Liste des Groupes | Revenir à col misc |
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 vacuumThis is substantially correct. The strength to weigh ratio of a
blimp. One goose bumps into the thing and it will all implode in
an instant.
>
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.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.