The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Is 10 days in Turkey a thing now? > Comments

Is 10 days in Turkey a thing now? : Comments

By Lesley Waker, published 5/6/2015

So why are we all flying so much when most of us are concerned about the effects of climate change?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
A really good article, thanks. One of my personal heroes is the late author Iain Banks. Iain left us a couple of years ago, far too young, following a very successful career, which gave him a lot of scope to explore his penchant for doing exciting things, including amassing a decent collection of fast cars and flying.

He gave them up after coming to realise how selfish his activities were, not in terms of spending, but in terms of the environmental degradation and profligate use of resources they represented.

The day will come when the petroleum-powered jet aircraft is reserved for military and high-priority purposes and the rest of us will travel more slowly on electrically powered devices, probably including some forms of buoyancy-assisted aircraft that include lighter-than air components.

Until then, it would be nice to think that Iain Banks might provide a good example of how to think about moderating the "lizard brain's" drive for satiation.
Posted by Craig Minns, Friday, 5 June 2015 9:18:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am surprised that a science teacher does not have enough math, or is too lazy to use their math, to be able to see through the global warming scam.

Today there is so much evidence to show what a concocted bit of garbage it is, & absolutely none to support the scam, that has not had huge holes shot through it. It is a bit like much of the stuff pushed through "HEALTH" food stores.

Please set your heart at rest, you are more likely to freeze in any future climate change than cook. Lets hope we find lots more oil & coal to keep[ the place warm.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 5 June 2015 10:54:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We can now grow jet fuel as oil rich algae!

And extracting the, ready to use as is, jet fuel, is child's play only requires that some of the filtrate be sun dried then crushed to extract as much as 60% oil!

The waste eminently suitable for an equally sustainable ethanol industry that requires no food or arable land or energy input be added! With the waste from that being high carbon soil improver?

And given this naturally occurring fuel is endlessly sustainable, can be grown hydroponically almost anywhere; and in sea or recycled water; and costing a lot less than the current price of jet fuel!

Then changing over to that as the entirely independent supply will enable us to fly as far and as frequently as we like, with out creating so much as a carbon toe print!

And think, an industry that only uses 1-2% of the water of traditional irrigation and is more than happy with endlessly recycled water; will not only save the Murray/Darling basin, but fabulously enrich all who depend on it!

The only thing missing here is political wisdom/vision and leadership!

Were that not sadly so, the aforementioned industries would be well and truly up and running; and creating mucho plenty wealth for many/Australia!
Rhrosty
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 5 June 2015 12:14:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes George Monbiot wrote a book which deals with this topic, and much more too.
http://www.monbiot.com/books/heat
Posted by Daffy Duck, Friday, 5 June 2015 12:17:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem is much simpler. "Progressives" are not necessarily interested in the effects of climate change. What they are more interested in is the moral superiority that comes with adopting the position of climate change. It's the same with racial, gender, asylum seeker, and class issues. It's not that they actually care for coloured people, women, or asylum seekers; what they care about is the supposed moral superiority that comes with taking their side on any issue.
Posted by Aristocrat, Friday, 5 June 2015 5:59:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Aristocrat, I suppose we should be disgusted by their supercilious attitude, but they don't raise enough of my interest to bother.

I just feel mildly irked that they somehow manage to waste so much taxpayer money on their foolishness.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 5 June 2015 10:23:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
traveled in youth and now wants to deny others. Certainly the High Priests of the religion don,t have any conscience traveling the globe while collecting tax payer money.
Posted by runner, Friday, 5 June 2015 11:24:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's not cognitive dissonance, nor any of the silly things the other commenters allege. Rather it's that we place a high value on visiting places and people. Far from being low hanging fruit, air travel is right at the top of the tree — there's not much we can do to curtail it without significantly adversely affectiing our lifestyles (or business, which is responsible for a lot of econmy class demand). And without international agreement for action, curtailing your own flying is unlikely to have a significant impact anyway.

