Like I said, it may never happen. But if it comes to pass that rotten dinosaurs are no longer a viable option, we may launch big fucking computer tracked magnifying glasses into orbit to focus enough energy to make it possible. Or use orbital solar powered lasers, or microwave transmission. We could do the same from the ground, it's probably less likely to cook the general population if it's coming from the ground.

Powered flight in heavier than air craft wasn't possible 150 years ago. Just look at all of the advances there have been in that time. Who knows what the next 150 years will bring.

And that's why I finished my post with the following: "It's probably not a practical solution currently. But as efficiencies increase, it's at least feasible it may be at some point in the future."

Battery tech has also been improving recently. There's no reason that it may become much lighter in the future and a combination of PV and batteries may become practical. It's also entirely possible that PV will never reach the necessary efficiencies and batteries don't reach the energy density necessary. That's why I said "may" in both cases.

I would think it also depends on when the plane is flying. If it's entire trip is during daylight hours, and it's above the clouds as most larger aircraft flights are, then you may be able to use solar panels in place of the majority of the batteries. Plus you won't have to carry the weight (as much) in fuel.

It's probably not a practical solution currently. But as efficiencies increase, it's at least feasible it may be at some point in the future.

As someone who has been involved in several hundred medical research projects (at various institutions), I'm calling BS on this. While some multi-center studies may receive data with patient identifiers, they will either be rejected or scrubbed of these identifiers prior to being added to the database and being analyzed. If an institution is too incompetent to do this, then I'd question the validity of their results anyhow.

And your WOOSH points too. ;-)

Oh, and get your heart to beat at 500 bpm, or something. ;-)

While I agree that people hardly understand other fields, sometimes it's not a bad thing that they're not enthusiastic.

There was plenty of enthusiasm against the LHC. My memory isn't what it used to be, but I don't recall another scientific project of that scale that faced as much public, and even government, concern in my lifetime. Some of those people sounded like they were on the verge of getting out the pitchforks and torches.

Cassini having plutonium fuel was about as close as I can recall, but even that was a blip by comparison to the LHC.

So is the rampant use of acronyms.

A ton of research goes into Vettes that goes toward lighter materials, aerodynamics, and overall performance. Much of it ends up improving mileage and such in other cars years later. With eco mode, the current Corvette gets 29 mpg on the highway. The current Honda Accord gets 36 MPG.

Additionally, there are a very small number of Vettes sold, and a very small percentage of those see much road time as it is. And most are kept in excellent running condition. You average ecnobox is going to go through more fuel per year than most any Corvette out there.

Disclaimer, I do own a Corvette which I probably average going through less than 200 gallons of gas per year in. Which is quite a bit more than most Vette owners I know go through.