Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Solar aircraft
47 views
Skip to first unread message
gordo
May 4, 2013, 1:01:34 PM5/4/13
to
For those who had fun improving on the solar ship design, here is an
airplane that is solar powered, for you to work on. It is not a drone
and flies at night.They plan on a global trip.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22369680
Bret Cahill
May 4, 2013, 2:50:27 PM5/4/13
to
> For those who had fun improving on the solar ship design, here is an
> airplane that is solar powered, for you to work on. It is not a drone
> and flies at night.They plan on a global trip.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22369680
An airship would go almost as fast, be a lot more visible and carry a
> airplane that is solar powered, for you to work on. It is not a drone
> and flies at night.They plan on a global trip.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22369680
lot more people and stuff.
Bret Cahill
Tom P
May 9, 2013, 5:30:39 AM5/9/13
to
first cross-country flight from New York to Long Beach in 1910 took
nearly two months.
Falcon
May 9, 2013, 5:38:43 AM5/9/13
to
solar powered, Tom?
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly
http://i.imgur.com/cYukp4g.png
NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly
http://i.imgur.com/Ymt3vh9.png
AM
May 9, 2013, 10:10:28 AM5/9/13
to
I come from an aviation family, several friends are pilots and none of
us see this as anything more than an interesting fun idea. No real
future just a fun flight of fancy. In this perspective it is very
interesting.
In the practical world there is and never will be a real commercial use
for it.
Tom P
May 9, 2013, 10:21:15 AM5/9/13
to
On 05/09/2013 11:38 AM, Falcon wrote:
> On Thu, 09 May 2013 11:30:39 +0200, Tom P wrote:
>>
>> On 05/04/2013 08:50 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>> For those who had fun improving on the solar ship design, here is an
>>>> airplane that is solar powered, for you to work on. It is not a drone
>>>> and flies at night.They plan on a global trip.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22369680
>>>
>>> An airship would go almost as fast, be a lot more visible and carry a
>>> lot more people and stuff.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bret Cahill
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They said the same thing about heavier-than-air flying machines. The
>> first cross-country flight from New York to Long Beach in 1910 took
>> nearly two months.
>
> Great. So how long do you think before commercial long haul aircraft are
> solar powered, Tom?
>
I'm just pointing out it's not the invention itself, it's just the way
> On Thu, 09 May 2013 11:30:39 +0200, Tom P wrote:
>>
>> On 05/04/2013 08:50 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>> For those who had fun improving on the solar ship design, here is an
>>>> airplane that is solar powered, for you to work on. It is not a drone
>>>> and flies at night.They plan on a global trip.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22369680
>>>
>>> An airship would go almost as fast, be a lot more visible and carry a
>>> lot more people and stuff.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bret Cahill
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They said the same thing about heavier-than-air flying machines. The
>> first cross-country flight from New York to Long Beach in 1910 took
>> nearly two months.
>
> Great. So how long do you think before commercial long haul aircraft are
> solar powered, Tom?
>
certain people have certain attitudes to inventions.
You may recall Ken Olson, who was the co-founder of DEC, Digital
Equipment Corporation, one of the most successful computer manufacturers
ever up until 1990. Ken's Most Famous Quote is
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."
Date: 1977
His company no longer exists.
Falcon
May 9, 2013, 10:35:41 AM5/9/13
to
beginning to wonder if environmentalists have any sense of right and wrong.
Unum
May 9, 2013, 10:55:36 AM5/9/13
to
evaporated. Now we are being told that means they still exist.
What planet do these people live on?
Falcon
May 9, 2013, 10:59:46 AM5/9/13
to
explain it to you.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 9, 2013, 12:11:59 PM5/9/13
to
travel based on fuel costs?
Unum
May 9, 2013, 2:58:58 PM5/9/13
to
in de land of denial, lol.
Orval Fairbairn
May 9, 2013, 3:05:19 PM5/9/13
to
In article
<c4a60235-24b0-48bf...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
The problem here isn't fuel cost, but performance. There is just so much
(actually so little) solar energy flux as to make the solar plane
nothing but a scientific oddity -- even more so than electric cars.
Design margins have been cut so thin that turbulence could break it
apart.
<c4a60235-24b0-48bf...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
(actually so little) solar energy flux as to make the solar plane
nothing but a scientific oddity -- even more so than electric cars.
