Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.space.policy > #58636 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-01 11:09 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-12-09 15:24 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 126 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.space.policy
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. 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. 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. 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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 11:52 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 21:32 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-19 17:25 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 08:22 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 15:51 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 18:55 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 14:13 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 00:42 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 18:07 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 00:58 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 13:33 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 18:08 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-24 07:36 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:49 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 15:50 -0800
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. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:03 -0500
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. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-13 12:09 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-13 20:34 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 14:18 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 13:47 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 20:41 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 22:51 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-12-05 06:11 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 16:07 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 00:26 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 01:32 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 01:33 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 16:30 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-12-06 09:15 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> - 2016-12-06 12:45 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 17:31 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> - 2016-12-07 11:27 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 16:04 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 16:03 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 01:37 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 17:31 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 18:47 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 15:24 -0800
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 17:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <62ased-svf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58660 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and > helicopters already exist. As toys and research projects, but not as practical machines. <snip> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 11:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvsstv$fqp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58660 |
On 11/3/2016 9:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: >> Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and >> helicopters already exist. > >Toys. > > >> However, the key point is according to the >> mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic >> propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters >> achieve. > >what math ? got a url ? > As important as is the fact that you would no longer need heavy transformers to produce tens of thousands of volts, even more important is the high thrust-to-power ratio you can get by only using low voltages. This page describes the operation of the "lifters": Ionocraft. 3. Mechanism. "A generalized one-dimensional treatment gives the equation: F = I*d/k, where F is the resulting force, measured in dimension ML/T^2 I is the current flow of electric current, measured in dimension I. d is the air gap distance, measured in dimension L. k is the ion mobility coefficient of air, measured in dimension T^2 I/M (Nominal value 2·10^−4 m^2/ Vs). "In its basic form, the ionocraft is able to produce forces great enough to lift about a gram of payload per watt,[6] so its use is restricted to a tethered model. Ionocraft capable of payloads in the order of a few grams usually need to be powered by power sources and high voltage converters weighing a few kilograms, so although its simplistic design makes it an excellent way to experiment with this technology, it is unlikely that a fully autonomous ionocraft will be made with the present construction methods. Further study in electrohydrodynamics, however, show that different classes and construction methods of EHD thrusters and hybrid technology (mixture with lighter-than-air techniques), can achieve much higher payload or thrust-to-power ratios than those achieved with the simple lifter design. Practical limits can be worked out using well defined theory and calculations.[7] Thus, a fully autonomous EHD thruster is theoretically possible." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft#Mechanism Since the power is P = I*V, amperage times voltage, the key thrust to power ratio is F/P = d/kV. So if the air gap distance d remains the same, reducing the voltage increases the thrust-power ratio. Then theoretically IF the lifter is able to operate at hundreds of volts instead tens of thousands of volts you could increase the thrust/power ratio hundred(s) of times. Note that you can't just arbitrarily use a low voltage. You need sufficient voltage to initiate air ionization. Experiments have confirmed that for wires at the nanoscale you do get the important corona inception (air ionization) for voltages in the only 100's of volts range. However, it is very important to note that when you reduce the voltage and wire diameter the thrust is also reduced. Indeed to get thrust sufficient for large scale objects you would then need to use millions to billions of the nanowires. Since the wires are only nanometers wide there is no problem in regards to their fitting beneath a transport craft. But the large number of wires required would be a consideration in regards to the wires corona regions. You can't pack the wires too close together and maintain maximum thrust since interaction between the separate corona's reduces thrust. Among amateur experimenters that have built them, a lot of experimentation has gone into the best geometry to maximize thrust. A common arrangement is the triangular shape, with larger lifters constructed using this basic shape as cells to build up to larger devices. The reason you don't have just have a bunch of parallel wires bunched close together with the lifters is because of the corona region interaction at small distance. Then there would have to be a significant degree of experimentation to determine how close the nanowires could be packed while maintaining maximum thrust. In regards to the comparison of the thrust/power ratio of the lifters compared to helicopters. This is a parameter known as power loading for hovering transports. For helicopters it's commonly in the range of 6 to 10 lb/hp: Helicopter Aerodynamics and Performance. http://images.slideplayer.com/12/3493118/slides/slide_51.jpg This is about 3.6 to 6 grams-thrust/watt. The lifters currently made using macroscale wires get about 1 gram-thrust per watt in thrust/power ratio. So if the nanowire lifters really were able to manage a hundred times better thrust/power ratio than current lifters, that would be a major advance for hovering transport craft. Even if the nanowire lifters only improve the thrust/power ratio over current lifters by a factor of 10, that would still be an improvement over current helicopters. Bob Clark -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 17:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <h3f9fd-5e.