Depends on what you view as "other side". Pension payer does not benefit for example, which is why if the pension system accounts for the fact that money will be spend within the economy that is being taxed to pay the said pension, this is a harmful exchange to said economy.
You're not thinking your own idea to its logical conclusion. When you have 1-4 big engines, they're critical systems.
When you have 40 small ones, none of them individually is a critical system. That's one of the advances on offer. Individual engines become far less critical to total performance of the aircraft, resulting in significant increase in safety through additional redundancy.
The "small size makes noise" complaint on the other hand appears to ignore just how loud large turboprops and jets actually are. Whatever noise you're thinking of is a tiny fraction of what modern large aircraft engine generates at full thrust. This is far into the realm of hearing damage for people within any meaningful vicinity, which is why airfield workers working near aircraft taking off use ear protection.
Your last complaint on energy losses is rather strange. You have much less stress on individual bearings, as engines are much smaller. So long as bearing are good, you're in a realm of less friction rather than more, as forces acting on individual elements are much lesser. Same applies to airflow. You don't need to have so much stress on individual surface of each propeller as to have suboptimal flows. That is a major problem mainly because we have a single large fan/propeller where edges move much faster than inner parts of the fan/propeller. In case of a much smaller fan/propeller that needs to generate much less thrust, you have far more leeway with aerodynamics.
It's almost as if in your points you understood that engines will shrink a lot, but you also forgot to account for that fact and what it leads to - much more engines to generate the same thrust, meaning much less thrust per engine.
And for that traffic, you're going to need a cheap reliable aircraft that can sit at least 40-80 people. Preferably more. And that needs to spend no more than a few tens of minutes on the ground before being back in the air for the next hop.
This is an extremely expensive aircraft that sits four and needs batteries charged after every flight. It's simply not suitable for the purpose you're thinking on any metric.
Nice narrative, that has nothing to do with observable reality. White people have it the best in terms of being foreigners in East Asia. They're pretty much the top crop of foreigners after those who have some limited neighbourly ties, i.e. Japan-Korea-China triangle.
Those who are by far the most discriminated against are black Africans of all black African ethnicities. Followed almost perfectly in order of skin colour tone from darkest to whitest. Overwhelming majority of people who are the most discriminated against come from regions and cultures that had effectively no contact with East Asian cultures in the time you're describing.
So your claim isn't just wrong. It's wrong in the worst way possible - being the diametric opposite of right.
This is an aircraft for four people. You just suggested a market that is served by aircraft that carry at least ten-twenty times that. And even they struggle due to lack of profitability, mainly due to airport availability issues.
Four people carrying aircraft exist in two kinds in modern world. One is cheapo Cessna-likes, used for pretty much everything short haul. This aircraft is about as competitive with it as Rolls Royce Phantom is competitive with a Toyota Corolla for being a family sedan.
Other is corporate executive transportation. In that one, if you can't do transcontinental flight at subsonic jet speeds, you're not competitive.
Obvious problem being that this tech will not be working for at least two decades. Battery technology in terms of energy/weight is not even in the ballpark needed for viability. Best hope is breakthrough in lithium-air.
All you get is proof of concept-items like this one, used mainly for PR. You can find similar designs on pretty much all major airplane manufacturers for example. here is an example of PR for the major names you'll find in the story.
And before you try to sell me this thing as viable, do look at what ranges people actually fly in that "luxury private aircraft for four people". Learjet has quite a bit of data on this, seeing how they have a lion's share in that market.
You sound like a person so utterly naive and sheltered, that the very basics of human interaction are utterly shocking to you. To the point where you feel the need to attack the messenger for just stating the said basics of human interaction.
Depends on the country. There are entire foreign enclaves in places like Thailand. They typically specialize to serve a certain nationality, basically sucking up Western pensioner's pensions to guarantee a fairly high quality of life due to country itself being much poorer than country that pensioner comes from.
Rich East Asian countries like Japan don't really fit that bill though. These countries have enough problems with their own elderly as it is.
It actually looks utterly awful, because it's still using traditional propulsion style of a small amount of fairly large engines. The revolution in electric flying is that you can use a large amount of very small engines, to the point where you can turn your entire control surface into a mass of tiny engines, allowing for significant aerodynamic advances.
