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

Groups > sci.physics > #593948 > unrolled thread

Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-20 14:37 -0400
    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-08-22 16:03 +0000
      Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:23 -0400
        Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 09:00 -0700
    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-22 17:19 +0000
      Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-08-23 06:15 -0400
        Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-23 16:03 +0000
          Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-24 16:25 +0000
            Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-24 16:45 +0000
              Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-25 16:38 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-25 17:04 +0000
                  Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 19:02 +0000
                    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 19:38 +0000
                    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 13:59 -0700
                      Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:53 +0000
                        Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 12:58 -0700
                        Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 19:55 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 17:32 -0700
                  Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 18:54 +0000
                    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 19:20 +0000
                    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 13:56 -0700
                      Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:31 +0000
                        Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 19:59 +0000
                        Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-08-28 17:32 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-08-25 21:53 -0300
            Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 13:35 -0700
              Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-24 21:44 +0000
              Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 07:41 -0700
              Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-25 16:37 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-25 17:07 +0000
                  Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 18:31 +0000
                    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 19:28 +0000
                      Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 16:26 +0000
                        Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 16:48 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 17:27 -0700
                  Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 18:44 +0000
                    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 13:39 -0700
                      Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:06 +0000
                        Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 20:14 +0000
                    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 21:29 +0000
                      Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:20 +0000
                        Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 20:24 +0000
        Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:27 -0400
      Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:25 -0400
        Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-24 16:08 +0000
    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-22 13:38 -0500
    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-08-27 08:41 +0000

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

#594815

Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

>For your reference, records indicate that 
>Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think you've just asserted that none of the many vehicles described
>> in this article ever actually existed in the real world.  You seem to
>> be wrong...
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadable_aircraft#List_of_roadable_aircraft
>
>Hahahahaha!  No, I’m “asserting” that you apparently don’t know how 
>to read the “Status” column in the list you have, with entries 
>ranging from “Concept” to “Crashed”.  None are “Click to buy one” or 
>“1% of pilots regularly use it”.
>

So your whole 'argument' amounts to a chicken/egg thing.  You said
there were no flying cars in the 'real world'.  Now you want to move
the goal posts.

>
>Pointing to experimental aircraft is like pointing to cold fusion.  
>They are a *fiction* in the real world.  Your case is not made when 
>you’re deliberately being intellectually dishonest like this.
>

Do you know the FAA definition of 'experimental aircraft'?  Speaking
of "deliberately being intellectually dishonest"...


-- 
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
 soul with evil."
                                      -- Socrates

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

#594877

For your reference, records indicate that 
Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:

> So your whole 'argument' amounts to a chicken/egg thing.  You said
> there were no flying cars in the 'real world'.  Now you want to move
> the goal posts.

No, I’m saying that just because someone is *trying* to make a 
thing happen doesn’t mean it has happened, or will happen.  The 
starting context for this is a space elevator, but it applies to 
many things *in the context of science fiction*.  Another fine 
example is 3D TV or holograms.  Yes, there are people trying to get 
there, but they don’t exist in *any* sense as their science fiction 
promise.  You are being intellectually dishonest when you pretend 
there is no difference.

> >Pointing to experimental aircraft is like pointing to cold fusion.  
> >They are a *fiction* in the real world.  Your case is not made when 
> >you’re deliberately being intellectually dishonest like this.
> >
> 
> Do you know the FAA definition of 'experimental aircraft'?

No.  I know what I see on the road and in the air.  I do not see 
*any* flying cars anywhere I look.  The burden of evidence is on 
*you* to show they exist beyond some ill-conceived R&D efforts.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

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

#594896

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> So your whole 'argument' amounts to a chicken/egg thing.  You said
>> there were no flying cars in the 'real world'.  Now you want to move
>> the goal posts.
> 

3D televisions can be purchased at Best Buy, Amazon, and many other
retailers.

You can buy greeting cards with holograms.

Have you been living in a cave?


