Oil Crisis? - what Oil Crisis? what power for FS2100 aircraft?

[CCairns10]

Oil and gas and coal will not last for the next couple of hundred years. What type of power source will be for aircraft in FS2100?

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d35cfee4f0e61ac.jpg

Let's hear some suggestions!

Chris

[drake1999]

I'll bet you $100 ... it will still be jet fuel, same as they are using today.

[evh347]

I think the answer is obvious. With the advent of "flux capacitors" and the "Mr. Fugi" fuel system...you need only supply the banana peels, egg shells, and beer.

Of course, the side effect is that you must stay under 88 knots/hour or strange things begin to happen. :P

http://datacore.sciflicks.com/back_to_the_future/images/back_to_the_future_large_12.jpg

"1.21 gigawatts???"

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d1d2cac3e9bd6c6.jpg

[FlyerJeff]

I bet theres still going to be plenty of fuel left, even though many might not want to use it anymore.

If not, maybe we will find another fuel on Mars or the moon for use. NASA should concentrate on something bigger, like landing a space shuttle on the moon, or sending man to Mars, or collecting mineral info from the moon.

-
http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3c8968c035214917.jpg
Keep on Flyin'!
AMD Thunderbird 1.4 ghz
NVidia GeForce 2 MX 400 32 MB
Sound Blaster PCI 128
512 MB RAM
And
Good frame rates!

[AlaskaAV]

I think if you added a few beans it might help.

[EngEd]

Hello, Chris,
A thought-provoking question. I'd vote for hydrogen. In the long-term, say 50 years from now, much of our ground transportation will be hydrogen-fueled fuel-cell electrics. Even in the near-term, say 5-10 years, we'll see fuel-cell cars using reformer-derived hydrogen.
Once there's a hydrogen infrastructure, there's no reason why the same hydrogen can't be used as a combustant in aircraft engines. Obviously plenty of thorny problems exist, but they'll be solved.
Our petroleum sources will never run out, per se. But there will be more important uses for them than combustion.
All in good fun. -- Dennis S, FSEngEd@aol.com

[evh347]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-17-02 AT 05:30PM (EDT)[p]Okay, okay...I have a more serious reply to this topic if anyone is interested.

I don't really think there will be any kind of airplane (as we know them today) in the sky around the year "2100". Some of the greatest inventions were fire(if you can count that), the wheel, the microwave, and the airplane.
But none of those come close to the break throughs scientists are about to have after they figure out how to harness the ultimate force...gravity.

IMO that electromagnetic propulsion is the next big thing. Yup, I'm talking about the same kind of stuff that them UFOs are using to get here. If you think I'm crazy, I just saw a special on the Discovery channel and they've already figured out how to levitate frogs and other small living things within a magnetic field. NASA is already on the verge of releasing the new Space Shuttle that is launched via a train track and the Shuttle itself is launched via electromagnetic propulsion.

Travelling in space (and around the world) via rockets is just too inefficient. But by learning to harness and utilize the very forces that keep you on the ground, we may actually use them to our advantage and use those same forces to propel us to where we want to go...and one can only imagine at what speeds that it would be possible.

I'm a UFO buff besides being an airplane buff. So, naturally...this topic fascinates me just as much as anybody.

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d1d2cac3e9bd6c6.jpg

[CCairns10]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-17-02 AT 05:49PM (EDT)[p]Check out the book "The Hunt For Zero Point" by Nick Cook from http://www.randomhouse.co.uk - its all about the global cover up on electrogravitics.

Chris

[rtriez]

......electromagnetic propulsion or some type of gravitational propulsion ? Not meant to argue anything you've stated, I'm genuinely curious....Electromagnetic forces & gravitational attraction are not the same thing ( FYI if you didn't know ).