The unsolvable problem remains the energy density of batteries. At least until we figure out something like lithium air batteries in terms of energy density with has been perpetually "two decades away" for something close to half a century.
So basically, you're confusing East Asian culture of politeness with "not being racist".
Funny part is, most East Asian languages now have a slur specifically for people like you, essentially describing that dumb foreigner that doesn't get the fact that politeness is culturally forced. Not genuine.
So long as you stay in main metropolises like Tokyo or Kyoto? Maybe. A big maybe.
Leave that and go into more rural areas, like this offer, and you're going to be introduced to actual Japanese culture, which functions on blood ties like most East Asian cultures do. You being a foreigner will always be a foreigner, because of your bloodline. Those are places where being even genetically half Japanese gets you severely discriminated against at every turn.
Outside the primary Western countries, "racist assholes" are what is known as "normal people".
This sounds like an insurance issue. The risk of having someone who's end of career salary is well in the mid six digits USD getting disabled in reasonably young age will make any insurance premium jump significantly. That payout would be well in seven-eight digits.
Whereas paying base wage to electrician you already have on the roll costs you next to nothing. And if the dumbass scientist decides to do it anyway and gets hurt that's now the problem with the scientist not following the rules, and so he doesn't get the money.
Blaming it on "union" just gets you a propaganda win on top of lower insurance premiums.
World governments, if polled democratically, would likely vote against anything that is even remotely resembling democracy.
Not because governments are evil or anything other that silly. Just because most of the governments are not democratic (as we TBL means it), and view any movement by their people towards one as a threat. Evidence for this is ample across various "colour revolutions" to the current unrest in France.
Chinese internet model is likely the most desirable model for most of the world, if you ask their rulers.
Not going to bother with your dumb dirt throwing, but I'll just point out that there's literally a campaign going on right now in China, and has been ongoing for a few years of Chinese government executing people on mainstream TV.
I'm sure that you're just as much of an expert in this field as you are in the wind.
As in "magic works here, and I know how".
In real life, expert who actually worked on the system in real life has cited practical application and points of failure to an auditorium full of engineering students. I'm sure that you can think of many magical reasons why expert is wrong and you are right. But you're in the wrong forum to argue that. You should google "magic and mysticism" and go there with your points.
And now pretend you're on slashdot and actually understand mathematics and concept of relative vs absolute numbers.
What is the percentage of people that have access to the kind of information China would want out of total of workforce?
Exactly. Normal people have nothing to fear here. NatSec people don't give a fuck about your porn tastes or how much credit card debt you have unless you're one of the specific few that actually has relevant access.
As for "but if we conduct bank theft en masse" sure, you can pop the nuclear option and make NatSec community involved in your bank fraud. There's a reason why it's not done. China has NatSec community just like any other major state in the world. First, they'd have you quietly shot for suggesting such a tremendous waste of resources and throwing such powerful cards for such little gain. Second, diplomatic core would join them in the same demand.
Do you know what happens to people in states like China when those two communities think that you're acting against their interests? Yes, that is the reason why your scenario is not going to happen.
That line is taken from a lecture by TKL's chief technology planner referencing their environmental efforts where they tried various technologies to see what would be relevant. He specifically referenced buses running on gaseous fuels, and the fact that their valves simply could not handle the vibration causing breakdowns very quickly.
I suggest you go back to talking about your field of expertise - fiction about wind wizardry in Germany and its relationship to power generation there.
But I'm literally taking the talking lines from relevant lectures and studies done by people who are cutting edge specialists in the field. This isn't hidden, a few google searches on things like example I provided will give you the same information from people who unlike myself have the relevant credentials.
Note how I never appealed to my authority. That was your invention, start to finish.
Slashdot Mirror
You're arguing on definitions of words. That is not an argument that is relevant to this discussion.
P.S. In pilot training, engines are indeed considered critical systems.
I see you didn't comprehend anything I posted so far. Ok.
Do you want me to copy/paste my previous two posts? The question you're asking has already been answered in them.