Design margins have been cut so thin that turbulence could break it
apart.
george152
May 9, 2013, 4:39:24 PM5/9/13
to
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 10, 2013, 2:37:31 AM5/10/13
to
On May 9, 12:05 pm, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article
> <c4a60235-24b0-48bf-8a46-03aaf6370...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Gallium phosphide solar cells will increase efficiency up to 40%,
around the performance value of the older coal plants.
> In article
> <c4a60235-24b0-48bf-8a46-03aaf6370...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation
around the performance value of the older coal plants.
gordo
May 10, 2013, 2:42:34 AM5/10/13
to
make you rich. Too bad losers, science moves on and you have been left
behind. Try a coal fired airplane and you get to shovel the coal.
Orval Fairbairn
May 10, 2013, 11:39:42 AM5/10/13
to
In article
<ae9d9a5d-57ef-4adc...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
So, what? The energy flux density of solar power relegates the
solar-powered aircraft to nothing but a stunt. Its structure represents
mature technology, which enabled its completion, so there is little to
be gained in advances in that technology.
As a typical "Green," "Columbia" expresses comprehensive ignorance in
matters of aviation, engineering and technology.
<ae9d9a5d-57ef-4adc...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
solar-powered aircraft to nothing but a stunt. Its structure represents
mature technology, which enabled its completion, so there is little to
be gained in advances in that technology.
As a typical "Green," "Columbia" expresses comprehensive ignorance in
matters of aviation, engineering and technology.
Orval Fairbairn
May 10, 2013, 11:40:44 AM5/10/13
to
In article <3e5po8d1pgpll4v33...@4ax.com>,
Yet another voice of ignorance from the Deep Woods of Environmentalism!
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 10, 2013, 9:23:17 PM5/10/13
to
> <ae9d9a5d-57ef-4adc-b438-65dbacac9...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Here we go again, the typical bs accusation of a stunt. Get over it,
the tech is advancing, and all your whining and temper tantrums are
just a demonstration of your ignorance.
the tech is advancing, and all your whining and temper tantrums are
just a demonstration of your ignorance.
Orval Fairbairn
May 10, 2013, 9:37:56 PM5/10/13
to
In article
<6d50a34c-5812-4d8c...@v9g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Look, Doofus -- My aeronautical engineering background tells me that
this is nothing but a stunt and that you have little to no understanding
of engineering principles or technology. Even if you could attain 100%
conversion of solar energy to propulsion, the thing is so fragile and
underpowered that it is not a useful means of staying aloft.
All your ranting and "green science" can't increase the solar flux
density enough to make a practical aircraft.
BTW -- I helped with the man-powered Daedalus, which flew from Crete to
Santorini back about 25 years ago, so I do understand what a marginal
aircraft is -- you, obviously, do not.
<6d50a34c-5812-4d8c...@v9g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
this is nothing but a stunt and that you have little to no understanding
of engineering principles or technology. Even if you could attain 100%
conversion of solar energy to propulsion, the thing is so fragile and
underpowered that it is not a useful means of staying aloft.
All your ranting and "green science" can't increase the solar flux
density enough to make a practical aircraft.
BTW -- I helped with the man-powered Daedalus, which flew from Crete to
Santorini back about 25 years ago, so I do understand what a marginal
aircraft is -- you, obviously, do not.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 11, 2013, 12:19:44 AM5/11/13
to
> <6d50a34c-5812-4d8c-a456-c23cda258...@v9g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Your pathetic appeal to your own authority does not justity your bs.
The idea you think you can dismiss advancements based on your pathetic
pigeon chesting bs is a joke, get over yourself, your over inflated
ego seems to be taking your trolling to new heights, i mean new
lows.....
The idea you think you can dismiss advancements based on your pathetic
pigeon chesting bs is a joke, get over yourself, your over inflated
ego seems to be taking your trolling to new heights, i mean new
lows.....
george152
May 11, 2013, 1:01:12 AM5/11/13
to
On 11/05/13 16:19, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>> Look, Doofus -- My aeronautical engineering background tells me that
>> this is nothing but a stunt and that you have little to no understanding
>> of engineering principles or technology. Even if you could attain 100%
>> conversion of solar energy to propulsion, the thing is so fragile and
>> underpowered that it is not a useful means of staying aloft.
