Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Computer Folklore » Computers on TV
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: Computers on TV [message #401460 is a reply to message #401456] Mon, 26 October 2020 19:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Dallas

On 10/26/2020 5:40 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 10:52:28 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>> So for the closest approach to a flying car _without_ antigravity,
>>> think of a helicopter. And not one of those "eggbeater" helicopters
>>> either. Instead, think of a Sikorsky, where there is no intrinsic tendency
>>> to spin because of counter-rotating blades.
>
>> Sikorsky? What Sikorsky model is that? A better model would be
>> Kamov, which pioneered the coaxial design in the late 1940s and has
>> been using it for the majority of their designes ever since.
>
> I was thinking of a transport helicopter, like the Boeing CH-47 Chinook.
>
> But even more specifically, of the kind of craft in the first page of the
> comic reproduced here:
>
> https://atocom.blogspot.com/2016/07/reading-room-captain-joh ner-and-aliens_18.html
>
> John Savard
>

and there was an actual prototype of an "Avrocar" in the 1950's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YEZXF5cEzw
Re: Computers on TV [message #401465 is a reply to message #401413] Mon, 26 October 2020 20:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Douglas Miller

On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 10:57:56 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> ...
> Being done. Required in the US as of last month. Porsche is already
> figuring out a new ripoff angle--500 bucks for "sporty sound",
> presumably they default to something that the owner can be expected to
> be willing to pay 500 bucks to get rid of.
>
> And of course the cops want an exemption.
>> Some sports cars like the Mazda Miata tune their emissions system to sound "sporty".
> Some just play engine noise through the speakers.

Custom "ring tones" for your car... I want the one from the "Jetsons"... probably comes with "Fred Flintstone".
Re: Computers on TV [message #401471 is a reply to message #401403] Mon, 26 October 2020 22:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joy Beeson is currently offline  Joy Beeson
Messages: 159
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 07:55:42 -0500, Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote:

> Or possible the "hearing" of society?
> I mean, those things have got to be loud.
>
> But then again, I probably would have said the same about automobiles when they first appeared on
> the streets.

Back when I had to carry a regional map in case I wandered into a
county that I hadn't brought a map for, one of my navigating tricks
was listening to see where the highways were.

Automobiles are *loud*.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
Re: Computers on TV [message #401473 is a reply to message #401456] Mon, 26 October 2020 23:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:40:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 10:52:28 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>> So for the closest approach to a flying car _without_ antigravity,
>>> think of a helicopter. And not one of those "eggbeater" helicopters
>>> either. Instead, think of a Sikorsky, where there is no intrinsic tendency
>>> to spin because of counter-rotating blades.
>
>> Sikorsky? What Sikorsky model is that? A better model would be
>> Kamov, which pioneered the coaxial design in the late 1940s and has
>> been using it for the majority of their designes ever since.
>
> I was thinking of a transport helicopter, like the Boeing CH-47 Chinook.
>
> But even more specifically, of the kind of craft in the first page of the
> comic reproduced here:
>
> https://atocom.blogspot.com/2016/07/reading-room-captain-joh ner-and-aliens_18.html

That's a quadcopter. Basic hobbyist drone layout and being used in
one variant or another by just about everybody who has a project in
the works.
Re: Computers on TV [message #401474 is a reply to message #401460] Tue, 27 October 2020 00:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 18:17:48 -0500, Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote:

> On 10/26/2020 5:40 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 10:52:28 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> So for the closest approach to a flying car _without_ antigravity,
>>>> think of a helicopter. And not one of those "eggbeater" helicopters
>>>> either. Instead, think of a Sikorsky, where there is no intrinsic tendency
>>>> to spin because of counter-rotating blades.
>>
>>> Sikorsky? What Sikorsky model is that? A better model would be
>>> Kamov, which pioneered the coaxial design in the late 1940s and has
>>> been using it for the majority of their designes ever since.
>>
>> I was thinking of a transport helicopter, like the Boeing CH-47 Chinook.
>>
>> But even more specifically, of the kind of craft in the first page of the
>> comic reproduced here:
>>
>> https://atocom.blogspot.com/2016/07/reading-room-captain-joh ner-and-aliens_18.html
>>
>> John Savard
>>
>
> and there was an actual prototype of an "Avrocar" in the 1950's
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YEZXF5cEzw

Which didn't even get high enough to crash. There was also the Taylor
Aerocar, which achieved sufficient success that there was one featured
occasionally in a network sitcom (note that licensing was a pain--it
was legally considered to be a tractor-trailer on the ground so you
needed a commercial driver's license and had to register the two
pieces separately and get a license tag for each, plus the
registration as an aircraft and the pilot's license). The Terrafugia
is a similar concept that is in the flying-prototype stage.