> No, I’m saying that just because someone is *trying* to make a 
> thing happen doesn’t mean it has happened, or will happen.  The 
> starting context for this is a space elevator, but it applies to 
> many things *in the context of science fiction*.  Another fine 
> example is 3D TV or holograms.  Yes, there are people trying to get 
> there, but they don’t exist in *any* sense as their science fiction 
> promise.  You are being intellectually dishonest when you pretend 
> there is no difference.
> 
>> >Pointing to experimental aircraft is like pointing to cold fusion.  
>> >They are a *fiction* in the real world.  Your case is not made when 
>> >you?re deliberately being intellectually dishonest like this.
>> >
>> 
>> Do you know the FAA definition of 'experimental aircraft'?
> 
> No.  I know what I see on the road and in the air.  I do not see 
> *any* flying cars anywhere I look.  The burden of evidence is on 
> *you* to show they exist beyond some ill-conceived R&D efforts.

Yep, living in a cave.

It appears you also have not seen any 3D televisons or holograms even
though such are fairly common these days.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#594992

Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> schrieb:
> Another fine 
> example is 3D TV or holograms.  Yes, there are people trying to get 
> there, but they don’t exist in *any* sense as their science fiction 
> promise.

Holograms is actually one of the worst cases.

It seems that very many SF authors simply do not understand
the properties of real holograms at all.

A hologram consists of an interference pattern.  When directed
light falls on that pattern, 3D objects can be seen.

One point that SF authors or directors routinely miss is that you
cannot see anything of the hologram if you are not looking at
the interference pattern.  A hologram cannot absorb, bend or
refract light anywhere else (so the Doctor from Voyager is out).

It is also not possible to have 3D projector that, simply by
projecting light, can make something appear in thin air that can
be viewed at an angle from the projector.  So, forget about R2D2
pojecting the picture of Princess Leia.

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

#594726

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:38:54 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
<droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

> Because in the real world, *nobody* is driving a flying car!

There's a flying car parked in my back yard right now.  It's seventy
years old.

-- 
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

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

#594558

Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

>For your reference, records indicate that 
>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> The sole reason that flying cars have never been a commercial success
>> is economics
>
>No, it’s simply because they’re a stupid outdated SF concept birthed 
>from a car-crazed society.  Once you have a vehicle that can fly between 
>locations, it makes zero sense to also make it suitable for driving on 
>roads.  Who in their right mind is going to *drive* anywhere they could 
>just fly to?  Who is going trust that a roadworthy vehicle after miles 
>of driving is going to remain airworthy?
>
>Eliminate the “economics” problems and flying cars still make no sense.  
>Imagine a world where everyone is Superman.  Superman does not drive to 
>the rescue.  Only motorheads ever thought flying cars were a good idea.
>

No, Jimp.  Flying cars were and are a good idea unless you think you
can just land anywhere you like.  If you fly a GA aircraft, what do
you do once you land it?


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

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

#594575

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
> Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> 
>>For your reference, records indicate that 
>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> The sole reason that flying cars have never been a commercial success
>>> is economics
>>
>>No, it?s simply because they?re a stupid outdated SF concept birthed 
>>from a car-crazed society.  Once you have a vehicle that can fly between 
>>locations, it makes zero sense to also make it suitable for driving on 
>>roads.  Who in their right mind is going to *drive* anywhere they could 
>>just fly to?  Who is going trust that a roadworthy vehicle after miles 
>>of driving is going to remain airworthy?
>>
>>Eliminate the ?economics? problems and flying cars still make no sense.  
>>Imagine a world where everyone is Superman.  Superman does not drive to 
>>the rescue.  Only motorheads ever thought flying cars were a good idea.
>>
> 
> No, Jimp.  Flying cars were and are a good idea unless you think you
> can just land anywhere you like.  If you fly a GA aircraft, what do
> you do once you land it?
 
You are replying to someone else, not me.

Once you land the plane, you taxi to the tie down area, tie down and
secure the aircraft, then go see the FBO. There will quite often be
a dedicated phone to Enterprise. Don't forget to ask for your Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association discount.

