![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 19, 9:15*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote: On Jun 19, 7:45?pm, wrote: Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle craft. Are you 100% certain of this? An airplanes flys because it is moving through the air. The only existing way to cause an airplane to move through the air and continue to move through the air is to accelerate gas. This I agree with 100%. Law of conservation of momentum is conserved, even in the quantum. There are a limited number of existing ways to accelerate gas: 1) Rockets: Not practical for aircraft 2) Propellors: Currently widely used. 3) Turbines: Not practical for GA aircraft, widely used on bigger aircraft 4) Ion wind: Not practical for anything What turns the propellor is irrelevant. I am glad that you make a distinction between 1, 2 and 3, because technically, I could play devils advocate and go one step further and say that I will not be able to design any viable aircraft that uses any principle beyond Newtonian physics, and specifically, will not make any contraption that relies on anything other than Newton's Law of Reciprocity of Force. But every method you have identified relies on Reciprocity of Force. Therefore, if you had not made the distinction, I would be left with no real options. But fortunately, you do make a distinction between 1, 2, and 3. You are saying that rockets are sufficiently different from propellers, which, in turn, are sufficiently different from turbines, which, in turn are sufficiently different from ion wind accelerators that they warrant being recognized as distinct categories in their own right. That said, I claim that there is very likely another method, which, naturally, relies on Reciprocity of Force, that is like 1, or 2, or 3, but sufficiently different from 1, 2, or 3, to warrant recognition as a propulsion method in its own right. In other words, when you look at the alternative method, you will see neither propeller, nor jet engine, nor turbine. In fact, you will have a very hard time finding the engine at all. Of course, this is all speculation at this point, but at least we have made clear that there are distinctions. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: 1-Day-Left: 3 Advanced AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Mel[_2_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 8th 07 01:37 PM |
FA: 3 Advanced AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Derek | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 3rd 07 02:17 AM |
FA: 1-Day-Left: 3 AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Jeff[_5_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 1st 07 12:45 PM |
FA: 3 AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Jon[_4_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 24th 07 01:13 AM |
FA: 3 ADVANCED AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Larry[_3_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 6th 07 02:23 AM |