But here's something closer to the direction the mainstream seems to
be taking: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_mezyLhvlA>. This one
may actually be close to market--it looks like they're making them in
quantity.
Re: Computers on TV [message #401475 is a reply to message #401452] Tue, 27 October 2020 00:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:23:05 -0500, Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote:

> On 10/26/2020 4:52 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>> But now a self-flying car should be easier to develop than a self-driving
>> car, seeing as there are fewer unexpected things up there.
>>
>
> But no room for error.

There's plenty of room for error. A fraction of a second inattention
in a car can get you dead. In an airplane unless you're landing,
taking off, or flying in tight formation (or in combat) it just means
that you need to make a correction.
Re: Computers on TV [message #401476 is a reply to message #401455] Tue, 27 October 2020 00:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:36:07 -0500, Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote:

> On 10/26/2020 5:23 PM, Dallas wrote:
>> On 10/26/2020 4:52 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> But now a self-flying car should be easier to develop than a self-driving
>>> car, seeing as there are fewer unexpected things up there.
>>>
>>
>> But no room for error.
>>
>
> and there are birds sharing the air with you
>
> and probably more and more drones carrying stuff

When bird meets cuisinart, bird loses. As for drones, it's not the
autonomous stuff you have to worry about, its the stuff piloted by
humans who do unpredictable things for incomprehensible reasons. The
drones can just be programmed to avoid each other. That technology
has been in commercial use for decades.
Re: Computers on TV [message #401478 is a reply to message #401378] Tue, 27 October 2020 02:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jorgen Grahn is currently offline  Jorgen Grahn
Messages: 606
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Mon, 2020-10-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
> Douglas Miller <durgadas311@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Was watching episodes of "UFO" today, and it was remarkable how
>> UN-futuristic their computer equipment was. Filmed in 1970, set in 1980,
>
> Much the same can be said for Star Trek (the original) - the tech in
> that is a mixture of clunky (bridge controls) and magical (medical).
>
> Then again I suspect the recent fad for depicting transparent
> screens and hand waving interfaces will look equally silly in a decade or
> two for never having happened at all.

In a decade or two? They look silly /now/.

They are a useful way of showing a bunch of people looking at and
discussing information, though: you can see their faces and the map
(or whatever it is) at the same time.

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Re: Computers on TV [message #401479 is a reply to message #401447] Tue, 27 October 2020 02:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 18:08:47 -0400
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> Shows how times change. Japanese stuff was "cheap" and Volkswagens
> were "good cars".

Not that much of a change really, now it's China for "cheap" and
Japan for "good", sooner or later China will opt for "good" too (it's
already happening) and somewhere else will get a crack at being "cheap",
probably India or Africa. The real change will come when there's nowhere
left willing to be the world's cheap industrial base.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: Computers on TV [message #401480 is a reply to message #401444] Tue, 27 October 2020 02:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 18:05:57 -0400
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's a car, not an aircraft. Autopilots for aircraft are very
> mature technology.

Yes but they take off, fly and land under tightly controlled
conditions that ensure they have clear air space, flying cars won't.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: Computers on TV [message #401482 is a reply to message #401450] Tue, 27 October 2020 02:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 26 Oct 2020 19:13:40 -0300
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

>
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:27:16 -0400
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Transparent screens do exist--google "head up display"--but they are
>>
>> Sure but nobody wants a transparent, blackboard sized computer
>> monitor like the ones depicted in films and TV.
>
> Maps. Greater London, Appalachian trail, galaxy far, far away, all
> same. Zoom in/zoom out on small screen dosn't make it.

