixie dust. But those are separate points not
>related to whether you need engines to go up.
>

Still not an airplane.  Balloons have 'engines' (that big burning
thing under the envelope).


-- 
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
 only stupid."
                            -- Heinrich Heine 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604833

On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>>>>> airliners :)
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>>>>> with an engine.
>>>>
>>>> Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.  No engine means they aren't an airplane.  An airplane is a
>>> fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle.
>>
>> That might be /your/ definition,
>>
>
> Yeah, because I own a dictionary.  You should try buying one.

I don't understand that. What are you trying to say.


>> ... but it is only valid
>> in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to
>> converse with other people, it helps to use words in
>> a standard way. The first google result gives:
>>
>> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane
>> airplane
>> noun
>> 1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the
>> upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its
>> fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion,
>> etc.
>>
>
> There you go.  If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to
> use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary
> definitions.

A definition is a definition. You are struggling
in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why!


>> 2. any similar heavier-than-air aircraft, as a
>> glider or helicopter.
>>
>>
>>>> Secondly, neither winches nor tugs will take a glider up
>>>> to 10k/20k/30k/ft (40k/50kft in rare cases!) - and can't
>>>> even get there on their own! It is unusual for a tug to take
>>>> a glider above 3kft over here; 2kft is the normal release
>>>> height.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So?
>>>
>>
>> It disproves your contention that aircraft need engines
>> to go up.
>>
>
> Except gliders, while aircraft, are not airplanes.  Nice try changing
> the wording to claim I said something I didn't say, though.  Now, how
> many of those gliders left the grounds or got to their launch point
> without an engine?

All of those launched by bungee at Long Mynd. I
don't know about the others.

Hint: gliders are often pushed around to get
them to where they need to be. I suppose you'll
next be saying that human muscles are engines.


>>>> Finally, you have too little imagination about how to launch
>>>> a glider. Gravity, bungees, and (in true Fred Flintstone style)
>>>> horses are also used.
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la3rb9LfG0Q
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxbdXqEvxE0
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86rOfjhsIIM
>>>>
>>>> Now, what was that about "up there" and "without an engine"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you can build a glider, move it to the launch site by ox cart,
>>> and throw it off a cliff.  You can lift it with balloons.  You can
>>> even try farting magic pixie dust on them.  But that's not how they're
>>> usually transported and launched.
>>>
>>
>> True, and balloons have been used, but I'm skeptical
>> about pixie dust. But those are separate points not
>> related to whether you need engines to go up.
>>
>
> Still not an airplane.  Balloons have 'engines' (that big burning
> thing under the envelope).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604874

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>>>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>>>>>> airliners :)
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>>>>>> with an engine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope.  No engine means they aren't an airplane.  An airplane is a
>>>> fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle.
>>>
>>> That might be /your/ definition,
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, because I own a dictionary.  You should try buying one.
>>
>
>I don't understand that. What are you trying to say.
>

That you don't understand.  Perhaps if you used words in standard ways
with standard definitions.

>
>>> ... but it is only valid
>>> in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to
>>> converse with other people, it helps to use words in
>>> a standard way. The first google result gives:
>>>
>>> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane
>>> airplane
>>> noun
>>> 1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the
>>> upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its
>>> fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>
>> There you go.  If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to
>> use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary
>> definitions.
>>
>
>A definition is a definition. You are struggling
>in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why!
>

All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are.


-- 
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
 territory."
                                      --G. Behn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605027

On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>>>>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>>>>>>> airliners :)
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>>>>>>> with an engine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.  No engine means they aren't an airplane.  An airplane is a
>>>>> fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> That might be /your/ definition,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, because I own a dictionary.  You should try buying one.
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand that. What are you trying to say.
>>
>
> That you don't understand.  Perhaps if you used words in standard ways
> with standard definitions.
>
>>
>>>> ... but it is only valid
>>>> in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to
>>>> converse with other people, it helps to use words in
>>>> a standard way. The first google result gives:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane
>>>> airplane
>>>> noun
>>>> 1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the
>>>> upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its
>>>> fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion,
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There you go.  If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to
>>> use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary
>>> definitions.
>>>
>>
>> A definition is a definition. You are struggling
>> in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why!
>>
>
> All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are.

If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the 
dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it?


