Re: M$ 365 Down, Again

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote:

On 2/6/25 3:28 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 06/02/2025 03:19, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote:

Anyway, sorry, I just CAN'T see any sort of useful
    and safe vacuum blimp. One goose bumps into the
    thing and it will all implode in an instant.
 

This is substantially correct. The strength to weigh ratio of a vacuum
filled  blimp or dirigible means it probably cannot exist at any useable
size

 If you can make small vacuum balls that float in the air, you
could potentially fill a blimp with them instead of gas. Or
instead of one hollow vacuum chamber, join the balls (or honeycomb
segments) up into one solid lighter-than-air structure of tiny
sealed vacuum chambers where only the outer ones are vulnerable
to impact.

>
>
 But ONE little dent compromising the structural
 integrity and ......

This is easy! Write in the manual "do not compromise the structural integrity", problem solved! ;)

 In college I sometimes worked with vac drying of
 biological samples. We'd use like an 8-inch
 polycarbonate dome fitted to a gasketed metal
 plate. You'd think polycarbonate should be kinda
 indestructible ... but it kinda depends how
 people "cleaning" it heaped on abuse. I remember
 when one imploded - sounded like a damned bomb
 and blew out the glass of the fume hood, injuring
 a couple of students. The released fumes weren't
 so great for ya either but most went up the chute.
>
 There's always helium-3 ... 25% lighter ... but
 on earth it's kinda unobtanium.