I thought it was nice. But if you're like a watch, then people will always know what makes you tick.
I would enjoy being an encyclopedia: all the information in the world contained within me. All one has to do is ask, and then listen as I impart my wisdom unto them.
Not all the information. But yes, it would be nice.
I would enjoy being an encyclopedia: all the information in the world contained within me. All one has to do is ask, and then listen as I impart my wisdom unto them.
Or you could just be google.
Because everything on the Internet is reliable and true, of course.
Imagine you were a key on a keyboard........ You could be an "e", pounded constantly, worn down. Or you could be a "z", forgotten, lonely, away from your friends.
Wow that's really sad.
I'd rather be a necklace, so I'd always be close to people's hearts.
No real life. I have had 4 varients so far, 2 of which do the opposite of keeping people safe. The other one just wasn't... awesome enough.
Interesting. But couldn't the dangerous versions be revised into greatness? Or is that totally not how it works?
I'll go into lots of detail then: Varient 1. The engine would be hollow allowing air through gaps in a rim on the inside of the hollow part. ー@ー("")ー@ー (@=engine) _ (side) But I realised that the engine could become the wing itself. Which takes us too... Varient 2. /__("")__\ (engines being the wing) Then there came the problem of where to store the fuel. Supposed solution: put fuel under the fuselage. Nu-uh if the plane crashlands the first thing to hit the ground would be the fuel tank... not a good idea. Which brings us too... Varient 3. Engines extended to house fuel at back near exahust ejection. (similar to last diagram) Rejection reason: Exhaust could overheat the fuel taks cause pressure and eventually explosion of tanks. Next... Varient 4. Fuel tanks extended forwards with fuel being stored near the intake. Good but... if it need repairing... you need to completely replace the wing... NEXT!... Varient 5. The wings and engine (I'll call in wingen for now. ) are divided into sections and are fitted onto a metal exoskeleton and can be replaced and repaired regularly. Success! Almost... This still needs more work but so good so far. Any questions?
Interesting. But couldn't the dangerous versions be revised into greatness? Or is that totally not how it works?
I'll go into lots of detail then: Varient 1. The engine would be hollow allowing air through gaps in a rim on the inside of the hollow part. ー@ー("")ー@ー (@=engine) _ (side) But I realised that the engine could become the wing itself. Which takes us too... Varient 2. /__("")__\ (engines being the wing) Then there came the problem of where to store the fuel. Supposed solution: put fuel under the fuselage. Nu-uh if the plane crashlands the first thing to hit the ground would be the fuel tank... not a good idea. Which brings us too... Varient 3. Engines extended to house fuel at back near exahust ejection. (similar to last diagram) Rejection reason: Exhaust could overheat the fuel taks cause pressure and eventually explosion of tanks. Next... Varient 4. Fuel tanks extended forwards with fuel being stored near the intake. Good but... if it need repairing... you need to completely replace the wing... NEXT!... Varient 5. The wings and engine (I'll call in wingen for now. ) are divided into sections and are fitted onto a metal exoskeleton and can be replaced and repaired regularly. Success! Almost... This still needs more work but so good so far. Any questions?
Wow, I don't have any questions, but there's a whole lot of considerations and metaphorical situations you have to put your invention through before it can be considered safe.
I'll go into lots of detail then: Varient 1. The engine would be hollow allowing air through gaps in a rim on the inside of the hollow part. ー@ー("")ー@ー (@=engine) _ (side) But I realised that the engine could become the wing itself. Which takes us too... Varient 2. /__("")__\ (engines being the wing) Then there came the problem of where to store the fuel. Supposed solution: put fuel under the fuselage. Nu-uh if the plane crashlands the first thing to hit the ground would be the fuel tank... not a good idea. Which brings us too... Varient 3. Engines extended to house fuel at back near exahust ejection. (similar to last diagram) Rejection reason: Exhaust could overheat the fuel taks cause pressure and eventually explosion of tanks. Next... Varient 4. Fuel tanks extended forwards with fuel being stored near the intake. Good but... if it need repairing... you need to completely replace the wing... NEXT!... Varient 5. The wings and engine (I'll call in wingen for now. ) are divided into sections and are fitted onto a metal exoskeleton and can be replaced and repaired regularly. Success! Almost... This still needs more work but so good so far. Any questions?
Wow, I don't have any questions, but there's a whole lot of considerations and metaphorical situations you have to put your invention through before it can be considered safe.
Nice work it's all really impressive.
This is my first invention that has not been immediatly discarded. There is indeed! Like: how will it cope in water? How will it cope with birds being sucked in? What will happen if one section gets clogged? And so on and so forth. I'm hopefully going to talk to a Engineer or two whom I know about it.
Thanks! This is the first time anyone has liked my inventions!
Wow, I don't have any questions, but there's a whole lot of considerations and metaphorical situations you have to put your invention through before it can be considered safe.
Nice work it's all really impressive.
This is my first invention that has not been immediatly discarded. There is indeed! Like: how will it cope in water? How will it cope with birds being sucked in? What will happen if one section gets clogged? And so on and so forth. I'm hopefully going to talk to a Engineer or two whom I know about it.
Thanks! This is the first time anyone has liked my inventions!
Cool, good thing you didn't have to make as many models as the inventor of the lightbulb did.
Yeah, I don't think I could do that because I'd have to run down the list of metaphorical disasters and forget one or two in which the durability of my invention would fail. Hope your engineers have mercy upon you.
Any questions? 