How about disproving Einstein's theory that E=MC2...'cause according to that, speeds faster than light are not possible. I for one, think that anything is possible given the resources & will power for someone to try it. Try to use bends in the space/time continuum for propulsion.....you'd be a very rich person if you could figure that out ( if it hasn't been discovered already and is being kept secret )

I just read something the other day about the use of Hydrogen. The concept is very simple really, and the only combustion byproduct is water. The only problem is the amount of energy going into the production ( or extraction for lack of better terms ) of Hydrogen and then the means to store & transport it.

Personally, ( and this is only my personal feeling here ) I think cold fusion is the wave of the future; and, I think it's been discovered. Just that the greedy oil barons don't want anyone to know about it because it would do serious damage to their back pockets, so they've lobbied & bribed enough powers that be to keep it under wraps ( again, only my feeling, I have nothing substantial to back that feeling up ).

Great topic/thread to start here....this could get interesting



Best Regards,

Bob :-wave

[evh347]

I'm sort of ticked off at the fact that the site I wanted to copy and bring back some info from, has now begun to charge for memberships...
http://boblazar.com/

http://boblazar.com/intro_home/plans8.jpg

That site has some of the most incredible stuff in it (I was a frequent reader before the memberships) about all sorts of alien stuff.

I want to make it clear that I don't intend to turn this thread into a discussion about aliens. Merely, the mentioning of the supposed propulsion system that is discussed on Bob Lazar's website is the point.

But I'll leave you with this freaky image anyways...

http://boblazar.com/intro_home/retic_smal.jpg

I had many nightmares after visiting that website.

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d1d2cac3e9bd6c6.jpg

[ajmitch]

When I was doing some research on energy sources, I came across a web site where French scientists claim to have discovered a way to make totally free engergy - I won't go into that - it's way over my head, but the upshot was that if such a system ever became viable, the governments of the world would not allow it to happen, because of the effect that it would have on the world economy, because it would decimate the present oil industry.
Just think about it... there are scientists who work out where the oil is;
People who go and drill for the oil;
People who transport the oil;
People who refine the oil;
More people who deliver the refined products;
People who sell the end product.
Plus those people who make all the equipment involved.
Possibly others that I haven't mentioned, but the biggest losers would be governments who cream off so much revenue in tax from oil products.
Now if a virtually free alternative was found, most, if not all of that would just come to an end.
Can you honestly see any of our governments allowing that to happen?

Tony

[rtriez]

Several months back, Cap't Slarty posted something very similar to what you're talking about....It somehow harnessed EMP's traveling through space. Although the law of conservation of energy wasn't breached ( energy can be neither created nor destroyed....it only changes form ), it seemed to be a limitless form of energy that would indeed wipe out the oil industry as we know it.

I agree with you Tony, there is no government that I know of that would allow this to happen. Too much politics involved - not to mention money. But, when ( not if ) we deplete our natural resources ( albeit some time off in the future ), something needs to be ready to take over when the inevitable happens....


Best Regards,

Bob :-wave

[spotlope]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-17-02 AT 07:08PM (EDT)[p]Come on, people, where have you been? What about quantum mechanics? We're going to be BEAMING around by then, trust me ;-).

And to answer that last post... do you remember the early days of the web? Or even flight simming? Now look at either in its present form. It's just proof that enterprising people will find a way to charge for anything. You just gotta give 'em enough time to whip up a business model!

Bill Womack

[Ihor]

They just want your cash man!
Don't believe that site, it's all siiliness.
The sort of thing you get from the kingdom of Nye in the early hours of the morning!

If any of these people could prove they worked there then why not post yer pay stubs or tax return showing who your employer is. The same stuff required when getting a loan for your house.

[Bigshot]

Platunium Batteries (sp) weapons grade. They'll run everything. That is as soon as we rid the world of terrorists. What are we waiting for??

[Leesw]

>Can you honestly see any of our governments allowing that to happen?

Yes.

