Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

[Robert Clark]

American Journal of Nanomaterials
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article
From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production
of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials.
Robert Clark
Department of Mathematics, Widener University, Chester, United States
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/index.html

Next stop: the space elevator.

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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Rick Jones]

In sci.space.policy Robert Clark <rgrego...@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
> American Journal of Nanomaterials
> Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article
> From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production
> of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials.
> Robert Clark
> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, Chester, United States
> http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/index.html

> Next stop: the space elevator.

There was an awful lot of "might" and "may" in that article. Nothing
that suggested anyone has gotten a sufficiently strong construct out
to say a meter or even 10cm.

rick jones
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgrego...@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
> American Journal of Nanomaterials
> Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article
> From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production
> of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials.
> Robert Clark
> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, Chester, United States
> http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/index.html
>
> Next stop: the space elevator.

Nope, the next stop would be ANYTHING practical.

> 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'.

The lack of flying cars has never been a materials problem. There have
been lots of flying cars built.


--
Jim Pennino

[Sergio]

On 8/20/2016 1:37 PM, Robert Clark wrote:
> American Journal of Nanomaterials
> Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article
> From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to
> Production of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials.
> Robert Clark
> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, Chester, United States
> http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/index.html
>
> Next stop: the space elevator.
>

space elevator is a total joke,
electric elevator? how much do the copper cables weigh ?
Gasloine powered? how much gas and O2 weigh ?
How does the astronough at the top, jump off into orbit ?
how do you keep it from falling over ? Skyhook ?
how do you keep it from wind blowing it over ?
How much cement is needed for the base ?
how many miles of guy wires ?

[Jeff Findley]

In article <5qor8d-...@mail.specsol.com>, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
says...

For one, they're super expensive. But, ignoring the expense for now...

The huge problem with flying cars in my mind is building one that's
simple for a "driver" to operate. The masses aren't going to all get a
pilot's license. Heck, most people on the road shouldn't even have a
driver's license based on how awful they drive and on how many wrecks
they cause. Imagine them all flying cars right into each other!

To make this work, you'd need self-flying cars!

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.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Neither the FAA nor any other aviation authority on the planet is going
to allow non-pilots into the airspace system.

So there is the first problem, you will HAVE to be a pilot to fly a
flying car.

Fully autonomous aircraft are not going to happen any time soon.

Witness the current hoopla over drones to get a feel for the regulatory
temperment; you now have to register what amounts to model airplanes
with the FAA.

The sole reason that flying cars have never been a commercial success
is economics; you have to be a pilot, which isn't cheap, they cost
a LOT to build and certify to two sets of sometimes conflicting
regulations, and the market for such a thing is tiny.

Materials have never been an issue.


--
Jim Pennino

[Robert Clark]

Thanks for taking the time to read it. Right, these now are just proposals.
All of them though would be easy and low cost to test for nanotechnology
research labs. So considering the the billion dollar benefit in producing
structures a hundred times stronger than steel at 1/5th the weight, the
benefit to risk ratio is huge.
What goes into the risk calculation tough has to be consideration of the
likelihood they would work. For the simply tying the nanotubes proposal, as
I discussed in the article it has already been proven tying them together
can give lighter weight conducting wires than copper wires. And it is known
that tying ropes together can give ropes 80% to 90% the strength of the
component ropes.
For the laser irradiation proposal nanotubes were able to be combined by
illuminating the nanotube ends with a resulting strength close to the 300
Mpa(megapascals) tensile strength of the component nanotubes. It needs to be
tested though using nanotubes of the greatest measured strength at above 100
Gpa(gigapascals).

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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Rick Jones" wrote in message news:npf7ns$8mc$1...@news.hpeswlab.net...

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Robert Clark]

Ok, I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole there. But even if these methods
could produce arbitrarily long nanotubes at 1/10th the maximum measured
nanotube strength, this would be a major change in materials science.

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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

wrote in message news:5qor8d-...@mail.specsol.com...

[Robert Clark]

I agree there. There has a recent announcement of a quad-copter style flying
transport that is intended to be self-flying.

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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
news:MPG.3225ec662...@news.eternal-september.org...

[Fred J. McCall]

"Robert Clark" <rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:

>Thanks for taking the time to read it. Right, these now are just proposals.
>All of them though would be easy and low cost to test for nanotechnology
>research labs.