In the post 9/11 world there is yet another complicaton; all airports
have fences around the operating areas, which means if you are not
based at the airport and have the ability to open and close the gate,
you will have to find someone who does to let you on and off the airport
with a flying car.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#594650

Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:

>Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>
>>For your reference, records indicate that 
>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> The sole reason that flying cars have never been a commercial success
>>> is economics
>>
>>No, it’s simply because they’re a stupid outdated SF concept birthed 
>>from a car-crazed society.  Once you have a vehicle that can fly between 
>>locations, it makes zero sense to also make it suitable for driving on 
>>roads.  Who in their right mind is going to *drive* anywhere they could 
>>just fly to?  Who is going trust that a roadworthy vehicle after miles 
>>of driving is going to remain airworthy?
>>
>>Eliminate the “economics” problems and flying cars still make no sense.  
>>Imagine a world where everyone is Superman.  Superman does not drive to 
>>the rescue.  Only motorheads ever thought flying cars were a good idea.
>>
>
>No, Jimp.  Flying cars were and are a good idea unless you think you
>can just land anywhere you like.  If you fly a GA aircraft, what do
>you do once you land it?
>

My apologies.  Got the wrong poster associated with the comments.  The
comments, however, still apply.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to 
    live in the real world."   
                      -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

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

#594659

For your reference, records indicate that 
Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:

> Flying cars were and are a good idea unless you think you
> can just land anywhere you like.

Just the opposite!  If I can only fly between airports, why not just call 
it an airplane?  What actual problem does a “flying car” otherwise solve 
that make it such a fantastic machine to have?  What is the actual use 
case that demonstrates *any* added value?

> If you fly a GA aircraft, what do
> you do once you land it?

Depends on the problem you’re looking to solve.  If it is to keep a 
vehicle in constant service, I’d say you’d fly it right back out to its 
next destination.  Same way it doesn’t make much sense to leave a 
self-driving car sitting in a parking lot doing nothing.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

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

#594663

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Flying cars were and are a good idea unless you think you
>> can just land anywhere you like.
> 
> Just the opposite!  If I can only fly between airports, why not just call 
> it an airplane?  What actual problem does a “flying car” otherwise solve 
> that make it such a fantastic machine to have?  What is the actual use 
> case that demonstrates *any* added value?
> 
>> If you fly a GA aircraft, what do
>> you do once you land it?
> 
> Depends on the problem youre looking to solve.  If it is to keep a 
> vehicle in constant service, Id say youd fly it right back out to its 
> next destination.

That is called an airline.

>  Same way it doesnt make much sense to leave a 
> self-driving car sitting in a parking lot doing nothing.

Assuming the self-driving car is owned by Uber and not an individual.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#594770

For your reference, records indicate that 
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Depends on the problem youre looking to solve.  If it is to keep a 
> > vehicle in constant service, Id say youd fly it right back out to its 
> > next destination.
> 
> That is called an airline.

Only because that’s the known business model that works with the old 
technology.  Likewise, I’ve made the point that a “self-driving car” 
has existed for centuries; it is called a train.  Again, all I’m 
asking for is for the SF world to be fleshed out where it makes sense 
to have *your* kind of flying car.

> >  Same way it doesnt make much sense to leave a 
> > self-driving car sitting in a parking lot doing nothing.
> 
> Assuming the self-driving car is owned by Uber and not an individual.

Assuming nothing but a realistic universe.  Yes, I would agree that 
self-driving cars prompt a whole *slew* of changes that might lead to 
changing norms of car ownership.  Same goes for the mythical flying 
car, too, so I’m just looking for the proponents to do the leg work 
that shows they make sense in any sort of realistic universe.  
Because, from where I’m sitting, they’re just another dumb idea that
nobody really bothers to think through.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

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

#594793

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Depends on the problem youre looking to solve.  If it is to keep a 
>> > vehicle in constant service, Id say youd fly it right back out to its 
>> > next destination.
>> 
>> That is called an airline.
> 
> Only because thats the known business model that works with the old 
> technology.  Likewise, Ive made the point that a self-driving car” 
> has existed for centuries; it is called a train.

A train is not a car. Consult any dictionary.

>  Again, all Im 
> asking for is for the SF world to be fleshed out where it makes sense 
> to have *your* kind of flying car.

The definition of flying car is universal and not mine alone.

