Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

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/n...ce/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wrote in message ...

In sci.physics 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.

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

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

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/n...ce/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

In sci.physics 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.

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.

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.

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

"Robert Clark" 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

In sci.physics Robert Clark 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.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/n...ce/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wrote in message ...

In sci.physics 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.

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

For your reference, records indicate that
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

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
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

Doc O'Leary wrote:

For your reference, records indicate that
wrote:

The sole reason that flying cars have never been a commercial success
is economics

No, it’s simply because they’re a stupid outdated SF concept birthed
from a car-crazed society. Once you have a vehicle that can fly between
locations, it makes zero sense to also make it suitable for driving on
roads. Who in their right mind is going to *drive* anywhere they could
just fly to? Who is going trust that a roadworthy vehicle after miles
of driving is going to remain airworthy?

Eliminate the “economics” problems and flying cars still make no sense.
Imagine a world where everyone is Superman. Superman does not drive to
the rescue. Only motorheads ever thought flying cars were a good idea.


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


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

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
Doc O'Leary wrote:

For your reference, records indicate that
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 wrote:

Doc O'Leary wrote:

For your reference, records indicate that
wrote:

The sole reason that flying cars have never been a commercial success
is economics

No, it’s simply because they’re a stupid outdated SF concept birthed
from a car-crazed society. Once you have a vehicle that can fly between
locations, it makes zero sense to also make it suitable for driving on
roads. Who in their right mind is going to *drive* anywhere they could
just fly to? Who is going trust that a roadworthy vehicle after miles
of driving is going to remain airworthy?

Eliminate the “economics” problems and flying cars still make no sense.
Imagine a world where everyone is Superman. Superman does not drive to
the rescue. Only motorheads ever thought flying cars were a good idea.


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


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


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

For your reference, records indicate that
Fred J. McCall wrote:

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

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

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

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

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