>>
>> All your ranting and "green science" can't increase the solar flux
>> density enough to make a practical aircraft.
>>
>> BTW -- I helped with the man-powered Daedalus, which flew from Crete to
>> Santorini back about 25 years ago, so I do understand what a marginal
>> aircraft is -- you, obviously, do not.
>
> Your pathetic appeal to your own authority does not justity your bs.
> The idea you think you can dismiss advancements based on your pathetic
> pigeon chesting bs is a joke, get over yourself, your over inflated
> ego seems to be taking your trolling to new heights, i mean new
> lows.....
>
Oh dear. Who to believe, a non aviation poster or some-one who has
>> Look, Doofus -- My aeronautical engineering background tells me that
>> this is nothing but a stunt and that you have little to no understanding
>> of engineering principles or technology. Even if you could attain 100%
>> conversion of solar energy to propulsion, the thing is so fragile and
>> underpowered that it is not a useful means of staying aloft.
>>
>> All your ranting and "green science" can't increase the solar flux
>> density enough to make a practical aircraft.
>>
>> BTW -- I helped with the man-powered Daedalus, which flew from Crete to
>> Santorini back about 25 years ago, so I do understand what a marginal
>> aircraft is -- you, obviously, do not.
>
> Your pathetic appeal to your own authority does not justity your bs.
> The idea you think you can dismiss advancements based on your pathetic
> pigeon chesting bs is a joke, get over yourself, your over inflated
> ego seems to be taking your trolling to new heights, i mean new
> lows.....
>
experience in the field and who has been posting into aviation groups
for a long time..
I'm going with Orval Fairbairn on this one.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 11, 2013, 1:14:52 AM5/11/13
to
he has legitimate complaints, why not have him contact the designers
of SOLAR IMPULSE
HB-SIB, then post their reply here in this group. And im sure he will
be so honest, as to include his description of "stunt" in the contact.
Look you pathetic troll he offered nothing other than to say a light
weight aircraft does not do well in turbulence, nothing about the
project, nothing about the next generation. All he did was make an
obvious pandering attempt to boost the moral of pathetic trolls like
you, and thats not very relevant at all.
emoneyjoe
May 11, 2013, 2:01:56 AM5/11/13
to
the most useful thing they will ever be for
is surveillance, miniature cameras are less
than $100 now with real time video.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 11, 2013, 2:05:33 AM5/11/13
to
stupidity?
AM
May 11, 2013, 1:06:01 PM5/11/13
to
Good ole CAI, I think that is the dumbest posting from him in awhile.
He has no clue as to what makes aircraft fly, how they are made, how
they are controlled, and their capabilities.
Bet he can't even show us what advancements were made with that
aircraft, he is ignorant about aviation totally.
Right now, the technology behind a hang glider is more useful to
aviation that a solar powered aircraft. (IMHO)
CAI, you picked a good name because you sure are an accident...
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 11, 2013, 3:28:21 PM5/11/13
to
On May 11, 10:06 am, AM <sctu...@comcast.net> wrote:"Good ole
CAI,...Bet he can't even show"
On Jul 5 2012, 3:16 am, AM <sctu...@comcast.net> wrote:"Please show me
a US business that is treating it's employees unfairly ? "
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/227112681bd180ce
On Aug 26 2012, 11:04 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:"
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/08/17/10700/kentucky-death-case-another-black-eye-state-workplace-safety-enforcement
Kentucky death case: Another black eye for state workplace safety
enforcement
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/797fe861fed90cba"
Some time ago we had a discussion, you thought you were making a point
asking for something, possibly because you thought it did not exist
And yet when you were confronted the facts showing your assertion was
wrong, you never came back to address the point. So NOPE, you have no
place to complain about what i didnt show, because when someone does
show you the facts, you failed to have the honor or integrity to admit
you were wrong. I have no need for you to make such an admission,
but doing so would go along way to show you actually have the ability
to progress beyond your right wing politically motivated talking
points. The lame attempts at insults posted by you and your denialist
cult members are rather pathetic and boring.
