Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IsaacAsimov

  1. First of all, there is acceleration. Racing cars can accelerate very quickly, so they can reach takeoff speed in a short time and a short distance. Secondly, you could put 2 turbofans on the left and right rear of a racing car. Turbofans don't use a lot of fuel, and they don't hurt the environment very much. They can also rotate very quickly, providing a large amount of thrust. Third, there's only 1 person in the car (the driver), so not much force is needed to get airborne. Fourth, racing cars are very safe, and that's why they cost millions of dollars. You could reduce the cost by reducing the number of safety features, but keep some of them, like using a parachute if one of the turbofans fails. You could also use an assembly line to make the cars, which would reduce the cost, and use less dense materials such as plastic, which also cost less, and would fly off the car in case of an accident, which happens with real racing cars. Another way to reduce the cost is to put advertising on the car, like they do with real racing cars. Fifth, the car would have wings instead of spoilers to give the car lift, and wings could spread out from the bottom of the car to create lift. You could steer the car by putting 2 flaps on the back, which would make the car turn left and right, You could ascend by spreading the underside wings more or by increasing the speed of the turbofans. You could descend by closing the underside wings a little or by decreasing the speed of the turbofans. I'm not an engineer or a physicist, which is why I'm giving you a general outline of what the flying racing car would be like. I consider myself to be an amateur scientist, and I've been making up ideas as I go along, so I can answer questions. I would appreciate your comments on the areas I have outlined. Thank you.
  2. If they could get a real lawnmower to fly, that would be something. It would already have a motor, a propeller on the bottom, and a gas tank. Racing cars aren't that heavy, either, so they can gain more speed. It's just a matter of building one that will fly, sort of like the fake lawn mower. Yes, but racing cars have superb acceleration, so the takeoff and landing strip (you would take off and land in the same direction) could be really short. I agree that vertical takeoff and landing would be better, but so far nobody has been able to do it. You take what you can get. Of course, if you could simplify the controls on a helicopter so that you only need 1 joystick with a fire button and a keyboard to pilot it, then helicopters would be safer and more practical.
  3. That was hilarious! I've never seen a flying lawnmower before. Yes, it would be something like that, only it would be a full-size racing car. Cheers!!! With racing cars, you can get up to aircraft speed before taking off, making it easier to get airborne. Turbo fans can rotate very fast, so they also make it easier to take off, and they don't use as much fuel as jet engines, so they wouldn't harm the environment as much.
  4. Okay, maybe we shouldn't use jet engines. How about 2 electric powered rotating turbofans mounted on the left and right side of the back of the car? If 1 of the turbofans failed, a parachute near the back of the car would open and the car would float to the ground. You may ask: Don't racing cars cost millions of dollars? That's true because they have a lot of safety features. The cars could be mass-produced on assembly lines, driving down the price. In addition, we could put advertising all over the cars, just like the real racing cars, which would also reduce the price. Of course, the cars would be really safe to drive or fly. Hello, fellow scientists. Thank you for replying to my post on flying racing cars. I think it is a feasible idea. Do you have any more questions about it?
  5. No, the car doesn't have to be submersible. However, this is one of the best ideas I've ever created. I think it could actually work. The purpose of the vehicle would be to transport people from place to place 1 at a time. It would be a modified racing car designed to fly. However, there might be a problem with the fan. The middle of the fan would touch the jet engine, so the central jet engine wouldn't fit. Instead, there would be 2 jet engines, 1 on each side of the back of the car, stabilizing it. If 1 of the engines failed, a parachute near the back of the vehicle would open, and the car would drift to the ground. Sorry, I didn't mean spoilers. I meant short wings in place of the spoilers. The wings would create lift on the front and back of the car.
  6. There would be a giant fan running from the front to the back of the racing car that would fold out like a hand fan in both directions (left and right) at the same time. It would probably look similar to the flying car in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. I know it sounds crazy, but it just might work! Since a racing car usually only holds 1 person (the driver), the car could probably lift the weight of that person into the air easily.
  7. I didn't think about turning or landing. How about having two wings underneath the car that spread out just before the jet propulsion goes into effect?
  8. Here's how to make racing cars fly: Put raised spoilers on the front and back of racing cars to create lift. The more speed the racing car has, the more lift it will have, and racing cars can go really fast. When the car starts flying, turn on jet propulsion on the back. The spoilers will continue to create lift, and the car will fly. There, you have it! Sincerely, Marlon Schmitt
  9. It can't hurt to read the manual. It will tell you which control will affect which surface of the vehicle, and will give you some insight as to how the machine works.
  10. Eise, I don't know what you mean by flight model simulator, especially the word model. Was it a full-scale model that you sit in, or a remote-controlled small helicopter about the size of a drone? I have a more realistic helicopter simulator for my Commodore 64 than Infiltrator. It's called Gunship Apache-64 Simulator, and has so many functions that you need a keyboard overlay to play it properly. Cheers!