Depends on what you view as "other side". Pension payer does not benefit for example, which is why if the pension system accounts for the fact that money will be spend within the economy that is being taxed to pay the said pension, this is a harmful exchange to said economy.
You're not thinking your own idea to its logical conclusion. When you have 1-4 big engines, they're critical systems.
When you have 40 small ones, none of them individually is a critical system. That's one of the advances on offer. Individual engines become far less critical to total performance of the aircraft, resulting in significant increase in safety through additional redundancy.
The "small size makes noise" complaint on the other hand appears to ignore just how loud large turboprops and jets actually are. Whatever noise you're thinking of is a tiny fraction of what modern large aircraft engine generates at full thrust. This is far into the realm of hearing damage for people within any meaningful vicinity, which is why airfield workers working near aircraft taking off use ear protection.
Your last complaint on energy losses is rather strange. You have much less stress on individual bearings, as engines are much smaller. So long as bearing are good, you're in a realm of less friction rather than more, as forces acting on individual elements are much lesser. Same applies to airflow. You don't need to have so much stress on individual surface of each propeller as to have suboptimal flows. That is a major problem mainly because we have a single large fan/propeller where edges move much faster than inner parts of the fan/propeller. In case of a much smaller fan/propeller that needs to generate much less thrust, you have far more leeway with aerodynamics.
It's almost as if in your points you understood that engines will shrink a lot, but you also forgot to account for that fact and what it leads to - much more engines to generate the same thrust, meaning much less thrust per engine.
You think there are "full-blown out-in-the-open-lynchings" going on in "rural America"?
Ok. Good luck with the rest of your life.
And for that traffic, you're going to need a cheap reliable aircraft that can sit at least 40-80 people. Preferably more. And that needs to spend no more than a few tens of minutes on the ground before being back in the air for the next hop.
This is an extremely expensive aircraft that sits four and needs batteries charged after every flight. It's simply not suitable for the purpose you're thinking on any metric.
Nice narrative, that has nothing to do with observable reality. White people have it the best in terms of being foreigners in East Asia. They're pretty much the top crop of foreigners after those who have some limited neighbourly ties, i.e. Japan-Korea-China triangle.
Those who are by far the most discriminated against are black Africans of all black African ethnicities. Followed almost perfectly in order of skin colour tone from darkest to whitest. Overwhelming majority of people who are the most discriminated against come from regions and cultures that had effectively no contact with East Asian cultures in the time you're describing.
So your claim isn't just wrong. It's wrong in the worst way possible - being the diametric opposite of right.
This is an aircraft for four people. You just suggested a market that is served by aircraft that carry at least ten-twenty times that. And even they struggle due to lack of profitability, mainly due to airport availability issues.
Four people carrying aircraft exist in two kinds in modern world. One is cheapo Cessna-likes, used for pretty much everything short haul. This aircraft is about as competitive with it as Rolls Royce Phantom is competitive with a Toyota Corolla for being a family sedan.
Other is corporate executive transportation. In that one, if you can't do transcontinental flight at subsonic jet speeds, you're not competitive.
It usually refers to "white leftie", which is what Chinese variant of it literally translates to.
Obvious problem being that this tech will not be working for at least two decades. Battery technology in terms of energy/weight is not even in the ballpark needed for viability. Best hope is breakthrough in lithium-air.
All you get is proof of concept-items like this one, used mainly for PR. You can find similar designs on pretty much all major airplane manufacturers for example. here is an example of PR for the major names you'll find in the story.
And before you try to sell me this thing as viable, do look at what ranges people actually fly in that "luxury private aircraft for four people". Learjet has quite a bit of data on this, seeing how they have a lion's share in that market.
You sound like a person so utterly naive and sheltered, that the very basics of human interaction are utterly shocking to you. To the point where you feel the need to attack the messenger for just stating the said basics of human interaction.
Complexity. Combustion engines are much more complex than electric.
It's a passenger airplane. 650 miles is basically useless.
Depends on the country. There are entire foreign enclaves in places like Thailand. They typically specialize to serve a certain nationality, basically sucking up Western pensioner's pensions to guarantee a fairly high quality of life due to country itself being much poorer than country that pensioner comes from.
