Discussion:
New Battery Eliminates Fuel Wasted On Take Off
Add Reply
Bret Cahill
2018-11-03 17:56:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize engine for take off which becomes a drag at cruise.

A new battery makes it possible to go to smaller GT engines:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/


Bret Cahill
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-03 18:26:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize engine for take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
"Such planes would still be equipped with a combustion engine and carry
fuel."

So, the very best system they can conceive of to get people at least
flying short regional commuter hops in 'lectric planes (<1% of the
market) and they are still dependent on fossil fuels.

Bahjahahaah!!!!!!!!
Unum
2018-11-03 19:10:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize engine for take
off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
"Such planes would still be equipped with a combustion engine and carry fuel."
The coward snipped out the rest of the paragraph.
So, the very best system they can conceive of to get people at least flying
short regional commuter hops in 'lectric planes (<1% of the market) and they
are still dependent on fossil fuels.
chumpsky full of shit yet again, lol.

'the fuel would largely be on board to achieve the US Federal Aviation
Administration’s “reserve requirement” for safety, which instructs aircraft to
carry enough to land at an airport 200 miles (322 kilometers) from the
intended destination. In a normal flight, the planes shouldn’t have to tap
into that fuel.'
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-03 19:17:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize engine
for take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
"Such planes would still be equipped with a combustion engine and carry fuel."
The coward snipped out the rest of the paragraph.
So, the very best system they can conceive of to get people at least
flying short regional commuter hops in 'lectric planes (<1% of the
market) and they are still dependent on fossil fuels.
chumpsky full of shit yet again, lol.
'the fuel would largely be on board to achieve the US Federal Aviation
Administration’s “reserve requirement” for safety, which instructs aircraft to
carry enough to land at an airport 200 miles (322 kilometers) from the
intended destination. In a normal flight, the planes shouldn’t have to tap
into that fuel.'
Unum practically does a face plant in his hurry to prove my point.

LOL!!!!!
Unum
2018-11-03 21:18:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize engine for
take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
"Such planes would still be equipped with a combustion engine and carry fuel."
The coward snipped out the rest of the paragraph.
So, the very best system they can conceive of to get people at least flying
short regional commuter hops in 'lectric planes (<1% of the market) and
they are still dependent on fossil fuels.
chumpsky full of shit yet again, lol.
'the fuel would largely be on board to achieve the US Federal Aviation
Administration’s “reserve requirement” for safety, which instructs aircraft to
carry enough to land at an airport 200 miles (322 kilometers) from the
intended destination. In a normal flight, the planes shouldn’t have to tap
into that fuel.'
Unum practically does a face plant in his hurry to prove my point.
LOL!!!!!
chumpsky full of shit yet again, lol.
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-04 01:13:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize engine
for take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
"Such planes would still be equipped with a combustion engine and carry fuel."
The coward snipped out the rest of the paragraph.
So, the very best system they can conceive of to get people at least
flying short regional commuter hops in 'lectric planes (<1% of the
market) and they are still dependent on fossil fuels.
chumpsky full of shit yet again, lol.
'the fuel would largely be on board to achieve the US Federal Aviation
Administration’s “reserve requirement” for safety, which instructs aircraft to
carry enough to land at an airport 200 miles (322 kilometers) from the
intended destination. In a normal flight, the planes shouldn’t have to tap
into that fuel.'
Unum practically does a face plant in his hurry to prove my point.
LOL!!!!!
chumpsky full of shit yet again, lol.
And still he doesn't catch on that he shot the puck in his own net.
Unum
2018-11-04 03:11:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize engine for
take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
"Such planes would still be equipped with a combustion engine and carry fuel."
The coward snipped out the rest of the paragraph.
So, the very best system they can conceive of to get people at least
flying short regional commuter hops in 'lectric planes (<1% of the
market) and they are still dependent on fossil fuels.
chumpsky full of shit yet again, lol.
'the fuel would largely be on board to achieve the US Federal Aviation
Administration’s “reserve requirement” for safety, which instructs aircraft to
carry enough to land at an airport 200 miles (322 kilometers) from the
intended destination. In a normal flight, the planes shouldn’t have to tap
into that fuel.'
Unum practically does a face plant in his hurry to prove my point.
LOL!!!!!
chumpsky full of shit yet again, lol.
And still he doesn't catch on that he shot the puck in his own net.
Keep on running, lol.
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-04 17:52:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize
engine for take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
"Such planes would still be equipped with a combustion engine and carry fuel."
The coward snipped out the rest of the paragraph.
So, the very best system they can conceive of to get people at
least flying short regional commuter hops in 'lectric planes (<1%
of the market) and they are still dependent on fossil fuels.
chumpsky full of shit yet again, lol.
'the fuel would largely be on board to achieve the US Federal Aviation
Administration’s “reserve requirement” for safety, which instructs
aircraft to
carry enough to land at an airport 200 miles (322 kilometers) from the
intended destination. In a normal flight, the planes shouldn’t have to tap
into that fuel.'
Unum practically does a face plant in his hurry to prove my point.
LOL!!!!!
chumpsky full of shit yet again, lol.
And still he doesn't catch on that he shot the puck in his own net.
Keep on running, lol.
Your net is at the other end of the ice... LOL!
Unum
2018-11-04 19:43:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize engine for
take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
"Such planes would still be equipped with a combustion engine and carry fuel."
The coward snipped out the rest of the paragraph.
So, the very best system they can conceive of to get people at least
flying short regional commuter hops in 'lectric planes (<1% of the
market) and they are still dependent on fossil fuels.
chumpsky full of shit yet again, lol.
'the fuel would largely be on board to achieve the US Federal Aviation
Administration’s “reserve requirement” for safety, which instructs
aircraft to
carry enough to land at an airport 200 miles (322 kilometers) from the
intended destination. In a normal flight, the planes shouldn’t have to tap
into that fuel.'
Unum practically does a face plant in his hurry to prove my point.
LOL!!!!!
chumpsky full of shit yet again, lol.
And still he doesn't catch on that he shot the puck in his own net.
Keep on running, lol.
Your net is at the other end of the ice... LOL!
So all you've got is a big fat yap?
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-04 20:04:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize
engine for take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
"Such planes would still be equipped with a combustion engine
and carry fuel."
The coward snipped out the rest of the paragraph.
Post by Chom Noamsky
So, the very best system they can conceive of to get people at
least flying short regional commuter hops in 'lectric planes
(<1% of the market) and they are still dependent on fossil fuels.
chumpsky full of shit yet again, lol.
'the fuel would largely be on board to achieve the US Federal Aviation
Administration’s “reserve requirement” for safety, which
instructs aircraft to
carry enough to land at an airport 200 miles (322 kilometers) from the
intended destination. In a normal flight, the planes shouldn’t have to tap
into that fuel.'
Unum practically does a face plant in his hurry to prove my point.
LOL!!!!!
chumpsky full of shit yet again, lol.
And still he doesn't catch on that he shot the puck in his own net.
Keep on running, lol.
Your net is at the other end of the ice... LOL!
So all you've got is a big fat yap?
Final score, Chom:9, Unum:0... LOL!
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-04 07:27:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize engine for
take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-
a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
Post by Unum
"Such planes would still be equipped with a combustion engine and carry fuel."
The coward snipped out the rest of the paragraph.
So, the very best system they can conceive of to get people at least
flying short regional commuter hops in 'lectric planes (<1% of the
market) and they are still dependent on fossil fuels.
chumpsky full of shit yet again, lol.
'the fuel would largely be on board to achieve the US Federal Aviation
Administration’s “reserve requirement” for safety, which instructs
aircraft to carry enough to land at an airport 200 miles (322
kilometers) from the intended destination. In a normal flight, the
planes shouldn’t have to tap into that fuel.'
The energy density of batteries is one order of magnitude greater than
the energy density of conventional engines solutions. An electric plane
is thus severely handicapped over a conventional aircraft. It won't
change soon.
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-04 11:16:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize engine for
take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-
a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
Post by Unum
"Such planes would still be equipped with a combustion engine and carry fuel."
The coward snipped out the rest of the paragraph.
So, the very best system they can conceive of to get people at least
flying short regional commuter hops in 'lectric planes (<1% of the
market) and they are still dependent on fossil fuels.
chumpsky full of shit yet again, lol.
'the fuel would largely be on board to achieve the US Federal Aviation
Administration’s “reserve requirement” for safety, which instructs
aircraft to carry enough to land at an airport 200 miles (322
kilometers) from the intended destination. In a normal flight, the
planes shouldn’t have to tap into that fuel.'
The energy density of batteries is one order of magnitude lower than the
energy density of conventional engines solutions. An electric plane is
thus severely handicapped over a conventional aircraft. It won't change
soon.
Bret Cahill
2018-11-03 19:45:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize engine for take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
"Such planes would still be equipped with a combustion engine and carry
fuel."
So, the very best system they can conceive of
will probably be enough to 86 tar goop as EVs are rapidly taking over ground transportation.
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-04 01:14:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize engine for take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
"Such planes would still be equipped with a combustion engine and carry
fuel."
So, the very best system they can conceive of
will probably be enough to 86 tar goop as EVs are rapidly taking over ground transportation.
ahahaahahah... ohohohohohhhh
JTEM is right
2018-11-04 04:35:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
"Such planes would still be equipped with a combustion engine and carry
fuel."
"Could." It's all speculation, just like all the other
useless speculation that "Free Energy" crowd has been
ramming down our throats for the last few decades now.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179708833353
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-04 07:32:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
"Such planes would still be equipped with a combustion engine and carry
fuel."
"Could." It's all speculation, just like all the other useless
speculation that "Free Energy" crowd has been ramming down our throats
for the last few decades now.
The belief that adding heavy low density batteries and a powerful
electric motor to the weight of an aircraft will reduce its energy use is
preposterous.
Bret Cahill
2018-11-04 15:57:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Chom Noamsky
"Such planes would still be equipped with a combustion engine and carry
fuel."
"Could." It's all speculation, just like all the other useless
speculation that "Free Energy" crowd has been ramming down our throats
for the last few decades now.
The belief that adding heavy low density batteries and a powerful
electric motor to the weight of an aircraft will reduce its energy use is
preposterous.
About as preposterous as hybrid motor vehicles which are taking over the market.

