spirytus

We already have the infrastructure to support private air-travel, see general aviation. As a general aviator, you are required to obtain and maintain a license on the aircraft type youre certified on. The one and only obstacle here is the costs of bying and owning your own heli, air-plane or hybrid (i.e. the Muller - which would first have to be certifed air-worthy by the licensing authority of your country, i.e. the FAA). Contrary, "Flying cars" are currently technologically impractical. As descibed in most sci-fi novels/movies a flying car must match the following criteria: 1.) Must be capable of VTAL (Vertical Take-off And Landing). 2.) Cheap to produce/purchase. 3.) Easy to operate/maintain. 4.) A breakdown midflight must have high survivability rate. 5.) Flying characteristics must remain operational/safe during unexpected weather conditions.

Your GFCI should work fine with an unused ground. However, it will not protect electrical equipment, and the tester may give you faulty readings because it uses the ground to create a test current leak. Clearly label the socket with "No equipment ground". Even though the neutral wire should be grounded at the main electrical pannel (neutral tie block), jumping ground to neutral will not provide an added path of protection. I wouldnt do it.

Curious, I was under the impression that the cosmos is currently expanding outwards in all directions - an expanding sphere. An expansion would imply an explosion (event). You telling me there is no spatial point of origin? I hope I dont come out defensive, I´m honestly curious...

The earth is not freefalling through space. The word freefall is misleading. The earth is falling into the sun while at the same time hurdling perpendicularly to the sun at aprox 30 km per second - effectively establishing an Orbit. An orbit around an object in space is essentially when the perpendicular velocity counters the pull of gravity (of said object). At this point you no longer feel the effect of gravity, hance you achive weightlessness. You could say the earth is caught in an free fall towards the sun, but because of its current orbital velocity its esencially an infinite free fall hance we dont feel sun´s gravity. Imagine a ball (earth) attached to a string (force of the suns gravity) while you spin it above your head (the sun) at a constant speed (a steady orbit). If the ball slows down, it will smack you in the face. If it speeds up the string will break and the ball will hurdle off into space. Note, this is a very basic model. What actually happens in space is a bit more complicated. So, basically, the ISS is in orbit around the earth, the earth is in orbit around the sun, the sun is in orbit around the core of our galaxy, while the galaxy itself is hurdling away from the point of the big bang.

If you're wondering about a Ramjet, Pratt & Whitney J-58 (used on an SR-71) does just that. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0175.shtml Good read, check it out.

Apparently you could: [link - news article] + [link vendor website] So sure, its a possibility.... However, from what little I've read about it in the past hour, I wouldn't consider it a good alternative to petrol. Doubt it would pass emission standards, than again I'm not a chemical engineer - so who knows? This actually brings us to another issue. Emissions...

I agree with you, there are some hurdles. However they are workable problems - its what we (as engineers) do best. Lets brainstorm a little (throwing todays technology into the equations): Acceleration lag: One possible way to overcome this would be via a hybrid electric design; Have the turbine kick in only after a set compressor ratio is reached. Or, just have the thing running purely on DC, using the turbine as your DC generator eliminating the need for a mechanical transmission (similar to an aircraft APU). Fuel efficiency Lets look at some numbers: 22mpg [9.35 Km/L] tested on the fith generation turbine engine referenced in that article is roughly 10.7 L per 100 km. Lets compare: 7.1 liters/100km (city/highway combined) - my 2007 1.8L civic [link] 15.7 liters/100km(city/highway combined) - 2007 Hummer H3 [link] That's roughly: -50% efficiency compared to the little civic. +68% efficiency compared to an H3. Not bad for an engine built in the 80's, that could run on a wide range of different fuels. Think what you could do with that number when you add todays lighter/more temperature resistant alloys. Computer controlled fuel injectors, composite fans (see the technology pumped into the GE-90 turbines [link]) It all boils down to R&D, the talent in said department, and its allocated capital.

He may be interested in a car powered by a gas turbine.... Notably, Chrysler researched the idea, their concept even made it past the prototype stage, with limited test productions. The idea was solid; A turbine engine that could run on almost any combustible liquid, with 1/3rd the moving parts of a standard gasoline-piston engine - a simplified jet-engine. Here's a good site: http://www.allpar.com/mopar/turbine.html Ultimately, this concept went down the lanes of the more famous GM electric car (EV1). It's quite possible that the auto/oil-industry top-wigs of the day saw this concept as a possible threat; Why build something that costs less to maintain, with fuel less easily controlled? some say, oil and auto industries at that time shared the same bed. Anyway, the idea was snuffed out by a paper-work technicality. True? You decide. In my mind, it is a solid concept, worth having a second look at....