Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
https://thefogbow.com/forum/
He wants them, so no need to discuss. Unfeasible for that reason alone.
Yep.p0rtia wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 1:31 pm I will further deconstruct to say he _says_ he wants them.
IOW, he said some words that were designed to provide an illusion for a few minutes.
Whether or not those words are ever said again depends on how much traction they get with the idiot class.
There's no there there.
There's more there here than there.
There.
Hear, hear.p0rtia wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 1:31 pm I will further deconstruct to say he _says_ he wants them.
IOW, he said some words that were designed to provide an illusion for a few minutes.
Whether or not those words are ever said again depends on how much traction they get with the idiot class.
There's no there there.
There's more there here than there.
There.
Sounds about right. Even news or police choppers, both pretty small, can be pretty loud and with nothing to block the noise wow can it add up if there is more than one covering something.pipistrelle wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 12:48 pm I hear up to four types of helicopters:
Hospital
Military
Rescue
News
All sparingly. Most common is the hospital.
Dickheads in speedboats II - Now you're not safe out of the water.The Jetson One Is Part Flying Sports Car And Part Drone
Tipping the scales at 190 lbs, the one seater, fully electric Jetson ONE has a flight time of 20 minutes and is being manufactured under FAA rules so owners do not need a pilot's license.
- Jetson.jpg (77.11 KiB) Viewed 782 times
And The Jensen's cars were horrendously polluting.
Trump didn’t like Sarah saying she isn’t ready to endorse for president. He doesn’t ask for endorsements, he threatens people who won’t. Which is what this is.
Trump is now trying to get his cronies in the GA legislature to remove the Fulton DA before she indicts him.
Flying Mopeds.Suranis wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:17 pm https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlyon/ ... 4c6e721159
Dickheads in speedboats II - Now you're not safe out of the water.The Jetson One Is Part Flying Sports Car And Part Drone
Tipping the scales at 190 lbs, the one seater, fully electric Jetson ONE has a flight time of 20 minutes and is being manufactured under FAA rules so owners do not need a pilot's license.
Jetson.jpg
These are some good articles. Thanks.keith wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 2:42 amWell, it is for a start, intuitively obvious that a multi-modal vehicle designed for 'the average Joe', VTOL capability, helicopter manoeuvrability, safety up the kazoo, is going to be heavy and an energy goblin.
But don't take my word for it - here's my work and references...
More at the link, but the title carries the important message
FOTW #1042, August 13, 2018: In 2017 Nearly 60% of All Vehicle Trips Were Less than Six Miles
Here is why the above is the important point.
Advantages and disadvantages of flying cars
Although VTOLs are very efficient once in the air, the take-off and climb phase of the journey requires large amounts of energy. This means that for short trips the benefits in terms of energy use and emissions are much lower.
Researchers at the University of Michigan found that for any trips less than 35km in length, it actually requires less energy to drive a car without any passengers the same distance.
This was an important finding because many people (and companies) see electric flying cars as a solution to transportation within our cities, for journeys like the typical commute which averages around 17km. But this research shows that although VTOLs are promising over longer distances due to their efficiency in cruise phase, these short journeys could actually lead to even higher emissions than existing transportation options.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09426-0We present the first detailed sustainability assessment of VTOL flying cars. Although VTOLs are faced with economic, regulatory, and safety challenges, we determine that they may have a niche role in a sustainable mobility system. From the results of our assessment, four key insights for VTOL development can be drawn.
First, due to the significantly higher burdens associated with fewer passengers on-board, operators would have to ensure VTOLs fly at near-full capacities for them to outperform conventional ground-based vehicles. This might be a plausible scenario for two reasons. Current airline service providers already operate with similarly high utilization targets. Also, given the significant time savings of VTOLs over cars, passengers may be motivated to share rides with others to reduce higher costs expected of VTOL trips. While ridesharing in ground-based cars, passengers often have to tradeoff cost for travel time. This is not expected to be the case with VTOLs, with time-saving benefits being potentially important for their adoption. It should be noted here that single-occupant ground-based vehicles also have negative sustainability implications compared with fully loaded cars that combine passenger trips.