Except for large ships ICE-only drive trains are inefficient in land and air transportation because of an unfortunate combination of 2 factors:

1. ICE is only efficient over a narrow rpm range, and,

2. land and air require a great range of power outputs.

Hybrid allows a smaller engine operating at peak efficiency all the time.
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-04 21:10:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Chom Noamsky
"Such planes would still be equipped with a combustion engine and
carry fuel."
"Could." It's all speculation, just like all the other useless
speculation that "Free Energy" crowd has been ramming down our
throats for the last few decades now.
The belief that adding heavy low density batteries and a powerful
electric motor to the weight of an aircraft will reduce its energy use
is preposterous.
About as preposterous as hybrid motor vehicles which are taking over the market.
Please don't compare what is not comparable. Hybrid vehicles lie on the
ground thanks to their tires. The ground provides free of charge the
force opposite to the cargo weight. Aircrafts must go at a high speed to
create lift, they need power to create lift, they spend a large part of
their energy to create the lift. The heavier the motor and its fuel are
the more power is wasted to create lift to counterbalance its weight.
Batteries, with their low energy density, are heavy, which translates in
a great waste of power to create lift for them.
Bret Cahill
2018-11-04 21:26:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Chom Noamsky
"Such planes would still be equipped with a combustion engine and
carry fuel."
"Could." It's all speculation, just like all the other useless
speculation that "Free Energy" crowd has been ramming down our
throats for the last few decades now.
The belief that adding heavy low density batteries and a powerful
electric motor to the weight of an aircraft will reduce its energy use
is preposterous.
About as preposterous as hybrid motor vehicles which are taking over the market.
Please don't compare what is not comparable. Hybrid vehicles lie on the
ground thanks to their tires. The ground provides free of charge the
force opposite to the cargo weight. Aircrafts must go at a high speed to
create lift, they need power to create lift, they spend a large part of
their energy to create the lift.
Eggzactly why planes need an electric boost on take off ... just like a Prius scooting through an intersection.
Post by Paul Aubrin
The heavier the motor and its fuel are
the more power is wasted to create lift to counterbalance its weight.
Batteries, with their low energy density, are heavy, which translates in
a great waste of power to create lift for them.
No nubbers = no argument.

Yumans been doing sciency stuff by the nubbers for ober 400 years now.

Galileo started 'em all on nubbers.

Apparently deniers, creationists, bigots & other tRUMP supporters missed the boat on nubbers . . .
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-05 04:49:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Paul Aubrin
Please don't compare what is not comparable. Hybrid vehicles lie on the
ground thanks to their tires. The ground provides free of charge the
force opposite to the cargo weight. Aircrafts must go at a high speed
to create lift, they need power to create lift, they spend a large part
of their energy to create the lift.
Eggzactly why planes need an electric boost on take off ... just like a
Prius scooting through an intersection.
They need a boost, but additional, low energy density, heavy batteries
with their associated electric engine weight too much for that use.
Bret Cahill
2018-11-05 14:31:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Paul Aubrin
Please don't compare what is not comparable. Hybrid vehicles lie on the
ground thanks to their tires. The ground provides free of charge the
force opposite to the cargo weight. Aircrafts must go at a high speed
to create lift, they need power to create lift, they spend a large part
of their energy to create the lift.
Eggzactly why planes need an electric boost on take off ... just like a
Prius scooting through an intersection.
They need a boost, but additional, low energy density, heavy batteries
with their associated electric engine weight too much for that use.
No nubbers = no argument.
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-05 16:53:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Paul Aubrin
Please don't compare what is not comparable. Hybrid vehicles lie on
the ground thanks to their tires. The ground provides free of charge
the force opposite to the cargo weight. Aircrafts must go at a high
speed to create lift, they need power to create lift, they spend a
large part of their energy to create the lift.
Eggzactly why planes need an electric boost on take off ... just like
a Prius scooting through an intersection.
They need a boost, but additional, low energy density, heavy batteries
with their associated electric engine weight too much for that use.
No nubbers = no argument.
False. The problem stems from the lower (by a factor of ~10) density of
energy of batteries compared to conventional fuels. Low energy density
implies a much higher weight. The problem was exemplified by the solar
plane which had no payload, only a pilot and batteries.
R Kym Horsell
2018-11-05 18:34:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Paul Aubrin
Please don't compare what is not comparable. Hybrid vehicles lie on the
ground thanks to their tires. The ground provides free of charge the
force opposite to the cargo weight. Aircrafts must go at a high speed
to create lift, they need power to create lift, they spend a large part
of their energy to create the lift.
Eggzactly why planes need an electric boost on take off ... just like a
Prius scooting through an intersection.
They need a boost, but additional, low energy density, heavy batteries
with their associated electric engine weight too much for that use.
No nubbers = no argument.
LOL. Our self-appointed espert /D\ thinks electric motors are heavy.
The e.g. 1800 hp Trents on the A680 weighs 6300 kg apiece.
They suck down 1 tonne of avgas on takeoff.
An 1800 hp electric engine weighs 300 kg and would need
a 2 t battery to run for 5 mins.
2*6.3+1 == 13.6 t.
2*(.3+2)+3 == 7.6 t.
The "3" is a 900 hp cruise fan.
--
US tornadoes 1950-