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58698 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > On 11/3/2016 9:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: >>> Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and >>> helicopters already exist. >> >>Toys. >> >> >>> However, the key point is according to the >>> mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic >>> propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters >>> achieve. >> >>what math ? got a url ? >> > > As important as is the fact that you would no longer need heavy transformers > to produce tens of thousands of volts, even more important is the high > thrust-to-power ratio you can get by only using low voltages. How many times must you be told you do NOT need heavy transformers to produce high voltages? Camera flash units produce tens of thousands of volts. > This page describes the operation of the "lifters": > > Ionocraft. > 3. Mechanism. > "A generalized one-dimensional treatment gives the equation: > > F = I*d/k, > where > F is the resulting force, measured in dimension ML/T^2 > I is the current flow of electric current, measured in dimension I. > d is the air gap distance, measured in dimension L. > k is the ion mobility coefficient of air, measured in dimension T^2 I/M > (Nominal value 2·10^−4 m^2/ Vs). And what is the magnitude of I? > "In its basic form, the ionocraft is able to produce forces great enough to > lift about a gram of payload per watt,[6] so its use is restricted to a > tethered model. Ionocraft capable of payloads in the order of a few grams > usually need to be powered by power sources and high voltage converters > weighing a few kilograms, so although its simplistic design makes it an > excellent way to experiment with this technology, it is unlikely that a > fully autonomous ionocraft will be made with the present construction > methods. Further study in electrohydrodynamics, however, show that different > classes and construction methods of EHD thrusters and hybrid technology > (mixture with lighter-than-air techniques), can achieve much higher payload > or thrust-to-power ratios than those achieved with the simple lifter design. > Practical limits can be worked out using well defined theory and > calculations.[7] Thus, a fully autonomous EHD thruster is theoretically > possible." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft#Mechanism > > Since the power is P = I*V, amperage times voltage, the key thrust to power > ratio is F/P = d/kV. So if the air gap distance d remains the same, reducing > the voltage increases the thrust-power ratio. Then theoretically IF the > lifter is able to operate at hundreds of volts instead tens of thousands of > volts you could increase the thrust/power ratio hundred(s) of times. A typical small aircraft engine produces about 140 kW, so at 500 V your current is a bit under 300 A. A typical small helicopter engine is about twice that size, so double the current for a helicopter. That means the conductors from the power supply must be huge and you have to have hundreds, if not thousands, of emmitters to get the individual currents down to levels that won't vaporize them. Even if you mangaged to pull all that off, you now have a huge RFI generator destroying all radio communication over a wide ares which the FCC would never allow to be operated. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 10:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o0a27u$i6j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58700 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >> On 11/3/2016 9:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: >>>> Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and >>>> helicopters already exist. >>> >>>Toys. >>> >>> >>>> However, the key point is according to the >>>> mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic >>>> propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters >>>> achieve. >>> >>>what math ? got a url ? >>> >> >> As important as is the fact that you would no longer need heavy >> transformers >> to produce tens of thousands of volts, even more important is the high >> thrust-to-power ratio you can get by only using low voltages. > >How many times must you be told you do NOT need heavy transformers to >produce high voltages? > >Camera flash units produce tens of thousands of volts. > ... > >A typical small aircraft engine produces about 140 kW, so at 500 V your >current is a bit under 300 A. > >A typical small helicopter engine is about twice that size, so double >the current for a helicopter. > >That means the conductors from the power supply must be huge and you >have to have hundreds, if not thousands, of emmitters to get the >individual currents down to levels that won't vaporize them. > >Even if you mangaged to pull all that off, you now have a huge RFI >generator destroying all radio communication over a wide ares which >the FCC would never allow to be operated. > > Camera flash units work by using electrical capacitors. So while they are able to provide a large amount of power for their weight, they do this by discharging all their stored energy in only a fraction of a second. This is why despite intense research into "supercapacitors" they still have not been able to replace chemical batteries for sustained, continuous power production. In regards, to the current carried by the nanowires, you would likely need millions to billions of them to get the required thrust for a large craft. This is because the thrust is lower for lower voltage. Having such a large number of nanowires is a very well-known phenomenon in production VLSI electronic devices though. About the RFI, it may be because the voltage now required is only in the hundreds of volts range rather than tens of thousands of volts, the RFI is also significantly reduced. This is also something that needs to be tested Bob Clark -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 12:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o0a6lq$2si$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58698 |
>> On 11/3/2016 9:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: >>>> Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and >>>> helicopters already exist. >>> >>> Toys. >>> >>> >>>> However, the key point is according to the >>>> mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic >>>> propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters >>>> achieve. >>> >>> what math ? got a url ? >>> >> >> As important as is the fact that you would no longer need heavy >> transformers to produce tens of thousands of volts, even more important >> is the high thrust-to-power ratio you can get by only using low voltages. >> >> This page describes the operation of the "lifters": >> >> Ionocraft. >> 3. Mechanism. >> "A generalized one-dimensional treatment gives the equation: >> >> F = I*d/k, >> where >> F is the resulting force, measured in dimension ML/T^2 >> I is the current flow of electric current, measured in dimension I. >> d is the air gap distance, measured in dimension L. >> k is the ion mobility coefficient of air, measured in dimension T^2 I/M >> (Nominal value 2·10^−4 m^2/ Vs). >> >> "In its basic form, the ionocraft is able to produce forces great enough >> to lift about a gram of payload per watt,[6] so its use is restricted to >> a tethered model. Ionocraft capable of payloads in the order of a few >> grams usually need to be powered by power sources and high voltage >> converters weighing a few kilograms, so although its simplistic design >> makes it an excellent way to experiment with this technology, it is >> unlikely that a fully autonomous ionocraft will be made with the present >> construction methods. Further study in electrohydrodynamics, however, >> show that different classes and construction methods of EHD thrusters >> and hybrid technology (mixture with lighter-than-air techniques), can >> achieve much higher payload or thrust-to-power ratios than those >> achieved with the simple lifter design. Practical limits can be worked >> out using well defined theory and calculations.