However there are plenty of low hanging fruit in aviation, and while people fly 14 times as much as they did 40 years ago, the aircraft are far more efficient so the amount of fuel consumed hasn't risen anywhere near that much. And it's still improving.
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 6 June 2015 12:59:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since the places people visit (and retire to) are generally warmer than the places they live, clearly the way to reduce holiday air travel is to encourage global warming. Then we can all have sun-drenched beach holidays at home.
Posted by Jon J, Saturday, 6 June 2015 7:01:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes J.J., well thought through! Remarkable insight! The whole world should bow to your incredible intellect grasp of the basics!

And a sun drenched India was in the news recently, with thousands dropping off like flies, having too much of a good thing!

Is that what you mean!?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Saturday, 6 June 2015 9:38:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no need to get over concerned about international air travel, A fully laden modern airliner achieves of fuel consumption per person which is much better than the average car. For example the A380 achieves the equivalent of 72 miles per gallon per person or bit over 3.27 litres per 100 ks (72 mpg-US) and the Boeing 737 MAX-8 achieves 2.04 litres per 100 ks (115 mpg-US). If you are concerned about the amount of CO2 generated you can offset the emissions with any of a number of green offset schemes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset#Purchase_of_carbon_allowances_from_emissions_trading_schemes

In my opinion the first step in reducing CO2 emissions is to generate electricity by eliminating the use of coal fired power stations. The second step is to improve efficiency wherever fossil fuels are used. The third step is the ramp up the use of renewable power sources.
Posted by warmair, Saturday, 6 June 2015 10:05:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whether jets use less fuel per passenger miles than cars is not the issue. Both cars and jets use fuels that would be better left in the ground for future generations. That is true no matter what your POV is in relation to AGW.

There is undoubtedly a need for high-speed, high-priority jet transport, but going on holidays isn't it.
Posted by Craig Minns, Saturday, 6 June 2015 11:04:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In an Ideal world all fossil fuel would be left in the ground, the problem that arises is if we are to only use fossil fuels for emergencies and essentials were do we draw the line?
My view is that we can and should over as short as time as practical eliminate the need for fossil fuels, but in the meantime it is not practical to enforce a list of acceptable uses. Instead of picking on one particular activity and demonize it, we should tackle the problem head on and that is how to provide pollution free transport. For an extreme example see the solar impulse 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse
http://www.solarimpulse.com/

Or for something slightly less extreme how about a solar powered boat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BBranor_PlanetSolar
Posted by warmair, Saturday, 6 June 2015 12:10:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People will only stop flying so much with price signals, i.e. expense, but not sure it is fair as wealthy will continue to travel.

A start would be in government and the tax code, i.e. discourage domestic and international travel for any state body, whether by declining travel approval, and/or changing the tax code which allows claiming as expense all travel and company cars.

The reason this is practical is because it's now possible to do much more via digital internationally whether that be communications, analysis and marketing, and if 'knowledge workers', or whatever administrative managers call themselves, wish to remain competent they must deal with digital disruption.

However, this will also require a quantum leap in public and private corporate outlook or DNA where the 'top people' view 'international travel' as perceived social status in Australia (in past only the 'top people' travelled), and an 'entitlement', even if unnecessary.

Recently the international education sector released a draft strategy which talks about increasing market diversity (away from Asia), but no mention of digital except for teaching MOOCS).

Meanwhile university/TAFE, our fonts of learning and wisdom, the automatic or only strategy and objective administrative personnel nominate is international travel plan approval (included as a task on job descriptions!!?), then look for activity to 'distribute marketing materials' offshore, while ignoring all year round digital.... (travel/events) minimum $500 million p.a.?

Ten or more years ago it was the only way i.e. using FIFO to events, international meetings, conferecnes etc. now a waste of time when all (especially students) are online, yet digital remains egregiously avoided.

Unfortunately, in the state sector and especially university/TAFE complaining about funding, this activity is unnecessray, incessant, incompetent and corrupt, and requires not just a change in mentality but also job descriptions, before they really do become 'digitally disrupted'....
Posted by Andras Smith, Saturday, 6 June 2015 6:57:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You forgot the mid-brain. This is the part responsible for bleating wanting to run with the herd; it's responsible for dominance/submission, and who's-in-with-the-in-crowd versus ostracism.

So we have the lizard brain wanting to go on holidays.