Decade US av temp av #torn pa est #torn from avg temps
(Berkeley)
195x 0.1199 527.5966 934.282 <-- likely 80% undercount
196x -0.0714 733.1092 759.573
197x -0.0964 944.5714 715.507 <-- possible 30% overcount
198x 0.3110 908.3697 945.155
199x 0.5242 1235.3898 1114.78
200x 0.8534 1422.5546 1267.66
201x(*) 0.9236 1302.4941 1371.77


Avg ann tornado count by scale:
Decade all >=1 2 3 4 5
195x 473 396 226 73 22 6
196x 649 512 283 82 23 5
197x 879 660 305 96 29 7
198x 898 565 210 63 17 3
199x 1204 508 177 59 16 3
200x 1410 546 159 42 6 1
201x(*) 1149 554 165 48 14 6

(*) Incomplete.
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-05 04:55:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
The heavier the motor and its fuel are the more power is wasted to
create lift to counterbalance its weight. Batteries, with their low
energy density, are heavy, which translates in a great waste of power
to create lift for them.
No nubbers = no argument.
Indeed. If those MIT guys had examined the numbers, they would have
observed that batteries are not a solution: replacing high energy density
fuel with ten times heavier energy in batteries increases the weight to
be lifted at take-off.
JTEM is right
2018-11-05 06:26:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Indeed. If those MIT guys had examined the numbers, they would have
observed that batteries are not a solution: replacing high energy density
fuel with ten times heavier energy in batteries increases the weight to
be lifted at take-off.
I can burn less than a gallon of fuel per hour,
weighing in at about 6 pounds per gallon, in an
Accord or Camry. A tank full of gas nets about
400 miles on my room mate's Accord -- sometimes
more, sometimes a little less -- all for some
84 pounds, maybe.

...the Tesla Model 3 has two batteries that
weigh 191 pounds each, and two batteries that
weigh 207 pounds each, for a grand total of 796
pounds:

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/09/tesla-model-3-has-most-advanced-large-scale-lithium-battery-ever-produced-battery-expert-notes/

Interesting to note: The weight of fossil fuels
diminishes as the vehicle travels, while the weight
of batteries is a constant even when stone cold dead.

Oh. Honda's 2.4L engine only weighs in at about 300
pounds, so the batteries on the Model 3 clearly weigh
more than the fossil fuel AND the motor in the Accord!

...the Accord is much faster to "Recharge," too.
Plus there is no proprietary technology involved. You
can fuel up an Accord anywhere.

So you can save A LOT of weight and travel much further,
if you drive a fossil fuel car.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179773572733
Bret Cahill
2018-11-05 14:48:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Bret Cahill
The heavier the motor and its fuel are the more power is wasted to
create lift to counterbalance its weight. Batteries, with their low
energy density, are heavy, which translates in a great waste of power
to create lift for them.
No nubbers = no argument.
Indeed. If those MIT guys had examined the numbers,
What nubbers?
Post by Paul Aubrin
they would have
observed
It's a kalkulation, not an obserbation.
Post by Paul Aubrin
that batteries are not a solution
Them Marxist engineers at Airbus, Siemens, GE, United Technologies, Boeing, RR, Siemens, Phillips will _all_ tell you them high drain batteries is the solution -- some kockamamie story about a yuge fan at takeoff allowing for smaller GT to cruise.
Post by Paul Aubrin
replacing high energy density
fuel with ten times heavier energy in batteries increases the weight to
be lifted at take-off.
Deniers better expose this conshpirasEEEEE before it includes eberone w/ an IQ above 35.
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-05 17:07:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
they would have observed
It's a kalkulation, not an obserbation.
Look at those facts:
compare the density of energy of batteries with the density of energy of
conventional fuels.
Look at the laws of physics which define lift as a function of speed and
drag as a function of speed.

http://home.kpn.nl/ronvans/forums/Simple_Science_of_Flight.pdf

"A good way to start when attempting to understand the basics of
flight performance is to think of the weight a pair of wings can sup-
port. This ‘‘carrying capacity’’ depends on wing size, airspeed, air
density, and the angle of the wings with respect to the direction of
flight."
"Since wings have to support the weight of an airplane or a bird
against the force of gravity, the lift L must equal the weight W. The
lift is proportional to the wing area S and to ρV^2 , and so is the
weight: W = 0.3ρV^2 S."
Bret Cahill
2018-11-06 00:37:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Bret Cahill
they would have observed
It's a kalkulation, not an obserbation.
compare the density of energy of batteries with the density of energy of
conventional fuels.
It isn't necessary to replace all the carbon fuel with a battery w/the same energy any more than rocket assist takeoff replaces all the kerosene, joule for joule, w/ rocket fuel.
Post by Paul Aubrin
Look at the laws of physics which define lift as a function of speed and
drag as a function of speed.
And at cruise the drag is going to waste fuel using the same large engines for take off. That's why uncivilized countries take the duct off the fan: Ducting represents a large drag.

Go to smaller engines for an efficient cruise and the plane cannot take off efficiently if at all.

The solution is a high drain battery for take off and then shift to smaller engines for cruise.
Bret Cahill
2018-11-06 00:43:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Bret Cahill
they would have observed
It's a kalkulation, not an obserbation.
compare the density of energy of batteries with the density of energy of
conventional fuels.
It isn't necessary to replace all the carbon fuel with a battery w/the same energy any more than rocket assist takeoff replaces all the kerosene, joule for joule, w/ rocket fuel.
After World War II JATO was often used to overcome the poor thrust of early jet engines at low speeds or for assisting heavily loaded aircraft to take off. For example, the propeller engined Avro Shackleton, when heavily laden with fuel for long maritime surveillance flights, relied on Armstrong Siddeley Viper turbojets for takeoff.

The world's first jet airliner, the de Havilland DH 106 Comet, included a design provision to carry two hydrogen peroxide-powered de Havilland Sprite booster rockets intended to be installed for hot and high altitude conditions from airports such as Khartoum and Nairobi.[6][7] These were tested on thirty flights, but the de Havilland Ghost jet engines alone were considered powerful enough and some airlines concluded that rocket motors were impractical.[8] Nevertheless, Sprite fittings were retained on production Comet 1s but were rendered unnecessary with subsequent engine upgrades.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JATO
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Paul Aubrin
Look at the laws of physics which define lift as a function of speed and
drag as a function of speed.
And at cruise the drag is going to waste fuel using the same large engines for take off. That's why uncivilized countries take the duct off large fans: Ducting represents a large drag.
Go to smaller engines for an efficient cruise and the plane cannot take off efficiently if at all.
The solution is a high drain battery for take off and then shift to smaller engines for cruise.
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-06 06:45:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
The world's first jet airliner, the de Havilland DH 106 Comet, included
a design provision to carry two hydrogen peroxide-powered de Havilland
Sprite booster rockets
Rockets.
Bret Cahill
2018-11-06 15:00:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Bret Cahill
The world's first jet airliner, the de Havilland DH 106 Comet, included
a design provision to carry two hydrogen peroxide-powered de Havilland
Sprite booster rockets
Rockets.
Horrifically inefficient, even worse than after burners. Almost all the energy is wasted as turbulence.

