Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 19, 9:15=A0pm, j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 7:45?pm, j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 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
aircraf=
t
>
> 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-