Alain Fournier

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605035

Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:

>On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>>>>>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>>>>>>>> airliners :)
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>>>>>>>> with an engine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.  No engine means they aren't an airplane.  An airplane is a
>>>>>> fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle.
>>>>>
>>>>> That might be /your/ definition,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, because I own a dictionary.  You should try buying one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand that. What are you trying to say.
>>>
>>
>> That you don't understand.  Perhaps if you used words in standard ways
>> with standard definitions.
>>
>>>
>>>>> ... but it is only valid
>>>>> in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to
>>>>> converse with other people, it helps to use words in
>>>>> a standard way. The first google result gives:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane
>>>>> airplane
>>>>> noun
>>>>> 1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the
>>>>> upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its
>>>>> fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There you go.  If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to
>>>> use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary
>>>> definitions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A definition is a definition. You are struggling
>>> in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why!
>>>
>>
>> All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are.
>>
>
>If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the 
>dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it?
>

As usual, you don't understand me.  Using secondary 'niche'
definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not
'impressive' at all.  Use the main definition.


-- 
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
 territory."
                                      --G. Behn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605043

On 16/11/16 04:42, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>>>>>>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>>>>>>>>> airliners :)
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>>>>>>>>> with an engine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.  No engine means they aren't an airplane.  An airplane is a
>>>>>>> fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That might be /your/ definition,
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, because I own a dictionary.  You should try buying one.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand that. What are you trying to say.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That you don't understand.  Perhaps if you used words in standard ways
>>> with standard definitions.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> ... but it is only valid
>>>>>> in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to
>>>>>> converse with other people, it helps to use words in
>>>>>> a standard way. The first google result gives:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane
>>>>>> airplane
>>>>>> noun
>>>>>> 1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the
>>>>>> upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its
>>>>>> fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion,
>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There you go.  If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to
>>>>> use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary
>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A definition is a definition. You are struggling
>>>> in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why!
>>>>
>>>
>>> All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are.
>>>
>>
>> If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the
>> dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it?
>>
>
> As usual, you don't understand me.  Using secondary 'niche'
> definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not
> 'impressive' at all.  Use the main definition.

So "circuit" should only be used to mean "an act or
instance of going or moving around."
"Circuit" should never be used to mean "the complete
path of an electric current, including the generating
apparatus, intervening resistors, or capacitors."
because that's only the *9th* definition.

When you are in a hole, stop digging :)

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/circuit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605044

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 16/11/16 04:42, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>>>>>>>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>>>>>>>>>> airliners :)
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>>>>>>>>>> with an engine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.  No engine means they aren't an airplane.  An airplane is a
>>>>>>>> fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That might be /your/ definition,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, because I own a dictionary.  You should try buying one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand that. What are you trying to say.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That you don't understand.  Perhaps if you used words in standard ways
>>>> with standard definitions.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... but it is only valid
>>>>>>> in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to
>>>>>>> converse with other people, it helps to use words in
>>>>>>> a standard way. The first google result gives:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane
>>>>>>> airplane
>>>>>>> noun
>>>>>>> 1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the
>>>>>>> upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its
>>>>>>> fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion,
>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There you go.  If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to
>>>>>> use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary
>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A definition is a definition. You are struggling
>>>>> in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the
>>> dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it?
>>>
>>
>> As usual, you don't understand me.  Using secondary 'niche'
>> definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not
>> 'impressive' at all.  Use the main definition.
>
>So "circuit" should only be used to mean "an act or
>instance of going or moving around."
>"Circuit" should never be used to mean "the complete
>path of an electric current, including the generating
>apparatus, intervening resistors, or capacitors."
>because that's only the *9th* definition.
>

I see you don't know the difference between a secondary definition and
a different definition.  I'm unsurprised at this.

>
>When you are in a hole, stop digging :)
>

Great advice.  You should put down your shovel and take it.


-- 
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
 territory."
                                      --G. Behn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605163

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:05:20 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 16/11/16 04:42, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>>>>>>>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>>>>>>>>>> airliners :)
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>>>>>>>>>> with an engine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.  No engine means they aren't an airplane.  An airplane is a
>>>>>>>> fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That might be /your/ definition,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, because I own a dictionary.  You should try buying one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand that. What are you trying to say.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That you don't understand.  Perhaps if you used words in standard ways
>>>> with standard definitions.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... but it is only valid
>>>>>>> in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to
>>>>>>> converse with other people, it helps to use words in
>>>>>>> a standard way. The first google result gives:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane
>>>>>>> airplane
>>>>>>> noun
>>>>>>> 1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the
>>>>>>> upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its
>>>>>>> fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion,
>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There you go.  If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to
>>>>>> use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary
>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A definition is a definition. You are struggling
>>>>> in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the
>>> dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it?
>>>
>>
>> As usual, you don't understand me.  Using secondary 'niche'
>> definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not
>> 'impressive' at all.  Use the main definition.
>
>So "circuit" should only be used to mean "an act or
>instance of going or moving around."
>"Circuit" should never be used to mean "the complete
>path of an electric current, including the generating
>apparatus, intervening resistors, or capacitors."
>because that's only the *9th* definition.
>
>When you are in a hole, stop digging :)
>
>http://www.dictionary.com/browse/circuit