For maximum propulsion efficiency the fluid, gas/air/liquid, needs to be exiting [relative to the craft] 2X the speed of the craft to even get close to 2/3rds of the efficiency of traction.

That's why so many birds like quail and road runners prefer running to flying: 33% energy savings. Flying is rare, only for special occasions like a coyote.

To increase propulsion efficiency with the same thrust engineers trade high speed exhaust at a low mass flow rate for high mass flow rate at a lower speed.

That's why they keep increasing bypass ratio, bigger and bigger fans. Today the fan has a diameter almost as big as the fuselage. Passenger planes can fly straight up with these yuge fans.

In a few years a centrally mounted fan will get so big it will swallow the entire fuselage and the passengers will ride inside the fan.

Google it. It's pretty certain there are patents on it w/o even looking.
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-06 06:44:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Bret Cahill
they would have observed
It's a kalkulation, not an obserbation.
compare the density of energy of batteries with the density of energy
of conventional fuels.
It isn't necessary to replace all the carbon fuel with a battery w/the
same energy any more than rocket assist takeoff replaces all the
kerosene,
joule for joule, w/ rocket fuel.
If you replace only a tenth, batteries end being as heavy as the whole
fuel tank.
Bret Cahill
2018-11-06 15:25:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Bret Cahill
they would have observed
It's a kalkulation, not an obserbation.
compare the density of energy of batteries with the density of energy
of conventional fuels.
It isn't necessary to replace all the carbon fuel with a battery w/the
same energy any more than rocket assist takeoff replaces all the
kerosene,
joule for joule, w/ rocket fuel.
If you replace only a tenth, batteries end being as heavy as the whole
fuel tank.
Actually the fuel will weigh considerably less because the carbon burning core engines are down sized and need less fuel -- the whole point of electric assist take off & climb.

Even if the entire plane ends up weighing somewhat more overall because of the weight of the batteries it still saves money _overall_ on the spreadsheet.

80% of the cost in operating an airline is fuel so Airbus, Boeing, GE, RR, Siemens do _anything_ to lower fuel costs.

And I mean _anything_.

We're talking scorched earth.

They've gone over that $pread$heet so many times with so many LSD - crazy solutions you don't even want to think about it.

You know those "winglets" they put on the tips of the wings? they only save 5% in fuel cost but 5% of billions is still a lot of money and in such a competitive industry.

If airlines do not upgrade to electric assist, they will soon forced out of bidness by fuel costs.

No greenie regulations -- just pure free marketry.
R Kym Horsell
2018-11-06 17:09:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Bret Cahill
they would have observed
It's a kalkulation, not an obserbation.
compare the density of energy of batteries with the density of energy
of conventional fuels.
It isn't necessary to replace all the carbon fuel with a battery w/the
same energy any more than rocket assist takeoff replaces all the
kerosene,
joule for joule, w/ rocket fuel.
If you replace only a tenth, batteries end being as heavy as the whole
fuel tank.
Actually the fuel will weigh considerably less because the carbon burning core engines are down sized and need less fuel -- the whole point of electric assist take off & climb.
Even if the entire plane ends up weighing somewhat more overall because of the weight of the batteries it still saves money _overall_ on the spreadsheet.
80% of the cost in operating an airline is fuel so Airbus, Boeing, GE, RR, Siemens do _anything_ to lower fuel costs.
Cain sneeze at the price of them conventional engines.
$26 mil is the list on one Roller '700 an you need 2 of dem to
stop droopin on one side and turning in widdle circles.
Post by Bret Cahill
And I mean _anything_.
We're talking scorched earth.
They've gone over that $pread$heet so many times with so many LSD - crazy solutions you don't even want to think about it.
You know those "winglets" they put on the tips of the wings? they only save 5% in fuel cost but 5% of billions is still a lot of money and in such a competitive industry.
If airlines do not upgrade to electric assist, they will soon forced out of bidness by fuel costs.
No greenie regulations -- just pure free marketry.
--
[Not a clue:]

Finally you start to understand that satellites provide a direct
measurement of the thermal energy content of the atmosphere. What is even
better is that they have a frequent, consistent, and even coverage of all
the surface of the earth. They are free of UHI or relocation problems,
they don't have to infer the temperature of the air from the temperature
of ocean waters.
-- Paul /D\ubrin, 21 Feb 2016 10:33:33 -0800

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Let's do a
reality check - which instrument provides a "direct measurement of the
thermal energy content of the atmosphere"?
-- Tom P, 23 Feb 2016 19:58:56
Bret Cahill
2018-11-06 23:18:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Bret Cahill
they would have observed
It's a kalkulation, not an obserbation.
compare the density of energy of batteries with the density of energy
of conventional fuels.
It isn't necessary to replace all the carbon fuel with a battery w/the
same energy any more than rocket assist takeoff replaces all the
kerosene,
joule for joule, w/ rocket fuel.
If you replace only a tenth, batteries end being as heavy as the whole
fuel tank.
Actually the fuel will weigh considerably less because the carbon burning core engines are down sized and need less fuel -- the whole point of electric assist take off & climb.
Even if the entire plane ends up weighing somewhat more overall because of the weight of the batteries it still saves money _overall_ on the spreadsheet.
80% of the cost in operating an airline is fuel so Airbus, Boeing, GE, RR, Siemens do _anything_ to lower fuel costs.
Cain sneeze at the price of them conventional engines.
$26 mil is the list on one Roller '700 an you need 2 of dem to
stop droopin on one side and turning in widdle circles.
Gas turbine costs at least 40 cents/watt at max power. A gasoline motor vehicle engine costs ~ 2 cents/watt max power.

Here's an EV traction motor with 75K km on it for sale:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/2013-2016-Nissan-Leaf-Electric-Traction-Motor-EM57-50K-Miles/132739589741?fits=Model%3ALeaf%7CMake%3ANissan&hash=item1ee7e5666d:g:zTcAAOSw0NtbbiJe:rk:1:pf:0

Less than 1.5 cents/watt at max power.
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-07 05:55:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by R Kym Horsell
Cain sneeze at the price of them conventional engines.
$26 mil is the list on one Roller '700 an you need 2 of dem to stop
droopin on one side and turning in widdle circles.
Gas turbine costs at least 40 cents/watt at max power. A gasoline motor
vehicle engine costs ~ 2 cents/watt max power.
The problem of storing electricity on a plane is not the cost. It is the
weight.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-07 13:43:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by R Kym Horsell
Cain sneeze at the price of them conventional engines.
$26 mil is the list on one Roller '700 an you need 2 of dem to stop
droopin on one side and turning in widdle circles.
Gas turbine costs at least 40 cents/watt at max power. A gasoline motor
vehicle engine costs ~ 2 cents/watt max power.
The problem of storing electricity on a plane is not the cost. It is the
weight.
Yeah you are running from my questions, about need for fuel dump in an emergency
Bret Cahill
2018-11-07 14:06:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by R Kym Horsell
Cain sneeze at the price of them conventional engines.
$26 mil is the list on one Roller '700 an you need 2 of dem to stop
droopin on one side and turning in widdle circles.
Gas turbine costs at least 40 cents/watt at max power. A gasoline motor
vehicle engine costs ~ 2 cents/watt max power.
The problem of storing electricity on a plane is not the cost. It is the
weight.
The problem wif AGNN (ain got no nummers) is eber one wif an IQ above 40 thinks you are a crank.
Bret Cahill
2018-11-07 14:29:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by R Kym Horsell
Cain sneeze at the price of them conventional engines.
$26 mil is the list on one Roller '700 an you need 2 of dem to stop
droopin on one side and turning in widdle circles.
Gas turbine costs at least 40 cents/watt at max power. A gasoline motor
vehicle engine costs ~ 2 cents/watt max power.
The problem of storing electricity on a plane is not the cost.
Co$t oberall is _allys_ the problem in _any_ industry.