[7] Thus, a fully >> autonomous EHD thruster is theoretically possible." >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft#Mechanism >> >> Since the power is P = I*V, amperage times voltage, the key thrust to >> power ratio is F/P = d/kV. So if the air gap distance d remains the >> same, reducing the voltage increases the thrust-power ratio. Then >> theoretically IF the lifter is able to operate at hundreds of volts >> instead tens of thousands of volts you could increase the thrust/power >> ratio hundred(s) of times. >> >> Note that you can't just arbitrarily use a low voltage. You need >> sufficient voltage to initiate air ionization. Experiments have >> confirmed that for wires at the nanoscale you do get the important >> corona inception (air ionization) for voltages in the only 100's of >> volts range. However, it is very important to note that when you reduce >> the voltage and wire diameter the thrust is also reduced. Indeed to get >> thrust sufficient for large scale objects you would then need to use >> millions to billions of the nanowires. >> >> Since the wires are only nanometers wide there is no problem in regards >> to their fitting beneath a transport craft. But the large number of >> wires required would be a consideration in regards to the wires corona >> regions. You can't pack the wires too close together and maintain >> maximum thrust since interaction between the separate corona's reduces >> thrust. Among amateur experimenters that have built them, a lot of >> experimentation has gone into the best geometry to maximize thrust. A >> common arrangement is the triangular shape, with larger lifters >> constructed using this basic shape as cells to build up to larger >> devices. >> >> The reason you don't have just have a bunch of parallel wires bunched >> close together with the lifters is because of the corona region >> interaction at small distance. Then there would have to be a significant >> degree of experimentation to determine how close the nanowires could be >> packed while maintaining maximum thrust. >> >> In regards to the comparison of the thrust/power ratio of the lifters >> compared to helicopters. This is a parameter known as power loading for >> hovering transports. For helicopters it's commonly in the range of 6 to >> 10 lb/hp: >> >> Helicopter Aerodynamics and Performance. >> http://images.slideplayer.com/12/3493118/slides/slide_51.jpg >> >> This is about 3.6 to 6 grams-thrust/watt. The lifters currently made >> using macroscale wires get about 1 gram-thrust per watt in thrust/power >> ratio. So if the nanowire lifters really were able to manage a hundred >> times better thrust/power ratio than current lifters, that would be a >> major advance for hovering transport craft. Even if the nanowire lifters >> only improve the thrust/power ratio over current lifters by a factor of >> 10, that would still be an improvement over current helicopters. >> >> Bob Clark >> > >A helicopter...a real one that is....can weigh as little as 1300 to 1600 >pounds for a 2 place piston, like a Robinson R22 ( guessing the weight) to >a BK 117 like I fly which grosses out at 3200 Kgs to the huge Russian >machines that are up to over 100,000Kgs. The Mil V-12 is the largest I >believe. Whatever their weight they are sure to consume huge amounts of >fuel whatever they do. > >1300 lb = 589,670 grams or about 589,670 watts required using your >conversion ratio, > >assume you are using a max of 1 micro amp through your nano wires, then the >voltage needs to be W = V * I or 589,670 = V * 10^-6 or 58,967,000,000 >Volts > >unfortunatly, this amount of voltage breaks down air insulation for several >thousand feet, so the explosion and arc over will wipe out the wires. > I looked up the BK 117 helicopter: MBB/Kawasaki BK 117. 4 Specifications (BK117 B-2). "Max takeoff weight: 3,350 kg (7,385 lb) Fuel capacity: 697 L (183 US Gallons, 153 Imp Gallons) internal fuel Powerplant: 2 × Textron Lycoming LTS 101-750B-1 turboshaft, 442 kW (593 hp) each" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB/Kawasaki_BK_117#Specifications_.28BK117_B-2.29 This is a thrust-to-power ratio of 7,385 lb/1,186 hp = 6.2 lb/hp, which is in the range common for helicopters. About the current needed to be carried by the nanowires, for a 1,300 lb, or 590 kg, helicopter, then IF the nanowires really do allow a 100 times better thrust-to-power ratio than the lifters now, this will be a thrust/power ratio of 100 grams-force/watt, 100 kg-force/kw. Then this helicopter would need about 6 kw of power. If the voltage required is only say 100 V because we are using nanowires, then 60 amps of current would need to be carried. But remember we would distribute this over millions to billions of the nanowires. Also, note for this supposed 1,300 lb lifter, 6 kw of power is less than only 8 hp, quite low for an air vehicle able to carry people. Bob Clark -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 20:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o0b49b$2op$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58725 |
On 11/13/2016 11:09 AM, Robert Clark wrote: >> >>>> On 11/3/2016 9:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: >>>>>> Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and >>>>>> helicopters already exist. >>>>> >>>>> Toys. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> However, the key point is according to the >>>>>> mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic >>>>>> propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters >>>>>> achieve. >>>>> >>>>> what math ? got a url ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> As important as is the fact that you would no longer need heavy >>>> transformers to produce tens of thousands of volts, even more important >>>> is the high thrust-to-power ratio you can get by only using low >>>> voltages. >>>> > >>> >>> A helicopter...a real one that is....can weigh as little as 1300 to >>> 1600 pounds for a 2 place piston, like a Robinson R22 ( guessing the >>> weight) to a BK 117 like I fly which grosses out at 3200 Kgs to the >>> huge Russian machines that are up to over 100,000Kgs. The Mil V-12 is >>> the largest I believe. Whatever their weight they are sure to consume >>> huge amounts of fuel whatever they do. > >>> 1300 lb = 589,670 grams or about 589,670 watts required using your >>> conversion ratio, > >>> assume you are using a max of 1 micro amp through your nano wires, >>> then the voltage needs to be W = V * I or 589,670 = V * 10^-6 or >>> 58,967,000,000 Volts >>> >>> unfortunatly, this amount of voltage breaks down air insulation for >>> several thousand feet, so the explosion and arc over will wipe out the >>> wires. >>> > >> I looked up the BK 117 helicopter: >> >> MBB/Kawasaki BK 117. >> 4 Specifications (BK117 B-2). >> "Max takeoff weight: 3,350 kg (7,385 lb) >> Fuel capacity: 697 L (183 US Gallons, 153 Imp Gallons) internal fuel >> Powerplant: 2 × Textron Lycoming LTS 101-750B-1 turboshaft, 442 kW (593 >> hp) each" >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB/Kawasaki_BK_117#Specifications_.28BK117_B-2.29 >> > >> This is a thrust-to-power ratio of 7,385 lb/1,186 hp = 6.2 lb/hp, which >> is in the range common for helicopters. > >> About the current needed to be carried by the nanowires, for a 1,300 lb, >> or 590 kg, helicopter, then IF the nanowires really do allow a 100 times >> better thrust-to-power ratio than the lifters now, this will be a >> thrust/power ratio of 100 grams-force/watt, 100 kg-force/kw. >> >> Then this helicopter would need about 6 kw of power. > > >you are too low by a factor of 100, > >you make mistake it is not 100 gm/watt, but only 1gm per watt. > >try again. > > The *current* lifters get about 1 gm-force of thrust per watt of supplied power, or 1 kg-force per kw. But the mathematics suggest using nanowires can improve this by a factor of 100 to 100 kg-force per kw. By the way, IF it is confirmed nanowires can result in the orders of magnitude improvement, then a 1,300 lb hovering transport craft could be powered by an engine the size of that on a push lawn mower. This though would be a scenario where you're using a gasoline engine to provide the power that is then converted to electricity to operate the lifter drive. Bob Clark -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 14:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8fe0c174-cf2a-414d-9d74-678b4adce107@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58636 |