The sheep brain wanting to be trendy by bleating about how human consumerism is evil, and reposing open-ended credulity in higher authority.

Then there's the forebrain recognising that man-made CO2 levels have gone up and up and up while global temperatures have flat-lined; that nothing in the universe is sustainable; and prudently providing for the satisfaction of human wants despite the attacks of the moron/parasite class.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 7 June 2015 11:15:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By the way, these 9 million people going on overseas holidays and playing on the internet, are the same people bleating about how education is an intrinsically unaffordable thing and that's why we need government to indoctrinate all the children in the population under compulsion for 11 years.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 7 June 2015 11:32:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How many air routes could be replaced by rapid rail, say much faster magnetrons with a current top speed of around 900 Klms. P.H., connected to very fast ferries, where tunnels aren't the better cost effective option?

Really rapid rail could be powered by carbon free means, and the fast and largest ferries could be nuclear powered?

Currently the fastest ships are nuclear powered carriers, and the fastest subs able to outrun chasing destroyers are nuclear powered subs?

Subs are vastly underutilized as public transport, given they can reach speeds somewhere near a reported nuclear powered 50 knots, and with an armchair ride regardless of surface conditions; or even where volcanic eruption or weather conditions have rendered every other form of transport impossible!

And much safer from pirates in small boats than any other form of ocean going transport.

In fact, there's a good case to make the fast ferries completely submersible for all the aforementioned reasons.

And less at risk of being shot down whilst traversing hostile territory.

When a train is forced to stop, or shot at, it may be able to reverse to safer territory.

However, when a plane is forced to stop/looses motive power; the only remaining option is to fall like a stone until it reaches terminal velocity or the ground, whichever it reaches first!

In any event, carbon free video conferencing could replace most of the face to face meetings and the therefore able to avoid redundant air travel?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Sunday, 7 June 2015 11:54:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
J.K.J. Solar thermal activity has been in decline (waning phase) since the mid seventies; (NASA) therefore global temperatures should have been falling since then, if solar thermal activity, were the only cause of global warming? Rather than either increasing or flatlining!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Sunday, 7 June 2015 12:03:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhrosty, magnetrons are not a mode of transport.

If you mean maglevs, none has yet reached anywhere near 900km/h. It might be technically possible but due to the huge air resistance at ground level, they'd end up using far more energy than aviation. Fast ferries aren't particularly efficient, but submarines are extraordinarily inefficient. Not only do they need to push a lot of water out of the way, but there's little room for payload as most of their bulk is dedicated to bouyancy control equipment.

Planes are never "forced to stop" though they are sometimes forced to circle, turn back or divert. And they have wings and control surfaces, so if they lose power they don't "fall like a stone"; they glide and can be landed safely.

And if you want to use nuclear power for transport that can't be electrified, it's more sensible to use electrical power to synthesise fuel from air or seawater than to carry a nuclear reactor on board.
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 7 June 2015 1:46:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan, the magnetron is I understand, what the magnetic drive that propels maglevs are called. And given vastly reduced friction, use less energy than almost any other mode of transport. And moreover, are therefore not subject to bearing failures, that have derailed other fast trains!?

And for your information the Chinese have already built one, and years ago, capable of the quoted 900+ klicks! [Obviously you rely on extremely dated information for that and the nuclear option?]

And therefore a critical candidate for replacing much slower less safe air travel.

And if a plane loses motive power and say faces a mountain range, gliding is limited and soon overtaken by the stall factor, and then terminal velocity straight down!

Using nuclear to create hydrogen results in an 20% minimum loss of energy; lost in the conversion process; and that's where the most efficient means of using the hydrogen (fuel cells) are incorporated!

And anyway, nuclear options are far safer than they once were and likely far safer than any volatile fuel; and in the case of hydrogen needing vastly more storage space, and likely to cause huge flotation problems in subs unless stored as a subzero liquid!

Which then creates other new problems including the huge amount of energy just to compress it!

Yes water presents friction problems, always has! But then oceans also have huge rivers or currents that can be utilized to assist transport.

Indeed, there is a narrow waterway approaching the aforementioned Turkey, that has strong currents going both ways at different levels.