First of all, there will never be free energy, no matter what anyone anywhere says. Even water costs money. Maybe someone will come up with a low cost energy source, but it will not be free. And if there is a buck to be made someone will find a way to do it, even if they have do it in the Grand Cayman Islands or one of a hundred other places where the government lets you get away with tax cheating, telemarketing swindles, Internet porn servers, human cloning, and any other business enterprise you want to try. So it would be completely impossible for governments to stop it.

As to the oil company cover up conspiracy theory (100 MPG carberators, anti-gravity, etc). That crap has been floating around for generations and it is 100% baloney. Energy giants like Enron can't even keep their accounting practices secret, do you honestly think that hundreds or even thousands of people could keep quiet a world-changing secret about cheap plentiful energy? No way. People want to blab. Even ex-Mafia members write books about the mob, and if the Mafia can't keep you quiet, do you think Exxon could?.

[rtriez]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-17-02 AT 10:44PM (EDT)[p]>> As to the oil company cover up conspiracy theory (100 MPG carburetors,

That's no secret, and hardly a conspiracy. There was indeed a carburetor developed in the 1930's ( I believe ) that could produce 100+ MPG. It's just that the oil companies bought the patent on it. 'twas cheaper for them to shell out the $$$$$ for the patent than to risk the cost of conservation/decreased oil sales. I'll find some literature on said topic and post back.....

EDIT: For starts - http://www.relaypoint.net/~patriot/supcarb2.htm



Best Regards,

Bob :-wave

[Leesw]

>I'll bet you $100 ... it
>will still be jet fuel,
>same as they are using
>today.

That's probably about right, or some other petroleum derivative or cleaned-up coal extract.

Solar power? Get real. You would have to cover an area the size of L.A. with solar cells to power a 747.

Nuclear? Flying reactors, the general public will really accept that!

Fuel cells, Hydrogen? Maybe, but you will still need large ground based energy sources like oil and gas plants to make the hydrogen.

Anti-gravity and other exotic concepts? Nope. After 60 years and billions of dollars, the most brilliant minds in science are nowhere near getting even a relatively well understood concept like controlled nuclear fusion working. Let alone pie-in-the-sky concepts.

[Leesw]

Sorry, that's incorrect.

Whatever 'literature' you could come up with on the 100 MPG carburator would be as bogus as the 'literature' that proves men never went to the moon. That particular conspiracy theory has been investigated and debunked by numerous reputable groups. It's pure urban legend. But the most damning proof is just plain physics. Even if you could convert 100% of the chemical energy from gasoline into the heat energy that runs an internal combustion engine, you couldn't get anywhere near 100 MPG from a car that would otherwise get 20 MPG.

[rtriez]

>I'll bet you $100 ... it
>will still be jet fuel,
>same as they are using
>today.

>>That's probably about right, or some other petroleum derivative or cleaned-up coal extract.


Since jet fuel is basically kerosine ( very similar to domestic paraffin ), it probably would not be all that hard to make a synthetic form of it. Either by, as you stated, some type of coal extract or perhaps vegetable oil or a distillate of such. Whatever the case, if/when the fossil fuels are exhausted, there are many alternatives that would only cause minor changes to be made in the jet engines out there in use today ( unless some other form of propulsion is discovered that is more efficient than the jet engine - not beyond the realm of impossibility by any means ).





Best Regards,

Bob :-wave

[rtriez]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-17-02 AT 11:20PM (EDT)[p]I do agree...one can simply not get more energy out of a given unit of fuel than it's potential. The laws of conservation of energy are indeed foremost on my mind. Bear in mind though...how much energy potential in a gallon of gasoline is wasted in the form of heat energy ? Think if that could be harnessed - a lot more bang fer your buck....

I don't think 100 MPG is all that far-fetched though. I had a Geo that got 50 + MPG on the highway. And we're not talking a simple carb swap here either. I believe the engine would have to made to accomodate the mixtures provided by said carb.

If I am incorrect about the 100+MPG Carbs ( which I may very well be ) could you please link me to some studies to disprove this claim ? - Not that I'm arguing your statement, rather I am truly interested in this subject and would like to read up on it.

