Re: M$ 365 Down, Again

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

On 2/6/25 5:53 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-02-06 04:19, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote:

On 2/5/25 5:18 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-02-05 07:33, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote:

On 2/4/25 4:02 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 3 Feb 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote:

  Zeps are technically "better", but the framework
  is subject to stress and can snap - even if it
  was upgraded to titanium. Blimps spread the load
  across the entire envelope and can thus survive
  sudden wind gusts better. They may kinda fold
  and shimmy, but don't snap.
   Hmmmm ... maybe a 'hybrid' is possible now -
  a blimp, but 'stiffened' a bit with like
  graphite ribs so it's not SO floppy ?

 I heard about an experimental concept that does not use a gas for lift,
but vacuum! Very fascinating!

 More theoretical than experimental - the materials might be
possible but I don't think anyone can make them yet.

    Um, no, CAN'T be made. Ever SEEN any kind of vac
   vessel even slightly compromised ? INSTANT total
   CRUSH. Maybe an unobtanium sphere .....

 Ever seen electrical bulbs? Some are vacuum filled.
There were also electronic valves, CRT tubes...

    Well, as an experiment, WEIGH the glass envelope
   on those vac tubes ... then extrapolate that for
   a 200-foot flying vessel.
    Oh, both valves and old light-bulbs BREAK very
   easily.
    Modern incandescent bulbs are filled with argon.
   This is better and the gas/pressure helps suppress
   filament boil-off.

 I know. I happen to have one vacuum bulb at hand reach, and the bottom part (the part facing the floor) is darkened by evaporated metal deposits.
 

    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.

 Oh, I know that vacuum filled blimps are impossible.
 

    Hmmm ... MAYbe there can be a 'gas' lighter than
   hydrogen - some kind of exotic matter ? Perhaps
   some high electrostatic charge - center electrode
   and envelope both negatively charged, then the
   vacuum would not SEEM to be a vacuum so far as
   the structural components are concerned. Sounds
   kinda sparky alas.

 Force fields :-)

>
 Well ... show me one that's practical  :-)
>
 In THEORY you could use positronium gas ... but
 if any of those electrons wander elsewhere ....

I once encountered a man on a mailinglist who was going to have this type of thing as his Ph.D. thesis. He said that he could probably solve this. I wonder if he will?