Or, heaven forbid, a schematic (even without all the return current
paths drawn).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604623

indeed, there can be no weather modification,
given the huge output of water vapor
from jetplanes, as well as the heat of combustion

> Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying: "Airplanes with ion drive are not 
> going to make it in the commercial world."  Whatever technology can make
> that work will be FAR less costly applied to something that rolls along 
> the roadway.
> 
> But that misses the point that it's ENERGY that's the concern.  Doesn't
> matter how light or powerful the airplane engine is if it still can't lift
> enough fuel to reach the destination.  It takes a given amount of energy
> to get from here to there.  Changing the engine only affects the efficiency
> of the process that converts the available fuel source to whatever it takes
> to motivate the vehicle.  Maybe we'll see terrestrial ion engines, but 
> the efficiency
> improvement won't be huge.
> 
> If we had an electric fuel source of sufficient energy/weight ratio,
> we'd already have electric airplanes.
> 
> If you're gonna spend millions of dollars to fling an object into
> space at escape velocity, it makes sense to have a nuclear power
> source that applies tiny thrust for a long time using minimal reaction
> mass to continue the flight to places unknown.
> For a terrestrial flight to New York, not so much.
> 
> So, what am I missing?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603641

In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
> The commonly used name for these EHD devices made by amateurs is "lifters". 
> The problem with their not being able to fly independently is the power 
> supplies are so heavy. Look for example at the lifter here:
> 
> How to: "Lifter" Power Supply.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfdsEVjBpBU
> 
> Quite commonly the lifters weigh, and the thrust they can produce, is in the 
> range of grams but the power supplies weigh in the range of kilograms. So 
> how do you solve that problem?
> 
> Let me give an analogy. Many people are aware of the technical innovations 
> the Wright brothers made to be able to develop a successful flying machine. 
> They made their own wind tunnel. They tested various air foils to find 
> efficient ones of high lift. They developed a warping wing technique for 
> steering.
> 
> However, not as well known is the one key innovation they made for which all 
> those other innovations would have been worthless. When many scientists of 
> the time after doing a mathematical analysis asserted that no heavier-than 
> air flying machine could work, oddly enough they were *right*. But the 
> problem was, they were basing this on the power sources widely known at the 
> time, steam engines. But the steam engines were so inefficient they could 
> not supply sufficient power for their weight. They were too heavy.
> 
> Around the time of the Wright brothers though the internal combustion 
> gasoline engine was coming into use for automobiles, but they were still too 
> heavy for the Wright brothers use. So the one *key* innovation the Wright 
> brothers made was that they designed and built their OWN lightweight 
> internal combustion engine.
> 
> Now, back to the EHD propulsion method. The power supplies are too heavy, so 
> what can we do about that? Well, you can make them out of lightweight 
> materials. That's a possible route to follow, but most amateur and even 
> professional experimenters have used ready made power supplies or used ready 
> made parts to build them. The result is they are all pretty standard weight 
> for the power they put out.
> 
> But let's analyze this further, *why* are the power supplies so heavy? It 
> turns out the reason they are so heavy is the voltage needed for the ion 
> propulsion method is in the range of tens of thousands of volts, frequently 
> as high as 50,000 volts. This then requires heavy transformers to produce 
> voltage this high. Alright then, can we find a way to reduce the required 
> voltage?
> 
> Yes! It turns out if you reduce the diameter of the wires doing the 
> ionization of the air then the required voltage is reduced. In fact, 
> according to the math if the wires are at the nanoscale then the required 
> voltage might be reduced to only tens of volts instead of tens of thousands 
> of volts. For the small-scale lifters, if you used now wires at the 
> nanoscale, it may be they could be powered by a couple of 9-volt batteries 
> connected in series.
> 
> So that's the key point, for nanowires the voltage required for ionization 
> is severely reduced. This is the content of Peek's Law:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peek%27s_law
> 
> 
> Bob Clark

The total power required is fixed by physics which means nanoscale
wires in the power supply will melt due to I^2*R losses unless they
are also superconductors. 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web