> 
>> >  Same way it doesnt make much sense to leave a 
>> > self-driving car sitting in a parking lot doing nothing.
>> 
>> Assuming the self-driving car is owned by Uber and not an individual.
> 
> Assuming nothing but a realistic universe.  Yes, I would agree that 
> self-driving cars prompt a whole *slew* of changes that might lead to 
> changing norms of car ownership.  Same goes for the mythical flying 
> car, too, so Im just looking for the proponents to do the leg work 
> that shows they make sense in any sort of realistic universe.  
> Because, from where Im sitting, theyre just another dumb idea that
> nobody really bothers to think through.

Since I didn't say anything about self-driving cars I don't know what
you are agreeing with.

Flying cars are not mythical as many have been built.

What has not happened is they have never been a commercial success.

There is a big difference between not existing and not being a commercial
success.

The reason they have never been a commercial success is economics; too
few people have been historically willing to buy one for anyone to go
into production.

Whether or not YOU see any use for them is irrelevant.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#594868

For your reference, records indicate that 
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> A train is not a car. Consult any dictionary.

For your sake, I hope you’re missing the point deliberately.  Cars 
are becoming more like trains.  That’s not something you’ll find in 
a dictionary.

> >  Again, all Im 
> > asking for is for the SF world to be fleshed out where it makes sense 
> > to have *your* kind of flying car.
> 
> The definition of flying car is universal and not mine alone.

Hardly.  Even the Wikipedia page makes it clear that nobody can 
agree what to call all the various different types of personal air 
vehicles.  Some of the things listed don’t even have wheels.  But 
if you still think otherwise, please state for us all what this 
“universal” definition is so we’re all on the same page.

> >> Assuming the self-driving car is owned by Uber and not an individual.
> > 
> > Assuming nothing but a realistic universe.  Yes, I would agree that 
> > self-driving cars prompt a whole *slew* of changes that might lead to 
> > changing norms of car ownership.  Same goes for the mythical flying 
> > car, too, so Im just looking for the proponents to do the leg work 
> > that shows they make sense in any sort of realistic universe.  
> > Because, from where Im sitting, theyre just another dumb idea that
> > nobody really bothers to think through.
> 
> Since I didn't say anything about self-driving cars I don't know what
> you are agreeing with.

Uh, I quoted it.  When you’re apparently not even paying enough 
attention to the conversation to know what you’ve said, I have to 
suspect you’re just here to troll.

> Flying cars are not mythical as many have been built.

They are as mythical as a personal jetpack or the space elevator 
that started this thread.  Not because of their *impossibility* 
but because of their *impracticality*.  Only a crazy person thinks 
they live in the SF world you insist is reality.  I have *never* 
found myself next to someone driving a flying car.

> What has not happened is they have never been a commercial success.

Because they’re a stupid idea, which was my point from the start.

> There is a big difference between not existing and not being a commercial
> success.

From a SF perspective, no.  Nobody is writing any fantastic stories 
about *any* of the “existing” flying cars.  Hell, they’re not even 
writing *terrible* stories about them, because “flying cars” are 
*so* bad in reality that you’d have to be a nut to think of them as 
a cool technology.

> The reason they have never been a commercial success is economics; too
> few people have been historically willing to buy one for anyone to go
> into production.

If exotic cars have a market, so would a respectable flying car.  
If planes can be bought that sit in hangers most of the time, a 
respectable flying car would have a market.  What do you think the 
economics of success need to be?

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

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

#594870

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> A train is not a car. Consult any dictionary.
> 
> For your sake, I hope you’re missing the point deliberately.  Cars 
> are becoming more like trains.  That’s not something you’ll find in 
> a dictionary.
> 
>> >  Again, all Im 
>> > asking for is for the SF world to be fleshed out where it makes sense 
>> > to have *your* kind of flying car.
>> 
>> The definition of flying car is universal and not mine alone.
> 
> Hardly.  Even the Wikipedia page makes it clear that nobody can 
> agree what to call all the various different types of personal air 
> vehicles.  Some of the things listed don’t even have wheels.  But 
> if you still think otherwise, please state for us all what this 

A flying car is a vehicle that can both fly and drive on roads.

