|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
William Mook wrote:
On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 1:56:01 AM UTC-8, Fred J. McCall wrote: Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: Aircraft engines don't lift anything. Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the engines and airplanes don't go up. Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial airliners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight...record#Gliders Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something with an engine. http://epicholidays.com.au/activity_...ing-simulator/ http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...s-defy-gravity An unpowered craft with appropriate ground based blowers and controls can easily be envisioned by any competent engineer. Which part of "not an airplane" and "the blower is a motor" is it that you can't wrap your head around? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
Alain Fournier wrote:
On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote: Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote: Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote: Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: Aircraft engines don't lift anything. Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the engines and airplanes don't go up. Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial airliners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight...record#Gliders Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something with an engine. Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes: Nope. No engine means they aren't an airplane. An airplane is a fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle. That might be /your/ definition, Yeah, because I own a dictionary. You should try buying one. I don't understand that. What are you trying to say. That you don't understand. Perhaps if you used words in standard ways with standard definitions. ... but it is only valid in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to converse with other people, it helps to use words in a standard way. The first google result gives: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane airplane noun 1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion, etc. There you go. If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary definitions. A definition is a definition. You are struggling in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why! All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are. If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it? As usual, you don't understand me. Using secondary 'niche' definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not 'impressive' at all. Use the main definition. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
On 16/11/16 04:42, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote: Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote: Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote: Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: Aircraft engines don't lift anything. Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the engines and airplanes don't go up. Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial airliners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight...record#Gliders Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something with an engine. Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes: Nope. No engine means they aren't an airplane. An airplane is a fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle. That might be /your/ definition, Yeah, because I own a dictionary. You should try buying one. I don't understand that. What are you trying to say. That you don't understand. Perhaps if you used words in standard ways with standard definitions. ... but it is only valid in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to converse with other people, it helps to use words in a standard way. The first google result gives: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane airplane noun 1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion, etc. There you go. If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary definitions. A definition is a definition. You are struggling in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why! All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are. If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it? As usual, you don't understand me. Using secondary 'niche' definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not 'impressive' at all. Use the main definition. So "circuit" should only be used to mean "an act or instance of going or moving around." "Circuit" should never be used to mean "the complete path of an electric current, including the generating apparatus, intervening resistors, or capacitors." because that's only the *9th* definition. When you are in a hole, stop digging http://www.dictionary.com/browse/circuit |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
Tom Gardner wrote:
On 16/11/16 04:42, Fred J. McCall wrote: Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote: Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote: Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote: Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: Aircraft engines don't lift anything. Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the engines and airplanes don't go up. Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial airliners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight...record#Gliders Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something with an engine. Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes: Nope. No engine means they aren't an airplane. An airplane is a fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle. That might be /your/ definition, Yeah, because I own a dictionary. You should try buying one. I don't understand that. What are you trying to say. That you don't understand. Perhaps if you used words in standard ways with standard definitions. ... but it is only valid in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to converse with other people, it helps to use words in a standard way. The first google result gives: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane airplane noun 1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion, etc. There you go. If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary definitions. A definition is a definition. You are struggling in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why! All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are. If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it? As usual, you don't understand me. Using secondary 'niche' definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not 'impressive' at all. Use the main definition. So "circuit" should only be used to mean "an act or instance of going or moving around." "Circuit" should never be used to mean "the complete path of an electric current, including the generating apparatus, intervening resistors, or capacitors." because that's only the *9th* definition. I see you don't know the difference between a secondary definition and a different definition. I'm unsurprised at this. When you are in a hole, stop digging Great advice. You should put down your shovel and take it. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:05:20 +0000, Tom Gardner