Sure size is good for many things, but why on earth would you want
the display to be transparent ? What use is the reversed display visible
from the back and why would you want to see whatever is behind the display
through what is being displayed.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: Computers on TV [message #401485 is a reply to message #401416] Tue, 27 October 2020 05:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Niklas Karlsson is currently offline  Niklas Karlsson
Messages: 265
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2020-10-26, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sikorsky? What Sikorsky model is that? A better model would be
> Kamov, which pioneered the coaxial design in the late 1940s and has
> been using it for the majority of their designes ever since.

I'd always wondered how coaxial Kamovs yaw. Apparently, assuming they're
hovering or moving too slowly for the tail rudder to have adequate
effect, they increase the pitch of one rotor but not the other, so you
get more drag going one way than the other. The amount of pitch needed
is slight, so there won't be much of an effect on height control.

Niklas
--
I defy anyone to find a mountain whereupon the dew is this particular
colour, and then return to tell me about it. And no fair wearing
rad-suits for the journey.
-- Carl Jacobs
Re: Computers on TV [message #401486 is a reply to message #401485] Tue, 27 October 2020 05:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Niklas Karlsson is currently offline  Niklas Karlsson
Messages: 265
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2020-10-27, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote:
> On 2020-10-26, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sikorsky? What Sikorsky model is that? A better model would be
>> Kamov, which pioneered the coaxial design in the late 1940s and has
>> been using it for the majority of their designes ever since.
>
> I'd always wondered how coaxial Kamovs yaw. Apparently, assuming they're
> hovering or moving too slowly for the tail rudder to have adequate
> effect, they increase the pitch of one rotor but not the other, so you
> get more drag going one way than the other. The amount of pitch needed
> is slight, so there won't be much of an effect on height control.

Also, it's easier to make them have a small footprint compared to
tail-rotor designs, which is why the Russians like to operate coaxial
Kamovs off of ships.

Niklas
--
Buildings full of monitors with the xdm login screen must have been hard on
air traffic control communications.
-- Koos van den Hout, asr
Re: Computers on TV [message #401496 is a reply to message #401456] Tue, 27 October 2020 10:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 10:52:28 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>> So for the closest approach to a flying car _without_ antigravity,
>>> think of a helicopter. And not one of those "eggbeater" helicopters
>>> either. Instead, think of a Sikorsky, where there is no intrinsic tendency
>>> to spin because of counter-rotating blades.
>
>> Sikorsky? What Sikorsky model is that? A better model would be
>> Kamov, which pioneered the coaxial design in the late 1940s and has
>> been using it for the majority of their designes ever since.
>
> I was thinking of a transport helicopter, like the Boeing CH-47 Chinook.

This is a better example, perhaps:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky%E2%80%93Boeing_SB-1_D efiant
Re: Computers on TV [message #401497 is a reply to message #401442] Tue, 27 October 2020 10:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:52:20 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:27:16 -0400
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 Oct 2020 10:10:12 GMT, maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2020-10-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> > On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> > Douglas Miller <durgadas311@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Was watching episodes of "UFO" today, and it was remarkable how
>>>> >> UN-futuristic their computer equipment was. Filmed in 1970, set in
>>>> >> 1980,
>>>> >
>>>> > Much the same can be said for Star Trek (the original) - the
>>>> > tech in that is a mixture of clunky (bridge controls) and magical
>>>> > (medical).
>>>> >
>>>> > Then again I suspect the recent fad for depicting transparent
>>>> > screens and hand waving interfaces will look equally silly in a decade
>>>> > or two for never having happened at all.
>>
>>> Transparent screens do exist--google "head up display"--but they are
>>
>> Sure but nobody wants a transparent, blackboard sized computer
>> monitor like the ones depicted in films and TV.
>>
>>> generally achieved by projection onto an angled surface rather than
>>> anything fancy technologically. Hand waving interfaces also
>>> exist--one does a lot of hand waving using VR, and the latest Galaxy
>>> Note responds to stylus gestures when the stylus is not in contact
>>> with the screen, so there is at least some practical interest in that
>>> sort of thing.
>>
>> It's not that they can't be done or don't exist, it's just that,
>> like voice interfaces, they have limited usefulness.
>>
>>> As for flying cars, at this point there are at least 20 in development
>>> with a number of prototypes flying, and the professional hand-wringers
>>
>> There have been prototypes since the 1950s, possibly earlier.
>> They've all needed a pilot's license to fly them.
>>
>
> But now a self-flying car should be easier to develop than a self-driving
> car, seeing as there are fewer unexpected things up there.