Thanks :)


Best Regards,

Bob :-wave

[Leesw]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-17-02 AT 11:48PM (EDT)[p]Here are a couple of sites discussing the physics:

http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/fish3.htm

http://www.phact.org/e/dennis27.htm

As to the investigations of the oil companies supposedly buying up patents, that material I have seen in magazines and shows like 60 minutes, so I can't produce that material off hand.

And nobody is disputing you can make a car that gets 100 MPG. But the 100 (or 200 etc) MPG carb myth revolves around cars with V8's and the weight of the average pre 70's sedan, with nil streamlining.

I did especially like the bit about the U.S. Army using a secret high milage carb in tanks during WWII. I wonder how they got virtually all of the tens of thousands of people who worked on tank engines to keep that secret for 60 years? The oil companies must have bought their silence, yet I don't see a lot of rich ex-tank mechanics. Militaries spends a fortune on fuel every year. If they could cut that down to a fraction they would have done it by now. If not the U.S. Army then the Red army, or someone else.

[av8tor182]

My opinion is that we can't even dream of the things that might be invented. Things we don't even know of today. Just think back to a hundred years ago in 1902. People had no idea what a plane or space shuttle was or nuclear power. The very thing you are using right now to read this post would have seemed out of this world back then. I think we are all in for an amazing journey over the next 50 and 100 years.

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3cfac7bb4736a91f.jpg

[rtriez]

Hey Lee,
Thanks for the links, I always enjoy reading anything of such nature. I'm by no means arguing the physics. As I said, I am fully aware that there's a limit to what a given amount of energy can be converted from a given amount of fuel.

As for the military aspect, I know first hand that cost is ( or at least was before budget cuts ) not the military's number one concern. I had never heard of the tanks that were supposed to get good "mileage". That's kind of interesting.

Anyway, I'll look into all this some more. If these are indeed false rumors, I'd sure like to clear it up if for no other reason than for my own benefit. If you happen to come across some more information discrediting the 100 MPG carb theory, feel free to shoot it over my way.

Thanks again !



Best Regards,

Bob :-wave

[Erick_Cantu]

Had an interesting discussion with some friends on the very same topic a while ago.

Our conclusion was that there is the possibility that the theory is simply misunderstood and that the universal speed limit known as light speed may not in fact exist.

Keep in mind, we've (mankind, not me!) slowed down and even stopped light rays before. In theory, then, are my fingers not moving faster than light if we accept light speed as zero when light rays are stopped? I am sure the fact that light can be slowed or stopped (we see the effetcs every time we look into a glass of water) could possibly be used to devise ways of travelling faster than the 'ordinary' speed of light as seen in a vacuum, e.g., space (which, by the way, is not a complete vacuum!).

Makes you think. Perhaps we already know? Perhaps the government, instead of keeping it from the public, is actually refinig the technology to ensure safety when it is in fact revealed? I don't know. Would be nice tho'.

On a tangent, I do not believe anything really goes on at Groom Lake anymore. With the focus on Groom Lake, the DOD could have moved elsewhere so that they can do their jobs without nosey people peeking in.

-E

[font size=1]
FLIGHTFX POLICY
1.) We design for reality, not for idealism.
Thus, you will not see virtual cabins on our aircraft. You can not see inside the real thing anyway, unless you are looking into the sun. You will find virtual cockpits but they will not be visible from outside for the same reason.
2.) We design for people with real computers. Thusly, we will not waste polygons on superfluous parts. We will use a texture when there is no noticeable difference between it and a group of performance wasting parts. We will model our aircraft efficiently. If you do not like it, too bad.
3.) We will give you the latest features, but we WILL NOT sacrifice visual accuracy to implement them. Accuracy comes before eye candy.[/font size]


http://flightsimmers.net/airport/nwva0670/SONICFFX.gif

[rtriez]

>>> e.g., space (which, by the way, is not a complete vacuum!).

