Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 1:53:49 PM UTC+12, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:38:54 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
wrote:

Because in the real world, *nobody* is driving a flying car!

There's a flying car parked in my back yard right now. It's seventy
years old.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

1946?

Then is must be a Convair Aerocar!?

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

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

For your reference, records indicate that
wrote:

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:

Depends on the problem youre looking to solve. If it is to keep a
vehicle in constant service, Id say youd fly it right back out to its
next destination.

That is called an airline.

Only because that’s the known business model that works with the old
technology. Likewise, I’ve made the point that a “self-driving car�
has existed for centuries; it is called a train. Again, all I’m
asking for is for the SF world to be fleshed out where it makes sense
to have *your* kind of flying car.

Same way it doesnt make much sense to leave a
self-driving car sitting in a parking lot doing nothing.

Assuming the self-driving car is owned by Uber and not an individual.

Assuming nothing but a realistic universe. Yes, I would agree that
self-driving cars prompt a whole *slew* of changes that might lead to
changing norms of car ownership. Same goes for the mythical flying
car, too, so I’m just looking for the proponents to do the leg work
that shows they make sense in any sort of realistic universe.
Because, from where I’m sitting, they’re just another dumb idea that
nobody really bothers to think through.

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

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

Doc O'Leary 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?

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

For your reference, records indicate that
Fred J. McCall 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/Roadab...dable_aircraft

Hahahahaha! No, I’m “asserting� that you apparently don’t know how
to read the “Status� column in the list you have, with entries
ranging from “Concept� to “Crashed�. None are “Click to buy one� or
“1% of pilots regularly use it�.

Pointing to experimental aircraft is like pointing to cold fusion.
They are a *fiction* in the real world. Your case is not made when
you’re deliberately being intellectually dishonest like this.

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

For your reference, records indicate that
wrote:

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

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

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary 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

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

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary 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

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

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

Doc O'Leary wrote:

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

Doc O'Leary 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.


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

Doc O'Leary wrote:

For your reference, records indicate that
Fred J. McCall 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/Roadab...dable_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