wrote: On 16/11/16 04:42, Fred J. McCall wrote: Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote: Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote: Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote: Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: Aircraft engines don't lift anything. Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the engines and airplanes don't go up. Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial airliners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight...record#Gliders Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something with an engine. Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes: Nope. No engine means they aren't an airplane. An airplane is a fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle. That might be /your/ definition, Yeah, because I own a dictionary. You should try buying one. I don't understand that. What are you trying to say. That you don't understand. Perhaps if you used words in standard ways with standard definitions. ... but it is only valid in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to converse with other people, it helps to use words in a standard way. The first google result gives: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane airplane noun 1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion, etc. There you go. If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary definitions. A definition is a definition. You are struggling in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why! All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are. If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it? As usual, you don't understand me. Using secondary 'niche' definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not 'impressive' at all. Use the main definition. So "circuit" should only be used to mean "an act or instance of going or moving around." "Circuit" should never be used to mean "the complete path of an electric current, including the generating apparatus, intervening resistors, or capacitors." because that's only the *9th* definition. When you are in a hole, stop digging http://www.dictionary.com/browse/circuit Or, heaven forbid, a schematic (even without all the return current paths drawn). |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:33:16 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote: On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 1:56:01 AM UTC-8, Fred J. McCall wrote: Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: Aircraft engines don't lift anything. Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the engines and airplanes don't go up. Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial airliners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight...record#Gliders Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something with an engine. http://epicholidays.com.au/activity_...ing-simulator/ http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...s-defy-gravity An unpowered craft with appropriate ground based blowers and controls can easily be envisioned by any competent engineer. Which part of "not an airplane" and "the blower is a motor" is it that you can't wrap your head around? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn What part of this isn't an airplane don't you understand? http://skyventurenh.com/attractions/#skydiving An unpowered vehicle lifted by blowers is not an airplane. Similarly tow lines and tow airplanes - does not make a glider an airplane - even if an engine is involved with the winch, tow plane etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIsd2vxokyc Action starts at 2:00 This is a ground effect train - that could easily be powered the same way an air hockey puck is powered. http://phys.org/news/2011-05-ground-...es-ground.html http://www.toysrus.com/buy/air-hocke...270bl-67786486 |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
William Mook wrote:
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:33:16 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote: William Mook wrote: On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 1:56:01 AM UTC-8, Fred J. McCall wrote: Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: Aircraft engines don't lift anything. Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the engines and airplanes don't go up. Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial airliners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight...record#Gliders Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something with an engine. http://epicholidays.com.au/activity_...ing-simulator/ http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...s-defy-gravity An unpowered craft with appropriate ground based blowers and controls can easily be envisioned by any competent engineer. Which part of "not an airplane" and "the blower is a motor" is it that you can't wrap your head around? What part of this isn't an airplane don't you understand? Uh, that's what I asked you, dimbulb. -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
Airbus E-fan electric aircraft
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP4iSJNlCCc http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/co...aircraft.html# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_E-Fan 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 Now, take off is 60 kW and cruising power is 29 kW. This is 29 kWh per 99 miles. 