Everything is always "easy and low cost" until someone has to actually
build something and make it work.


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

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgrego...@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
> Ok, I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole there. But even if these methods
> could produce arbitrarily long nanotubes at 1/10th the maximum measured
> nanotube strength, this would be a major change in materials science.
>
> Bob Clark

Only in a few niche applications where weight and strength are competing
parameters.

For the vast majority of things there is no incentive to build them from
nanotubes.

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that

ji...@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.

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

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> The sole reason that flying cars have never been a commercial success
>> is economics
>

> No, its simply because theyre 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?

In the real world you would never be allowed to land and take off just
anywhere for a whole lot of reasons, so you would still need to drive
some distance. Designated areas, if such were to ever become common,
would likely be at least 10 to 20 miles apart.

In the real world, driving a flying car has never made it not airworthy.



--
Jim Pennino

[Fred J. McCall]

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

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?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>
>>For your reference, records indicate that
>>ji...@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

[Fred J. McCall]

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

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

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that

Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@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.

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that
ji...@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!

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

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

> For your reference, records indicate that
> ji...@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!

There have been lots of flying cars made since the 1930's that worked.

Here's one from 1949 that almost made it into production:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar

Note especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar#N102D





--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@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

[Fred J. McCall]

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

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

Asked and answered.

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

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

[Fred J. McCall]

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

>For your reference, records indicate that
>ji...@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

[Joy Beeson]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:38:54 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary

<drol...@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/

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@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.

[Doc O'Leary]

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

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

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

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

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

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that

Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@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.

[Doc O'Leary]

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

> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> > For your reference, records indicate that
> > ji...@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!
>
> There have been lots of flying cars made since the 1930's that worked.
>
> Here's one from 1949 that almost made it into production:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar
>
> Note especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar#N102D

You, too, support my point. Clearly it didn’t “work” if it didn’t
even make it into production, was not bought in quantity, and did not
regularly function as *both* a ground and air commuter vehicle.

That’s why I made the point of keeping the structure of such a
vehicle airworthy. It may not be a huge deal if your car gets a door
dinged in a parking lot by another car or grocery cart. Or hail
damage or whatever else we don’t think twice about subjecting cars to
because we don’t have to think about them falling out of the sky.
Not so with the ill-conceived flying car, which is why they remain a
fiction, and a *poor* fiction at that..

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@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

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@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

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>> > For your reference, records indicate that
>> > ji...@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!
>>
>> There have been lots of flying cars made since the 1930's that worked.
>>
>> Here's one from 1949 that almost made it into production:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar
>>
>> Note especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar#N102D
>

> You, too, support my point. Clearly it didntwork if it didn’

> even make it into production, was not bought in quantity, and did not
> regularly function as *both* a ground and air commuter vehicle.

Working and commercial success are two entirely different things.

You really need to go buy a dictionary and learn the real meaning of
the words you use.

> Thats why I made the point of keeping the structure of such a

> vehicle airworthy. It may not be a huge deal if your car gets a door
> dinged in a parking lot by another car or grocery cart. Or hail

> damage or whatever else we dont think twice about subjecting cars to
> because we dont have to think about them falling out of the sky.

> Not so with the ill-conceived flying car, which is why they remain a
> fiction, and a *poor* fiction at that..

Flying cars have not been a fiction since the first one flew many decades
ago.

Again, you really need to go buy a dictionary and learn the real meaning of
the words you use.

Buying a flying car to go to the local store would be silly on many
levels.

Aircraft have always been subject to hail damage.



--
Jim Pennino

[Fred J. McCall]

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

>For your reference, records indicate that
>Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Just the opposite! If I can only fly between airports, why not just call

>> >it an airplane? What actual problem does a ?flying car? otherwise solve

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

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

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

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

[Fred J. McCall]

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

>For your reference, records indicate that
>Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@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

[Fred J. McCall]

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

>For your reference, records indicate that
>ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>> > For your reference, records indicate that
>> > ji...@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!
>>
>> There have been lots of flying cars made since the 1930's that worked.
>>
>> Here's one from 1949 that almost made it into production:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar
>>
>> Note especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar#N102D
>
>You, too, support my point. Clearly it didn’t “work” if it didn’t
>even make it into production, was not bought in quantity, and did not
>regularly function as *both* a ground and air commuter vehicle.
>
>That’s why I made the point of keeping the structure of such a
>vehicle airworthy. It may not be a huge deal if your car gets a door
>dinged in a parking lot by another car or grocery cart. Or hail
>damage or whatever else we don’t think twice about subjecting cars to
>because we don’t have to think about them falling out of the sky.
>Not so with the ill-conceived flying car, which is why they remain a
>fiction, and a *poor* fiction at that..
>

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.