  11. I've read in an article called How to Fly a Helicopter that it takes both hands and both feet to fly one of them. It shouldn't be that difficult. I have two computer games called Infiltrator 1 and Infiltrator 2 for the Commodore 64 (in the year 1986) that only requires 1 joystick with a fire button and a keyboard to fly an attack/defense helicopter. I'll describe how it works: First, use the keyboard to press B,S, and I for Battery, Systems and Ignition. Let the RPM indicator increase to 3240 RPM's. Pull back on the joystick to increase altitude to 2000 ft. Since your horizontal velocity is 0, you are in hover mode. If you wanted to go back down to 1000 ft., you would push the joystick forward until you reached that altitude. To make the helicopter turn left, push the joystick left. To turn right, push the joystick right. You can check the compass to see your heading. To increase forward velocity, hold the fire button down and push the joystick forward. I have never tried this, but you should be able to fly backwards by holding the fire button down and pulling back on the joystick. Let's assume you're flying forward at an altitude of 1000 ft. You could increase your velocity to 450 knots, which is the maximum in this simulation/game. You can press the + key to turn turbo mode on, which increases your forward velocity to 900 knots. To turn turbo mode off, press the - key. At certain times, an aircraft will fly by and contact you. Press * to enter communications mode, and type in Infiltrator or Overlord to hail them. If you enter the wrong code, the aircraft will attack you. If the plane fires a heat-seeking missile at you, you can press F to arm a Flare and press the fire button to launch it. If the plane fires a radar-scanning missile at you, you can press C to arm Chaff and press the fire button to launch it. You can then press R to arm a Rocket (missile) and press fire to launch it at the plane. If you run out of rockets, you can press H to display the HUD (Heads-Up Display) and fire your cannons (machine-guns) at the plane. I think I have covered all the important details about flying this type of helicopter. I think it would be fairly easy to build. Anybody have any comments on this? Please let me know. Thank you.
  12. Plan D has promise, because the deuterium atoms are travelling at such a high velocity (Mach 4) that they could get in close proximity to stationary deuterium atoms and cause fusion. Plan E: Muons are much heavier than electrons, so would pull the hydrogen atoms together as they orbited around them. However, muons decay rapidly, but travel at such a high velocity after leaving the cyclotron, that they experience time dilation, so they last much longer than stationary muons. We could try using other negatively charged particles, such as kaons and pions, in place of electrons. Plan F: The carbon nanotubes would only let protons through in single file because they have such a small diameter. Applying pressure to both ends of the nanotube might cause the protons to fuse together, forming helium atoms. The nanotubes could be put in a pressurized chamber, which is how pressure could be applied to the protons. Neutrons could be introduced through tiny openings on the surface of the nanotubes, which would keep the protons together.
  13. I appreciate you responding, Sensei. Thank you for doing the calculations to a high degree of accuracy, even though it proves that deuterium collisions would produce less energy than is put in. Well, there's still Plans C - F. Sincerely, IsaacAsimov
  14. The Chinese have almost perfected hot fusion. I think we should take a look at cold fusion again. I have made some notes on the subject. Here they are: Plan A: Collide 2 deuterium nuclei. Deuterium (or hydrogen-2) is one of two stable isotopes of hydrogen (the other being protium, or hydrogen-1). The nucleus of a deuterium atom, called a deuteron, contains one proton and one neutron, whereas the far more common protium has no neutron in the nucleus. Deuterium has an abundance in Earth's oceans of about one atom in 6420 of hydrogen. My idea: collide 2 deuterium nuclei at high speeds in opposite directions (use a cyclotron), causing them to fuse into helium nuclei, which are also called alpha particles, and releasing a lot of energy according to Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2. You have to collide the particles at the optimum relative velocity: If it's too fast, the particles will collide and fly apart. If the relative velocity is too low, the particles will repel each other and won't collide at all. An alpha particle is often a helium ion with a +2 charge (missing its 2 electrons). If the ion gains electrons from its environment, the alpha particle becomes a normal (electrically neutral) helium atom. Plan B: Bombard tritium (hysrogen-3, which has one proton and two neutrons in the nucleus) atoms with protons. Some of the protons will hit the nucleus and fuse, releasing energy. Plan C : Instead of heating up hydrogen atoms, cool down H2 gas (to possibly near 0 K), which will contract the volume of gas and make the hydrogen atoms fuse together. Plan D : Use water bubbles that travel at 4 times the speed of sound (mach 4) to smash deuterium nuclei together. Plan E: muon-catalyzed fusion: put a muon, which has a negative charge, in place of the electron in an H2 molecule, and the two protons will be drawn together by the muon, which has a larger mass than an electron. Plan F: Put protons in a carbon nanotube and apply pressure to both ends. This approach converts a 3D problem into a linear problem. Out of plans A - F, I would choose Plan A and Plan F because they are more likely than the other plans to result in nuclear fusion.
