Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Databyter" data-source="post: 6855067" data-attributes="member: 621750">Lol!Yea, there is a production fee for beans and what-not.The guys in the back room will get right on that.But seriously, the whole premise of this fantasy is flawed as anyone who thought about it for more than ten seconds could tell you.You could theoreticly charge a sealed enclosure with a less dense gas to reduce the resistance of an inboard movement, but since the exterior movement towards the air we breathe (and reality) would be 1/2 of the movement in any wave form and it would not be balanced with the low density gas, what purpose would this fantasy serve other than distortion of an unbalanced work load?The pressure and density should be same on both sides of an enclosure (at rest). And any enclosure ouilt any other way (by NASA) would be bound to either leak or be an expensive piece of crap.Be back in a while, I need to go top off my 10&#039;s with Co2</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Databyter, post: 6855067, member: 621750"] Lol! Yea, there is a production fee for beans and what-not. The guys in the back room will get right on that. But seriously, the whole premise of this fantasy is flawed as anyone who thought about it for more than ten seconds could tell you. You could theoreticly charge a sealed enclosure with a less dense gas to reduce the resistance of an inboard movement, but since the exterior movement towards the air we breathe (and reality) would be 1/2 of the movement in any wave form and it would not be balanced with the low density gas, what purpose would this fantasy serve other than distortion of an unbalanced work load? The pressure and density should be same on both sides of an enclosure (at rest). And any enclosure ouilt any other way (by NASA) would be bound to either leak or be an expensive piece of crap. Be back in a while, I need to go top off my 10's with Co2 [/QUOTE]

Verification