EHANG 184 AAV - http://www.ehang.com/ehang184 exists today. Beamed power http://lasermotive.com/markets/uav-power-links/ exists today and provides unlimited range point to point flight when used with electric fan propulsion. A slightly more advanced system uses a Tail-Sitter design to increase speed from 100 mph to 450 mph whilst still providing point to point service and unlimited range http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/puffin.html A solar power satellite in geosynch orbit that beams energy to users anywhere across the visible surface of the Earth, powers aircraft in flight, flying above local cloud cover. The aircraft uses electrical power to attain flight altitude, and the batteries are recharged in flight. With VTOL capability, the tail-sitter, in horizontal flight mode, has the ability to climb at 4,000 ft/min. So it takes 10 minutes to climb to a service ceiling of 41,000 ft. 10 minutes - 75 mile range - climb to altitude for long range. 10 minutes - 75 mile range - descend from altitude for long range. So, within 15 miles - climb and descent dominate. Beyond 150 miles, flight occurs at operating altitude (41,000 ft) 0:30 - 225 miles 1:00 - 450 miles 1:30 - 675 miles 2:00 - 900 miles 2:30 - 1125 miles 3:00 - 1350 miles 3:30 - 1575 miles 4:00 - 1800 miles 4:30 - 2025 miles 5:00 - 2250 miles Cab service in NYC is $2.50 when you get in, and $0.50 for each 60 seconds - or 1/5th mile - whichever is greater. http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/passenger/taxicab_rate.shtml Manhattan is 14 miles long and 2.3 miles wide. A service area centered on Manhattan's Upper West Side, near Verdi Square, with a 20 mile range - services ALL of Manhattan, out to Paramus, north to New Rochelle, and East to Flushing - it costs up to $102.50 to travel point to point in a matter of minutes throughout this range - serving over 12 million people! Taxi Cabs There were 12,000 cabs that generated $1.8 billion sales with 154 million trips in 2006. http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/passenger/taxicab_rate.shtml With an average price of $12.50 per trip - trip lengths are 2 miles. A VTOL system of the type described above, travelling at 100 mph takes no more than 12 minutes to travel 20 miles - and typically 2 minutes to travel 3 miles. Charging $5.00 per trip - and doing 5 trips an hour - requires 3,500 EHANG 184 type units to support the same number and lengths of trips as is now supplied by the present taxi fleet. 12,000 automated units, offered at $5 each, would transform transport and package delivery. People could order food from the finest restaurants in town, and have it delivered in minutes anywhere in the city and environs - for $5 - 12,000 units deliver $2.6 billion in sales per year with 523 million trips per year. $216,700 per year per unit. 43,300 trips per year - 5 trips per hour. Subway http://web.mta.info/nyct/facts/ffsubway.htm 1,763,000,000 riders per year by subway. That's 201,117 per hour. It costs $3 to enter the subway, with single use fares. Average speed is 17 mph. 40,223 EHANG 184 vehicles - travelling at 100 mph - has the potential to provide superior service. $5.28 billion per year $131,491 per vehicle year. Manhattan's population is 1.63 million persons. Greater New York City population: 23.7 million - within 65 miles of mid-town Manhattan - 595,803 vehicles provide the same level of service for all these people as the combined Taxi Subway system provides the people of Manhattan. http://www.pcworld.com/article/3019704/consumer-electronics/the-ehang-184-is-a-single-passenger-drone-that-transports-people-yes-people-at-11-000-feet.html http://drones.specout.com/l/328/EHang-184 The system costs $300,000 and generates 143 horsepower. (106 kW) - at $0.11 per kWh - it costs $2.33 per trip lasting 1/5th hour - With $12,000 service costs (4% acquisition costs) - there's another $0.27 - a total of $2.60 per trip. Each 60 second interval costs $0.20 for power and $0.02 for maintenance. Provides quite a benefit to investors in the units.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-02 13:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2f704657-c63c-4c69-ad63-c2b8f5b7efe4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58636 |
The interesting thing about micro-scale and nano-scale construction is the ability to radically increase the thrust to weight ratios of engines.
A jet or rocket engine's thrust scales as the square of its dimension whilst its weight scales by the cube of its dimension, so the smaller the higher the thrust to weight all things being equal. For this reason, knowledgeable rocket scientists know that MEMS based chemical engines will have thrust to weight of 1000 to 1 or more - instead of the 20 to 1 or 70 to 1 ratios typical of macroscopic rocket engines.
With an array of such engines, made at the same density as UHDTV screens, and over similar areas, of several square meters, propulsive skins or tiles, can be made which generate 7200 pounds per square foot - far higher than wings! and mass only 7 or 8 pounds per square foot!
By creating skins with well defined thrust vectors over their surface, and addressing those vectors reliably, a propulsive skin or tile that is simultaneously reliable, safe, and controllable is built.
This transforms rocketry.
The same relation is true for electro-spray or ion rocket and jet technologies!
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/mit-spl-delivers-the-scalable-ion-electrospray-propulsion-system-s-ieps-for-cubesats-to-nasa
With these technologies, efficiencies can be made far higher than with thermally based systems, and so can exhaust speeds!
This radically improves efficiences of propellant use, when sources of electrical power are applied. This is why beaming energy to remote spacecraft via laser or maser beams, is an important field, and is ideally suited for use with electric rocket and jet technologies.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-087-DFRC.html
A rocket that boosts straight up at 2 gees from the surface, has one gee net thrust, and attains escape velocity in
V = a * t ---> t = V/a ---> t = 11,190 / 9.80665 = 1141.1 seconds --> 19.01 minutes
Which occurs over a distance of less than;
D = 1/2 * a * t^2 --> D = 0.5 * 9.80665 * 1141.1^2 = 6,384,244 meters.
Now for each kilogram (kg) of weight we require the production of 2 * g0 = 2 * 9.80665 = 19.6133 Newtons of thrust. With an exhaust speed of 50,000 meters per second this means;
F = mdot * Ve ---> F / Ve = mdot ---> 19.6133 / 50000 = 0.000392266 kg/sec.
This is 392.266 milligrams per second. Multiplying by the boost time, we have
mdot * t = Mass --> 0.000392266 * 1141.1 = 0.4476 kg per kg of take off weight!
About the same fraction as a long-distance airliner.
Now the rocket equation gives a more accurate figure, noting that fighting gravity all the way to escape velocity adds 10.37 km/sec to the gravity drag loss;
u = 1 - 1 / exp( (10.37+11.19) / 50.00 ) = 0.3503
The same fraction as a regional airliner.
Of course using all the tricks we know to get to orbit, requires only that we achieve 9.2 km/sec. 7.9 km/sec is orbital speed above the atmosphere, and the 1.3 km/sec added speed is the combined gravity and air drag loss of an optimum gravity turn trajectory. In this case with a 50.0 km/sec exhaust speed and a 9.2 km/sec final speed we have;
u = 1 - 1 / exp( 9.2 / 50.0 ) = 0.1681
Same fraction as a long distance trucker or rail operation.