Glad someone else on this planet understand that concept....I believe there is 1 molecule of hydrogen/cc of space....quite a bit actually when you add up the number off cc's there are in space.

You are correct also Erick, that light slows down through a medium. In space ( a "vacuum" ) light is 286,282 miles/sec ( from memory so forgive me if I'm off ). As an example to put Erick's thoughts in perspective, light slows down to a crawl at 77,000 miles/sec through diamond ( again, by memory so forgive any inaccuracies ).

But, as the current theory of relativity stands, light ( photons ) is mass - or matter ( in energy form ). So, if E=MC2, matter, once going beyond the "universal speed limit" of the speed of light would decrease to a point where matter no longer exists. So, again according to the laws of matter & energy conservation, it would cause the matter to be no more ( as velocity increases, mass decreases until a point is reached - know as the "universal speed limit ), and this simply can not hold true.

I'm not sure I subscribe to ole Einee's theory either, but I do not have the resources to dispute it, so I can only hope you are right Erick, that the government is keeping it under wraps to protect up until it can be used safely.


Best Regards,

Bob :-wave

[pylon101]

I believe that the revolution in technology and science that had started in the 18th century and which resulted in all achivements we have been enjoying now - it's long over.

A side effect of that revolution was the birth of a whole new class, a social stratum of people who are supposed to maintain the pace of scientific and technological development. There are millions of people through around the world involved. Call them scientists or whatever. No need to underestimate their efforts, but in terms of basic human knowledge very few was achieved since the 50-ies.

First jet aircrafts turned into "long flying tubes", all identical and manufactured by two giants; needless to name them, I guess.

All space exploring events are nothing more but further development of basic knowledge that had been reached before the first sputnik was sent.

No need to talk about gasoline or non-gasoline based cars. Progess is pathetic.

And the last resort of those who believe we are living in a fast developing civilization: computer "revolution" and Internet.

QUANTATIVE INCREASE IN DATA EXCHAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY BREAKTHROUGH. It's nice, it's handy, it's even fool-proof but it is not an achievement in terms of what the initial topic was about.

No need to be in despair. We all should simply know that the limits put by the Einstein's theory is just a second in human history's long way. Keep waiting!

Having said all these things I will go on with ordering a brand new Compaq from the factory through Internet!!!

[rtriez]

...or are deceived into believing so.

>> No need to talk about gasoline or non-gasoline based cars. Progess is pathetic.

Politics. Money. Greed.

They said the world was flat, because from their perspective, it appeared to be so. Who's to say our perspective isn't influenced by what appears to be true but isn't ?

They said when cars were first developed that 1 mile a minute could never be obtained....and we routinely exceed 60 MPH every time we get into our cars ( at least I do ;-) )

Then they said the sound barrier could never be broken. Happens every day now somewhere on earth....

They say the speed of light can not be broken.....who knows. What is time ? According to quantum physics, time & space are related. We just don't know enough about it yet. Who knows what the next 100 years will bring.

True, the "easy" stuff has been discovered already, but in it's time, it wasn't "easy stuff". I think the best is yet to come. I may never live to see it, but anything is possible.....


Best Regards,

Bob :-wave

[link:www.fsfreeforall.net|http://fsfreeforall.net/blankbanrtriez.jpg]

[rtriez]

...too bad, I'm gonna tell ya anyway ;-)

What if we could figure out how to use gravity as a propulsion form ? What is gravity ? What speed does gravitational attraction travel ? Let's just say, for argument's sake, that the Sun would suddenly cease to exist. How long would it take for us here on earth to feel or notice the affects ? Light from the Sun takes 8 minutes ( on average ) to travel the 93 million miles ( on average ) to reach earth. How about gravitational pull ? Would it take the speed of light ( 8 minutes ) to notice that the pull of the Sun was gone or would it be instantaneous ? If it's instantaneous, we could at least use gravity in some way for a faster mode of communication, if not use it as a means to travel as well. Since gravity isn't matter ( as light is ), it would not be subjected to the laws of E=MC2....or would it ? Or does E NOT =MC2 ?...then this whole thing would be moot.....