CAI,...Bet he can't even show"
On Jul 5 2012, 3:16 am, AM <sctu...@comcast.net> wrote:"Please show me
a US business that is treating it's employees unfairly ? "
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/227112681bd180ce
On Aug 26 2012, 11:04 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:"
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/08/17/10700/kentucky-death-case-another-black-eye-state-workplace-safety-enforcement
Kentucky death case: Another black eye for state workplace safety
enforcement
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/797fe861fed90cba"
Some time ago we had a discussion, you thought you were making a point
asking for something, possibly because you thought it did not exist
And yet when you were confronted the facts showing your assertion was
wrong, you never came back to address the point. So NOPE, you have no
place to complain about what i didnt show, because when someone does
show you the facts, you failed to have the honor or integrity to admit
you were wrong. I have no need for you to make such an admission,
but doing so would go along way to show you actually have the ability
to progress beyond your right wing politically motivated talking
points. The lame attempts at insults posted by you and your denialist
cult members are rather pathetic and boring.
george152
May 11, 2013, 4:27:51 PM5/11/13
to
If the sail was all power producing you -could- have a nice little 60
knot all day toy that didn't need refuelling.
No good for cross country but great for building hours around the circuit
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 11, 2013, 8:04:58 PM5/11/13
to
dismissed try to keep up next time....
george152
May 11, 2013, 9:21:45 PM5/11/13
to
microlight flying ?
Orval Fairbairn
May 11, 2013, 9:58:31 PM5/11/13
to
In article
<56c3fb52-6ea9-493b...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
isn't it interesting that someone who assumes the nym
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" would attempt to challenge those who
have real expertise on a subject in which he has demonstrated
comprehensive ignorance? Is the use of the above nym an attempt to
project the mantle of some kind of expertise for which he is nothing but
a poseur?
<56c3fb52-6ea9-493b...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" would attempt to challenge those who
have real expertise on a subject in which he has demonstrated
comprehensive ignorance? Is the use of the above nym an attempt to
project the mantle of some kind of expertise for which he is nothing but
a poseur?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 11, 2013, 11:04:26 PM5/11/13
to
another label?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 11, 2013, 11:06:47 PM5/11/13
to
> <56c3fb52-6ea9-493b-8667-52fcc66de...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Still waiting for you to post your questions to the HB-SIA team, as
you seem more interested in making an illogical argument against the
HB-SIA based on your lame attempts at insults rather than having a
discussion. I dont care what you call yourself, nor do i care why, as
the only real experience you have show is how you are good at acting
stupid.
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation
you seem more interested in making an illogical argument against the
HB-SIA based on your lame attempts at insults rather than having a
discussion. I dont care what you call yourself, nor do i care why, as
the only real experience you have show is how you are good at acting
stupid.
emoneyjoe
May 11, 2013, 11:44:57 PM5/11/13
to
break before completing the trip, weather
can't be counted on to cooperate with a
flimsy 200 foot wing.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 12, 2013, 12:14:37 AM5/12/13
to
On May 11, 8:44 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:" It would
just so you can have your pathetic victory dance. Time for a reboot,
your code writer left some serious logic errors in your script....
be a good bet that the wing will break before"
This is what your side has stooped to, now you want tragedy to happen
just so you can have your pathetic victory dance. Time for a reboot,
your code writer left some serious logic errors in your script....
george152
May 12, 2013, 12:24:19 AM5/12/13
to
And it doesn't come under FAA jurisdiction because its Swedish
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 12, 2013, 1:07:57 AM5/12/13
to
gordo
May 12, 2013, 2:17:03 AM5/12/13
to
among the denialists. Why? Who knows. It is just a series of articles
about solar power. I look forward to the next aircraft powered by
coal.Did you notice today, that two men did a space walk, to repair
the cooling system of the solar panels, on the International Space
Station.
george152
May 12, 2013, 4:17:08 PM5/12/13
to
george152
May 12, 2013, 4:18:17 PM5/12/13
to
Are you interviewing your keyboard again ?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 12, 2013, 4:19:22 PM5/12/13
to
On May 12, 1:17 pm, george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> On 12/05/13 17:07, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 9:24 pm, george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> >> On 12/05/13 15:04, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>
> >>> On May 11, 6:21 pm, george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> >>>> So what exactly is it that you question in my post referencing my
> >>>> microlight flying ?
>
> >>> Fist is the HB-SIA a microlight or does the FAA classify it with
> >>> another label?
>
> >> Some-one needs to look up the definition of Microlight aircraft.
