Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Roads? Where were going we don't need... roads...
The problem with flying cars as they are being designed right now is that they are using the airplane model as a starting point. The problems my friend Cheese suggested, with fuel and accidents, are really the same issue: Safety. Flying cars intend to merge the world of aviation with automobiles, and quite frankly, I wouldn't trust the average driver to fly a kite, much less a car.
The reason most people don’t have personal airplanes or helicopters but do have automobiles is simple: Most aviation accidents are fatal. Most car accidents are not. Fatal car accidents generally only affect people on or by the road. Fatal plane crashes can cause devastation anywhere. In addition, September 11 showed us just how deadly airplanes could be in the wrong hands.
The problem is how planes get off the ground. As air moves across the wing of the plane, the airflow creates lift, which essentially uses the air to push the plane off the ground.
The first problem with this method of flight is, as my good friend Cheese suggested, one of fuel. Pushing a large, metal vehicle into the air requires a lot of energy, even if it is only the size of a car. When that energy is produced by burning a flammable fuel, then you only increase the danger of something going horribly, horribly wrong.
The second problem is the fact that the wing of the aircraft, whether the fixed wing of a plane or the rotors of a helicopter, has to be moving through the air in order to work. If my car breaks down, for example, I can pull over to the side of the road and call a tow truck. If I'm flying at 10,000 feet however, that's not really an option. You generally would plummet to your death.
The third issue is that of accidents. Airplanes today are piloted by highly trained, licensed professionals, many of which received their training as pilots for the military. Cars, on the other hand, are controlled largely by morons. All you have to do to drive a car is pass a test when you are 16.
So, what we need is a different form of creating lift that is safe from mechanical error and human error and does not require burning anything to power. This type of lift would need to work whether the vehicle was at rest or moving. If the vehicle suffered some sort of mechanical failure, even if everything breaks, the vehicle would not come crashing to the ground. It would either stay put or slowly descend to the ground.
So, how do you do it? In theory, a lighter-than-air vehicle like a blimp or zeppelin could work. If there was a catastrophic mechanical failure, a blimp would just float there. Since they stopped using hydrogen in blimps, you aren’t in danger of creating another Hindenburg. The problem is that airships like this are huge. Imagine trying to navigate even a personal sized blimp through the narrow streets of Manhattan.
There are other theories as well, but most of them are in the realm of pseudoscience. Electro-gravitic propulsion, for example, involves electrifying certain materials, which causes them somehow to become lighter. This is a popular theory amongst UFOlogists, but is largely dismissed by the mainstream scientific community. The trouble is that no one is quite sure what these materials are and what is meant by “electrifying” them.
Frankly, I’d like the scientific community to get off their freakin’ high horse. Sure, they might be crackpot theories. They might not have any basis in fact. They might defy the laws of the universe. But that’s the laws of the universe as we currently understand them. The laws of the universe used to say that the Earth was the center of the universe until Copernicus came along. For over 300 years, Newton’s Laws of Gravity were the end all and be all of gravitation until Einstein came along and said “Hang on a minute, there’s more to it than all of that.”
Faster than light travel is impossible? Prove it. Just because Einstein said so doesn’t make him right. If Einstein didn’t look at physics in radically new ways, we wouldn’t have the theory of relativity. Time travel won’t work? Bullshit. I’m traveling through time right now. If you can go one way, I say you can go the other.
What the hell ever happened to cold fusion? Sure, the Fleischmann and Pons experiment didn’t work, but so what? Just because it doesn’t work, doesn’t mean you ought to quit. Edison went through dozens of designs for the light bulb before he found the right filament. How many rockets did NASA blow up before they got it right?
There are a few people still looking into it. What I want to know is why the hell isn’t cold fusion the #1 priority of scientists exploring new forms of energy production? All this talk about reducing dependence on fossil fuels and finding renewable energy, yet we have a possible source of cheap energy, with very little waste, that uses the universe’s most abundant element, without burning a damn thing, and hardly anyone is looking into it.
Some say cold fusion is a myth. If it was all bullshit, then why are they still researching it? The problem isn’t that they aren’t researching it. The problem is they aren’t doing it enough.
If an idea is farfetched, if a theory is crackpot at best, then don’t simply shrug it off as bullshit, especially if the potential benefits are vast. Prove it wrong, damn it. Show us why it won’t work.
The reason most people don’t have personal airplanes or helicopters but do have automobiles is simple: Most aviation accidents are fatal. Most car accidents are not. Fatal car accidents generally only affect people on or by the road. Fatal plane crashes can cause devastation anywhere. In addition, September 11 showed us just how deadly airplanes could be in the wrong hands.
The problem is how planes get off the ground. As air moves across the wing of the plane, the airflow creates lift, which essentially uses the air to push the plane off the ground.
The first problem with this method of flight is, as my good friend Cheese suggested, one of fuel. Pushing a large, metal vehicle into the air requires a lot of energy, even if it is only the size of a car. When that energy is produced by burning a flammable fuel, then you only increase the danger of something going horribly, horribly wrong.
