sircac

Physical coupling and emergency decoupling of a fuel tube in flight due to engaging or having to land and take off from an air carrier seems necessarily more slow and risky than beam interrumpion or nor having to land/take off at all.

Current batteries have not been under the same amount of research than fuel deposits, so I think that being matture enough, contacless repowering seems a great asset in any scenario.

I have the feeling that current refueling in flight procedures are clearly more vulnerable than this approach that do not require physical coupling, for whatever these are useful (increasing operation autonomy, etc) the same for having to land in air carriers to extend patrolling times, this electric alternative seem safer in both scenarios, and at least with no more weak points than the fuel alternatives.

If is necessary to reload ammo no refueling-in-flight technology applies of course.

And if something blow up the damage radio clearly propagate immediately further than a battery fire, though regaring the situation a persistent fire can become also problematic, but these battery issues are still experiencing improvements, same happened with fuel counterparts (self sealing deposits, etc).

If this technology matures also recharging times will drop, we are seeing huge advances in plugged batteries.

I still see many advantages to the concept.

I asume this technology when mature enough will not be surrounded by a single point failure. Allowing electric recharge of flying devices, that already have some battery autonomy, without having to land and take off, is clearly more efficient and less vulnerable. Plus mobile electric rechargers, battery deposits and infrastructure will have the same weaknesses than fuel ones (except electric ones would may blow up a bit less under fire)

I think that the “recharging” will always be a vulnerable stage and that the objective is to do that puntually and not a continuous dependence on power supply, but still seems safer and easier to abort than the one done currently with non electric planes, and for defense patrolling you will have more important infrastructures that would be targeted first, I still see only advantages if mature enough

Many comments are about how impractical/useless is this technology TODAY considering easier alternatives… but I see research exploring recharging electric flight devices in flight, which sounds as cool as powerful to have flight devices with larger services and ranges

In a lawless place there is no enforcement of one’s word, is blind trust or nothing…

At least until the bottom 50% has as much as the top 50%

Apparently it was due to old intel pre-2015 (when the building was repurposed as a school) where that building was allegedly an ammo depot of the military complex besides… bombing with 10 year old intel, for sure a lack of care for human lives

On TV I silenced them as they start and look elsewhere meanwhile… I find joy in training myself to be unable to consciously recognise at all what is ongoing till the video start

I double dare you!

Font matters

Indeed, without an error estimated from fluctuations, etc I cannot conclude how significative it was such…

Everyone? First time that I am aware of this possibility, either I lived under a stone or my sources are far from that “everyone”…

Many things, specially traumatic ones, rewires your brain

So do I on Civ…

The causation was an adendum to the context, the rest apply to the “statistically significant” claim

I am worry about the systematic error treatment of this data, cancer is per se very abnormal in growing parameters…

And what are the systematic errors on that? Cancer cells are abnormal in many ways per se, specially growing stats…

To be “2.5x the reference” a “statistically significant” deviation depends exclusively of the errors, including systematics, and I doubt that such has been so strongly constrained, known the abnormal behaviour and growing of cancer tissues in general versus none, not to mention that even if such can be evaluated as a significant deviation it does not imply causation, it can perfectly be consequence of the sample argument before (abnormal grown, which may imply abnormal densities easily) so I am still at a loss of the conclusions…

They are also found everywhere else, what does such statement try to imply?