Is that so complicated?

>> >> Assuming the self-driving car is owned by Uber and not an individual.
>> > 
>> > Assuming nothing but a realistic universe.  Yes, I would agree that 
>> > self-driving cars prompt a whole *slew* of changes that might lead to 
>> > changing norms of car ownership.  Same goes for the mythical flying 
>> > car, too, so Im just looking for the proponents to do the leg work 
>> > that shows they make sense in any sort of realistic universe.  
>> > Because, from where Im sitting, theyre just another dumb idea that
>> > nobody really bothers to think through.
>> 
>> Since I didn't say anything about self-driving cars I don't know what
>> you are agreeing with.
> 
> Uh, I quoted it.  When you’re apparently not even paying enough 
> attention to the conversation to know what you’ve said, I have to 
> suspect you’re just here to troll.
> 

Because you quoted it doesn't mean I said anything about it.

>> Flying cars are not mythical as many have been built.
> 
> They are as mythical as a personal jetpack or the space elevator 
> that started this thread.  Not because of their *impossibility* 
> but because of their *impracticality*.  Only a crazy person thinks 
> they live in the SF world you insist is reality.  I have *never* 
> found myself next to someone driving a flying car.
> 

Get a dictionary.

Mythical does not mean the same thing as impractial.

Your personal experiences are irrelevant.

>> What has not happened is they have never been a commercial success.
> 
> Because they’re a stupid idea, which was my point from the start.

In your opinion.

Personally I would have had a lot of use for a flying car when I was
very actively consulting all over the state.

> 
>> There is a big difference between not existing and not being a commercial
>> success.
> 
> From a SF perspective, no.  Nobody is writing any fantastic stories 
> about *any* of the “existing” flying cars.  Hell, they’re not even 
> writing *terrible* stories about them, because “flying cars” are 
> *so* bad in reality that you’d have to be a nut to think of them as 
> a cool technology.
> 

In your opinion.

And fiction of any kind generally writes about things that might be,
not things that are. That is why it is call fiction.

>> The reason they have never been a commercial success is economics; too
>> few people have been historically willing to buy one for anyone to go
>> into production.
> 
> If exotic cars have a market, so would a respectable flying car.  
> If planes can be bought that sit in hangers most of the time, a 
> respectable flying car would have a market.  What do you think the 
> economics of success need to be?
> 

A two place machine less than $300,000 with a full fuel payload of
more than 600 lbs and a range of at least 400 nm and a cruise speed
of around 130 kt would likely make the cut.

The Taylor Aerocar came close and got 250 orders but needed 500 to
go into production. That was in 1956.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#594721

Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

>For your reference, records indicate that 
>Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Flying cars were and are a good idea unless you think you
>> can just land anywhere you like.
>
>Just the opposite!  If I can only fly between airports, why not just call 
>it an airplane?  What actual problem does a “flying car” otherwise solve 
>that make it such a fantastic machine to have?  What is the actual use 
>case that demonstrates *any* added value?
>

Asked and answered.

>
>> If you fly a GA aircraft, what do
>> you do once you land it?
>
>Depends on the problem you’re looking to solve.  If it is to keep a 
>vehicle in constant service, I’d say you’d fly it right back out to its 
>next destination.  Same way it doesn’t make much sense to leave a 
>self-driving car sitting in a parking lot doing nothing.
>

Do you know what a GA airplane is?  I think you just asserted that
they make no sense, yet lots of people have them.


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

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

#594772

For your reference, records indicate that 
Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:

> Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> 
> >Just the opposite!  If I can only fly between airports, why not just call 
> >it an airplane?  What actual problem does a “flying car” otherwise solve 
> >that make it such a fantastic machine to have?  What is the actual use 
> >case that demonstrates *any* added value?
> 
> Asked and answered.

No, it wasn’t.  Where’s the use case?  I’m a guy sitting in my office 
and I get a call telling me I need to get to X (home or hospital, 
Detroit or Paris).  I know all the tradeoffs of the current solutions 
to that problem.  What is the *actual* benefit a flying car offers in 
a world where everyone’s a pilot, but I still have to go to an 
airport, inspect the machine to verify it is airworthy, take care of 
necessary FAA paperwork, etc.?