Well, there will be lots of flying cars...

--
Jim
Re: Computers on TV [message #401498 is a reply to message #401497] Tue, 27 October 2020 11:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Dallas

On 10/27/2020 9:52 AM, JimP wrote:
> Well, there will be lots of flying cars...
>

And flying trucks?
Re: Computers on TV [message #401499 is a reply to message #401497] Tue, 27 October 2020 11:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:52:16 -0500
JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:52:20 -0700, Peter Flass
> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> But now a self-flying car should be easier to develop than a self-driving
>> car, seeing as there are fewer unexpected things up there.
>
> Well, there will be lots of flying cars...

Yep, assuming that flying cars will get better mileage on road than
in the air (which seems very likely) then contemplate what happens as you
approach a traffic jam. Everyone with a flying car will be wanting to take
off at this point, airborne chaos ensues and those autopilots need to be
*really* good.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: Computers on TV [message #401500 is a reply to message #401498] Tue, 27 October 2020 11:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:07:46 -0500
Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote:

> On 10/27/2020 9:52 AM, JimP wrote:
>> Well, there will be lots of flying cars...
>>
>
> And flying trucks?
>
<points to mangled mess>What happened to it ?
<shrugs>It fell off the back of a lorry.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: Computers on TV [message #401501 is a reply to message #401378] Tue, 27 October 2020 12:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ted@loft.tnolan.com ( is currently offline  ted@loft.tnolan.com (
Messages: 161
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <20201026055501.c5a412458ab12a18315a4333@eircom.net>,
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
> Douglas Miller <durgadas311@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Was watching episodes of "UFO" today, and it was remarkable how
>> UN-futuristic their computer equipment was. Filmed in 1970, set in 1980,
>
> Much the same can be said for Star Trek (the original) - the tech in
> that is a mixture of clunky (bridge controls) and magical (medical).
>
> Then again I suspect the recent fad for depicting transparent
> screens and hand waving interfaces will look equally silly in a decade or
> two for never having happened at all.
>

I am always minded of this:

http://www.basicinstructions.net/basic-instructions/2018/7/5 /how-to-compose-a-tweet
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Re: Computers on TV [message #401503 is a reply to message #401442] Tue, 27 October 2020 13:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Thomas Koenig

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> schrieb:

> But now a self-flying car should be easier to develop than a self-driving
> car, seeing as there are fewer unexpected things up there.

But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?
Re: Computers on TV [message #401505 is a reply to message #401503] Tue, 27 October 2020 14:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gerard Schildberger is currently offline  Gerard Schildberger
Messages: 163
Registered: September 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tuesday, October 27, 2020 at 12:35:06 PM UTC-5, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Peter Flass schrieb:
>
>> But now a self-flying car should be easier to develop than a self-driving
>> car, seeing as there are fewer unexpected things up there.

- But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
- failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
- on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?


It flies like a brick. ___________________________ Gerard Schildberger
Re: Computers on TV [message #401510 is a reply to message #401503] Tue, 27 October 2020 14:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Niklas Karlsson is currently offline  Niklas Karlsson
Messages: 265
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2020-10-27, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>
>> But now a self-flying car should be easier to develop than a self-driving
>> car, seeing as there are fewer unexpected things up there.
>
> But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
> failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
> on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?

Perhaps one could include the ability to autorotate (if rotor based) or
glide (if fixed-wing). Not easy to implement safely, though (you still
need a safe spot to land!), and would require variable-pitch
rotors/propellers in the rotor case.

Niklas
--
How many people do you know who have actually gotten to detonate a chunk
of C-4 that's been molded into the shape of a gopher?
-- J.D. Baldwin
Re: Computers on TV [message #401512 is a reply to message #401505] Tue, 27 October 2020 14:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> writes:
> On Tuesday, October 27, 2020 at 12:35:06 PM UTC-5, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> Peter Flass schrieb:
>>
>>> But now a self-flying car should be easier to develop than a self-driving
>>> car, seeing as there are fewer unexpected things up there.
>
> - But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
> - failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
> - on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?