> >> And it doesn't come under FAA jurisdiction because its Swedish
>
> > Please feel free to look it up below
>
> >http://www.solarimpulse.com/en/airplane/hb-sia/
>
> >http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/CNT/5-1-1.htm
>
> >http://www.easa.eu.int/rulemaking/docs/research/EASA.2009.C53/01%20-%...
> On 12/05/13 17:07, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 9:24 pm, george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> >> On 12/05/13 15:04, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>
> >>> On May 11, 6:21 pm, george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> >>>> So what exactly is it that you question in my post referencing my
> >>>> microlight flying ?
>
> >>> Fist is the HB-SIA a microlight or does the FAA classify it with
> >>> another label?
>
> >> Some-one needs to look up the definition of Microlight aircraft.
> >> And it doesn't come under FAA jurisdiction because its Swedish
>
> > Please feel free to look it up below
>
> >http://www.solarimpulse.com/en/airplane/hb-sia/
>
> >http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/CNT/5-1-1.htm
>
>
> Nothing to do with the idea of 'solar powered' microlights
nothing but size, weight and other key factors, you know the things
> Nothing to do with the idea of 'solar powered' microlights
that make a difference to cross country flights
gordo
May 12, 2013, 6:19:51 PM5/12/13
to
anguish?
george152
May 12, 2013, 7:02:20 PM5/12/13
to
cross countries???
If any get built they will be a low powered slow toy around the circuit
Tom P
May 12, 2013, 7:02:33 PM5/12/13
to
well. Plus there were a lot of skeptics who said that the whole thing
was faked and they never managed to fly at all.
Tom P
May 12, 2013, 7:12:52 PM5/12/13
to
market for solar powered microlights.
I'm sure there were a lot of contrarians around 40 years ago who would
have told you that a smartphone that fits in your pocket would be
totally impossible. It would have to weigh at least 200 pounds and need
a 2kW 3 phase power supply and in any case there would be no market for
it because it would be no use without a mobile phone network, and in any
case there would be no mobile phone networks because they would be would
be no use without any mobile phones.
Orval Fairbairn
May 12, 2013, 7:14:52 PM5/12/13
to
In article
<3d4b848c-0fb9-4d22...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
I suggest you read
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/05/how-to-fly-solar-impulse/
titled "Here¹s How You Fly a Massive, Delicate Solar Plane Across the
Country"
"The controls are light, and the airplane can be flown with fingertip
pressure in calm air. But when the air gets turbulent, HB-SIA requires a
firm hand and calm demeanor. Piccard says the airplane often is in a
side slip when the air is turbulent, meaning it isn¹t flying in the same
direction its pointed.
³When it¹s turbulent, half of the time you have the stick on one side
and the rudder on the opposite side,² he says. ³And if you start a slide
slip, and you put the stick and foot in the same direction, it does not
react. You need first to correct to put the string back in the middle
[with the rudder]. And then when you turn it [motioning with his hands
as if controlling the yoke], it turns immediately.²
Piccard says HB-SIA often is being bounced around a bit and he finds the
three axes of an airplane (pitch, roll and yaw) often change
simultaneously.
³It¹s this feeling of being suspended by a string,² he says pinching the
top of one hand as if it were an airplane suspended at a point. ³You
have all three axes moving around that point at the same time.²"
The above pretty well describes flight in a marginal aircraft --
something you will never understand.
<3d4b848c-0fb9-4d22...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/05/how-to-fly-solar-impulse/
titled "Here¹s How You Fly a Massive, Delicate Solar Plane Across the
Country"
"The controls are light, and the airplane can be flown with fingertip
pressure in calm air. But when the air gets turbulent, HB-SIA requires a
firm hand and calm demeanor. Piccard says the airplane often is in a
side slip when the air is turbulent, meaning it isn¹t flying in the same
direction its pointed.
³When it¹s turbulent, half of the time you have the stick on one side
and the rudder on the opposite side,² he says. ³And if you start a slide
slip, and you put the stick and foot in the same direction, it does not
react. You need first to correct to put the string back in the middle
[with the rudder]. And then when you turn it [motioning with his hands
as if controlling the yoke], it turns immediately.²
Piccard says HB-SIA often is being bounced around a bit and he finds the
three axes of an airplane (pitch, roll and yaw) often change
simultaneously.