> Do you know what a GA airplane is?  I think you just asserted that
> they make no sense, yet lots of people have them.

A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense.  I’m 
not asking about that segment of the population.  I’m asking about 
the people who are more thoughtful about their behaviors.  Can you 
make the case to *them* that flying cars are actually a good idea?

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

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

#594808

Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

>For your reference, records indicate that 
>Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >Just the opposite!  If I can only fly between airports, why not just call 
>> >it an airplane?  What actual problem does a ?flying car? otherwise solve 
>> >that make it such a fantastic machine to have?  What is the actual use 
>> >case that demonstrates *any* added value?
>> 
>> Asked and answered.
>
>No, it wasn’t.  Where’s the use case?  I’m a guy sitting in my office 
>and I get a call telling me I need to get to X (home or hospital, 
>Detroit or Paris).  I know all the tradeoffs of the current solutions 
>to that problem.  What is the *actual* benefit a flying car offers in 
>a world where everyone’s a pilot, but I still have to go to an 
>airport, inspect the machine to verify it is airworthy, take care of 
>necessary FAA paperwork, etc.?
>

Same as the case for GA aircraft.  You need a car at both ends of the
flight.  So why not a single device?  You probably resisted the idea
of putting PDA functionality on cell phones, too.

>
>> Do you know what a GA airplane is?  I think you just asserted that
>> they make no sense, yet lots of people have them.
>
>A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense.  I’m 
>not asking about that segment of the population.  I’m asking about 
>the people who are more thoughtful about their behaviors.  Can you 
>make the case to *them* that flying cars are actually a good idea?
>

Why do I need to?  Make the case for a car, period, to someone who
lives in the Amazon jungle.  The fact that there is no such case
doesn't mean cars are useless.


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

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

#594874

For your reference, records indicate that 
Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:

> Same as the case for GA aircraft.  You need a car at both ends of the
> flight.  

Really?  If that’s the *only* advantage you can think of, you’re 
really supporting my point.  Cars are easy to rent, or skip all that 
these days and just use an app to get a ride.  You’re going to need 
to make a *much* better case for it to make sense to put an 
expensive flying vehicle in the middle of dangerous road traffic.

> So why not a single device?  

Because the gulf between that idea and the reality is too great.  
Different duties have different engineering requirements.  Same 
reason a vehicle meant to travel the vacuum of space has different 
functional needs from one that is intended to launch from a planet 
or one that is intended to re-enter an atmosphere.

> You probably resisted the idea
> of putting PDA functionality on cell phones, too.

Wrong again.  I was in the camp that *knew* putting a computer in 
your pocket meant that “phones” would stop being about phone calls.  
Just like a “flying car” in any sane universe would quickly make 
driving pointless, so it’d really just be about a newer kind of 
aircraft.

And that’s why I bring up self-driving cars in the context of 
trains.  Because if flying cars made sense, they’d *first* make 
sense in the context of a plane or a car.  Even if you never took 
it driving, it seems like there should be an obvious advantage of 
having a plane you can park at the airport in a facility no 
different from a regular parking spot.  Yet somehow nobody can 
find a market?

> >A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense.  I’m 
> >not asking about that segment of the population.  I’m asking about 
> >the people who are more thoughtful about their behaviors.  Can you 
> >make the case to *them* that flying cars are actually a good idea?
> >
> 
> Why do I need to?  Make the case for a car, period, to someone who
> lives in the Amazon jungle.  The fact that there is no such case
> doesn't mean cars are useless.

They *are* uselesss in the middle of the Amazon jungle.  But that’s 
a straw man; stick to the issue at hand.  No, you don’t *have* to 
make the case for flying cars, but you *did* decide to chime in to 
do that.  You haven’t been successful as of yet, so you can try 
harder, bail out of the conversation, or just admit that, yeah, 
flying cars really are just one of science fiction’s dumber ideas.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

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

#594900

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Same as the case for GA aircraft.  You need a car at both ends of the
>> flight.  
> 
> Really?  If that’s the *only* advantage you can think of, you’re 
> really supporting my point.  Cars are easy to rent, or skip all that 
> these days and just use an app to get a ride.  You’re going to need 
> to make a *much* better case for it to make sense to put an 
> expensive flying vehicle in the middle of dangerous road traffic.

