Oscar Fleury

Inventor of first eligible PA (Personal Aircraft), Global Village
Ch-2400 Le Locle, Switzerland

About Oscar

Edit profile

Bio

Too young (66) and too busy for writing my memories!

Languages

English, French, German

Areas of Expertise

Aerodynamics, Kinematics, Aviation, Avionics, Particle physics, German Language, French Language, Political Analyst, Evolutionary theory

An idea worth spreading

Maximum safety on the road calls for big, heavy cars (with mostly three empty passenger seats as an alibi for volume and weight) plus one-way road networks with huge footprint on landscape... to go nowhere really interesting (roads being built and owned by State... and only where State wants you to be able to go).

Maximum safety in the air calls for small, light, swift automatically controlled single-seated (or at best tandem-seated) VERTOL-aircraft with high collision-avoidance reactivity allowing for as many individual virtual electronic airways as there are pilots in the airspace... yet zero footprint on the landscape, like birds, and with several orders of magnitude lower collision probability than cars.

No existing VERTOL-concept is eligible as Personal Aircraft (helicopter has low horizontal reactivity and limited speed; tilt-rotor is not autorotatable; Rotodyne makes hellish noise; Sykorsky's X2 is the only possible PA, yet also horizontally instable!

I'm passionate about

Ultimate step of animal and human evolution = individual aeromobility, for humans the only conceivable antidote to the threat of global US air superiority about to close in on global freedom.

Talk to me about

Civil society taking possession of the global airspace with myriads of PA (Personal Aircraft) to outnumber the supersonic fighter-bomber fleet the US government uses as joker to enforce global power.

People don't know I'm good at

Precision mechanics (own workshop and machine-tools)
Text analysis (especially for underlying bad faith by omission, distortion or diversion) in English/French/German.