Best Regards,

Bob :-wave

[rtriez]

>>In space ( a "vacuum" ) light is 286,282 miles/sec

...but, I made a typo...it's 186,282 miles/sec, not 286,282 miles/sec

Sorry for the error...



Best Regards,

Bob :-wave

[pylon101]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-18-02 AT 04:11AM (EDT)[p]Sometimes I feel someone is really interested in allowing us to speculate about all those things "out there".

We should not let us involve in such fruitless discussions about government conspiracy or mason lounges.

We should not stop watching X-files or The Outer Limits and enjoy them, either.

In the 18th cenrtury, when the steam started the technological revolution, the ruling ones also thought they would keep everything under control.

If the real scientific revolution occurs no one will be able to hold it or stop it. It's not like keeping DVD prices high for years in order to compensate investements and get sufficient profits from VCRs.

In the decades like we are living through the oligarchy, that often calls itself democracy, may think it is monitoring and controlling everything. And it is! - until we leave the evolution period, however long it is going to be, and enter a new scientific and technological (and then social and political) revolution.

Anyway. For most people it's better to live in present times. Revolutionary development of any kind is a tough thing.

Steam broke the way of life Europe used to live for er.. er..for almost a thousand years, since the crusades' epoch. And I hardly believe that many of us would have preferred to be a member of a medieval artisan stratum by that time.

We all have freedom of thought. We can comply with majority's rules. And we must. Simply because it's a majority. But we can keep our dreems and thoughts for ourselves and for close ones.

Well, it proved to be quite a topic.

Nick
Moscow
Russia

[Erick_Cantu]

Time is relative.

These are difficult concepts tp grasp, I must admit, but the realization that even time cannot and does not conform to a constant really is an eye opener. When we say a minute feels like an hour, that minute may very well have been what someone else considers an hour, likewise, if I am flying at light speed, I believe the calculations show (And this if most likely wrong)that for every 5 years I'm out 50 will pass on Earth to 'normal' humans. Even the Apollo astrinauts came back younger than any person who had been born at precisely the same time on the same day but remained Earthbound, by a mere few seconds, but they were there.

It's funny. What a standard says has jack diddly squat to how we perceive time, and how we perceive time cannot afect anyone else's perception. If the passing of time is apparently slower to us than everyone else, we won't age as fast. Wierd.

-E

[font size=1]
FLIGHTFX POLICY
1.) We design for reality, not for idealism.
Thus, you will not see virtual cabins on our aircraft. You can not see inside the real thing anyway, unless you are looking into the sun. You will find virtual cockpits but they will not be visible from outside for the same reason.
2.) We design for people with real computers. Thusly, we will not waste polygons on superfluous parts. We will use a texture when there is no noticeable difference between it and a group of performance wasting parts. We will model our aircraft efficiently. If you do not like it, too bad.
3.) We will give you the latest features, but we WILL NOT sacrifice visual accuracy to implement them. Accuracy comes before eye candy.[/font size]


http://flightsimmers.net/airport/nwva0670/SONICFFX.gif

[Erick_Cantu]

I am getting a headache, I'm thinking too hard...

I just have the feeling that somehow, we're at the base of something really big. I get the feeling something big in the technology world is going to happen soon...

-E

[font size=1]
FLIGHTFX POLICY
1.) We design for reality, not for idealism.
Thus, you will not see virtual cabins on our aircraft. You can not see inside the real thing anyway, unless you are looking into the sun. You will find virtual cockpits but they will not be visible from outside for the same reason.
2.) We design for people with real computers. Thusly, we will not waste polygons on superfluous parts. We will use a texture when there is no noticeable difference between it and a group of performance wasting parts. We will model our aircraft efficiently. If you do not like it, too bad.
3.) We will give you the latest features, but we WILL NOT sacrifice visual accuracy to implement them. Accuracy comes before eye candy.[/font size]


http://flightsimmers.net/airport/nwva0670/SONICFFX.gif

[rtriez]

....in fact, GPS satelites have to have atomic clocks on board to keep in sync with eachother. If not, time would slow down for them and their calculations would cause a wide margin of error to the receivers on Earth. True too that if you fly very fast ( ie. Apollo crews ) you come back younger ( albeit very little at the slow speeds they traveled ).