And subs will still be able to travel when conditions are just too hostile (including nuclear fallout) for any other form of transport! And if your life depended on getting in or out? And nuclear fuel only needs to be replaced around every 25 years? And what will current conventional fuels cost then?

And if the option to use rapid rail were the universally preferred option, then one would likely need to connect various land masses with tunnels or very fast roll on roll of ferries; many of which are already semi submersible!?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 8 June 2015 11:50:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhrosty, maglev (magnetically levitated) trains are supported by a magnetic field that is generated within electromagnets. They are propelled by linear induction motors. Although it is possible that with appropriate rotation of the coils the two functions can be combined, in many cases it is more practical to separate them into two separate functions.

Linear induction motors are actually not very energy efficient, but this is acceptable if the purpose is to go fast. They have much better tractive efficiency than steel wheels on steel rails and it is the loss of traction that ultimately limits the speed of conventionally-driven trains.

The Chinese are really leading the world in the development of high speed rail. The rate they are rolling out the infrastructure is astonishing.

Elon Musk's "hyperloop" is another form of high-speed rail which doesn't use magnetic levitation, but air-cushioning, although propulsion is still linear induction. The efficiency is enhanced by careful management of the airflow around the train, including pumping air from in front to behind the train and partially evacuating the tube it runs in. It will be a great project to watch unfold.
Posted by Craig Minns, Monday, 8 June 2015 12:18:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhosty, you misunderstand. The magnetic drives that propels maglevs are called linear induction motors.

Magnetrons are something completely different: they're a device for generating microwaves.

The Chinese Maglev has barely exceeded 500km/h. The world record, held by the Japanese, is 603km/h.

And if a plane loses motive power and say faces a mountain range, the pilot turns the aircraft away from the mountain range and looks for somewhere to land.

I was not suggesting using hydrogen to power submarines (though AIUI this has actually been tried). I was saying synthesis of hydrocarbon fuel to power conventional aircraft would be much much much much more efficient than using submarines in their place, despite a lower conversion efficiency.

Hydrogen may be a good aviation fuel source in some circumstances, because its light weight outweighs at least some of the disadvantage of its bulk. It has been tried, but I think it's safe to assume that most, if not all, aircraft will stick with hydrocarbons for the foreseeable future.

Submarines are too expensive as well as too inefficient to be viable for public transport. As for ocean currents, they're generally much slower than the wind, so if minimising energy consumption is the objective, sailing ships are the best option!

I suppose it's conceivable if there's a nuclear war that submarines could become the best transport option, but I certainly wouldn't want to waste resources planning for that situation.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 8 June 2015 12:32:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Craig and thanks for that!

However, as it was explained to me, the magnetron utilizes the fact that same pole magnets want to do anything but remain perfectly aligned?

So by sequentially switching on and off some of the electric magnets, force them to propel the magnetically suspended train forward?

And given the repulsive force of each repelling (N to N, S to S) pair, of around 9 tons of repelling/opposing force per pair, [say a thousand pairs,] considerable forward momentum?

I also wonder why the walls containing an underground or tubed train couldn't be similarly utilized, to keep the train centred and provide even more forward momentum?

The novel idea of something floating on air and driven by partially created forward vacuum and increased rear pressure inside a tube, sounds as if it might include considerable speed?

And aren't we operating some tube lifts like that now with compressors/vacuum pumps?

Perhaps something like hydrogen powered scram jets could be utilized to move the air fore and aft?

And given inertia rather than friction/air resistance, the only thing then needed to be overcome? Possibly the fastest means of moving people and or things?

And given a tall enough tower, [an air-locked and endlessly reusable tunnel inside a conveniently located mountain, say], able to build up to an escape velocity for the purpose of mass launching of satellites i.e.? Not entirely dissimilar to K.G. Well's lunar launch cannon?