Autorotates to the ground (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation)

Deploys a parachute ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Airframe_Parachute_Syst em)

One of the reasons that they have multiple rotors on the current designs
for self-flying cars is redundancy.
Re: Computers on TV [message #401513 is a reply to message #401503] Tue, 27 October 2020 14:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Dallas

On 10/27/2020 12:35 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>
>> But now a self-flying car should be easier to develop than a self-driving
>> car, seeing as there are fewer unexpected things up there.
>
> But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
> failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
> on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?
>

Ejection seats?
Re: Computers on TV [message #401519 is a reply to message #401446] Tue, 27 October 2020 15:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2020-10-26, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is a bit different though, it's a sound option on an _electric_
> Porsche.

Finally, a practical use for those 1200-watt sound systems
in your typical boom car...

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | "Some of you may die,
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | but it's sacrifice
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | I'm willing to make."
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)
Re: Computers on TV [message #401522 is a reply to message #401482] Tue, 27 October 2020 15:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Carlos E.R.

On 27/10/2020 07.19, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2020 19:13:40 -0300
> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:27:16 -0400
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Transparent screens do exist--google "head up display"--but they are
>>>
>>> Sure but nobody wants a transparent, blackboard sized computer
>>> monitor like the ones depicted in films and TV.
>>
>> Maps. Greater London, Appalachian trail, galaxy far, far away, all
>> same. Zoom in/zoom out on small screen dosn't make it.
>
> Sure size is good for many things, but why on earth would you want
> the display to be transparent ? What use is the reversed display visible
> from the back and why would you want to see whatever is behind the display
> through what is being displayed.

It gives an appearance to the room of been bigger or less packed.

There was a transparent map (so not an active display) used on a movie
of a submarine or surface vessel - I don't know if that was film fantasy
creation or if the military actually use them. Seems to me they can
shatter to pieces on impact during battle.


--
Cheers, Carlos.
Re: Computers on TV [message #401529 is a reply to message #401522] Tue, 27 October 2020 17:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Dallas

On 10/27/2020 2:40 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> There was a transparent map (so not an active display) used on a movie of a submarine or surface
> vessel - I don't know if that was film fantasy creation or if the military actually use them. Seems
> to me they can shatter to pieces on impact during battle.
>

The movie Avatar features transparent screens

https://listverse.com/2018/11/29/10-futuristic-technologies- of-avatar-that-we-already-have/
Re: Computers on TV [message #401532 is a reply to message #401505] Tue, 27 October 2020 18:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:08:04 -0700 (PDT), Gerard Schildberger
<gerard46@rrt.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 27, 2020 at 12:35:06 PM UTC-5, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> Peter Flass schrieb:
>>
>>> But now a self-flying car should be easier to develop than a self-driving
>>> car, seeing as there are fewer unexpected things up there.
>
> - But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
> - failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
> - on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?

That depends on the failure. If the failure in a car is the brakes
and it "just stops" by running into a bridge abutment that's not
"relatively safe". You seem focused on drivetrain failures. Until
recently a car had a single drivetrain (many now have two, some have
three or four) so an engine or transmission failure made it stop. Most
of the self-flying car designs have as many engines as or more than a
B-52, which can shut down four engines in flight without any
noticeable consequence other than that the performance takes a hit. So
multiple failures would be required to make one stop flying--either
that or running the battery flat, and they should land themselves
before that happens.
Re: Computers on TV [message #401533 is a reply to message #401510] Tue, 27 October 2020 18:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On 27 Oct 2020 18:27:11 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote:

> On 2020-10-27, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>>
>>> But now a self-flying car should be easier to develop than a self-driving
>>> car, seeing as there are fewer unexpected things up there.
>>
>> But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
>> failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
>> on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?
>
> Perhaps one could include the ability to autorotate (if rotor based) or
> glide (if fixed-wing). Not easy to implement safely, though (you still
> need a safe spot to land!), and would require variable-pitch
> rotors/propellers in the rotor case.

Nope. 8 engines, fly on four.
>
> Niklas
Re: Computers on TV [message #401534 is a reply to message #401529] Tue, 27 October 2020 18:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 16:31:50 -0500, Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote:

> On 10/27/2020 2:40 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> There was a transparent map (so not an active display) used on a movie of a submarine or surface
>> vessel - I don't know if that was film fantasy creation or if the military actually use them. Seems
>> to me they can shatter to pieces on impact during battle.
>>
>
> The movie Avatar features transparent screens
>
> https://listverse.com/2018/11/29/10-futuristic-technologies- of-avatar-that-we-already-have/

It features many things that are not real.