The power is of course, beamed to the system. Recall that to produce two gees requires 19.6133 Newtons per kg of take off weight. This requires 0.000392266 kg/sec mass flow rate. With an exhaust speed of 50 km/sec the power required to maintain this mass flow rate is;
Power = 1/2 * mdot * Ve^2 = 0.5 * 0.00039226 * (50^2) megawatts per kg. = 0.4903 MW/kg
So, today, 2 quadrillion watt laser beams exist;
http://www.popsci.com/researchers-japan-fired-worlds-most-powerful-laser
2.039 kg per MW may be lifted at two gees using a 50 km/sec exhaust speed electro-spray rocket.
2.039 metric tons per GW may be lifted in the same way.
2039 metric tons (2/3 the size of the Saturn V moon rocket) may be lifted per TW.
2,039,000 metric tons (4x the size of the largest ship on the oceans today) may be lifted per PW.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-04 20:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <97ea2daf-c6f1-4ee5-ba8d-0af69f876627@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58636 |
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/26/new-energy-storage-solution-could-hit-magic-54-mark/ http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/corporate-social-responsibility/airbus-e-fan-the-future-of-electric-aircraft.html http://aviationweek.com/oshkosh-2016/airbus-e-fan-goes-hybrid Specifications Data from Jane's All the World's Aircraft 2014/15 and Airbus General characteristics Crew: one Capacity: one passenger Length: 6.67 m (21 ft 11 in) Wingspan: 9.50 m (31 ft 2 in) Max takeoff weight: 550 kg (1,213 lb) Powerplant: 2 × Electric motor , 30 kW (40 hp) each via eight-blade ducted fans,each producing thrust of 0.75 kN (266 lb st), Battery: Lithium-ion 18650, with 207 Wh/kg per cel, total of 29 kWh at a battery weight of 167 kg Performance Maximum speed: 220 km/h (137 mph; 119 kn) all performance figures estimated Cruising speed: 160 km/h (99 mph; 86 kn) Endurance: 60 min Lift-to-drag: 16:1 * * * With batteries capable of 3,000 Wh/kg the 167 kg battery weight then contains 391.3 kWh enough to fly the vehicle a distance of 2,318 km in 14.49 hours. Two Tesla super charging stations will recharge an aircraft with this range fully in 82 minutes at a cost of $43. A surplus of Diggity - think about the girl all the time... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogcx-zcF02k With powerful lightweight electric motors, in combination with super batteries, VTOL take off and landing - with efficient long-range flight - are easily achievable - using AI drone technology - using a Siri like app that carries on with radio traffic. Using this configuration of electric props https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z0I_ktvbl0 With this airframe http://www.cobalt-aircraft.com/#1 and advanced batteries described above, provides superb capabilities. Specifications (Co50) Data from Company news release estimates General characteristics Crew: 1 Pilot Capacity: 3 to 4 Passengers Length: 30 ft (9.1 m) Wingspan: 30 ft (9.1 m) Height: 10 ft (3.0 m) Max takeoff weight: 3,417 lb (1,550 kg) Fuel capacity: 109 U.S. gallons (410 L; 91 imp gal) Powerplant: 1 × Continental TSIOF-550-D turbocharged piston aircraft engine, 350 hp (260 kW) Performance Maximum speed: 250 kn (288 mph; 463 km/h) maximum cruise at FL250 Cruise speed: 250 kn (288 mph; 463 km/h) economy cruise at FL220 Range: 1,434 nmi (1,650 mi; 2,656 km) economy cruise at FL220 Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,600 m) Time to altitude: 12 minutes to 10,000 feet Avionics Garmin G3X Touch Three electric fans producing 86.7 kW each - two forward one rear - that rotate from horizontal to vertical - to provide VTOL capabilities - and speeds of up to 463 km/h. Replacing the 109 US gallons of av-gas mass 317.6 kg with super batteries described above obtains 952.8 kWh. This provides 3.52 hours of flight at 463 km/h which gives a range of 1,634.4 km. Not too shabby. Now, the Cobalt Valkyrie uses a Continental TSIOF-550-D engine that produces 350 hp (261 kW) at 2600 rpm, dry weight 558 lb (253 kg) plus two turbochargers of 35.2 lb (16.0 kg) each. Now the EMRAX268 Brushless AC motor masses 19.9 kg (44 lb) and produces 200 kW (270 hp). Three of these motors mass less than 60 kg - and during high speed cruise consume 87 kW each. During lift off they consume 200 kW - giving the aircraft superb VTOL climb ability. http://www.enstroj.si/Electric-products/emrax-268.html So, the 60 kg three engine three fan system replaces the single fan 285 kg system (with turbo-chargers) and thus there is a spare 225 kg of weight lifting capacity for the power. Replacing 225 kg of thermal engine weight with 3 kWh/kg batteries obtains an added 675 kWh - which translates to 2.58 added hours at 463 km/h - 1,197.4 km range. A total of 2,824.3 km range in 6.1 hours of flight. Sweet! 1,627.8 kWh capacity for the aircraft - is recharged in an hour with a dozen super charger stations operating simultaneously for $179.06 - which is very cheap! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1JsBhRCRH0 Shorty get down, good lord Baby got 'em up open all over town Strictly biz, she don't play around Cover much ground, got game by the pound Getting paid is her forte Each and every day, true player way I can't get her out of my mind I think about the girl all the time East side to the west side Pushin' phat rides, it's no surprise She got tricks in the stash Stacking up the cash Fast when it comes to the gas By no means average She's on when she's got to have it Baby, you're a perfect ten, I wanna get in Can I get down, so I can win I like the way you work it No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up I like the way you work it No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up I like the way you work it No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up I like the way you work it No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up She's got class and style Street knowledge by the pound Baby never act wild, very low key on the profile Catchin' feelings is a no Let me tell you how it goes Curve's the words, spins the verbs Lovers it curves so freak what you heard Rollin' with the phatness You don't even know what the half is You gotta pay to play Just for shorty, bang-bang, to look your way I like the way you work it Trumped tight all day, every day You're blowing my mind, maybe in time Baby, I can get you in my ride I like the way you work it No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up I like the way you work it No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up I like the way you work it No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up I like the way you work it No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up 'Cause that's my peeps and we row g Flyin' first class from new york city to blackstreet What you know about me, not a motherfuckin' thing Cartier wooded frames sported by my shortie As for me, icy gleaming pinky diamond ring We be's the baddest clique up on the scene Ain't you getting bored with these fake ass broads I shows and proves, no doubt, I be taking you, so Please excuse, if I come across rude That's just me and that's how the playettes got to be Stay kickin' game with a capital g Axe the peoples on my block, I'm as real as can be Word is bond, faking jacks never been my flavor So, teddy, pass the word to your nigga chauncey I be sitting in car, let's say around 3:30 Queen pen and blackstreet, it's no diggity I like the way you work it No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up I like the way you work it No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up I like the way you work it No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up I like the way you work it No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-04 22:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1225ca73-3bcf-4f8f-997d-c2311cbe013d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58972 |