³It¹s this feeling of being suspended by a string,² he says pinching the
top of one hand as if it were an airplane suspended at a point. ³You
have all three axes moving around that point at the same time.²"
The above pretty well describes flight in a marginal aircraft --
something you will never understand.
Orval Fairbairn
May 12, 2013, 7:19:06 PM5/12/13
to
In article <t950p8h27eso01vav...@4ax.com>,
What "denialists?" All you saw were comments from people with experience
in aircraft design and piloting, who look upon the Solar Impulse as
nothing more than a stunt enabled by taking advantage of mature
structural and aerodynamic technology to build an aircraft with marginal
flight characteristics.
in aircraft design and piloting, who look upon the Solar Impulse as
nothing more than a stunt enabled by taking advantage of mature
structural and aerodynamic technology to build an aircraft with marginal
flight characteristics.
AM
May 12, 2013, 7:50:49 PM5/12/13
to
That solar powered aircraft is an engineering marvel in terms of
structure and construction. To make it as light as it is, there is no
margin for error, it will come apart in bad weather. And we are not
talking about a major storm, just a good high crosswind/wind shear will
tear it apart.
And your analogy is comical coming from you. The Wright Flyer was
powered by a gasoline engine, (though you didn't like fossil fuel) and
despite it's frail appearance it was reasonably strong, far stronger
than the solar powered aircraft in question. And it paved the way for
future aircraft. It's wing warping controls are being studied/flown even
today. (in demonstrator aircraft)
And... there is just no future in solar powered aircraft. Do some
aviation research first before you really do make a serious fool of
yourself. (you seem to trying hard here tho)
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 12, 2013, 7:55:21 PM5/12/13
to
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 12, 2013, 8:00:48 PM5/12/13
to
> <3d4b848c-0fb9-4d22-8a06-e72f013b7...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
You have no point, other than to try to marginalize the status of the
aircraft, which is pointless. You seem to be playing a word game, as
risk management is flight conditions APPLIES TO ANY aircraft. Thats
why i asked about classification of based on weight etc, based on the
faa and european standards.
aircraft, which is pointless. You seem to be playing a word game, as
risk management is flight conditions APPLIES TO ANY aircraft. Thats
why i asked about classification of based on weight etc, based on the
faa and european standards.
george152
May 12, 2013, 8:10:21 PM5/12/13
to
On 13/05/13 11:14, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> The above pretty well describes flight in a marginal aircraft --
> something you will never understand.
>
IO've been there in a J1 :)
> The above pretty well describes flight in a marginal aircraft --
> something you will never understand.
>
george152
May 12, 2013, 8:19:30 PM5/12/13
to
A 35 knot airspeed is no way to fly crosscountries especially when in
windy conditions.
Downwind you'll get all the way up to 42 or so knots which is the clean
stalling speed of my current mount so with all due regard I don't want
you anywhere near any airport or airstrip that I'm using unless you fly
whatever circuit the local Gliding club use.
Let them take umbrage at your low speed
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 12, 2013, 8:30:10 PM5/12/13
to
not, as its appeal to his own authority to back his opinions. Now im
sure you all can tell some pretty stupid fish stories, ones you should
save for your diary not this thread.
emoneyjoe
May 12, 2013, 8:33:21 PM5/12/13
to
emoneyjoe
May 12, 2013, 8:49:02 PM5/12/13
to
flex the same direction at the same time,
a 200 foot wing can have changes in
deflection 4 or 5 different places.
It looks like a worm when it flies,
as if there is no rigidity and integrity
depends on the pilot or a computer.
Orval Fairbairn
May 12, 2013, 9:00:04 PM5/12/13
to
In article
<e6ee2e86-26a1-4457...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
It is an EXPERIMENTAL category aircraft. As such, it does not have to be
designed to strict design standards for controllability, structural
stresses, etc.
A classic case was Burt Rutan's Voyager, in which his brother, Dick, and
Jeanna Yeager flew around the world. They had planned to make a world
tour after the flight, but Dick refused to fly it again, citing its
marginal characteristics and structural design.
<e6ee2e86-26a1-4457...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
designed to strict design standards for controllability, structural
stresses, etc.
A classic case was Burt Rutan's Voyager, in which his brother, Dick, and
Jeanna Yeager flew around the world. They had planned to make a world
tour after the flight, but Dick refused to fly it again, citing its
marginal characteristics and structural design.