My TED story

Forthcoming

Comments & conversations

Noface
Oscar Fleury
Posted over 1 year ago
Timothy Prestero: Design for people, not awards
Eons of natural selection have led animals and humans to perceive shapes and configurations of organisms and their constitutive elements as being beautiful or not, according to whether they are efficient or not. Take the example of a well rounded pair of buttocks (male or female): the reason why it appeals to us is that it just features the best form factor for the body's largest and most important pair of locomotion muscles -- with symmetry as a vital aspect for maximum speed and minimum energy consumption for maximum endurance (which was vital until not so long ago!). Similarly, the symmetry of a pair of eyes, ears, nostrils, enables precise determination of the location and movement of the light reflected on, the sound emitted by, or the odor emanating from an object which might either be threatening or rewarding, with maybe a vital issue at stake. So, what is design about, if not about compliance with our innate sens of beauty alias efficiency? I didn't watch the video! I only read the transcription -- but as far as the shape of an incubator is concerned, I have a long standing idea about the subject matter: in the long run humanity will close the gap between in vitro procreation and in vitro gestation currently practiced for premature babies. An I'd bet that these incubators replacing the mother's womb will be egg-shaped, because the spheroid shape has much the same virtues as the perfect sphere, i.e. smallest heat-exchange surface for a given volume (crucial for keeping babies warm!), smallest wall-thickness for maximum stiffness, smallest light reflexion coefficient for maximum transparency, etc. That's maybe why I am so fond of my last second-hand car (my twentieth!): it's a blood red Ford Ka... could it be that driving it reminds me of how I felt in my mother's womb each time she took a bus?
Noface
Oscar Fleury
Posted about 2 years ago
Peter van Uhm: Why I chose a gun
Yes, guns and even Top Guns are history indeed because their striking range is history -- state-of-the-art guns are drones for "Global Reach" (the new motto of the US-Army). Global reach for democratically controlled violence for peace? Don't you hear the underlying message: "USA über alles!"?
Noface
Oscar Fleury
Posted about 2 years ago
Peter van Uhm: Why I chose a gun
Are the psychos necessary for social noise? Or is their role obsolete? Which leads to the next question, i.e. if the General should be identified as a legitimate psychopath...
Noface
Oscar Fleury
Posted over 2 years ago
Karen Tse: How to stop torture
In many cases trying to obtain information through torture may just be a pretext for torturing -- and in a broader sens applying for the job of a cop may just be a pretext for an opportunity to exert torture. Torture may indeed be considered as the ultimate drug which, like chemical drugs, makes its addicts feel "high". Although not by direct chemical action on the brain, but by the fact that by abasing the victim to an extremely low human condition (or rather a sub-human condition) the tormentor gets the illusion of elevating himself far above his victim -- an illusion working so much the more effectively as the victim is of higher status, e.g. a child or a woman. Hopefully, this more scientific approach of torture may contribute to identify the antidotes needed to eradicate one of the most frightenig "infantile diseases" of the relatively young human brain (versus our several million years old body).
Noface
Oscar Fleury
Posted over 2 years ago
Why evolution could never solve aging?
The question "Why did evolution never solve aging?" is indeed incorrectly formulated, lest it were asked an eternity from now -- currently it should read: "Why did evolution not yet solve aging". Assuming that homo sapiens sapiens has opened a game-changing perspective in evolution, it should be noted that humans have already made at least a few attempts to compensate for the frustration of short-termed life, e.g. with mausoleums, inheritage, posthume celebrations, etc.. More recently cloning has nutured wild hopes, and some even believe in cryogenic conservation for later resuscitation, while others try to at least perennize their thougts on the internet... with the next best thing to brain transplantation being currently heart transplantation. In the movie "The Fifth Element", death is orchestrated as a highly desirable, thrilling experience -- and similarly there is a more down-to-earth trend with increasing acceptance of self-requested euthanasy. In German we say: "Wollen können, was man muss, ist der Weisheit letzter Schluss" (Being able to want the unavoidable to happen is the ultima ratio of wisdom). After all, if human life-span were to be massively increased, the frustration of aging would increase correspondingly. Hence, solving this frustration might be the ultimate challenge awaiting humanity...
Noface
Oscar Fleury
Posted over 2 years ago
Why evolution could never solve aging?
A more philosophical approach of queen bees' longevity may yield some interesting findings considering that drones are left to starve after one of them has fecundated the queen -- which reminds us that bees are living in matriarchal societies. By analogy, patriarchal societies might feature an exceptionally long-living king male dedicated to churn out "the 'children' born out of the human brain", as explained in my first comment, hinting at the "unchallengeable leadership of the very one who willl be living longest" predicted in the same comment. Fortunately, money can be used to virtually extend the remaining life-span by packing more years into it through subcontracting the more time-consuming tasks involved with the bearing and rearing of major inventions, so as to get these tasks done in parallel time. Now, since money can help densify your life, the question of how to achieve exceptional longevity becomes that of whoses life deserves being densified. The first answer coming to my mind is that society should stop spreading big money randomly through lotteries, and instead try to get the masses financing the densification of the remaining years of, say, an outstanding elderly inventor... with a sample of his (my) revolutionary aircraft as the jackpot for the winner! Yet, alas, if this kind of lottery could get me to sell my invention to, say, Boeing, they'd probably kill it in order to preserve the long-term success of the current assets of the Boeing-organism...