Over the Wing Engine Mount - such as that in the Hondajet http://www.hondajet.com/OTWEM is used above the landing gear mount - on the Colbalt Valkyrie - for each of the outboard electric fans. Ducted fans similar ot that used in E-fan - are placed on OTWEM and flip through 90 degrees to produce vertical thrust. The tail fan is replaced with a ducted fan similar to E-fan as well, and is equipped with an F-35 style thrust vectoring exhaust - to provide pitch and yaw control http://imgur.com/PeaVikj There are 19,299 airports in the USA http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_03.html 5,145 are for public use. With 3.797 million square miles this is 738 square miles per air field. Assuming a hexagonal close packing of each air field this is a separation of 33.7 miles (54.3 km). The range upwards from 5,500 m length by 80 m width. With a 75% efficient multi-spectral solar panel built into the runway similar to solar roadways - but solar runways - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU to charge 861 aircraft per airfield per day. This is 4.43 million aircraft operating 27.02 million flight hours per day carrying 50.04 billion passenger miles per day. This is 8.3x larger than all the passenger miles available in all the scheduled airline flights in the USA today and 50x larger than all private aircraft miles available in the USA today. http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/press_releases/bts016_13 Its 5.1x larger than all the highway miles driven in passenger cars! LOL. Which is amazing! Which means people could fly one or two per aircraft, and there's still enough airfields, solar power and aircraft to meet all the airline needs and all the highway needs of the entire nation! The airfields at 330 MW peak power each, produce enough surplus power to add significantly to the power grid! At $840,000 per aircraft, and assuming a 20 year life span, a discount rate of 8.5% and a 4% maintenance cost, with 85% availability - we have $11.91 capex $ 4.51 opex $29.51 energy $45.93 total per hour. At 463 km/hr this is 9.92 cents per km. (15.97 cents per mile). http://newsroom.aaa.com/2015/04/annual-cost-operate-vehicle-falls-8698-finds-aaa-archive/ The AAA estimates that the cost of drving a mile in a sedan is $0.58 per mile - 3.63x greater than the cost described above. At $8,698 per year - and $0.16 per mile - folks in aircraft would travel 54,362.5 miles 87,523.6 km per year. At 463 km/hr they'd spend 189 hours in transit - less time than they spend in autos. Despite the increases - the system described with only 4.5 million drone aircraft - could supply this improved level of service and end ALL CARBON EMISSIONS in the process - and radically reduce fuel imports in the USA. You would use an UBER style APP in your cell phone to signal an aircraft to your location. One would appear and settle in a convenient spot near you - in a street parking lot or field nearby. You get on board and be wafted directly to your destination. If your destination was more than 4.5 hours away - you would settle down at a convenient air field every 4.5 hours - and spend 30 minutes resting eating as your aircraft recharged and was cleaned. A flight from LA to NY is 3,944 km and would take 9 hours with a 0.5 hour stop in St. Louis. The trip for up to five people costs $413.37 - Five people sharing the ride would spend $82.68 each. Four people sharing the ride spend $103.35 each! It costs $52 to go from the airport to your destination in New York, just for fees to go through tunnels and whatnot. It takes about 8 minutes for me to walk from the Waldorf Astoria to Rockefellar Plaza - a distance of 262 feet! lol. A cab ride would cost $7.22 + $4.50 just to get in. So, that's $11.72 for an 8 minute ride. I would think that if you could be picked up on rooftop, on any building, and dropped off, with a quick ride to and from the roof top - you could charge $10.00 for the first 10 minutes and $8 for each additional 10 minutes or fraction - and you'd give the taxi's a run for their money. You'd have one aerial pad on top of a building every 250 feet - which if done consistently over the entire Manhattan Island woudl provide 10,179 landing pads. With 10 pick up points and 2 minutes loiter time for loading and unloading - 300 vehicles are loaded and unloaded per hour per pad. That's 293.1 million passenger pickups and drop offs a day. With 10 vehicles per pad - that's 101,790 vehicles serving manhattan - and costing less than automobiles - and producing no pollution. This would be awesome!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 06:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.32af1566659741b2989887@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #58972 |
In article <97ea2daf-c6f1-4ee5-ba8d-0af69f876627@googlegroups.com>, mokmedical@gmail.com says... > #1 I thought this worthless (to sci.space) thread was dead. #2 You need to go back on your meds. #3 No one here (sci.space) wants to see you post song lyrics. 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]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 16:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b3341056-fdc0-48c2-ba4a-159f2e64111d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58977 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 12:11:22 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote: > In article <97ea2daf-c6f1-4ee5-ba8d-0af69f876627@googlegroups.com>, > mokmedical@gmail.com says... > > > > > #1 I thought this worthless (to sci.space) thread was dead. > #2 You need to go back on your meds. > #3 No one here (sci.space) wants to see you post song lyrics. > > 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. Interesting how someone who suffers from a mental disorder often projects their condition on to others. You can see here one such person believes they know what *everyone* wants! lol. This is a clear indicator of PPD - Paranoid Personality Disorder. How can someone know what everyone wants? Fact is, they cannot. Only someone with PPD comes to such conclusions. So, what is PPD? Paranoid personality disorder Definition People with paranoid personality disorder (PPD) have long-term, widespread and unwarranted suspicions that other people are hostile, threatening or demeaning. These beliefs are steadfastly maintained in the absence of any real supporting evidence. The disorder, whose name comes from the Greek word for "madness," is one of ten personality disorders described in the 2000 edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , (the fourth edition, text revision or DSM-IVTR ), the standard guidebook used by mental health professionals to diagnose mental disorders. Despite the pervasive suspicions they have of others, patients with PPD are not delusional (except in rare, brief instances brought on by stress ). Most of the time, they are in touch with reality, except for their misinterpretation of others' motives and intentions. PPD patients are not psychotic but their conviction that others are trying to "get them" or humiliate them in some way often leads to hostility and social isolation. Description People with PPD do not trust other people. In fact, the central characteristic of people with PPD is a high degree of mistrustfulness and suspicion when interacting with others. Even friendly gestures are often interpreted as being manipulative or malevolent. Whether the patterns of distrust and suspicion begin in childhood or in early adulthood, they quickly come to dominate the lives of those suffering from PPD. Such people are unable or afraid to form close relationships with others. They suspect strangers, and even people they know, of planning to harm or exploit them when there is no good evidence to support this belief. As a result of their constant concern about the lack of trustworthiness of others, patients with this disorder often have few intimate friends or close human contacts. They do not fit in and they do not make good "team players." Interactions with others are characterized by wariness and not infrequently by hostility. If they marry or become otherwise attached to someone, the relationship is often characterized by pathological jealousy and attempts to control their partner. They often assume their sexual partner is "cheating" on them. People suffering from PPD are very difficult to deal with. They never seem to let down their defenses. They are always looking for and finding evidence that