That's why "the bottom line" is such a popular cliche.

The problem wif storin anything on the plane is the co$t.

The problem wif burnin carbon fuel on the plane is the co$t. It's 80% of the operatin co$t of an airline.

It's cheaper to go low energy density battery + electric motor + small gas turbine than pay for a large carbon burnin engine.

Got that?
R Kym Horsell
2018-11-03 20:51:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize engine for take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
Oh,no! A red rag to the group's semi-numerate "aviation engineers".
--
[Storytime for hillbillies:]

Wood heat is not new. It dates back to a day millions of years ago,
when a group of cavemen were sitting around, watching dinosaurs rot.
Suddenly, lightning struck a nearby log and set it on fire. One of the
cavemen stared at the fire for a few minutes, then said: "Hey! Wood
heat!" The other cavemen, who did not understand English, immediately
beat him to death with stones. But the key discovery had been made,
and from that day forward, the cavemen had all the heat they needed,
although their insurance rates went way up.
-- Dave Barry, "Postpetroleum Guzzler"
JTEM is right
2018-11-04 04:33:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Nothing of this is real. The story is with
COULDs and MAYs. It's not telling us anything
that's happening right now. It's talking
about something it likes to believe might
happen at some undisclosed future point.

Par for the course.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179708833353
Bret Cahill
2018-11-04 14:54:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JTEM is right
Nothing of this is real.
Nubbers ain real.

Sciency ain real.

Plannin ain real.

It's all a conspiraCEEEEEE.
R Kym Horsell
2018-11-04 15:02:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by JTEM is right
Nothing of this is real.
Nubbers ain real.
Sciency ain real.
Plannin ain real.
It's all a conspiraCEEEEEE.
Its obvees dat only stuff like Imminent Ice Ages and Tesla Goin Bust
is real for hillbillies.
--
[Ze pseudo cycle espert:]

"The recent [temperature] maximum is clearly the result of a 60 year
pseudo- cycle[.]"
-- Paul Aubrin, 7 Nov 2014

<http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:60/from:1960/normalise/plot/
gistemp/mean:60/from:1960/normalise>
atm CO2 (ML) vs GISTEMP 1960-

<Loading Image...>
atm CO2 (Law Dome+Mauna Loa) vs CET 1659-

<Loading Image...>
atm CO2 (LD+ML) vs predicted surf temp from 1drcm
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-04 21:15:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by JTEM is right
Nothing of this is real.
Nubbers ain real.
Sciency ain real.
Plannin ain real.
Future may become real when it materialises, if it materialises some day.
Conditional things may, might, could, would possibly become real, if the
conditions on which they depend can some day become true, but only if.
Bret Cahill
2018-11-04 15:48:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JTEM is right
Nothing of this is real.
I can assure, them sciency guys is usin real nubbers as well as complex!
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-04 13:26:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize engine for take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
Bret Cahill
So it takes a massive amount of fuel to take off, fly then when the current planes land they have all that extra space they needed for jet fuel
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-04 13:52:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize engine for
take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-
a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
So it takes a massive amount of fuel to take off, fly then when the
current planes land they have all that extra space they needed for jet
fuel
Planes succeeded to take off when the power/weight ratio of engines
(+fuel) became high enough for lift to overcome gravity. Batteries plus
electric motors power/weight ratio is lower by an order of magnitude than
thermal motors plus fuel.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-04 13:58:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize engine for
take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-
a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
So it takes a massive amount of fuel to take off, fly then when the
current planes land they have all that extra space they needed for jet
fuel
Planes succeeded
Cargo businesses operate based on transportation of goods, landing with wasted space is a waste of money, empty space in the fuel tank is wasted space, fuel takes fuel to transport
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-04 14:01:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Cargo businesses operate based on transportation of goods, landing with
wasted space is a waste of money, empty space in the fuel tank is wasted
space, fuel takes fuel to transport
Empty space weights only 1.2kg/m³.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-04 14:10:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Cargo businesses operate based on transportation of goods, landing with
wasted space is a waste of money, empty space in the fuel tank is wasted
space, fuel takes fuel to transport
Empty space
Costs a lot to ship anything by air
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-04 14:44:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Cargo businesses operate based on transportation of goods, landing
with wasted space is a waste of money, empty space in the fuel tank
is wasted space, fuel takes fuel to transport
Empty space
Costs a lot to ship anything by air
What costs is what weights. Empty space weights almost nothing. On the
opposite, energy in batteries is heavier than energy in any fuel by an
order of magnitude. No will, may, should or might will change that.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-04 14:48:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Cargo businesses operate based on transportation of goods, landing
with wasted space is a waste of money, empty space in the fuel tank
is wasted space, fuel takes fuel to transport
Empty space
Costs a lot to ship anything by air
What costs is what weights. Empty space weights almost nothing
Empty space on a cargo plane flight is a loss of potential profit
Wally W.
2018-11-04 14:17:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 05:58:36 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize engine for
take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-
a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
So it takes a massive amount of fuel to take off, fly then when the
current planes land they have all that extra space they needed for jet
fuel
Planes succeeded
Cargo businesses operate based on transportation of goods, landing with wasted space is a waste of money, empty space in the fuel tank is wasted space, fuel takes fuel to transport
Discharged batteries take charged batteries to transport.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-04 14:18:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 05:58:36 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize engine for
take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-
a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
So it takes a massive amount of fuel to take off, fly then when the
current planes land they have all that extra space they needed for jet
fuel
Planes succeeded
Cargo businesses operate based on transportation of goods, landing with wasted space is a waste of money, empty space in the fuel tank is wasted space, fuel takes fuel to transport
Discharged batteries take charged batteries to transport.
So you are saying nothing can charge a battery in flight, and thats harder than mid air refueling?
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-04 14:45:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Discharged batteries take charged batteries to transport.
So you are saying nothing can charge a battery in flight, and thats
harder than mid air refueling?
I can't remember the last time the plane I took needed mid-air refuelling.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-04 14:49:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Discharged batteries take charged batteries to transport.
So you are saying nothing can charge a battery in flight, and thats
harder than mid air refueling?
I can't remember the last time the plane I took needed mid-air refuelling.
But a plane that charges a battery similar to a car alternator to a car is a benefit all around.
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-04 15:05:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Discharged batteries take charged batteries to transport.
So you are saying nothing can charge a battery in flight, and thats
harder than mid air refueling?
I can't remember the last time the plane I took needed mid-air refuelling.
But a plane that charges a battery similar to a car alternator to a car
is a benefit all around.
Certainly not. Batteries are heavy (much heavier than the corresponding
amount of fuel). A thermal motor to charge the batteries is heavy too. If
what you say were true US Air Force would be eager to put propulsion
batteries and motors on its planes. They don't.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-04 16:02:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Discharged batteries take charged batteries to transport.
So you are saying nothing can charge a battery in flight, and thats
harder than mid air refueling?
I can't remember the last time the plane I took needed mid-air refuelling.
But a plane that charges a battery similar to a car alternator to a car
is a benefit all around.
Certainly
Planes have plenty of opportunities to utilize extra energy, if i recall correctly one of our latest large airliners uses rushing air to help with the APU during landing approach.
George
2018-11-04 18:55:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 08:02:41 -0800 (PST)
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Discharged batteries take charged batteries to transport.
So you are saying nothing can charge a battery in flight, and
thats harder than mid air refueling?
I can't remember the last time the plane I took needed mid-air refuelling.
But a plane that charges a battery similar to a car alternator to
a car is a benefit all around.
Certainly
Planes have plenty of opportunities to utilize extra energy, if i
recall correctly one of our latest large airliners uses rushing air
to help with the APU during landing approach.
Wrong wrong wrong.
The APU uses -rushing air- WTF
You really don't know a shitload about the subject do you