--
"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

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Just the opposite! If I can only fly between airports, why not just call

>> >it an airplane? What actual problem does a ?flying car? otherwise solve

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

Preflighting my airplane takes about 5 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

--
Jim Pennino

[Thomas Koenig]

Robert Clark <rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> schrieb:

> From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production
> of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials.

I've been involved in CNT application development a little bit myself.

Let's just say it is _very_ difficult to get from theoretical properties
to practical performance.

[Doc O'Leary]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

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

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

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

Is that so complicated?

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

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

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

Get a dictionary.

Mythical does not mean the same thing as impractial.

Your personal experiences are irrelevant.

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

In your opinion.

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

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

In your opinion.

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

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

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

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


--
Jim Pennino

[Doc O'Leary]

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

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

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

> So why not a single device?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> Preflighting my airplane takes about 5 minutes.

You didn’t drive your airplane around town for days/weeks/months,
though. And what do you do if you find your car has taken some
damage that made it unable/dangerous to fly? A realistic world
building exercise isn’t going to yield useful results if you can’t
think past how you do things currently.

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

Sure, sure. The busywork is all ideally computerized. But the point
is that such a setup isn’t some sort of imagined “I just drive right
to the airport runway and off I go.” We’re a long way from anything
*near* even that kind of SF fantasy.

> There are a lot of people who do not own a car; so what?
>
> There are lots of people who do not own a motorcycle; so what?
>
> There are lots of people who do not own an airplane; so what?

Those are all the opposite of the ownership issue being discussed.
Your motives are now clear. I’m done with you.

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that
Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@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.

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that

Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@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.

[Fred J. McCall]

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

>For your reference, records indicate that
>Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@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.
>

Thank you for continuing to be a raving dipshit. You've convinced me
you aren't worth wasting time on.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

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

> For your reference, records indicate that
> Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@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.

Perhaps for someone with a very limited world view.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@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

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

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

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

Try getting an Uber ride in Gthenburg, NE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You continue to demonstrate you know absolutely nothing about aviation.

>
>> >A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense. I?m
>> >not asking about that segment of the population. I?m asking about

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

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

http://www.flyskyrunner.com/


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

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

> For your reference, records indicate that
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> Preflighting my airplane takes about 5 minutes.
>
> You didn’t drive your airplane around town for days/weeks/months,
> though. And what do you do if you find your car has taken some
> damage that made it unable/dangerous to fly? A realistic world
> building exercise isn’t going to yield useful results if you can’t
> think past how you do things currently.

A preflight is a preflight.

If the machine is damaged you call your insurance agent.

>
>> There is no FAA paperwork unless you file a flight plan, and then that
>> is automated.
>
> Sure, sure. The busywork is all ideally computerized. But the point
> is that such a setup isn’t some sort of imagined “I just drive right
> to the airport runway and off I go.” We’re a long way from anything
> *near* even that kind of SF fantasy.

Only in your blindered view of the world.

The ability to drive to the airport runway and off you go has been
around for nearly a century now, whether you want to accept the reality
or not.

FYI, most personal flights do not require paperwork of any kind.

>
>> There are a lot of people who do not own a car; so what?
>>
>> There are lots of people who do not own a motorcycle; so what?
>>
>> There are lots of people who do not own an airplane; so what?
>
> Those are all the opposite of the ownership issue being discussed.
> Your motives are now clear. I’m done with you.

Only in you narrow world view.

Just because something exists it does not mean everyone, or even a
significant fraction of everyone, will want it.

Your comment about motives is meaningless to me; I have no motives in
regard to flying cars, airplanes, cars, sailboats, bicycles,or any other
vehicle.


--
Jim Pennino

[Thomas Koenig]

Doc O'Leary <drol...@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.