others are against them. Their fear, and the threats they perceive in the innocent statements and actions of others, often contributes to frequent complaining or unfriendly withdrawal or aloofness. They can be confrontational, aggressive and disputatious. It is not unusual for them to sue people they feel have wronged them. In addition, patients with this disorder are known for their tendency to become violent. Despite all the unpleasant aspects of a paranoid lifestyle, however, it is still not sufficient to drive many people with PPD to seek therapy. They do not usually walk into a therapist's office on their own. They distrust mental health care providers just as they distrust nearly everyone else. If a life crisis, a family member or the judicial system succeeds in getting a patient with PPD to seek help, therapy is often a challenge. Individual counseling seems to work best but it requires a great deal of patience and skill on the part of the therapist. It is not unusual for patients to leave therapy when they perceive some malicious intent on the therapist's part. If the patient can be persuaded to cooperate— something that is not easy to achieve— low-dose medications are recommended for treating such specific problems as anxiety, but only for limited periods of time. If a mental health care provider is able to gain the trust of a patient with PPD, it may be possible to help the patient deal with the threats that they perceive. The disorder, however, usually lasts a lifetime. Symptoms A core symptom of PPD is a generalized distrust of other people. Comments and actions that healthy people would not notice come across as full of insults and threats to someone with the disorder. Yet, generally, patients with PPD remain in touch with reality; they don't have any of the hallucinations or delusions seen in patients with psychoses. Nevertheless, their suspicions that others are intent on harming or exploiting them are so pervasive and intense that people with PPD often become very isolated. They avoid normal social interactions. And because they feel so insecure in what is a very threatening world for them, patients with PPD are capable of becoming violent. Innocuous comments, harmless jokes and other day-to-day communications are often perceived as insults. Paranoid suspicions carry over into all realms of life. Those burdened with PPD are frequently convinced that their sexual partners are unfaithful. They may misinterpret compliments offered by employers or coworkers as hidden criticisms or attempts to get them to work harder. Complimenting a person with PPD on their clothing or car, for example, could easily be taken as an attack on their materialism or selfishness. Because they persistently question the motivations and trustworthiness of others, patients with PPD are not inclined to share intimacies. They fear such information might be used against them. As a result, they become hostile and unfriendly, argumentative or aloof. Their unpleasantness often draws negative responses from those around them. These rebuffs become "proof" in the patient's mind that others are, indeed, hostile to them. They have little insight into the effects of their attitude and behavior on their generally unsuccessful interactions with others. Asked if they might be responsible for negative interactions that fill their lives, people with PPD are likely to place all the blame on others. A brief summary of the typical symptoms of PPD includes: suspiciousness and distrust of others questioning hidden motives in others feelings of certainty, without justification or proof, that others are intent on harming or exploiting them social isolation aggressiveness and hostility little or no sense of humor Demographics As of 2002, it has not been possible to determine the number of people with PPD with any accuracy. This lack of data might be expected for a disorder that is characterized by extreme suspiciousness. Such patients in many cases avoid voluntary contact with such people as mental health workers who have a certain amount of power over them. There are, nonetheless, some estimates of the prevalence of PPD. According to the DSM-IV-TR , between 0.5% and 2.5% of the general population of the United States may have PPD, while 2%–10% of outpatients receiving psychiatric care may be affected. A significant percentage of institutionalized psychiatric patients, between 10% and 30%, might have symptoms that qualify for a diagnosis of PPD. Finally, the disorder appears to be more common in men than in women. There are indications in the scientific literature that relatives of patients with chronic schizophrenia may have a greater chance of developing PPD than people in the general population. Also, the incidence of the disorder may be higher among relatives of patients suffering from another psychotic disorder known as delusional disorder of the persecutory type. Diagnosis The diagnosis is usually made on the basis of the doctor's interview with the patient, although the doctor may also give the patient a diagnostic questionnaire. In addition, input from people who know the patient may be requested. Diagnostic criteria Mental health care providers look for at least five distinguishing symptoms in patients who they think might suffer from PPD. The first is a pattern of suspiciousness about, and distrust of, other people when there is no good reason for either. This pattern should be present from at least the time of the patient's early adulthood. In addition to this symptom that is required in order to make the PPD diagnosis, the patient should have at least four of the following seven symptoms as listed in the DSM-IV-TR : The unfounded suspicion that people want to deceive, exploit or harm the patient. The pervasive belief that others are not worthy of trust or that they are not inclined to or capable of offering loyalty. A fear that others will use information against the patient with the intention of harming him. This fear is demonstrated by a reluctance to share even harmless personal information with others. The interpretation of others' innocent remarks as insulting or demeaning; or the interpretation of neutral events as presenting or conveying a threat. A strong tendency not to forgive real or imagined slights and insults. People with PPD nurture grudges for a long time. An angry and aggressive response in reply to imagined attacks by others. The counterattack for a perceived insult is often rapid. Medications Anti-anxiety drugs may be prescribed. In addition, during periods of extreme agitation and high stress that produce delusional states, the patient may be given low doses of antipsychotic medications. Some clinicians have suggested that low doses of neuroleptics should be used in this group of patients; however, medications are not normally part of long-term treatment for PPD. One reason is that no medication has been proven to relieve effectively the long-term symptoms of the disorder, although the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as fluoxetine (Prozac) have been reported to make patients less angry, irritable and suspicious. Antidepressants may even make symptoms worse. A second reason is that people with PPD are suspicious of medications. They fear that others might try to control them through the use of drugs. It can therefore be very difficult to persuade them to take medications unless the potential for relief from another threat, such as extreme anxiety, makes the medications seem relatively appealing. Prognosis Paranoid personality disorder is often a chronic, lifelong condition; the long-term prognosis is usually not encouraging. Feelings of paranoia, however, can be controlled to a degree with successful therapy. Unfortunately, many patients suffer the major symptoms of the disorder throughout their lives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 00:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dupc4chnnn8uel2gvdcbom1ve1ruhq148u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58985 |
William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 12:11:22 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>
>> #1 I thought this worthless (to sci.space) thread was dead.
