Ion drive for aircraft imminent.

Sure, but what does that have to do with the original point, viz "Remove the engines and airplanes don't go up." The can, and do, go up - occasionally higher than commercial airliners other than Concorde.

I had a boss once that flew a glider for sport and would go from arizona to california non stop, getting thermals on the way. too risky for me.

Sure. Does that come as a surprise to anyone that has done even a little science?

I've had zero groundspeed when ~2kft from the ground; if I had pushed a little closer to the stall I would have been going backwards. Nothing unremarkable there.

IIRC the world record is >3000km, the UK record is >1000km, and in the UK 300km is "a good afternoon's flying".

It isn't all /that/ risky - unless you choose to make it so.

I was happy for my daughter to go solo before she could start to drive a car, and was glad she didn't do something dangerous like horse riding, and merely broke her knee skiing :)

So the point is irrelevant, since gliders aren't airplanes and they practically never get off the ground without an engine.

Yeah, because I own a dictionary. You should try buying one.

There you go. If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary definitions.

Except gliders, while aircraft, are not airplanes. Nice try changing the wording to claim I said something I didn't say, though. Now, how many of those gliders left the grounds or got to their launch point without an engine?

Still not an airplane. Balloons have 'engines' (that big burning thing under the envelope).

Look at the *original* topic. I.e. the subject line:

Ion drive for aircraft imminent.

In other words, an ion *engine*. Somewhere along the way the original topic got distorted and has become a love/hate glider fest.

Jeff

Jeff Findley wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

Topic drift? That _never_ happens on usenet.

I don't understand that. What are you trying to say.

A definition is a definition. You are struggling in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why!

All of those launched by bungee at Long Mynd. I don't know about the others.

Hint: gliders are often pushed around to get them to where they need to be. I suppose you'll next be saying that human muscles are engines.

airplane noun

1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion, etc.
2. any similar heavier-than-air aircraft, as a glider or helicopter.
   formatting link

They go up without an engine, which contradicts your original statement. I've gone up at 1000ft/min until reaching cloudbase, pulling 2.5-3G continuously while doing it. So did the other glider ~300ft away.

There are bunch that you might have bought. Contemplate the difference between the Concise Oxford Dictionary and the Complete Oxford Dictionary. The Complete Oxford prefers aeroplane (regarding airplane as an Americanism).

You should try buying one that offers more than one definition of a word, and work on the idea that a dictionary documents the usual way a word is used, rather that what it means in in every situation.

Sadly, that isn't how language works. The broader secondary definitions cover the way people use the word some of the time, and the dictionary's jib is to document that, not to prescribe it.

Only if you think you can restrict the use of the word to the phrase a particular dictionary - small - dictionary uses to illustrate it's usual meaning.

Impossible to say. Gliders kept in hangars at small airports tend to get pushed to the winch or bungee chord, and you can certainly stretch a bungee cord without an engine, though it takes while.

Helium balloons don't. Back when town gas was half hydrogen, it could be - and was - used to inflate balloons. The fire risk was appreciable.

And a propane burner isn't usually described as an engine. My small dictionary defines an engine as any device designed to convert energy into mechanical work, which would make the balloon the engine, rather than the propane burner.

That you don't understand. Perhaps if you used words in standard ways with standard definitions.

All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are.

A dictionary doesn't "define" a word, and everybody uses words as they understand them, which doesn't happen to be exactly the same from one individual to the next.

And a dictionary definition doesn't define a word. At best it defines one widely held idea of what the word means. It is a set of descriptions, not prescriptions.

Fred J. McCall is caught in his own definition.

If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it?

Alain Fournier

thing

Not exactly. Presenting a single definition from a small dictionary as if i t captures every possible way of using a word is ill-advised.

In this particular case, the single definition that Fred J McCall had latch ed onto didn't suit me - and it hadn't suited Tom Gardner for what looks li ke much the same reason. It didn't suit either of us because it was incompl ete. An unpowered glider is clearly a kind of aeroplane, or airplane in Fre d J McCall's dialect, and his claim was simply ignorant, even if he could b ack it up with a reference to a brief ( and inadequate) definition in a sma ll - and in this context - inadequate dictionary).

The more fundamental point is that words are defined by the way people use them, and dictionaries exist to document the way they are used - always aft er the fact, as is evidenced by the fact that the Supplement to the Complet e Oxford Dictionary is about one third the size of the original dictionary.

except in the case of Webster's.

NT

yeah, "Webster's" is a work of fiction :)

As usual, you don't understand me. Using secondary 'niche' definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not 'impressive' at all. Use the main definition.

So "circuit" should only be used to mean "an act or instance of going or moving around." "Circuit" should never be used to mean "the complete path of an electric current, including the generating apparatus, intervening resistors, or capacitors." because that's only the *9th* definition.

When you are in a hole, stop digging :)