However at one time some warships had transparent situation boards on
which one drew with a grease pencil.
Re: Computers on TV [message #401535 is a reply to message #401534] Tue, 27 October 2020 18:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Dallas

On 10/27/2020 5:02 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> However at one time some warships had transparent situation boards on
> which one drew with a grease pencil.
>

I would imagine that in confined spaces I would enjoy not having my view of my surroundings blocked
by always opaque screens. I would probably have to try it to see what real difference it makes,
At least I have lived long enough to enjoy thin opaque screens. I am sharing a room with ten of
them at the moment. They are wrapped around me in a horseshoe pattern.

My son stacks his vertically. Mine are all sitting on the same plane.
Re: Computers on TV [message #401536 is a reply to message #401535] Tue, 27 October 2020 18:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> writes:

> On 10/27/2020 5:02 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> However at one time some warships had transparent situation boards on
>> which one drew with a grease pencil.
>>
>
> I would imagine that in confined spaces I would enjoy not having my
> view of my surroundings blocked by always opaque screens. I would
> probably have to try it to see what real difference it makes, At least
> I have lived long enough to enjoy thin opaque screens. I am sharing a
> room with ten of them at the moment. They are wrapped around me in a
> horseshoe pattern.
>
> My son stacks his vertically. Mine are all sitting on the same plane.

So, you change your chair position for each monitor you use?

I have one 27" 3840x2160 display.
I have another 1600x1200 21" in storage.
Every once in a while I think of making it a second display.
But I'm hard put to put my current display space to full use.


--
Dan Espen
Re: Computers on TV [message #401541 is a reply to message #401510] Tue, 27 October 2020 18:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote:
> On 2020-10-27, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>>
>>> But now a self-flying car should be easier to develop than a self-driving
>>> car, seeing as there are fewer unexpected things up there.
>>
>> But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
>> failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
>> on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?
>
> Perhaps one could include the ability to autorotate (if rotor based) or
> glide (if fixed-wing). Not easy to implement safely, though (you still
> need a safe spot to land!), and would require variable-pitch
> rotors/propellers in the rotor case.
>

Helicopter design is particularly dangerous, since the thing does drop like
a brick if the engine fails. At least with a fixed-wing plane you have
_some_ chance of gliding to a landing. I wonder if a quad-copter can
tolerate s single engine failure. Maybe some programming to compensate for
the loss of balance, at least to allow the thing to land.

--
Pete
Re: Computers on TV [message #401544 is a reply to message #401541] Tue, 27 October 2020 19:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:56:57 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote:
>> On 2020-10-27, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>>> But now a self-flying car should be easier to develop than a self-driving
>>>> car, seeing as there are fewer unexpected things up there.
>>>
>>> But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
>>> failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
>>> on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?
>>
>> Perhaps one could include the ability to autorotate (if rotor based) or
>> glide (if fixed-wing). Not easy to implement safely, though (you still
>> need a safe spot to land!), and would require variable-pitch
>> rotors/propellers in the rotor case.
>>
>
> Helicopter design is particularly dangerous, since the thing does drop like
> a brick if the engine fails.

It drops, but it it also stores up a shitload of kinetic energy in the
rotor.

> At least with a fixed-wing plane you have
> _some_ chance of gliding to a landing.

And with a helicopter you fly it like an autogyro until you find a
landing spot then expend the kinetic energy in the rotor stopping the
rate of descent.

> I wonder if a quad-copter can
> tolerate s single engine failure. Maybe some programming to compensate for
> the loss of balance, at least to allow the thing to land.

The ones that are being developed as manned vehicles are not
quad-copters. They have far more engines and propellers than that and
yes, they can tolerate an engine out. Or two or three depending on
the design.
Re: Computers on TV [message #401553 is a reply to message #401533] Wed, 28 October 2020 04:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Niklas Karlsson is currently offline  Niklas Karlsson
Messages: 265
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2020-10-27, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2020 18:27:11 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote:
[self-flying car failure modes]
>> Perhaps one could include the ability to autorotate (if rotor based) or
>> glide (if fixed-wing). Not easy to implement safely, though (you still
>> need a safe spot to land!), and would require variable-pitch
>> rotors/propellers in the rotor case.
>
> Nope. 8 engines, fly on four.