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-04 21:17:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Planes have plenty of opportunities to utilize extra energy, if i
recall correctly one of our latest large airliners uses rushing air to
help with the APU during landing approach.
Wrong wrong wrong.
The APU uses -rushing air- WTF You really don't know a shitload about
the subject do you
Columbia has a great imagination. One day his perpetual motion plane will
get him the Nobel Price of imagination.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-05 04:47:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by George
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Planes have plenty of opportunities to utilize extra energy, if i
recall correctly one of our latest large airliners uses rushing air to
help with the APU during landing approach.
Wrong wrong wrong.
The APU uses -rushing air- WTF You really don't know a shitload about
the subject do you
Columbia has a great imagination. One day his perpetual motion plane will
get him the Nobel Price of imagination.
Not really, you all have this notion that your bs works. The RAT generates power in an emergency, i stated extra during descent which means a battery would charge during flight as compared to landing with empty cargo space.
Wally W.
2018-11-05 04:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 20:44:55 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by George
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 08:02:41 -0800 (PST)
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Discharged batteries take charged batteries to transport.
So you are saying nothing can charge a battery in flight, and
thats harder than mid air refueling?
I can't remember the last time the plane I took needed mid-air refuelling.
But a plane that charges a battery similar to a car alternator to
a car is a benefit all around.
Certainly
Planes have plenty of opportunities to utilize extra energy, if i
recall correctly one of our latest large airliners uses rushing air
to help with the APU during landing approach.
Wrong wrong wrong.
The APU uses -rushing air- WTF
You really don't know a shitload about the subject do you
RAT ram air turbine will charge the APU batteries in an emergency correct?
I said rushing air, and i stated HELP WITH the apu, RAT was on the 747.
Loading Image...
... and I helped
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-05 04:50:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 20:44:55 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by George
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 08:02:41 -0800 (PST)
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
On Sun, 04 Nov 2018 06:18:24 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Discharged batteries take charged batteries to transport.
So you are saying nothing can charge a battery in flight, and
thats harder than mid air refueling?
I can't remember the last time the plane I took needed mid-air
refuelling.
But a plane that charges a battery similar to a car alternator to
a car is a benefit all around.
Certainly
Planes have plenty of opportunities to utilize extra energy, if i
recall correctly one of our latest large airliners uses rushing air
to help with the APU during landing approach.
Wrong wrong wrong.
The APU uses -rushing air- WTF
You really don't know a shitload about the subject do you
RAT ram air turbine will charge the APU batteries in an emergency correct?
I said rushing air, and i stated HELP WITH the apu, RAT was on the 747.
Did you say something?
R Kym Horsell
2018-11-05 05:16:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 20:44:55 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
...
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Did you say something?
WWWally found the grade class din laugh at him if he just st questions.
Unfortunately, the level had remain at jr school lebbels since.
--
ME Mann
All: 3860000 papers+cites on google scholar
Since 1Jan2018: 17900

GA Schmidt
All: 3090000
Since 1Jan2018: 25700

JE Hansen
All: 2640000
Since 1Jan2018: 29300

Kevin Anderson
All: 1570000
Since 1Jan2018: 12300

RW Spencer
All: 797000
Since 1Jan2018: 9970

Richard Alley
All: 119000
Since 1Jan2018: 3390

Willie Soon
All: 79800
Since 1Jan2018: 2590

J Curry
All: 27100
Since 1Jan2018: 929

RS Lindzen
All: 18400
Since 1Jan2018: 562

Ned Nikolov
Any: 873
Since 1Jan2018: 35
Wally W.
2018-11-05 12:10:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 20:44:55 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
...
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Did you say something?
WWWally found the grade class din laugh at him if he just st questions.
Unfortunately, the level had remain at jr school lebbels since.
An ad hom riddled with spelling errors might backfire.
Bret Cahill
2018-11-05 14:34:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Did you say something?
WWWally found the grade class din laugh at him if he just st questions.
Unfortunately, the level had remain at jr school lebbels since.
An ad hom riddled with spelling errors might backfire.
Can you say sumthin about the next Rapturecene?
Wally W.
2018-11-06 02:14:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Wally W.
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Did you say something?
WWWally found the grade class din laugh at him if he just st questions.
Unfortunately, the level had remain at jr school lebbels since.
An ad hom riddled with spelling errors might backfire.
Can you say sumthin about the next Rapturecene?
What can you say about the last one?

Note at least one spelling error from Mr. Context, if one doesn't
count the non-word and the end of his text.

BTW: a punctuation lesson is needed, too.
If one were to use the bastardized spelling, someone knowledgeable
would include a trailing apostrophe: somethin'
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-05 17:31:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 20:44:55 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
...
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Did you say something?
WWWally found the grade class din laugh at him if he just st questions.
Unfortunately, the level had remain at jr school lebbels since.
An ad hom riddled with spelling errors might backfire.
things often backfire on you
R Kym Horsell
2018-11-05 18:50:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 20:44:55 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
...
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Did you say something?
WWWally found the grade class din laugh at him if he just st questions.
Unfortunately, the level had remain at jr school lebbels since.
An ad hom riddled with spelling errors might backfire.
things often backfire on you
I think wwwally is habbin anobba flashback to hid chilhood.
--
Carbon Cycle
the reservoirs with longer residence times, like the ocean [~200ky], will
give carbon back to the atmosphere. Thus, the atmospheric residence time is
more like 100 years.
-- https://www.colorado.edu/geolsci/courses/GEOL3520/Carbon_cycle.pdf

[M. /D\ estimates it as "no more than around 5-16 years":]
Maybe you are making some progress, although I doubt it will last.
Anyway the C13/C12 ratio can be explained only if any CO2 molecule of the
atmosphere reacts quite frequently with one or another CO2 reservoir
(5-16 years). As a result, the concentration near this reservoir is
driven by the chemical/physical characteristics of the reaction, which is
generally an equilibrium reaction. From there it is known that there are
only 7% of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere coming from fossil fuel
combustion. The derivation from the C13/C12 ratio is straightforward.
-- Paul /D\ubrin, 04 Nov 2018 17:58:37
Wally W.
2018-11-06 02:15:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 20:44:55 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
...
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Did you say something?
WWWally found the grade class din laugh at him if he just st questions.
Unfortunately, the level had remain at jr school lebbels since.
An ad hom riddled with spelling errors might backfire.
things often backfire on you
I think wwwally is habbin anobba flashback to hid chilhood.
What is it like to never have left one's childhood?
George
2018-11-05 19:06:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 20:44:55 -0800 (PST)
Post by George
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 08:02:41 -0800 (PST)
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
On Sun, 04 Nov 2018 06:49:50 -0800,
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
On Sun, 04 Nov 2018 06:18:24 -0800,
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Discharged batteries take charged batteries to
transport.
So you are saying nothing can charge a battery in flight,
and thats harder than mid air refueling?
I can't remember the last time the plane I took needed
mid-air refuelling.
But a plane that charges a battery similar to a car
alternator to a car is a benefit all around.
Certainly
Planes have plenty of opportunities to utilize extra energy, if i
recall correctly one of our latest large airliners uses rushing
air to help with the APU during landing approach.
Wrong wrong wrong.
The APU uses -rushing air- WTF
You really don't know a shitload about the subject do you
RAT ram air turbine will charge the APU batteries in an emergency
correct?
I said rushing air, and i stated HELP WITH the apu, RAT was on the
747.
Why the hell would you act like an authority, then exclude the RAT?
ARE YOU THAT FULL OF SHIT?
I'm a pilot


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-05 19:10:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 11:07:01 AM UTC-8, George wrote:"I'm a pilot"

so as a pilot does it not make sense to use flowing air in case of emergency to assist the APU, as noted by the RAT?

