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

Groups > sci.space.policy > #57430 > unrolled thread

Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

Back to article view | Back to sci.space.policy

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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 23:21 -0700
      Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 09:38 -0700
    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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 10:33 -0700
          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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 16:34 -0700
                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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 17:50 -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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 21:00 -0700
                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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 22:52 -0700
            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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 20:10 -0700
              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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 16:21 -0700
        Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 10:23 -0700
        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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 21:46 -0700
            Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 09:57 -0700
    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-08-27 08:41 +0000
      Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 19:56 -0700
        Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-18 09:48 -0400
          Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 16:50 -0700
            Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-21 06:15 -0400
              Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 18:44 -0700
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-21 23:05 -0400
                  Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-21 23:17 -0400
                    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 23:06 -0700
                  Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 22:56 -0700
                    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-22 07:03 -0400
                      Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 03:13 -0700
                  Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 22:58 -0700
                    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-22 07:07 -0400
                      Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 03:20 -0700
            Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 11:11 -0700
              Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 23:08 -0700
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-22 07:13 -0400
                  Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 03:42 -0700
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 21:52 -0700
                  Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 03:47 -0700
                    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 09:15 -0700
    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 20:16 -0700

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

#57575

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 6:53:43 AM UTC+12, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Have you ever looked at the fuselage of a GA aircraft?  The real
> > problem with a 'flying car' these days would getting them past the CAR
> > regulations.  The airplane side is easy.
> 
> Thank you for continuing to support my point.  I still argue that even 
> in a *SF* universe, it is tough to make a case for a flying car.  Even 
> if you hand wave all the tech and regs and costs, very few worlds can 
> be created where it makes sense to drive around in a vehicle that can 
> fly.
> 
> -- 
> "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
> River Tam, Trash, Firefly

You are delusional when you say its tough to make a case for flying cars.

The Airbus E-fan already exists.

http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/corporate-social-responsibility/airbus-e-fan-the-future-of-electric-aircraft.html

The Ehang 184 already exists.

http://www.ehang.com/ehang184

Advanced flight control systems already exist.

https://www.ted.com/talks/raffaello_d_andrea_the_astounding_athletic_power_of_quadcopters?language=en

Clearly flight on demand systems are here - not the future.  

Now, you can actually look at the engineering data from actual flying systems.  From that analysis we can say with certainty, the Airbus E-fan uses 1/5th the energy per kilometer than a typical motorcar.   The Ehang 184 uses 4/5th the energy per kilometer than a typical motorcar and is capable of point to point travel.  

Serious aerospace teams have melded the two together to give a point to point capability to an electric aircraft while reducing its energy cost per kilometre to 1/5th the energy of a typical motorcar - while maintaining higher speed.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/puffin.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasa-one-man-stealth-plane/

EXISTING models are quieter than a motorcar and produce no exhaust in operation as a motorcar does, use less energy per unit distance than a motorcar does, travels 7x faster than a motorcar does.  

There is absolutely no basis for your delusion.  NONE.  

The Ehang 184 moves directly from point A to point B - requiring no ground based facilities at all.  No roads.  No airstrips.  Count the costs of road construction and maintenance, and you see why most under developed countries will NEVER have large numbers of automobiles, but are easily serviced by a modest number of drones.

Aircraft are not constrained to a 2D surface and so do not get involved in the same sort of overloaded situations common with terrestrial travel.  So, they're safer than motorcars too!

So please examine your crazy delusion and drop it.
  

 

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

#57515

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

>For your reference, records indicate that 
>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> In the real world, driving a flying car has never made it not airworthy.
>
>Because in the real world, *nobody* is driving a flying car!
>

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


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

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

#57516

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 12:32:20 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> 
> >For your reference, records indicate that 
> >jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >
> >> In the real world, driving a flying car has never made it not airworthy.
> >
> >Because in the real world, *nobody* is driving a flying car!
> >
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> -- 
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
>  territory."
>                                       --G. Behn

I'm talking with these folks about becoming a dealer here in New Zealand...

http://pal-v.com

In a country friendly to civil aviation and possessing a 100 kph (62 mph) speed limit, and anywhere I want to drive is less than 550 km (340 miles), the ability to fly directly to where I want to be at 180 kph (112 mph) and back - is a definite plus!  

So, I'm looking forward to it.  

I'm also looking at a boat/aircraft for use on the many lakes streams, bays and channels around these islands - but that's another technology - that pairs well with the auto/air combination here in NZ.

http://iconaircraft.com 

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

#57532

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”.

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.

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

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

#57536

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

> Pointing to experimental aircraft is like pointing to cold fusion. 

Many experimental aircraft actually worked while cold fusion has never
been shown to work, so there is no comparison.
 
> They are a *fiction* in the real world.  Your case is not made when 
> youre deliberately being intellectually dishonest like this.

Utter nonsense.

As shown by the many flying cars made that have actually flown, they
are quite real and the lack of commercial success does not mean that
they did not or do not exist.

The one and only reason for the lack of a commercially successful
flying car is and always has been economics.



-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#57542

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]

#57564

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]

#57569

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]

#57584

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]

#57608

On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 5:32:24 AM UTC+12, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> 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.

Even with these limitations, a lot can be accomplished...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjP4SvHjkdo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qyxyy10YoNM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CqUYBopWLs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0f7-FhT8B0

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

#57517

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]

#57521

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 1:53:49 PM UTC+12, Joy Beeson wrote:
> 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/

1946?

Then is must be a Convair Aerocar!?  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0_38Uv81YM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAX9oVWhywA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GBDbxl5vVY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbMMaVerYY0

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

#57487

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]

#57489

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]

#57491

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:35:20 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall 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?

Drive it away if you own it and you need an airfield.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CajAq6ndJYE

Let it fly to its next pick up if its automated - after dropping you off precisely where you want to go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iyCgy1juHc
> 
> -- 
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
>  territory."
>                                       --G. Behn

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

#57497

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]

#57505

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]

#57509

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]

#57528

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]

#57537

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]

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy

csiph-web