Except the only thing needing to be explosively ejected, would be the final air lock door?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 8 June 2015 1:12:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The third comment in this trail was about potential high tech transport options. From there on they were the main topic, mixed with a bit of old-fashioned AGW denial. The original article was trying to make the point that Australians are taking an extraordinary number of short overseas holidays and making a significant contribution to global greenhouse gases.
Interestingly, this closely mirrors an actual conversation recorded in Kari Marie Norgaard's book 'Living in Denial'. Young Norwegians are asked if climate change is something they think or talk about. Almost immediately they are talking about electricity prices, and not climate change.
Norgaard suggests that we are all subject to 'socially organised denial (in) which individuals collectively distance themselves from knowledge because of norms of emotion, conversation and attention'.
Climate change makes us uncomfortable. We lack clear knowledge and are frightened by the problem with no solution. We are reluctant to give up the pleasures that we feel entitled to and want to continue to enjoy, without the disapproval of peers. We prefer to talk about almost anything else.
High tech transport is great and I'm happy that the future will provide new and interesting ways to get around. I also hope that we can get emissions down soon so that the destinations are not distressingly hot and dry, burnt, blown away or flooded.
Posted by Lesley W, Monday, 8 June 2015 4:45:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A Magnetron is a type of high power UHF & microwave amplifier valve
used mostly in radar transmitters.
It has nothing to do with trains, maglevs or other.

Anyway the worry is moot;
The eroei of oil has fallen to 10 as to be expected and can be seen in
the high cost and poor returns of money invested by the major oil companies
in search and development. Hasn't anyone noticed how the majors are
selling assets so as to look for more fields ?
They have to find a new Saudi Arabia every three years just to keep running in the same place.

We are too late to build the VFT, we can longer afford it or raise
the money. What we need is to spend money on the "Fast Enough" train system.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 8 June 2015 5:02:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given we have to find a new Saudi Arabia every three years, why aren't we focusing on achieving total self sufficiency with the much cheaper and endlessly sustainable alternatives, some as outlined above/earlier.

Or, just because broad scale algae farming i.e., would not only save the entire Murray/Darling, but quite massively prosper all who currently depend on it in any way.

Here we go again spending millions to dredge the mouth of the Murray!

And alternatives that also effectively reduce greenhouse gas emission; and well as providing the most powerful economic growth mechanism that's available to us! Namely, very much cheaper energy!

And make case for V.L.T or something a little cheaper that we will likely need to replace with a V.L.T, when they've more than quadrupled in cost!

And that my friends is how to save public money!? Clever aren't we?

I dispute that we can't afford the V.L.T, and can probably afford it, off budget, if we ask the Chinese to build for us?

We couldn't afford the snowy mountains scheme or the Sydney harbor bridge either, when we built them, both has since completely paid off what it cost to build them! The bridge many times over!

The only thing we can't afford is to wait a decade for the cost to double, be it either a V.L.T, or a fast enough train!

Yes we might be able to afford a second class NBN i.e., but if we have to replace it with fibre to the home in a decade, due to massively increased traffic and demand, how much will we have saved? Well?

Sorry to one and all if I got the magnetron (magnet-train) mixed up with a V.L.T; but given it was reported as such when they first appeared, I believe, that's what I thought they were.

I nonetheless apologize for the misnomer and stand corrected.
Rhrosty.

P.S. I'm I the only one not able access OLO for Monday the 8th?
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 8 June 2015 6:19:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhostry, not to worry about the magnetron, minor detail anyway.

We are not searching for viable alternative energy because there is
a fixation on solar and wind, neither of which, or together, can do the job.
There is a fixed gaze by the AGW advocates who have a rigid mindset
which transits from CO2 to wind and solar.

The harbour bridge and the snowy scheme etc etc were all built at a
time of cheap energy.
That era is over and the rules have all been changed.
I did see an article about a continuos algea process with glass
tubes exposed to light and the algea develope as the liquid moves
through the process.
Such schemes as algea and geothermal need government funded research
as there seems to be no other independant money available.

Nothing will happen while the politicians just do not understand what
is the real situation we face.
We need someone to sink a tanker on the way to Australia to wake up
the pollies, although all that might do is get them to buy nuclear submarines !
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 8 June 2015 10:27:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz, most magnetrons are in microwave ovens, not radar transmitters.

Australia is financially sovereign: we own the Reserve Bank so can afford to borrow as many Australian dollars as we want. We also energy, the materials and the labour force. We have most of the technology, and what we don't have we could easily buy.
So in what possible way could we no longer afford to build the VFT?