If your answer is yes, why the hell did you feel compelled to not think about it before you posted?

If you choose not to think, then one must wonder why the hell anybody would let you be the pilot and ride as a passenger?
George
2018-11-05 21:30:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 11:10:29 -0800 (PST)
RAT
He actually is referring to the APU.
Its a small turbine producing power to the aircraft systems when the
main engines are shut down.
The 'ram' air takes air from the slip stream when the aircraft is
flying.
Nowt ram about it


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Kym Horsell
2018-11-05 21:56:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 11:10:29 -0800 (PST)
RAT
He actually is referring to the APU.
Really. I thought CIA was talking about sommin that DONT use fuel.
Post by George
Its a small turbine producing power to the aircraft systems when the
main engines are shut down.
The 'ram' air takes air from the slip stream when the aircraft is
flying.
Nowt ram about it
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-05 22:07:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 1:30:59 PM UTC-8, George wrote:" The 'ram' air takes air from the slip stream when the aircraft is flying."

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 8:02:43 AM UTC-8, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:"Planes have plenty of opportunities to utilize extra energy, if i recall correctly one of our latest large airliners uses rushing air to help with the APU during landing approach."

So you are stating i was correct?
George
2018-11-04 18:53:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 04 Nov 2018 14:45:56 GMT
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Discharged batteries take charged batteries to transport.
So you are saying nothing can charge a battery in flight, and thats
harder than mid air refueling?
I can't remember the last time the plane I took needed mid-air
refuelling.
And theres nothing in the aircrew ratings for civil aircraft that
requires the skill



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
George
2018-11-04 18:51:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 06:18:24 -0800 (PST)
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
So you are saying nothing can charge a battery in flight, and thats
harder than mid air refueling?
No he isn't and you are attempting to change the subject..

We had that toy single seat thing that ran on solar power and required
intensive ground crew work just to get airborne and only took a year to
achieve its goal


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-05 05:43:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 06:18:24 -0800 (PST)
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
So you are saying nothing can charge a battery in flight, and thats
harder than mid air refueling?
No he isn't and you are attempting to change the subject..
So you are saying a its a good business model for cargo logistics companies to land planes with empty space?
Post by George
We had that toy single seat thing that ran on solar power and required
intensive ground crew work just to get airborne and only took a year to
achieve its goal
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-05 07:30:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by George
No he isn't and you are attempting to change the subject..
So you are saying a its a good business model for cargo logistics
companies to land planes with empty space?
No. He just says that 1 cubic metre of air weights 1kg, one cubic metre
of batteries 3 tons and that every kilogram lifted in the air requires
kilowatts to stay aloft.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-05 17:30:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by George
No he isn't and you are attempting to change the subject..
So you are saying a its a good business model for cargo logistics
companies to land planes with empty space?
No.
So you are going to explain why a plane has to perform a fuel dump in an emergency landing where they have to immediately return to the airport after takeoff.

Then you are going to explain how much fuel is consumed during takeoff, and how much of a total planes weight is dedicated to fuel at takeoff
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-05 19:33:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by George
No he isn't and you are attempting to change the subject..
So you are saying a its a good business model for cargo logistics
companies to land planes with empty space?
No.
So you are going to explain why a plane has to perform a fuel dump in an
emergency landing where they have to immediately return to the airport
after takeoff.
Then you are going to explain how much fuel is consumed during takeoff,
and how much of a total planes weight is dedicated to fuel at takeoff
Of course everybody knows that when pilots try to take as few fuel as
they can in order to not have as little extra-weight as they can. If
electric planes fly one day, they will have to carry the full weight of
their batteries from take-off to landing.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-05 21:26:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by George
No he isn't and you are attempting to change the subject..
So you are saying a its a good business model for cargo logistics
companies to land planes with empty space?
No.
So you are going to explain why a plane has to perform a fuel dump in an
emergency landing where they have to immediately return to the airport
after takeoff.
Then you are going to explain how much fuel is consumed during takeoff,
and how much of a total planes weight is dedicated to fuel at takeoff
Of
so you are running from explaining why an emergency fuel dump is needed when a plane has to immediately return for a landing?
Wally W.
2018-11-06 02:16:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 13:26:58 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by George
No he isn't and you are attempting to change the subject..
So you are saying a its a good business model for cargo logistics
companies to land planes with empty space?
No.
So you are going to explain why a plane has to perform a fuel dump in an
emergency landing where they have to immediately return to the airport
after takeoff.
Then you are going to explain how much fuel is consumed during takeoff,
and how much of a total planes weight is dedicated to fuel at takeoff
Of
so you are running from explaining why an emergency fuel dump is needed when a plane has to immediately return for a landing?
Why is that important?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-07 05:36:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 13:26:58 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by George
No he isn't and you are attempting to change the subject..
So you are saying a its a good business model for cargo logistics
companies to land planes with empty space?
No.
So you are going to explain why a plane has to perform a fuel dump in an
emergency landing where they have to immediately return to the airport
after takeoff.
Then you are going to explain how much fuel is consumed during takeoff,
and how much of a total planes weight is dedicated to fuel at takeoff
Of
so you are running from explaining why an emergency fuel dump is needed when a plane has to immediately return for a landing?
Why is that important?
Max landing weight
Wally W.
2018-11-07 12:01:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 21:36:58 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 13:26:58 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by George
No he isn't and you are attempting to change the subject..
So you are saying a its a good business model for cargo logistics
companies to land planes with empty space?
No.
So you are going to explain why a plane has to perform a fuel dump in an
emergency landing where they have to immediately return to the airport
after takeoff.
Then you are going to explain how much fuel is consumed during takeoff,
and how much of a total planes weight is dedicated to fuel at takeoff
Of
so you are running from explaining why an emergency fuel dump is needed when a plane has to immediately return for a landing?
Why is that important?
Max landing weight
Restating the problem doesn't say why it is important.

Max landing weight could be increased with more weight for structure.

It is cheaper to dump fuel the rare times it is necessary than it
would be to carry more structure around.

For some reason, you want to say a reasonable design decision as a
problem.

Do you have something to say, or do you just have to say something?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-07 13:43:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 4:01:20 AM UTC-8, Wally W. wrote"
https://norcalnews.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/shake-n-bake.jpg"

So far i mentioned a method to recharge batteries with rushing air on landing approach as it would bleed of energy and energize the batteries

And i mentioned the need for airliners to perform a fuel dump in the case of an emergency return to the airport, and how that is connected to the max landing weight of the aircraft.

Neither should cause you to have a typical denialist emotional breakdown but you did, that aint my problem.