I remember hearing about a experiment they did once where the syncornized 2 atomic clocks. One the kept on the ground, the other - if I'm not mistaken - they put in an aircraft & flew it around for awhile. Upon landing, the clock in the airplane was behind the one stationary on the ground. Ergo - proof that the faster one goes, the slower time goes in relation to that object.

Please don't ask me to explain it, cause I probably can't, but I think Erick is right when he says we are on the eve of something big happening....maybe even in our lifetime....


Best Regards,

Bob :-wave

[CCairns10]

What are the policies of the oil companies? They're no mugs, surely they have a long term policy for their welfare and new energy sources.

I tried looking up http://www.exxon.com to find out about the future but it didn't tell me. They are probably funding some graduate student, he/she will find the great new energy source, they will throw him/her a little check and they'll make billions out of it.

Chris

[Leesw]

>I just have the feeling that
>somehow, we're at the base
>of something really big. I
>get the feeling something big
>in the technology world is
>going to happen soon...

Like a computer OS that doesn't suck? That would be a quantum leap.

[Leesw]

>True, the "easy" stuff has been
>discovered already, but in it's
>time, it wasn't "easy stuff".

While the mental hurdles required by Newton to come up with his theories of motion, and the mental hurdles required to come up with more recent theories like quantum strings may be equivalent, the resources needed to prove theories and put them to practical use has grown exponentially.

In the 18th century you could make a major discovery by just playing with weights and springs.

In the 19th century an inquisitive layman could make a major discovery with some lab equipment that cost maybe a week's pay.

In the 60's you needed equipment like mass spectrometers, electron microscopes, and mainframe computers to make a major discovery. That ended the era where the layman could make a contribution.

Now you need a 10 billion dollar supercollider the size of a city in the hope that you 'might' find trace evidence of a new particle.

At this rate, in 50 years we will have to pool the science budgets for the entire planet just to make one major discovery.

[Bigshot]

Warp drive is the only way. Einstein's theory of relativity whether right or just plain wrong doesn't matter. But it doesn't make any difference. Space is full of dust. Try going to fast and you'll end up full of holes. Star Trek has it right. You have to warp space. That is, form a little bubble around the ship that actually moves through space so anything inside that bubble is actually travelling at little or no speed within that bubble and the bubble itself is going way faster than light speed. There'd be no concern with dust then and you could go as fast as you wanted to. Only problem is to create a warp field around a ship and control it would require an amount of energy equal to what the sun puts out in its lifetime from what I understand. That's quite a bit of energy. Some day some real genius will figure out how to do it.

[CCairns10]

Are you saying we are reaching our ceiling in terms of what can be achieved technologically?

This philosophical point has been discussed by scientists before. Maybe there isn't much else that can be achieved technologically by individuals and it will get harder for entire nations too.

FS2004 will be better though.

Chris

[lesage]

The answer to this is fusion... you need heilum3 for this.. (Like the sun). The earth has little. the moon has lots... guess what will happen next. film at 11.... Bob L

[CCairns10]

How do you get a fusion plant onto a Cessna though? Maybe the plant will charge super duper electric batteries or fuel cells and these can be put on the Cessna.

Chris

[rtriez]

>The answer to this is fusion...
> you need heilum3 for
>this.. (Like the sun). The
>earth has little. the moon
>has lots... guess what will
>happen next. film at
>11.... Bob L



The sun, as well as any fusion potential here on earth, uses hydrogen ( the most common element in the universe btw ) not helium - helium is actually the product of fusion - after the reaction has taken place.



