I have this urge to travel, any ideas? Options

[BlackCelicaGT94]

I need some places to consider traveling to and also some reasons -such as places to see and go

please keep them within the US as my passport expires this spring and im not looking to travel with anyone at this moment and so i dont really wanna leave the country by myself


Talie

[orvillescelica]

closest thing you come to anti grav, theres some misconceptions about airships, your gas in your tank is more dangerous then the hydrogen in an airship.

This is one of the few discarded great inventions that was never fully developed, I think the last 2 centuries is littered with interesting technologies.  But Id have to put Air ships and Nuclear power at the top of the list of technologies with the largest potential, but never pursued or fully developed.

Imagine where we would be today if we would have fully pursued nuclear fission technologies, learning to safely harness fission in every day applications such as cars, jets.  really every fuel/energy source has its hazard, JP8 fuel for planes, the most toxic stuff you can think of, probably just as bad as anything radioctive if it containinates an area.

And Airships... I can only imagine we probably have floating way stations or mini cities in the air, or Air cargo haulers instead of ocean freight.  So can haul so much more stuff with airships then airplanes and faster then ocean freighters or trains.  It would be awesome.
[right][snapback]209801[/snapback][/right]

I believe that airships did get their fair share, but was not found to be cost effective. It is much easier to create lift using a wing and fluid forces than with bouyancy. The size airship needed to lift a certian mass is vastly greater than the size of wing needed to lift the same craft. The lightest gas available, hydrogen, was used and still massive hangers had to be constructed to house them. Yes, gasoline is much more volitile than hydrogen. But the lower heating value of gasoline is enomous compared to its size, plus its really easy to store. Hydrogen is not as energetic or as easy to store compressed. And without compression, it just takes up a lot of space.

The size airship required to lift the same amount of cargo as an ocean tanker would probably have to be a few miles in diameter. And the size bouyant mass needed to lift a small city?? It would be the size of a small state! My guess would be probably be MA. And even then, how you are you going to get plumping? sewage? keep it from drifting arond? Also, airships are very susceptible to weather conditions. The British gave up on thiers because too many were crashing on thier way to or from India.

Fission is ok, but fusion is better becasue it doesn't necessarily involve any harmful radiation or waste.

Dispite energy costs, the energy output from a fusion reactor would be far greater. Theres a team in California I believe working on a fusion reactor, using a donut shaped chamber with plasma flowing in the centre contained by a electromegnetic field.
[right][snapback]209854[/snapback][/right]

where do people get these jobs? honestly?
[right][snapback]209855[/snapback][/right]

My department of Aeronautics and Astronautics here at the University of Washington are one of the leaders in plasma and fusion research. There is a dual toridical plasma reactor in the lab above mine which studies the the helicity of plasma injected into a Tokamak fusion reactor. Also there is a 'spin-off' lab in Redmond which does a lot more than the stuff here on campus. The stuff there is really cool! The stuff here on campus has to be restricted from super harmful or radioactive materials, they dont.

If you want a job like that, get a MS or PhD in physics, Aerspace Engineering, or nuclear engineering with a focus on plasmas. Im sure the job offers will pour in after that.

This post has been edited by orvillescelica: Nov 21, 2004 - 9:14 PM

[coustoe]

closest thing you come to anti grav, theres some misconceptions about airships, your gas in your tank is more dangerous then the hydrogen in an airship.

This is one of the few discarded great inventions that was never fully developed, I think the last 2 centuries is littered with interesting technologies.  But Id have to put Air ships and Nuclear power at the top of the list of technologies with the largest potential, but never pursued or fully developed.

Imagine where we would be today if we would have fully pursued nuclear fission technologies, learning to safely harness fission in every day applications such as cars, jets.  really every fuel/energy source has its hazard, JP8 fuel for planes, the most toxic stuff you can think of, probably just as bad as anything radioctive if it containinates an area.

And Airships... I can only imagine we probably have floating way stations or mini cities in the air, or Air cargo haulers instead of ocean freight.  So can haul so much more stuff with airships then airplanes and faster then ocean freighters or trains.  It would be awesome.
[right][snapback]209801[/snapback][/right]

I believe that airships did get their fair share, but was not found to be cost effective. It is much easier to create lift using a wing and fluid forces than with bouyancy. The size airship needed to lift a certian mass is vastly greater than the size of wing needed to lift the same craft. The lightest gas available, hydrogen, was used and still massive hangers had to be constructed to house them. Yes, gasoline is much more volitile than hydrogen. But the lower heating value of gasoline is enomous compared to its size, plus its really easy to store. Hydrogen is not as energetic or as easy to store compressed. And without compression, it just takes up a lot of space.

The size airship required to lift the same amount of cargo as an ocean tanker would probably have to be a few miles in diameter. And the size bouyant mass needed to lift a small city?? It would be the size of a small state! My guess would be probably be MA. And even then, how you are you going to get plumping? sewage? keep it from drifting arond? Also, airships are very susceptible to weather conditions. The British gave up on thiers because too many were crashing on thier way to or from India.

Fission is ok, but fusion is better becasue it doesn't necessarily involve any harmful radiation or waste.

Dispite energy costs, the energy output from a fusion reactor would be far greater. Theres a team in California I believe working on a fusion reactor, using a donut shaped chamber with plasma flowing in the centre contained by a electromegnetic field.
[right][snapback]209854[/snapback][/right]

where do people get these jobs? honestly?
[right][snapback]209855[/snapback][/right]

My department of Aeronautics and Astronautics here at the University of Washington are one of the leaders in plasma and fusion research. There is a dual toridical plasma reactor in the lab above mine which studies the the helicity of plasma injected into a Tokamak fusion reactor. Also there is a 'spin-off' lab in Redmond which does a lot more than the stuff here on campus. The stuff there is really cool! The stuff here on campus has to be restricted from super harmful or radioactive materials, they dont.

If you want a job like that, get a MS or PhD in physics, Aerspace Engineering, or nuclear engineering with a focus on plasmas. Im sure the job offers will pour in after that.
[right][snapback]209989[/snapback][/right]

I hardly ever see hard science jobs posted. I've talked with lots of engineers in the 90s who ended up being computer dweebs because they couldnt find jobs.

On Airships, their are various hybrids, and new designs that have been in the works forever, I'm not sure on all the technologies, but there are the conventional 2 mile long airships to lift cargo, hybrid wing for additional lift and hydro/hel for lift, and speculation on more ways of generating more lift power.