  15. I agree that doing two seems to be achievable, such as a car and a flying car, where all 4 wheels would be used for vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), and then tilted forward for flight. The key to these vehicles would be the 4 wheels of the car, which would have blades to produce thrust. If they don't work in a flying car, use jet engines. For three (a boat), the car's wheels would be tilted at an angle and its blades would be partially submerged to give it forward thrust. For four (a submarine), the wheels would be vertical, but at right angles to the direction of travel, so that the car could go pretty fast, and naturally sink below the surface of the water due to its weight. I thought of a fifth method of travel (a hovercraft), which the car could accomplish by tilting the wheels parallel to the surface of the water, which would provide upward thrust greater than the car's weight, which would lift the car a short distance above the water, and the car wouldn't sink because the air would bounce off the surface of the water and hit the car, thus producing more thrust. So there you have it: The 5-in-1 car!
  16. Well, the way I see it, is that the bigger the wheels on the car, the more blade surface you can fit on it, and the greater thrust you will have. I would suggest 19-inch wheels inside larger 20-inch wheels, which would be attached to the tires. The car might have to be jet-propelled like on an airplane. Actually, I don't really know how thrust is generated on an airplane, so I'm going to search for it on the Internet as soon as I finish this post. Cars that fly will probably have to be computer-controlled, and may have to fly inside different flyways (similar to highways) to avoid collisions. The flying car is just more efficient than a regular car, which has to stay on the ground and travel on roads, while the flying car can fly directly from point A to point B. You could fly it directly into a lake and then activate the boat function, which would just be for fun in your free time. Going underwater would also be for fun, and you could observe many underwater life-forms. The boat and underwater functions could also be computer-controlled. If you just wanted the car for efficiency, you could just have the flying car option and leave out the boat and underwater travel options. That's fairly simple, isn't it?
  17. A knife, fork and spoon are usually used for eating different types of food, so we are better off if they're separate. Usually, only a fork and knife are needed to eat food. So, about the car: If you don't have a lot of money, you could just buy the car. If you had a somewhat large amount of money, you could add the skycar feature. If you had a large quantity of money, you could add the boat feature, and if you were rich, you could finally add the underwater feature. There's nowhere in the world you couldn't go in such a car!
  18. Yes, I realized the same thing. How about using 18-inch wheels, and having the last 3 inches attached to the tire, while the inner 15 inches would rotate very quickly? If the car could be made waterproof (the Japanese are good at this), the car could go underwater, which would be a 4th mode of transportation. The 4 wheels would be vertical, but at right angles to the direction of travel. The car could be called a quadcar, 4car, or supercar. I'm not an engineer, but I'm very creative. Thank you for replying.
  19. I have a really neat idea. Engineers should be able to build a car that travels on land, air and sea. The main method of locomotion would be in the wheels. For travel on land, the wheels would be vertical, and travel on roads, which of course is possible. They are just called cars, or possibly landcars. For travel through the air, the wheels would slowly turn to a horizontal position, and start rotating within the tires. The wheels would have small wings in them, which would provide lift when rotated. The car could take off and land vertically. The cars would be called aircars, skycars, or flying cars. For travel on the sea or lakes, the car would be driven a short distance into the water, then the wheels would turn to a 45 degree angle, and start rotating within the tires. The small wings on the wheels would propel the water backward, thus pushing the car forward, as in a motorboat. The cars would be called seacars or watercars. Of course, all 3 functions could be used in the same car. I'm not sure what size the wheels should be: I was thinking 15-inch. The resulting car would be called a 3car or supercar, or something else. I think this type of car could be built. Does anybody else have any thoughts on the matter?
  20. How can a person use a computer to design a computer better than itself? Or does it need a person to provide creativity?
  21. Goto Wikipedia.org, then search for "tau lepton". Look under History, and there it is. I hope this satisfies you.
  22. Thank you for your help. Did you know that you look almost like Stan Laurel of the Laurel and Hardy famous comedy duo? Just look up specific subatomic particles, for instance muon, kaon, tau lepton.
  23. By "we", I mean the scientific community. I got all of my facts from Wikipedia.org.
  24. How about using a negative ion in place of the electron? Would that work?
  25. I was reading about muon-catalyzed cold fusion, and I thought if muons don't work in cold fusion maybe some other negative subatomic particles would. Muons decay after 2.2 x 10 -6 s, which is too short for cold fusion. Kaons (K-): Charge-parity violation, which generates the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe, was discovered in the kaon system in 1964. The lifetime of the kaon is 1.238 x 10 -8 s, too short for cold fusion. Tau lepton: Has a lifetime of 2.9 x 10 -13 s, too short to be considered for cold fusion. We have discovered 64 events of the form e+ + e- > e+- + muon-+ + at least 2 undetected particles for which we have no conventional explanation. In total, the tau lepton will decay hadronically approximately 64.79% of the time. These particles decay in too short a time. There may be some other negatively charged subatomic particles that will decay in a longer time and can substitute for the electron to cause cold fusion.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.