Just have to make sure not to include any single points of failure for
the power supply to or control system for the engines.

Niklas
--
You know, if you're going to name your city "Portland", you better have a
big-ass shipping industry, or at the very least a lot of fortified wine.
-- Mike Sphar in asr
Re: Computers on TV [message #401556 is a reply to message #401536] Wed, 28 October 2020 04:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 18:30:03 -0400
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have one 27" 3840x2160 display.
> I have another 1600x1200 21" in storage.
> Every once in a while I think of making it a second display.
> But I'm hard put to put my current display space to full use.

Hmm my work environment consists of a 15" 4k laptop with two
27" 4k monitors - it's all in use under normal working conditions with
about half the screen area devoted to communications tools of one sort or
another, a third to reference (ie. web browser) and the real work takes
place in a terminal window talking to a tmux session occupying about a
third of one monitor.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: Computers on TV [message #401560 is a reply to message #401498] Wed, 28 October 2020 09:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:07:46 -0500, Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote:
> On 10/27/2020 9:52 AM, JimP wrote:
>> Well, there will be lots of flying cars...
>>
>
> And flying trucks?

Probably, but transporting goods trucks will take longer to build.
Pickup trucks, sooner.

--
Jim
Re: Computers on TV [message #401562 is a reply to message #401534] Wed, 28 October 2020 09:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 18:02:45 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 16:31:50 -0500, Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote:
>
>> On 10/27/2020 2:40 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> There was a transparent map (so not an active display) used on a movie of a submarine or surface
>>> vessel - I don't know if that was film fantasy creation or if the military actually use them. Seems
>>> to me they can shatter to pieces on impact during battle.
>>>
>>
>> The movie Avatar features transparent screens
>>
>> https://listverse.com/2018/11/29/10-futuristic-technologies- of-avatar-that-we-already-have/
>
> It features many things that are not real.
>
> However at one time some warships had transparent situation boards on
> which one drew with a grease pencil.

And backwards, so the people standing on the other side could read the
text.

--
Jim
Re: Computers on TV [message #401563 is a reply to message #401536] Wed, 28 October 2020 09:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Dallas

On 10/27/2020 5:30 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
> Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> writes:
>
>> On 10/27/2020 5:02 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> However at one time some warships had transparent situation boards on
>>> which one drew with a grease pencil.
>>>
>>
>> I would imagine that in confined spaces I would enjoy not having my
>> view of my surroundings blocked by always opaque screens. I would
>> probably have to try it to see what real difference it makes, At least
>> I have lived long enough to enjoy thin opaque screens. I am sharing a
>> room with ten of them at the moment. They are wrapped around me in a
>> horseshoe pattern.
>>
>> My son stacks his vertically. Mine are all sitting on the same plane.
>
> So, you change your chair position for each monitor you use?
>
> I have one 27" 3840x2160 display.
> I have another 1600x1200 21" in storage.
> Every once in a while I think of making it a second display.
> But I'm hard put to put my current display space to full use.
>
>

I do. It is a test bench with various PCs on it.
Re: Computers on TV [message #401569 is a reply to message #401553] Wed, 28 October 2020 11:40 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On 28 Oct 2020 08:22:11 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote:

> On 2020-10-27, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 27 Oct 2020 18:27:11 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote:
> [self-flying car failure modes]
>>> Perhaps one could include the ability to autorotate (if rotor based) or
>>> glide (if fixed-wing). Not easy to implement safely, though (you still
>>> need a safe spot to land!), and would require variable-pitch
>>> rotors/propellers in the rotor case.
>>
>> Nope. 8 engines, fly on four.
>
> Just have to make sure not to include any single points of failure for
> the power supply to or control system for the engines.

Multiple power supplies and redundant control systems.
>
> Niklas
Pages (3): [ «    1  2  3    »]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: Z3Plus terminal definition
Next Topic: Anti-Censorship Messaging App
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Mar 29 02:11:21 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.46594 seconds