Regards,

Bob :-wave

[lesage]

www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html


check it out,, bob L

[rtriez]

Awesome site, I will stand corrected on H fusion as the only fusion for use on Earth. However....( you knew that was comming ;-) ) the sun does fuse Hydrogen into Helium isotopes.



Best Regards,

Bob :-wave

[TruffleShuffle]

WHY THE HELL DO YOU CARE? YOUR NOT GOING TO BE AROUND WHEN IT HAPPENS SO WHATS THE POINT? YOU'D THINK YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE ON YOUR MIND RATHER THAN WHAT AIRCRAFT ARE GOING TO BE RUNNING ON IN THE FUTURE. WHAT A WASTE OF YOUR VALUABLE TIME!!!

[rtriez]

>>> WHY THE HELL DO YOU CARE? YOUR NOT GOING TO BE AROUND WHEN IT HAPPENS SO WHATS THE POINT?

1) You must not have any kids....Not that I'm putting you down or anything, but if you did, I'd suspect you'd care about their future and making sure we conserve our energy & resources for our children & future generations.

2) This is a prime example of an "immediate gratification" culture...only think of yourself and no one else.

3) Aren't YOU glad that people talked this stuff over 50 years ago so you can now enjoy what you take for granted ?



>>> YOU'D THINK YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE ON YOUR MIND RATHER THAN WHAT AIRCRAFT ARE GOING TO BE RUNNING ON IN THE FUTURE


So what do you think about in your spare time ? Tell me so I can bash your personal thoughts & ideas.



>>> A WASTE OF YOUR VALUABLE TIME!!!

Maybe you typing this reply is a waste of time, but I'm not complaining because I CHOSE TO READ IT - just like you did. As subjective as your statement is, you still have the right to voice your opinion, how about respecting those who participated in this thread, hmm?


G'day

Bob

[FlyerJeff]

How do you know some of us wont be around then? Im sure someone has lived to be 112 or farther! Thats how old I would be then, Im 14 now.

-
http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3c8968c035214917.jpg
Keep on Flyin'!
AMD Thunderbird 1.4 ghz
NVidia Xtasy GeForce 3 Ti 200 64 MB
Sound Blaster PCI 128
512 MB RAM
And
Good frame rates!

[CCairns10]

Its a matter of engineering curiosity. Enjoying thinking about what engineering developments will occur in the future, and the effects it can have on what happens today. Many inventions have come about by people thinking about the future.

Chris

[catalinaflyer]

Getting in a bit late on this one but there is already a technology in existence that covers this question.

BIO-Diesel made from soybeans. And not to forget the the gassers, ethanol alcohol made from corn.

Jet-A is about as close to diesel as you can get and the company I fly for already uses Bio-Diesel in it's fleet of trucks with excellent results.

"Consciousness Is The Boring Time Between Naps"

[TruffleShuffle]

Well you shouldn't have to worry about your kids having to deal w/ that. Unless there going to be Nuclear Psyicists and find a way to run aircraft of the future. And about living to be 112 or what have you i dont see them doing it now so how do you know that they are? I like aviation myself but you shouldn't really have to worry about what plaes are going to be running on later on, so lets let future generations worry about that. I'm not criticizing you about thinking about that it does make you think but still if you 30,40,50... or so years old it wont really matter, because thew average life span now is somewhere around 72-76.

[CCairns10]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-22-02 AT 04:10PM (EDT)[p]< Anti-gravity and other exotic concepts? Nope. >

What is mistakingly called "anti-gravity" is actually the creation of an electromagnetic force which COUNTERACTS the force of gravity.

It depends what is meant by the concept of anti-gravity, a conventional wing could be considered an antigravity device because it counteracts the force of gravity with its own pressure force. The same could be said about any "anti-gravity" device which creates its own force, by electromagnetism or other means.

Chris