0.293 kWh per mile. That's 1.055 megajoules per mile. At 131.76 megajoules/US gallon this equates to 125.0 miles per gallon equivalent! The Tesla S has a range of 285 miles on an 85 kWh charge. That's 1.074 megajoules per mile or 122.7 miles per gallon equivalent. Interestingly, the surface area of the wings on the E-fan total about 10 square meters. http://www.aps.org/meetings/multimed...tion_Kurtz.pdf https://www.quora.com/Can-solar-pane...ency-If-so-how These can collect between 16 kWh and 28 kWh on a typical day on the surface.. This rises to 20 kWh to 29 kWh on a typical day at altitude. So, this plane could conceivably - with the right kind of solar panel built into its wings - could fly one hour per day - recharged from the environment. A small runway is 2000 m x 50 m typically. Covered with solar panels, operating at 40% to 75% efficiency, charging batteries under the runway - could support the recharging of between 5,517 to 10,344 aircraft per day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQba3ENhlKA Now, with phased array microwaves emitted from the surface to aircraft visible from the solar airfield, and rectenna built into the wings of the aircraft, aircraft need not land in order to be recharged in flight! One solar electric airfield every 100 miles means that 6495 square miles of land is served by each. That's 480 airfields across the continental USAs 3,119,884.60 square miles. The conversion of less than 10% of the more than 5000 public airfields in the USA to this technology allows between 193.4 billion seat miles and 362.7 billion seat miles per year to be supported. That's between 2 & 3 trips per person per day for everyone in the USA. Now, VTOL electric aircraft are available today, that pick up people and drop them off, using advanced drone technology; http://www.ehang.com/ehang184 AI is being developed to replace pilots - providing Siri-like verbal responses to radio traffic and control http://aviationweek.com/flight-deck/...trust-autonomy Combined with Uber style apps that allow the dispatch of passenger drones on demand; http://www.bloomberg.com/news/featur...month-is06r7on Now, flight on demand will likely cause us to spend 20 minutes on average in 3 trips per day - with 1.5 passengers per vehicle on average - that's 40 minutes per person per day. With repositioning to next passenger empty - that's 45 minutes per person per day. That's 10,000,000 vehicles. With a 85% service rate (and 15% down time for maintenance) we have 11,765,000 vehicles to provide on demand flight service for the Continental USA. This replaces 253.7 million motorcars! The number of airfields converted to solar airfields of the style described above, would have to be increased to around 1,000 - or 20% of the public airfields operating presently in the USA. An electric tail sitter that folded its wings and put down precisely where needed VTOL fashion, and then flew to altitude and cruised to a destination at high speed (100 mph on average) - would radically increase the range people travelled. There is no reason we are limited to the 99 mph speed of first generation electrics either! A $300,000 vehicle (including solar panel airfield) with a $12,000 per year service cost, and a $58,600 per year capital cost (7 years at 8.5% discount) - a total of $70,600 per year. With 11,688 passengers served per year, this is $6.04 per passenger. Another break-down is $0.158 per minute of flight time. That's 1/6th cent per mile at 99 mph. So, if we had $2.00 charge to order the vehicle, and the first 20 minutesis free, and then charge $0.20 for each added minute or fraction. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 4:22:22 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote: On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:33:16 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote: William Mook wrote: On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 1:56:01 AM UTC-8, Fred J. McCall wrote: Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: Aircraft engines don't lift anything. Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the engines and airplanes don't go up. Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial airliners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight...record#Gliders Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something with an engine. http://epicholidays.com.au/activity_...ing-simulator/ http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...s-defy-gravity An unpowered craft with appropriate ground based blowers and controls can easily be envisioned by any competent engineer. Which part of "not an airplane" and "the blower is a motor" is it that you can't wrap your head around? What part of this isn't an airplane don't you understand? Uh, that's what I asked you, dimbulb. -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine Only a narcissist like you would believe everything everyone says is in response to your internal monologue! lol. What makes you think I say *anything* in response to what you say, don't say, ask or don't ask? Sheez. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
William Mook wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 4:22:22 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote: William Mook wrote: On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:33:16 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote: William Mook wrote: On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 1:56:01 AM UTC-8, Fred J. McCall wrote: Tom Gardner wrote: On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: Aircraft engines don't lift anything. Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the engines and airplanes don't go up. Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial airliners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight...record#Gliders Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something with an engine. http://epicholidays.com.au/activity_...ing-simulator/ http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...s-defy-gravity An unpowered craft with appropriate ground based blowers and controls can easily be envisioned by any competent engineer. Which part of "not an airplane" and "the blower is a motor" is it that you can't wrap your head around? What part of this isn't an airplane don't you understand? Uh, that's what I asked you, dimbulb. Only a narcissist like you would believe everything everyone says is in response to your internal monologue! lol. 'Internal monologue'? Are you confused about what a public Usenet posting is again? lol. What makes you think I say *anything* in response to what you say, don't say, ask or don't ask? Sheez. Because you used the 'Reply To' button, quoted my words, and used the word 'you' in your reply. Mook, you've lived in English speaking countries your whole life. You cannot possibly be this inarticulate and illiterate. Sheez. -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New computer technology imminent. | Jeff Findley[_6_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | April 24th 15 03:33 PM |
Armageddon Imminent: Fundies Don't Get It (but they will) | Anonymous Remailer | Astronomy Misc | 8 | April 10th 08 07:14 PM |
Armageddon Imminent: Fundies Don't Get It (but they will) | Anonymous Remailer | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | April 10th 08 07:14 PM |
Lunar Eclipse Imminent! | Double-A[_1_] | Misc | 8 | September 12th 07 10:04 AM |
Is a local supernova imminent? | Imperishable Stars | Misc | 7 | October 6th 04 12:40 AM |