Damn, sorry about that, and thanks for the correction. So the real difference between petroleum derivatives and sugars isn't the energy content so much as the power you can generate? In layman's terms, the kablooie factor?
That puts Le Conte's error in even more perspective. Imagine if you said to him in 1888 "...but what if you had access to vast, cheap supplies of high-grade fuel which you burned off at a rate of 1 lb per minute?" He'd look at you like you were an idiot. Now your heavier-than-air craft is carrying several hundred pounds of fuel too, just to stay aloft for a few hours? And what do you do when you get where you are going?
Does this mean Le Conte's real failure isn't energy calculations, but predicting the availability of such fuel? In other words, it's all economics?
I had another comment about "toys" versus "tools for real work" in this thread. Maybe that's another defining element of "toys", the difficulty of maintenance and the lack of ubiquitous infrastructure. Only rich or eccentric people are going to take the trouble to provide infrastructure for their own machines, so it becomes by definition a "toy". Like planes or cars in the early 20th century.
Okay, is this a new heuristic? We look for devices which are fun or useful but impractical because right now, enthusiasts have to provide their own infrastructure at great cost?
That puts Le Conte's error in even more perspective. Imagine if you said to him in 1888 "...but what if you had access to vast, cheap supplies of high-grade fuel which you burned off at a rate of 1 lb per minute?" He'd look at you like you were an idiot. Now your heavier-than-air craft is carrying several hundred pounds of fuel too, just to stay aloft for a few hours? And what do you do when you get where you are going?
Does this mean Le Conte's real failure isn't energy calculations, but predicting the availability of such fuel? In other words, it's all economics?
I had another comment about "toys" versus "tools for real work" in this thread. Maybe that's another defining element of "toys", the difficulty of maintenance and the lack of ubiquitous infrastructure. Only rich or eccentric people are going to take the trouble to provide infrastructure for their own machines, so it becomes by definition a "toy". Like planes or cars in the early 20th century.
Okay, is this a new heuristic? We look for devices which are fun or useful but impractical because right now, enthusiasts have to provide their own infrastructure at great cost?