Apparently you do not understand that the entire world is not one
big city with Uber at your fingertips.

Try getting an Uber ride in Gthenburg, NE.
 
>> So why not a single device?  
> 
> Because the gulf between that idea and the reality is too great.  
> Different duties have different engineering requirements.  Same 
> reason a vehicle meant to travel the vacuum of space has different 
> functional needs from one that is intended to launch from a planet 
> or one that is intended to re-enter an atmosphere.

Yet many people have been building working machines since the 1930's
so the technology can't be that difficult.

> 
>> You probably resisted the idea
>> of putting PDA functionality on cell phones, too.
> 
> Wrong again.  I was in the camp that *knew* putting a computer in 
> your pocket meant that “phones” would stop being about phone calls.  
> Just like a “flying car” in any sane universe would quickly make 
> driving pointless, so it’d really just be about a newer kind of 
> aircraft.

Correct, it is more about the COST of a "newer" kind of aircraft that
has been around for almost a century now.

> 
> And that’s why I bring up self-driving cars in the context of 
> trains.  Because if flying cars made sense, they’d *first* make 
> sense in the context of a plane or a car.  Even if you never took 
> it driving, it seems like there should be an obvious advantage of 
> having a plane you can park at the airport in a facility no 
> different from a regular parking spot.  Yet somehow nobody can 
> find a market?

Lots of airplanes are parked in a facility no different from a regular
parking spot.

You continue to demonstrate you know absolutely nothing about aviation.

> 
>> >A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense.  I?m 
>> >not asking about that segment of the population.  I?m asking about 
>> >the people who are more thoughtful about their behaviors.  Can you 
>> >make the case to *them* that flying cars are actually a good idea?
>> >
>> 
>> Why do I need to?  Make the case for a car, period, to someone who
>> lives in the Amazon jungle.  The fact that there is no such case
>> doesn't mean cars are useless.
> 
> They *are* uselesss in the middle of the Amazon jungle.  But that’s 
> a straw man; stick to the issue at hand.  No, you don’t *have* to 
> make the case for flying cars, but you *did* decide to chime in to 
> do that.  You haven’t been successful as of yet, so you can try 
> harder, bail out of the conversation, or just admit that, yeah, 
> flying cars really are just one of science fiction’s dumber ideas.

Actually there is one flying car, a dune buggy actually, that is on
the market and a portion of the target market is access to remote
parts of the world such as jungle areas by people such as missionaries.

http://www.flyskyrunner.com/


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#594818

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >Just the opposite!  If I can only fly between airports, why not just call 
>> >it an airplane?  What actual problem does a ?flying car? otherwise solve 
>> >that make it such a fantastic machine to have?  What is the actual use 
>> >case that demonstrates *any* added value?
>> 
>> Asked and answered.
> 
> No, it wasn’t.  Where’s the use case?  I’m a guy sitting in my office 
> and I get a call telling me I need to get to X (home or hospital, 
> Detroit or Paris).  I know all the tradeoffs of the current solutions 
> to that problem.  What is the *actual* benefit a flying car offers in 
> a world where everyone’s a pilot, but I still have to go to an 
> airport, inspect the machine to verify it is airworthy, take care of 
> necessary FAA paperwork, etc.?

Preflighting my airplane takes about 5 minutes.

There is no FAA paperwork unless you file a flight plan, and then that
is automated.

>> Do you know what a GA airplane is?  I think you just asserted that
>> they make no sense, yet lots of people have them.
> 
> A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense.  I’m 
> not asking about that segment of the population.  I’m asking about 
> the people who are more thoughtful about their behaviors.  Can you 
> make the case to *them* that flying cars are actually a good idea?

There are a lot of people who do not own a car; so what?

There are lots of people who do not own a motorcycle; so what?

There are lots of people who do not own an airplane; so what? 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web