>> #2 You need to go back on your meds.
>> #3 No one here (sci.space) wants to see you post song lyrics.
>>
>
>Interesting how someone who suffers from a mental disorder often projects their condition on to others.
>
Yes, you do. You really should seek help.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 01:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <72049299-4651-439e-bbc1-5785b2aad0f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58989 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 8:26:15 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote: > William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 12:11:22 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote: > >> > >> #1 I thought this worthless (to sci.space) thread was dead. > >> #2 You need to go back on your meds. > >> #3 No one here (sci.space) wants to see you post song lyrics. > >> > > > >Interesting how someone who suffers from a mental disorder often projects their condition on to others. > > > > Yes, you do. You really should seek help. > > > -- > "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is > only stupid." > -- Heinrich Heine hahahaha That's funny.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 01:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <774767ff-05cd-46bc-9b8f-317218c0e41f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58989 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 8:26:15 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote: > William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 12:11:22 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote: > >> > >> #1 I thought this worthless (to sci.space) thread was dead. > >> #2 You need to go back on your meds. > >> #3 No one here (sci.space) wants to see you post song lyrics. > >> > > > >Interesting how someone who suffers from a mental disorder often projects their condition on to others. > > > > Yes, you do. You really should seek help. > > > -- > "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is > only stupid." > -- Heinrich Heine Fact is, electric aircraft are coming and will revolutionise aviation, especially as beamed power becomes reliably and efficiently available beamed from ground or space.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 16:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <39b03951-d0f1-4a55-9c00-7bb835f900d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58977 |
I often play cool music when flying over New Zealand. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mxmFCw-Dig There is an emotional component to aerospace which motivates people to engage in it. This is widely reported among those who actually are engaged in the field. I even reported my friend Edgar Mitchell's experience around the moon in these groups 25 years ago. You of course, attacked me for it. Your loss. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39Lhyf5NbM0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UVuzDDTdgs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1Kzs9wGlYI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46cQQ2kr1ZY This ability to interpret our experiences beyond the Earth's surface on an emotive level will continue and will be the most important aspect of our journeys beyond Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH3c1QZzRK4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKtHR1eUubI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixqDQDepWb0 All these have appropriate and moving musical scores... sensitive people hear it. Others, not so much. On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 12:11:22 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote: > In article <97ea2daf-c6f1-4ee5-ba8d-0af69f876627@googlegroups.com>, > mokmedical@gmail.com says... > > > > > #1 I thought this worthless (to sci.space) thread was dead. > #2 You need to go back on your meds. > #3 No one here (sci.space) wants to see you post song lyrics. > > 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]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 09:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.32b09212209ea5cd98988a@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #58986 |
In article <39b03951-d0f1-4a55-9c00-7bb835f900d1@googlegroups.com>, mokmedical@gmail.com says... > > I often play cool music when flying over New Zealand. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mxmFCw-Dig > > There is an emotional component to aerospace which motivates people to engage in it. This is widely reported among those who actually are engaged in the field. I even reported my friend Edgar Mitchell's experience around the moon in these groups 25 years ago. You of course, attacked me for it. Your loss. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39Lhyf5NbM0 > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UVuzDDTdgs > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1Kzs9wGlYI > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46cQQ2kr1ZY > > This ability to interpret our experiences beyond the Earth's surface on an emotive level will continue and will be the most important aspect of our journeys beyond Earth. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH3c1QZzRK4 > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKtHR1eUubI > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixqDQDepWb0 > > All these have appropriate and moving musical scores... sensitive people hear it. Others, not so much. This isn't your personal blog Mook. This is "sci.space.policy", a Usenet Newsgroup. Parse the name of the group very slowly and let it sink into your brain. Once that's done, please stop posting off topic b.s. 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]
| From | David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 12:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o26tcl$ub6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58999 |
On 12/6/2016 9:15 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: > In article <39b03951-d0f1-4a55-9c00-7bb835f900d1@googlegroups.com>, > mokmedical@gmail.com says... >> >> I often play cool music when flying over New Zealand. >> >> All these have appropriate and moving musical scores... sensitive people hear it. Others, not so much. > > This isn't your personal blog Mook. This is "sci.space.policy", a > Usenet Newsgroup. Good point. Mr. Mook why don't you create a blog and although OT post a link to it here so that those that want to follow you can? No one can stop you from posting a link. They can bitch but the link will be here. Then you don't have to put up or waste time with critiques you don't want to read from people you obviously do not respect and vice-versa. I'm not taking sides, just seems like a practical suggestion. Also web blogs are more versatile: text, graphics, videos all are fair game there and you can control the topics, create a better presentation and engage with those who share your views. OK an echo chamber perhaps. But better than the endless shouting matches here. Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 17:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0me4cdu1ukseo22vq1ier4g5vie2rvm51@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #59000 |
David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>I'm not taking sides, just seems like a practical suggestion. Also web
>blogs are more versatile: text, graphics, videos all are fair game there
>and you can control the topics, create a better presentation and engage
>with those who share your views. OK an echo chamber perhaps. But better
>than the endless shouting matches here.
>
The problem is that Mookie thinks the purpose of Usenet NEWS is to
allow him to 'blog'.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 11:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o29d7d$qho$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59005 |
On 12/6/2016 7:31 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote: > >> >> I'm not taking sides, just seems like a practical suggestion. Also web >> blogs are more versatile: text, graphics, videos all are fair game there >> and you can control the topics, create a better presentation and engage >> with those who share your views. OK an echo chamber perhaps. But better >> than the endless shouting matches here. >> > > The problem is that Mookie thinks the purpose of Usenet NEWS is to > allow him to 'blog'. > > Not much of a blog when it has been plonked. Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web