Noface
Oscar Fleury
Posted over 2 years ago
Why evolution could never solve aging?
"I don't fully understand your point about outnumbering other animals being a handicap to humans." Sorry, the last part of my hypothesis should read: "while outnumbering other species may constitute an advantage in the vegetal and animal worlds, outnumbering other ethnic groups may well have become a handicap in the human world." An example of this questioning is whether China's success is based on outnumbering other nations or on the one-child-per-couple policy -- I for one would favor the second guess. As to outnumbering being a problem within the human species, here's another example: according to my very personal analysis of the evolution of communism, the Soviet rulers failed because they did not calculate their quinquennal plans by computer -- instead, they left this task to an army of human calculators who ended up outnumbering the decision makers of the real economy, when they became a state within the state, compromizing central governance. The Chinese communist rulers still calculate quinquennal plans, but since they do it by computer they manage to remain a small crew in charge of the nation's destiny. Small is purposeful! However, there seems to be a moral issue related to predation: predators carry genes coding for keeping their numbers small versus the lifestocks they prey on, in order not to reach a statistically significant ratio beyond which natural selection among their preys would start to work against them. But does a small number of rulers mean they have to be predators? And does a small minority have to consist of rulers at all? Here's a clue: there are much less pollinizing insects than plants offering nectar -- and, in Nature, symbiosis is largely predominant over predation. Predation is an epiphenomenon on the decline in both the animal and human worlds -- symbiosis is our future! Mainstream symbiosis is about sedentarity teaming with mobility -- and most of the mobile symbiots are flying animals! Our future is in the airspace
Noface
Oscar Fleury
Posted over 2 years ago
Why evolution could never solve aging?
"Natural selection no longer comes into play after child-bearing age. (...) According to natural selection and the survival of a species it doesn't matter in the least if you survive after rearing your offspring." Hey, which species are you talking about? Our own or all the others -- or are you putting all in the same basket? As far as our species is concerned, do you mean that its perennity is granted by the sole production of offspring, as with animals? How about inventions, technology, science, infrastructures -- all those "children" born out of the human brain? It seems to me you're in great need of some enlightenment -- which you might find in my reply to Christopher Henningsen in this discussion. Comment on Brett Evil's reply to your comment: Both of you (and most of the commentors in this discussion) are talking about limited child-bearing age as if natural selection had led to prevent the transmission of genes coding for exceptional longevity -- whereas in actual fact evolution has preserved the option of selecting these genes by not limiting the age of male fertility (as far as I know, for us humans)!
Noface
Oscar Fleury
Posted over 2 years ago
Why evolution could never solve aging?
"A pair that has 3 children in its first generation will have nine times as many descendants by the third generation as one that has 3 children in the third generation. Evolutionarily, it's better to reproduce early rather than late," In a more generic style your first phrase reads: the comparative growth rate of two populations will be higher in the population where the women's average child-bearing age is lower. As to the higher growth rate through early reproduction being an evolutionary advantage, I doubt it always is -- especially since human intelligence has entered the scene resulting in democracy based on the predominance of the majority's will. Now, since when should the reason of the majority be the better one, knowing that wisdom is a rather rare virtue among humans? That's probably what Churchill meant with his famous statement about democracy being the worst system of government, except all others... How come that the change of paradigm with the emergence of human intelligence versus the previous state of unconscious animal intelligence has been paid so little attention in this discussion? I invite you to reflect upon the hypothesis that while outnumbering other species may constitute an advantage in the vegatal and animal worlds, it may well have become a handicap in the human world where information, as based on unlimited accumulation, is taking the lead on the genetic code based on the relentless yet imperfect reproduction of a finite set of elements. And by accumulation I don't mean piling up books, but the virtually unlimited storage capacity of the human brain -- not by the sheer number of informations, but by the ever more complex correlations it can establish during a lifetime; an advantage which is likely to be developed by those who live longer, and ultimatley even to grant unchallengeable leadership to the very one who willl be living longest -- if not, at last, to an omniscient computer.
Noface
Oscar Fleury
Posted almost 3 years ago
Should TED allow demonstrations of military equipment and uniform on the TED stage?
Not long ago military exoskeletons were still science-fiction, as seen In James Cameron's Avatar where the commander of the ailing US Airforce fought his last combat sitting in a robot fighter after his bulky fleet had been outflown by 2000 warriors of Pandora. Yet amazingly enough, they were riding dragons instead of using flapping-wing exoskeletons, and I bet that if Cameron had gone that far the Pentagone would have censored his movie... Let's hope that by the time flying protheses will be state-of-the-art, the crowd of individually airborne members of the civil society will outnumber by far the militaries -- for only then shall we get a chance to defeat US global air superiority just about to close in on all of us.