Re: M$ 365 Down, Again

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:

WokieSux282@ud0s4.net <WokieSux283@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 ......

 
And the rest of the sealed balls/segments still keep the thing up,
that was my point.

Unless the explosive collapse of the one sealed ball/segment impacts
the integrety of adjacent segments such that some number greater than
one of them also then explosively collapses.  At which point you have a
runaway chain reaction that might take out a significant number of the
balls/segments before it fizzles out.