Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

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 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

In sci.physics 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.?

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

An electric drone based on a cross between ehang 184 and Airbus Efan

1) consumes far less energy than automobiles
2) moves people far more quickly than automobiles
3)is vastly safer than automobiles
4) requires about one tenth the number of vehicles and
5) none of the roadways
6) while providing greater range and
7) speed
8) requiring no training to use.

Calling a flying cab and having it arrive in seconds then having it take you directly to your destination for pennies and leaving without any further attention is so obviously superior to what we have now there's no argument.

People generally view areas they reach in 20 minutes as local.

Moving at 30 mph gives you a range of 10 miles and immediate access to 314 square miles and allows you to interact and coordinate with 157,000 people in most places.

Moving at 300 mph increases range by 10x and area by 100x. Allowing 15.7 million to interact as locals.

Frank Lloyd Wright wrote about this in the 1940s and led to many articles about helicopters in every garage.

Technology has caught up with that vision.

Robert Clark 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.

For your reference, records indicate that
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?

--
"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:

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

For your reference, records indicate that
Fred J. McCall 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. IÂ’m
not asking about that segment of the population. IÂ’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.

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

For your reference, records indicate that
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.

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

For your reference, records indicate that
Fred J. McCall 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
youÂ’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.

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

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

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