The cheap oil is gone, but plenty of cheap energy remains. Though wind and solar can't do the entire job, together they can do the vast majority. Certainly much more than they currently are.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Rhrosty, what does VLT stand for?

And you're clearly not unable to access OLO for Monday the 8th, as OLO is this site and Monday the 8th is when you posted this question. There have been no new articles today, probably because it's a public holiday.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 8 June 2015 11:19:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Magnetrons were first invented for radar and yes I know, I have changed
a few in microwave ovens !
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 8 June 2015 11:36:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Elon Musk's "hyperloop" is another form of high-speed rail which doesn't use magnetic levitation, but air-cushioning, although propulsion is still linear induction. The efficiency is enhanced by careful management of the airflow around the train, including pumping air from in front to behind the train and partially evacuating the tube it runs in. It will be a great project to watch unfold.//

The hyperloop is brilliant. Other than that, I say bring back the zeppelin. Lighter-than-air aeronautics has been area overlooked since the tragic Hindenburg disaster, but we're way smarter than that now.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Monday, 8 June 2015 11:41:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Monday was a holiday, but at my age and one day being the same as any other, I overlooked it! V.L.T? Vertically levitated Train? Or very low totem/very large troglodyte, take your pick. You're such a worry wart about schematics Aidan Amigo?

However, the human mind is just as capable of R.I.R.O!

And electronics was never more than a hobby rather than mainstream income earner.

So what does the magnetron look like?

Anything like the power valve in an xray machine; and something I might recognize, given I've fixed one or two and hand built/fixed a few radios/amplifiers.

My apologies to all at OLO, for not remembering Monday (one day the same as any other) was the Queen's b'day, and therefore as penance for this oversight, am taking the rest of the day off; if only to finish devouring my heaping helping of humble pie.
Cheers, Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 9 June 2015 12:48:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So what does the magnetron look like?
Not much different to the xray valve except they have a metal body
so as to fit the wave guide.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 9 June 2015 4:09:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passenger transporting Zeppelins? Why not! We can use carbon fibre technology, titanium skeletons and spray on solar panels for navigational power.

And we can manufacture helium by passing hydrogen through a silent electrical discharge.

And we can control the height with Kevlar air bags, titanium compression tanks and an inboard compressor, and therefore use favorable wind currents to progress towards the intended destination!

And say at better than 60,000 ft. up, to defeat most of today's surface to air missiles?

Particularly if the available usable jet streams (3-400+ klms P.H.) inadvertently carried one over hostile territory?

Albeit, radar invisibility created by placing a thin film of copper over carbon fibre?

And at that altitude, could something the virtual size of the Q.E.11, Camouflaged as a wispy cloud and keeping pace be visible, even with the best binoculars?

And given solar power, and a water creating dehumidifier/condenser, plus a pantry filled with long life/dehydrated food, able to stay aloft for weeks or months if that was desirable?

And given available usable jet streams, able to compete with jet travel; and without the usual jet fuel bill!

And as described, virtual V.L.T (vertical landing/take off) airships not needing huge runways. Just tethering towers at proscribed destinations?

All the battery packs could be contained in the lower part of the gondola, to take advantage of the centre of gravity as well as the heat they would create, when charging or discharging, and essential at those envisaged altitudes!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 10 June 2015 1:09:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Tis a lot more difficult than that to manufacture helium. Some sort of nuclear process is required. Although it is a natural product of radioactive decay of heavy elements.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 10 June 2015 2:18:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//'Tis a lot more difficult than that to manufacture helium. Some sort of nuclear process is required. Although it is a natural product of radioactive decay of heavy elements.//

Despite being the second most abundant element in the universe, He is scarce on earth. Hydrogen is cheap and easy to produce and gives better lifting power. As long as you have the sense to to ignite the stuff it is the perfect gas to fill your dirigibles with.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 10 June 2015 7:34:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kevlar coated with thin copper to avoid being seen by radar ?
Surely a sheet of copper would make a loverly target ?
After all people I know use the bottom of aircraft to communicate
between Sydney and melbourne and Adelaide.
They do the timing to airline timetables.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 11 June 2015 3:16:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy