On Jun 16, 11:27*am, wrote:
* * * * * The guys who invented the transistor (Brattain and all)
understood electricity and were engineers who could design and build
electronic devices. That's the equivalent of knowing how to fly and
how to build aircraft. They were not new to electronics, they didn't
stumble across semiconductors by accident. Solid-state selenium diodes
(not to mention crystal diodes) had already been in use by then for
some time, and so they built on the knowledge of other folks.

There are certain pieces of knowledge that are applicable and certain
pieces that are that. That's all I am saying. I know people who
studied aero/astro for years and had never designed and airplane, but
could if they had to. With regard to transistors, I have only been a
a clean room, and I have never operated say, a chemical-vapor
deposition (CVD) machine, but I know how it works.

The question is essentially:

"What knowledge of old is useful to create the new?"

A key word in this question is "new", which could be interpreted as
"new new" or "incrementally new". Incrementally new is best served by
examining state-of-art and making incremental improvement. New new is
best served by rethinking from a more fundamental perspective. I
contend that, in any field, there is a large percentage of researchers
who do not bother thinking about "new new", because they regard it as
a fruitless endeavor or too risky. But sooner or later, "new new"
reveals itself, and the cylce repeats.

* * * * * Numerous flying cars have been built from scratch, not based
on existing automobiles. It's not something new. Molt Taylor's Aerocar
(late '40s or early '50s; Google it)

I have link on my ready-access favorites of web browser:

http://www.roadabletimes.com/

so yes I have seen it, and many others. Not to criticize this design,
but there is no way I would ever make a flying car that looks like
that. Each time I see someone who has passion for making flying car
take car and mount airplane on top of it, I feel sorry for them - so
much passion...

was certified and produced in
small numbers, but the compromises necessary to achieve flight in a
vehicle that also has to fit on the road and operate in traffic mean
it's a poor car and a poor airplane, and didn't sell well enough to
justify continuing with it. Electronics and computers can't fix the
hard limitations of physics. Over the years I've been around aviation
I can't recall how many attempts have been made in my own time to
build such a machine, and none of them are visible today. It seems
that only the naive attempt it, and find out the hard way about
compromises that ruin the whole idea.

I have noticed that a lot of people making flying cars have an
incredible urge to "just get something working", with the expectation
that , if it "works", it can be improved with tweaks over time. This
is a dangerous approach. As you noted, one typically ends up with
something of questionable design that enjoys, at best, a lukewarm
reception.

* * * * *But don't let me discourage you. Maybe some other folks will
be spared the grief just be watching you try it.

Heheh.

-Le Chaud Lapin-