Re: M$ 365 Down, Again

WokieSux282@ud0s4.net <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

On 2/7/25 12:39 AM, Computer Nerd Kev 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.

 
  But they WON'T ... implosions can be quite violent.
  If one goes it'll be a chain reaction.

That might be. Or it might be possible to avoid that with the right
design, depending on the nature of the material. It'd be an
interesting challenge if the materials were around to start with,
although you'd still have the old problem of airships/blimps being
easily blown about in strong winds.

Note that pieces of such a light material wouldn't have much
mass compared to materials used in regular vacuum chambers, so
the impact force of bits flying around from an implosion would be
less than commonly experienced.

--
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#