Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller

"Dale Alexander" wrote in message
...
No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just look
at all of their "religious beliefs".

Dale Alexander

And conservatives can be duped by anyone with a smile. As evidence, look at
the people who voted for the Shrub and still think that Iraq was part or
9/11.

"Robert Barker" wrote in message
...
"Dale Alexander" wrote in message
...
No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just look
at all of their "religious beliefs".

Dale Alexander

And conservatives can be duped by anyone with a smile. As evidence, look
at
the people who voted for the Shrub and still think that Iraq was part or
9/11.



Plonk!

On Sep 3, 9:53 am, Weeeeelerrrrrrr wrote:
"Dale Alexander" wrote :

No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just
look at all of their "religious beliefs".

Good grief.

Aside from your appalling ignorance, the lack of imagination you're
displaying is , to put it bluntly, frightening.

Wonder what you would have made of the Wrights?

Or Copernicus.

Moller's car is obviously a piece of crap, but a technology may arive in
the future that makes it, or some similar contraption, viable.

Just like all the people that went before the Wrights that were
ridiculed, moller may have laid down a contribution that turns out to be
more than a footnote in years to come.

I doubt it, of course, but it is possible..

Bet you would have laughed at the guys investing in IBM back in '49,
too..

Asshole.

Just what 'contribution' did he lay down? There is no new aerodynamic
information there, there is no new info on propulsion systems,
actually I can't think of anything at all that is new to the
industry.

What is new is a clumsy, non-flying machine that looks like it was put
together by some 'inventor' in a garage while ignoring common
engineering practices, mainly KISS. Only a nut case would try to
build something using EIGHT! small engines.

Harry K

On Sep 3, 3:54 pm, "Richard Isakson" wrote:
"Weeeeelerrrrrrr" wrote ...

Just like all the people that went before the Wrights that were
ridiculed, moller may have laid down a contribution that turns out to be
more than a footnote in years to come.

There is no valid comparison between the Wrights and Moller so your argument
is meaningless. Now, if you'd like to compare Moller with Jim Bede ...

Rich

Also no comaprison, both of those (Bede and Wrights) actually made
flying machines. Moller has built what exactly?

Harry K

Harry K wrote in
ups.com:

On Sep 3, 9:53 am, Weeeeelerrrrrrr wrote:
"Dale Alexander" wrote
:

No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just
look at all of their "religious beliefs".

Good grief.

Aside from your appalling ignorance, the lack of imagination you're
displaying is , to put it bluntly, frightening.

Wonder what you would have made of the Wrights?

Or Copernicus.

Moller's car is obviously a piece of crap, but a technology may arive
in the future that makes it, or some similar contraption, viable.

Just like all the people that went before the Wrights that were
ridiculed, moller may have laid down a contribution that turns out to
be more than a footnote in years to come.

I doubt it, of course, but it is possible..

Bet you would have laughed at the guys investing in IBM back in '49,
too..

Asshole.

Just what 'contribution' did he lay down? There is no new aerodynamic
information there, there is no new info on propulsion systems,
actually I can't think of anything at all that is new to the
industry.

What is new is a clumsy, non-flying machine that looks like it was put
together by some 'inventor' in a garage while ignoring common
engineering practices, mainly KISS. Only a nut case would try to
build something using EIGHT! small engines.


Fine, doesn't matter...


I think it's a piece of **** too, doesn't alter my argument.

Harry K wrote:

Just what 'contribution' did he lay down? There is no new aerodynamic
information there, there is no new info on propulsion systems,
actually I can't think of anything at all that is new to the
industry.

What is new is a clumsy, non-flying machine that looks like it was put
together by some 'inventor' in a garage while ignoring common
engineering practices, mainly KISS. Only a nut case would try to
build something using EIGHT! small engines.

Harry K


Awwww....

So my 1/3 scale Dornier DO-X proves I'm nuts?

Oh.

Ok, I see what you mean...

"Peter Dohm" wrote in news:eg2Di.79549$jH3.70015
@bignews6.bellsouth.net:

The fact that a large number of people calling themselves "conservatives"
appear to have fallen into similar traps is true; but does not detract in
any way from Bret's point.

If anything, it further supports that point.


What that intelectual liberals are the sort that support Moller?




Bull****.

"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote

...or with zoom campbell :-)

Nah, sorry Chuck.

Jim Campbell is just a sleaze with no accomplishments to his name. At least
the other two had a dream and some talent to go along with their sleaze, but
came up well short of the mark.

Jim doesn't even know where a mark is.
--
Jim in NC

What is new is a clumsy, non-flying machine that looks like it was put
together by some 'inventor' in a garage while ignoring common
engineering practices, mainly KISS. Only a nut case would try to
build something using EIGHT! small engines.

Harry K

EIGHT does seem a bit extreme, and I am no fan of Moller.

But I seem to recall that, back in the early days of the ultralight
movement, someone did build an ultralight using FIVE very small
Briggs&Straton engines--which flew quite well as did his later designs...

Peter

Ernest Christley wrote in news:46dcc4ef$0$17145
:

Whoooowhiee. wrote:
Harry K wrote in

What is new is a clumsy, non-flying machine that looks like it was
put
together by some 'inventor' in a garage while ignoring common
engineering practices, mainly KISS. Only a nut case would try to
build something using EIGHT! small engines.


Fine, doesn't matter...


I think it's a piece of **** too, doesn't alter my argument.





No. It most certainly does alter your argument. It completely
invalidates it.


No, it doesn't.



You compared Moller to the Wright Brothers,


No, I didn't

and accused anyone that
would accost Moller as lacking of imagination.


No, I didn't


The truth is that by all
accounts the Wright Brothers spent a great deal of time studying the
work of others, experimenting and actually advancing the science.
Their
creation wasn't a pipe-dream come true. It was the fruition of years
of
study and built upon engineering principles uncovered by others.

Moller has spent a great deal of time molding pretty fiberglass parts,
and choosing the best shade of red paint to impress journalist and
potential investors. His design flies in the face of common sense,
let
alone basic engineering principles. He has a design that depends on
full-time flawless performance from at least four engines. Damn-it,
that is a deathtrap waiting to spring. It is not sound engineering.
It's not even sane engineering. He has not advance the science or
produced anything worthy of note. If anything he has leached energy
that could have gone to engineers that could develop something.



Learn to read