The second problem is the fact that the wing of the aircraft, whether the fixed wing of a plane or the rotors of a helicopter, has to be moving through the air in order to work. If my car breaks down, for example, I can pull over to the side of the road and call a tow truck. If I'm flying at 10,000 feet however, that's not really an option. You generally would plummet to your death.
The third issue is that of accidents. Airplanes today are piloted by highly trained, licensed professionals, many of which received their training as pilots for the military. Cars, on the other hand, are controlled largely by morons. All you have to do to drive a car is pass a test when you are 16.
So, what we need is a different form of creating lift that is safe from mechanical error and human error and does not require burning anything to power. This type of lift would need to work whether the vehicle was at rest or moving. If the vehicle suffered some sort of mechanical failure, even if everything breaks, the vehicle would not come crashing to the ground. It would either stay put or slowly descend to the ground.
So, how do you do it? In theory, a lighter-than-air vehicle like a blimp or zeppelin could work. If there was a catastrophic mechanical failure, a blimp would just float there. Since they stopped using hydrogen in blimps, you aren’t in danger of creating another Hindenburg. The problem is that airships like this are huge. Imagine trying to navigate even a personal sized blimp through the narrow streets of Manhattan.
There are other theories as well, but most of them are in the realm of pseudoscience. Electro-gravitic propulsion, for example, involves electrifying certain materials, which causes them somehow to become lighter. This is a popular theory amongst UFOlogists, but is largely dismissed by the mainstream scientific community. The trouble is that no one is quite sure what these materials are and what is meant by “electrifying” them.
Frankly, I’d like the scientific community to get off their freakin’ high horse. Sure, they might be crackpot theories. They might not have any basis in fact. They might defy the laws of the universe. But that’s the laws of the universe as we currently understand them. The laws of the universe used to say that the Earth was the center of the universe until Copernicus came along. For over 300 years, Newton’s Laws of Gravity were the end all and be all of gravitation until Einstein came along and said “Hang on a minute, there’s more to it than all of that.”
Faster than light travel is impossible? Prove it. Just because Einstein said so doesn’t make him right. If Einstein didn’t look at physics in radically new ways, we wouldn’t have the theory of relativity. Time travel won’t work? Bullshit. I’m traveling through time right now. If you can go one way, I say you can go the other.
What the hell ever happened to cold fusion? Sure, the Fleischmann and Pons experiment didn’t work, but so what? Just because it doesn’t work, doesn’t mean you ought to quit. Edison went through dozens of designs for the light bulb before he found the right filament. How many rockets did NASA blow up before they got it right?
There are a few people still looking into it. What I want to know is why the hell isn’t cold fusion the #1 priority of scientists exploring new forms of energy production? All this talk about reducing dependence on fossil fuels and finding renewable energy, yet we have a possible source of cheap energy, with very little waste, that uses the universe’s most abundant element, without burning a damn thing, and hardly anyone is looking into it.
Some say cold fusion is a myth. If it was all bullshit, then why are they still researching it? The problem isn’t that they aren’t researching it. The problem is they aren’t doing it enough.
If an idea is farfetched, if a theory is crackpot at best, then don’t simply shrug it off as bullshit, especially if the potential benefits are vast. Prove it wrong, damn it. Show us why it won’t work.
Comments:
<< Home
Yeah, and making Cold Fusion work wouldn't make you a dime. Right. You'd corner the world energy market and probably end up the richest man on Earth.
You build a method of flight in the manner I suggest and you'll revolutionize transportation. Hell, you'll revolutionize how everything is done.
Imagine it, hopping in the family RV to take a trip to Japan. People living on the 30th floor can have their own parking spot. Moving goods would be a piece of cake.
You'd also save the airline industry. The airlines are failing for several key reasons:
1) There's way too much overhead. The cost of security is enormous. The cost of maintenance and upkeep is enormous. And you can't cut corners because the consequences could be disastrous.
2) The cost of fuel is enormous. The amount of juice it takes to put a 747 in the air and keep it there is ridiculous.
3) There is way too much regulation. Current regulations are, of course, necessary. If you don't do it that way, again the consequences could be disastrous.
But, if you give me a cold fusion powered anti-gravity car that won't plummet to the Earth in the case of a catastrophic mechanical failure, then who needs the FAA? Hijacking a plane would be like hijacking a bus. Big deal.
Post a Comment
You build a method of flight in the manner I suggest and you'll revolutionize transportation. Hell, you'll revolutionize how everything is done.
Imagine it, hopping in the family RV to take a trip to Japan. People living on the 30th floor can have their own parking spot. Moving goods would be a piece of cake.
You'd also save the airline industry. The airlines are failing for several key reasons:
1) There's way too much overhead. The cost of security is enormous. The cost of maintenance and upkeep is enormous. And you can't cut corners because the consequences could be disastrous.
2) The cost of fuel is enormous. The amount of juice it takes to put a 747 in the air and keep it there is ridiculous.
3) There is way too much regulation. Current regulations are, of course, necessary. If you don't do it that way, again the consequences could be disastrous.
But, if you give me a cold fusion powered anti-gravity car that won't plummet to the Earth in the case of a catastrophic mechanical failure, then who needs the FAA? Hijacking a plane would be like hijacking a bus. Big deal.
<< Home