Rich East Asian countries like Japan don't really fit that bill though. These countries have enough problems with their own elderly as it is.
It actually looks utterly awful, because it's still using traditional propulsion style of a small amount of fairly large engines. The revolution in electric flying is that you can use a large amount of very small engines, to the point where you can turn your entire control surface into a mass of tiny engines, allowing for significant aerodynamic advances.
I.e. something like NASA's x-57 test bed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The unsolvable problem remains the energy density of batteries. At least until we figure out something like lithium air batteries in terms of energy density with has been perpetually "two decades away" for something close to half a century.
So basically, you're confusing East Asian culture of politeness with "not being racist".
Funny part is, most East Asian languages now have a slur specifically for people like you, essentially describing that dumb foreigner that doesn't get the fact that politeness is culturally forced. Not genuine.
So long as you stay in main metropolises like Tokyo or Kyoto? Maybe. A big maybe.
Leave that and go into more rural areas, like this offer, and you're going to be introduced to actual Japanese culture, which functions on blood ties like most East Asian cultures do. You being a foreigner will always be a foreigner, because of your bloodline. Those are places where being even genetically half Japanese gets you severely discriminated against at every turn.
Outside the primary Western countries, "racist assholes" are what is known as "normal people".
This sounds like an insurance issue. The risk of having someone who's end of career salary is well in the mid six digits USD getting disabled in reasonably young age will make any insurance premium jump significantly. That payout would be well in seven-eight digits.
Whereas paying base wage to electrician you already have on the roll costs you next to nothing. And if the dumbass scientist decides to do it anyway and gets hurt that's now the problem with the scientist not following the rules, and so he doesn't get the money.
Blaming it on "union" just gets you a propaganda win on top of lower insurance premiums.
World governments, if polled democratically, would likely vote against anything that is even remotely resembling democracy.
Not because governments are evil or anything other that silly. Just because most of the governments are not democratic (as we TBL means it), and view any movement by their people towards one as a threat. Evidence for this is ample across various "colour revolutions" to the current unrest in France.
Chinese internet model is likely the most desirable model for most of the world, if you ask their rulers.
Not going to bother with your dumb dirt throwing, but I'll just point out that there's literally a campaign going on right now in China, and has been ongoing for a few years of Chinese government executing people on mainstream TV.
I'm sure that you're just as much of an expert in this field as you are in the wind.
As in "magic works here, and I know how".
In real life, expert who actually worked on the system in real life has cited practical application and points of failure to an auditorium full of engineering students. I'm sure that you can think of many magical reasons why expert is wrong and you are right. But you're in the wrong forum to argue that. You should google "magic and mysticism" and go there with your points.
And now pretend you're on slashdot and actually understand mathematics and concept of relative vs absolute numbers.
What is the percentage of people that have access to the kind of information China would want out of total of workforce?
Exactly. Normal people have nothing to fear here. NatSec people don't give a fuck about your porn tastes or how much credit card debt you have unless you're one of the specific few that actually has relevant access.
As for "but if we conduct bank theft en masse" sure, you can pop the nuclear option and make NatSec community involved in your bank fraud. There's a reason why it's not done. China has NatSec community just like any other major state in the world. First, they'd have you quietly shot for suggesting such a tremendous waste of resources and throwing such powerful cards for such little gain. Second, diplomatic core would join them in the same demand.
Do you know what happens to people in states like China when those two communities think that you're acting against their interests? Yes, that is the reason why your scenario is not going to happen.
That line is taken from a lecture by TKL's chief technology planner referencing their environmental efforts where they tried various technologies to see what would be relevant. He specifically referenced buses running on gaseous fuels, and the fact that their valves simply could not handle the vibration causing breakdowns very quickly.
I suggest you go back to talking about your field of expertise - fiction about wind wizardry in Germany and its relationship to power generation there.
But I'm literally taking the talking lines from relevant lectures and studies done by people who are cutting edge specialists in the field. This isn't hidden, a few google searches on things like example I provided will give you the same information from people who unlike myself have the relevant credentials.
Note how I never appealed to my authority. That was your invention, start to finish.