[B5JMS] How do the recorders float?

[b5jms-admin at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Shaman <shaman at eskimo.com>
Date: 13 Apr 2001 04:27:25 -0700
Lines: 32

On 21 Mar 2001 09:43:56 -0700, hennebry at web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu (Mike
Hennebry) wrote:

>In article <3AB0FC0F.C1ACEC26 at mailbox.bellatlantic.net>,
>John W. Kennedy <jwkenne at attglobal.net> wrote:
>>Mike Hennebry wrote:
>>> Then they must be extremely light.
>>> They're not hovercraft, they're helicopters.  Hovercraft are ground-
>>> effect vehicles.  The recorders were much too high for that.
>>
>>I had a similar toy when I was a kid.  You could probably create a
>>working model right now, though it would cost too much to be effective
>>for ordinary purposes.
>
>I wasn't suggesting it couldn't be done.  A heavy device would have
>to blow an annoying amount of air.  Supposing that the propulsion
>system was weightless, it would still have to blow enough air to
>support the on-board camera.
>
>BTW though they're better at it than fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters
>can't really hover very long.  After a helicopter hovers for a while,
>it creates its own downdraft and needs to move around a bit.

It seems to me that one would use a thruster technology and not
old-fashioned rotors.  You simply compress the air and squirt it
out discrete jets.  This would also make it possible to instantly
reverse the flow through a set on the other side if it accidently
got flipped over.  It would also make the engine lighter than a
rotor which requires coiling and other ancient (20th century)
technologies.



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 13 Apr 2001 22:12:25 -0700
Lines: 12

They float on heavy gusts of plot....

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)