I wonder if this little jewel will come to fruition.
B.E.
B.E.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
puffin 1
- Thread starter berkshire
- Start date
- Status
GregLocock
Automotive
Quite possibly the most ludicrous idea I have ever seen, with the possible exception of the Mollier.
Flat battery - you die
birdstrike - you die
transmission problem - you die
I don't know how much NASA put into this, bugger all at a rough guess, but I can see an easy cut to make in their budget.
Cheers
Greg Locock
I rarely exceed 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight
Flat battery - you die
birdstrike - you die
transmission problem - you die
I don't know how much NASA put into this, bugger all at a rough guess, but I can see an easy cut to make in their budget.
Cheers
Greg Locock
I rarely exceed 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight
-
1
- #3
Yeah.
Just to change the subject a bit, I remember when Scientific American used to be a really good magazine. I read those those issues from the 60s and 70s I wonder how such quality was delivered for such a low price. In the 80s, the new issue was always my first stop at the uni library. Things are different now. It's not there yet, but I guess that soon SciAm will be in a neck and neck race with Popular Science and Popular Mechanics to see who can publish the most ridiculous "National Enquirer" of the science & engineering world. I stopped reading it long ago.
RIP... especially Amature Scientist.
Just my 2¢ opinion.
Just to change the subject a bit, I remember when Scientific American used to be a really good magazine. I read those those issues from the 60s and 70s I wonder how such quality was delivered for such a low price. In the 80s, the new issue was always my first stop at the uni library. Things are different now. It's not there yet, but I guess that soon SciAm will be in a neck and neck race with Popular Science and Popular Mechanics to see who can publish the most ridiculous "National Enquirer" of the science & engineering world. I stopped reading it long ago.
RIP... especially Amature Scientist.
Just my 2¢ opinion.
btrueblood
Mechanical
Sigh. I agree, FastMouse.
This has been tried before.
The Convair XFY was abandoned partiallty because it was hard to land. They never tried a vertical takeoff with the Lockheed XFV.
There was an Australian TV program on weird aircraft that covered stuff like this. My favourite was the inflatable airplane that the US army played with back in the fifties.
JHG
The Convair XFY was abandoned partiallty because it was hard to land. They never tried a vertical takeoff with the Lockheed XFV.
There was an Australian TV program on weird aircraft that covered stuff like this. My favourite was the inflatable airplane that the US army played with back in the fifties.
to me the biggest joke is this is being marketed as beng "green" ... how can any sort of plane, other than a hang glider (or other unpowered plane), be a "green" method of transportation for one person ? we all (well the vast majority) have our own green method of transportation, our legs; i might go so far as to include bicycles.
Hey, wait a second! Your legs are not so green, buddy.
They are fueled by chemicals obtained from organic byproducts using a process with more or less a 20% effectivity.
If your source of organic fuel is a vegetable, your legs are, in fact, green-consuming machines.
If your source of fuel is animal meat, they have to had built their own organic mass using a C fixing process that's even less effective.
Not to mention the organic fuel they have wasted themselves until you ate them.
If your animal meat came from a carnivore, it make thinks worse, as it repeats the inefficiency cycle one step more.
At some point in this chain, the organic mass should come from an herbivore -> green consumer.
So, both ways, either you destroy green things or you destroy even more green things via inefficiency.
Obviously I'm just joking, but what if you were one of those ecologists and you just read this?
No brainer: Walk with hands. Chop as many legs as you can.
They are fueled by chemicals obtained from organic byproducts using a process with more or less a 20% effectivity.
If your source of organic fuel is a vegetable, your legs are, in fact, green-consuming machines.
If your source of fuel is animal meat, they have to had built their own organic mass using a C fixing process that's even less effective.
Not to mention the organic fuel they have wasted themselves until you ate them.
If your animal meat came from a carnivore, it make thinks worse, as it repeats the inefficiency cycle one step more.
At some point in this chain, the organic mass should come from an herbivore -> green consumer.
So, both ways, either you destroy green things or you destroy even more green things via inefficiency.
Obviously I'm just joking, but what if you were one of those ecologists and you just read this?
No brainer: Walk with hands. Chop as many legs as you can.
ornerynorsk
Industrial
VTOL's are, and always have been, going nowhere. No pun intended. Helicopters and Harriers have their place, don't get me wrong, but until we figure out how to reverse polarity (localized, of course!) on gravity, the energy consumption is just too high. To call that thing green is laughable. You'd be better off with blimps and ballast bags.
- Status