If you cant articulate yourself in a rational manner, while also trying to have a civil discussion without emotional whining perhaps your maturity needs to progress in order for you to be treated like an adult
Wally W.
2018-11-07 13:53:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 05:43:15 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
If you cant articulate yourself in a rational manner, while also trying to have a civil discussion without emotional whining perhaps your maturity needs to progress in order for you to be treated like an adult
Do you have stock in a manufacturer of irony meters?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-07 16:51:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 05:43:15 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
If you cant articulate yourself in a rational manner, while also trying to have a civil discussion without emotional whining perhaps your maturity needs to progress in order for you to be treated like an adult
Do you have stock in a manufacturer of irony meters?
Your stock in bs shoveling aint in danger, your pal aubrin relies on "implication" and yet you pose a straw man complaint when i mention the need for jetliners to perform an emergency fuel dump being connected to max landing weight.

Your piss poor job in the self proclaimed roll of critic is nothing short of a scam trying to assist your pals in smearing anything to do with electric planes in an airliner capacity.

On top of that trolls like george make a HUGE BLUNDER, yet your roll as critic never touches such things because you might hurt somebody with friendly fire.

Keep it up wally, you are the court jester as the jokes on you
George
2018-11-07 19:01:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 07 Nov 2018 08:53:09 -0500
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 05:43:15 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
If you cant articulate yourself in a rational manner, while also
trying to have a civil discussion without emotional whining perhaps
your maturity needs to progress in order for you to be treated like
an adult
Do you have stock in a manufacturer of irony meters?
:)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

George
2018-11-05 19:05:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 05 Nov 2018 07:30:50 GMT
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by George
No he isn't and you are attempting to change the subject..
So you are saying a its a good business model for cargo logistics
companies to land planes with empty space?
No. He just says that 1 cubic metre of air weights 1kg, one cubic
metre of batteries 3 tons and that every kilogram lifted in the air
requires kilowatts to stay aloft.
Snap !


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-05 19:13:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On 05 Nov 2018 07:30:50 GMT
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by George
No he isn't and you are attempting to change the subject..
So you are saying a its a good business model for cargo logistics
companies to land planes with empty space?
No. He just says that 1 cubic metre of air weights 1kg, one cubic
metre of batteries 3 tons and that every kilogram lifted in the air
requires kilowatts to stay aloft.
Snap !
grade school responses wont correct your mistake, you either were ignorant to the existence of the RAT, or you played stupid either you saying i was full of shit was simply incorrect.

Will you correct yourself, probably not, lack of honor and integrity is something you suffer.

Your mistake is duly noted!
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-05 19:42:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by George
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by George
No he isn't and you are attempting to change the subject..
So you are saying a its a good business model for cargo logistics
companies to land planes with empty space?
No. He just says that 1 cubic metre of air weights 1kg, one cubic
metre of batteries 3 tons and that every kilogram lifted in the air
requires kilowatts to stay aloft.
Snap !
grade school responses wont correct your mistake, you either were
ignorant to the existence of the RAT, or you played stupid either you
saying i was full of shit was simply incorrect.
Will you correct yourself, probably not, lack of honor and integrity is
something you suffer.
Your mistake is duly noted!
Some days, your answers border insanity (by the wrong side).
Kym Horsell
2018-11-05 19:51:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by Paul Aubrin
Some days, your answers border insanity (by the wrong side).
... said the outlier engineer.
Wally W.
2018-11-06 02:17:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kym Horsell
...
Post by Paul Aubrin
Some days, your answers border insanity (by the wrong side).
... said the outlier engineer.
Do you have anything constructive to say?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-05 21:28:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by George
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by George
No he isn't and you are attempting to change the subject..
So you are saying a its a good business model for cargo logistics
companies to land planes with empty space?
No. He just says that 1 cubic metre of air weights 1kg, one cubic
metre of batteries 3 tons and that every kilogram lifted in the air
requires kilowatts to stay aloft.
Snap !
grade school responses wont correct your mistake, you either were
ignorant to the existence of the RAT, or you played stupid either you
saying i was full of shit was simply incorrect.
Will you correct yourself, probably not, lack of honor and integrity is
something you suffer.
Your mistake is duly noted!
Some days, your answers border insanity (by the wrong side).
To some one dimensional thinkers like you, the RAT is an insane idea, but if your flight ever needed the use of it you would be very thankful
George
2018-11-06 19:10:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 13:28:11 -0800 (PST)
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
To some one dimensional thinkers like you, the RAT is an insane idea,
but if your flight ever needed the use of it you would be very
thankful
Virtually all the RAM system does is provide backup to cabin
pressurization and air conditioning.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-06 22:19:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 13:28:11 -0800 (PST)
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
To some one dimensional thinkers like you, the RAT is an insane idea,
but if your flight ever needed the use of it you would be very
thankful
Virtually all the RAM system does is provide backup to cabin
pressurization and air conditioning.
That would be the application on a non-electric powered plane, but since we know the discussion is about advancing battery tech for the purpose of electric propulsion it would seem you could start to connect the dots.

So if a system uses rushing air to provide electricity, and if plane is having an issue say "uncontrolled descent" for instance it could use an emergency system to partially bleed off energy while also providing electricity to critical electrical systems on an electric plane correct?

The article in the OP noted the research advancing battery tech, it seems logical to assume you blabbering idiot hecklers just simply fear the concept of electric aircraft in an airliner fleet, and you feel a need to mock it every chance you get.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy201699
George
2018-11-07 19:00:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 14:19:56 -0800 (PST)
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by George
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 13:28:11 -0800 (PST)
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
To some one dimensional thinkers like you, the RAT is an insane
idea, but if your flight ever needed the use of it you would be
very thankful
Virtually all the RAM system does is provide backup to cabin
pressurization and air conditioning.
That would be the application on a non-electric powered plane, but
since we know the discussion is about advancing battery tech for the
purpose of electric propulsion it would seem you could start to
connect the dots.
So if a system uses rushing air to provide electricity, and if plane
is having an issue say "uncontrolled descent" for instance it could
use an emergency system to partially bleed off energy while also
providing electricity to critical electrical systems on an electric
plane correct?
The article in the OP noted the research advancing battery tech, it
seems logical to assume you blabbering idiot hecklers just simply
fear the concept of electric aircraft in an airliner fleet, and you
feel a need to mock it every chance you get.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy201699
Your 'rushing air' is the slip stream and only becomes available if the
aircraft is flying..
And you think such a system would be used to overcome an 'uncontrolled
descent'
Really ?????????????????????????????????????????






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
George
2018-11-04 18:48:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 05:58:36 -0800 (PST)
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Bret Cahill
Contradictory design points in aviation require an oversize
engine for take off which becomes a drag at cruise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612351/top-battery-scientists-have-
a-plan-to-electrify-flight-and-slash-airline-emissions/
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
So it takes a massive amount of fuel to take off, fly then when
the current planes land they have all that extra space they
needed for jet fuel
Planes succeeded
Cargo businesses operate based on transportation of goods, landing
with wasted space is a waste of money, empty space in the fuel tank
is wasted space, fuel takes fuel to transport
So, your 'batteries' are a dead weight.
They will give something like a 1 hour range at 150 knots.
With little or no cargo and very few pax
A B747 will carry cargo, pax and any required fuel for 3-5 thousand
kilometers or more at 500 knots






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Bret Cahill
2018-11-04 19:57:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Cargo businesses operate based on transportation of goods, landing
with wasted space is a waste of money, empty space in the fuel tank
is wasted space, fuel takes fuel to transport
So, your 'batteries' are a dead weight.
They will give something like a 1 hour range at 150 knots.
More like 1 hour at 450 knots.

But that's not the goal here.

The goal is to get the plane up into the air w/ small engines.
Loading...