Related work by Uber7 and Ullman et al.6 support the key takeaways from our study. Uber7 estimates a VTOL energy intensity of about 0.48 kWh km−1 at 241 kph for an 80 km trip. No detailed breakdown of the VTOL energy modeling is provided. Under these conditions and assuming four occupants, the VTOL operational energy intensity yielded by our model is 0.43 kWh km−1 (about 10% lower). Further, the Ullman et al.6 model of VTOL range and energy consumption was reproduced according to the physics-based relationships stated in the study. Using Ullman et al.6 model and input assumptions, the VTOL operational energy intensity is 0.57 kWh km−1 for a 1360 kg VTOL at 241 kph for a 100 km trip. Using our baseline input assumptions instead, Ullman’s model produces an energy intensity of 0.37 kWh km−1 (about 35% lower), which is the same as the output from our model for a fully loaded VTOL. Despite these studies reporting higher energy intensities, the comparison with ground-based vehicles still remains promising. Using the 2020 US average grid mix, Uber’s 0.48 kWh km−1 and Ullman’s 0.57 kWh km−1 translate to GHG emissions of 0.09 and 0.10 kg-CO2e PKT−1, respectively (for three passengers on a 100 km trip). These compare favorably to the 0.07 and 0.13 kg-CO2e PKT−1 results for the BEV and ICEV, respectively.
Our analysis provides an important first basis for assessing and guiding use-phase VTOL sustainability. Given the dynamic nature of rapid developments in the flying car space, VTOL deployment could emerge differently from our defined base case. This may alter our findings in unpredictable ways. Further, future work should consider the total vehicle cycle burdens for these aircraft, once there is more clarity on material selection, manufacturing processes, design, and disposal. Finally, despite certain sustainability benefits of VTOLs, their feasibility as a future transportation option depends on advances beyond those of a technical nature, including regulation, consumer, and societal acceptance of aerial transport in urban areas.
)
)Whether flying cars are possible is NOT germane to the current discussion. Flying cars have been built (and flown and driven) since the 1950's. Of course they are possible.somerset wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 8:53 pm
The UofM paper referenced in the second article provides the basis of the efficiency conclusion, as well as a lot more very good data. And if you read the entire paper, it also points out that VTOLs are useful for shorter commutes, just not as efficient. And more germane to our current argument, it shows that "flying cars" are quite possible.
I think we can disagree on what the articles, and especially the UofM study, concluded. I didn't take away that flying cars are impractical. Only that they aren't as energy *efficient* for short trips as land based cars. If energy efficiency were the only metric here, we'd all be driving electric carskeith wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:14 pmWhether flying cars are possible is NOT germane to the current discussion. Flying cars have been built (and flown and driven) since the 1950's. Of course they are possible.somerset wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 8:53 pm
The UofM paper referenced in the second article provides the basis of the efficiency conclusion, as well as a lot more very good data. And if you read the entire paper, it also points out that VTOLs are useful for shorter commutes, just not as efficient. And more germane to our current argument, it shows that "flying cars" are quite possible.
What IS germane to the discussion is whether or not they are practical for large scale deployments. The articles I linked did not claim they were impossible and neither did I. They DID show, however, that they were impractical and not energy effective for short trips.
60% of anticipated flying car trips would be less than 6 miles (9.65kilometers) and a VTOL flying car would need a trip length of at least 25 kilometres to be energy equivalent to a land car.
And there are other aspects, especially time, that I think make the current trade-off worthwhile. Also, given the significant time savings of VTOLs over cars, passengers may be motivated to share rides with others to reduce higher costs expected of VTOL trips. While ridesharing in ground-based cars, passengers often have to tradeoff cost for travel time. This is not expected to be the case with VTOLs, with time-saving benefits being potentially important for their adoption. It should be noted here that single-occupant ground-based vehicles also have negative sustainability implications compared with fully loaded cars that combine passenger trips.
Gotta agreep0rtia wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 1:31 pm I will further deconstruct to say he _says_ he wants them.
IOW, he said some words that were designed to provide an illusion for a few minutes.
Whether or not those words are ever said again depends on how much traction they get with the idiot class.
There's no there there.
There's more there here than there.
There.
