From: Spike Jones (spike66@ibm.net)
Date: Sat Aug 21 1999 - 18:01:39 MDT
> > hal@finney.org writes: ...But jetpacks only last 30 seconds. ...
>
> Robert J. Bradbury wrote: I'm not sure that I buy this. As I recall, the
> fuel in a JetPack was fairly low energy (perhaps ammonia based???)...
I did some calculations on air cars after reading Engines of Creation
several years ago. Suppose nanotech gives us materials that have
enormous strength. What then could be done?
As it turns out, the sci-fi version of aircars with four horizontal
rotors is pretty hopeless even assuming superstrong and light
materials. It takes enormous amounts of energy to spin small
diameter rotors fast enough to create even moderate lift, even if
one is given freedom from normal strength of materials
considerations.
In fact, we already have air cars in a sense: helicopters. Of course
these are inconvenient, since their rotor diameter is so large,
but it helps illustrate the fact that as rotor diameter decreases,
it takes relatively more energy to maintain hover. The human
powered helicopter has an enormous rotor.
The amount of wind and noise involved in lifting an aircar is
considerable. Our example in nature would be tornadoes,
which sometimes lift cars. Of course a highly directed
rotor would be far more efficient than a tornado, however
one is still likely to wreck ones neighbor's flower bed on
takeoff, and their cat may *never* be seen again. {8^D
There is a version of fighter jet now in the engineering development
stage which achieves vertical takeoff and landing via a horizontal
rotor in each wing. kewwwalllll. {8^D I seriously doubt we
ordinary proles will have anything like that until nanotech
changes everything. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:50 MST