Orval Fairbairn
May 12, 2013, 9:01:14 PM5/12/13
to
In article
<dde2d12e-9fb0-4970...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
You mean like the one you are peddling about solar-powered aircraft
being the wave of the future?
<dde2d12e-9fb0-4970...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
being the wave of the future?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 12, 2013, 9:17:38 PM5/12/13
to
> <e6ee2e86-26a1-4457-b4a2-ce5acab9a...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
And another off topic fish story as your previous link did not
describe a near catastrophic event that would be you once again trying
to grasp for straws.
describe a near catastrophic event that would be you once again trying
to grasp for straws.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 12, 2013, 9:19:47 PM5/12/13
to
> <dde2d12e-9fb0-4970-a182-785ae63ed...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation
the team based on your word "stunt", and your fear to contact the team
using such a term kind of takes the wind out of your sails :)....
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 12, 5:10 pm, george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> > > On 13/05/13 11:14, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > > > The above pretty well describes flight in a marginal aircraft --
> > > > something you will never understand.
>
> > > IO've been there in a J1 :)
>
> > So how does that validate his assertion of a stunt? [answer]- it does
> > not, as its appeal to his own authority to back his opinions. Now im
> > sure you all can tell some pretty stupid fish stories, ones you should
> > save for your diary not this thread.
>
> You mean like the one you are peddling about solar-powered aircraft
> being the wave of the future?
On the other hand your desire to marginalize the accomplishments of
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 12, 5:10 pm, george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> > > On 13/05/13 11:14, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > > > The above pretty well describes flight in a marginal aircraft --
> > > > something you will never understand.
>
> > > IO've been there in a J1 :)
>
> > So how does that validate his assertion of a stunt? [answer]- it does
> > not, as its appeal to his own authority to back his opinions. Now im
> > sure you all can tell some pretty stupid fish stories, ones you should
> > save for your diary not this thread.
>
> You mean like the one you are peddling about solar-powered aircraft
> being the wave of the future?
the team based on your word "stunt", and your fear to contact the team
using such a term kind of takes the wind out of your sails :)....
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 12, 2013, 9:21:41 PM5/12/13
to
anybodies house, so make a real safe flight plan...
Orval Fairbairn
May 12, 2013, 11:50:48 PM5/12/13
to
In article
<1f1bb9fc-6f8f-426e...@j4g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
I am just trying to educate you about marginal aircraft. If you truly
WERE a member of the Columbia accident investigation, you would realize
this fact. Otherwise, you are nothing but an ignorant poseur who has
little to no knowledge of technical matters.
<1f1bb9fc-6f8f-426e...@j4g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
WERE a member of the Columbia accident investigation, you would realize
this fact. Otherwise, you are nothing but an ignorant poseur who has
little to no knowledge of technical matters.
Orval Fairbairn
May 12, 2013, 11:51:59 PM5/12/13
to
In article
<9ebc44b2-3733-485d...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Why should I contact them? Their website tells me all I need to know
about the project.
<9ebc44b2-3733-485d...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
about the project.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 13, 2013, 1:19:42 AM5/13/13
to
> <1f1bb9fc-6f8f-426e-95b9-19963839a...@j4g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Your avoidance of weight and size of the aircraft duly noted. You
logic is based on a weak attempt to make a bad analogy using your
appeal to your own authority, but a true authority on the matter would
not avoid the exact size and weight of the comparisons. Im sure you
think you can hide behind such idiocy, but thats not the case, as your
appeal to authority did not validate your assertion of "stunt". As i
stated before, if you really have a valid point to use the word
"stunt", why dont you write the team yourself, and post it here.
Otherwise you are simply telling fish stories in an effort to refute
the successful efforts of the solar impulse team.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/05/181407952/solar-powered-airplane-completes-first-leg-of-u-s-flight
logic is based on a weak attempt to make a bad analogy using your
appeal to your own authority, but a true authority on the matter would
not avoid the exact size and weight of the comparisons. Im sure you
think you can hide behind such idiocy, but thats not the case, as your
appeal to authority did not validate your assertion of "stunt". As i
stated before, if you really have a valid point to use the word
"stunt", why dont you write the team yourself, and post it here.
Otherwise you are simply telling fish stories in an effort to refute
the successful efforts of the solar impulse team.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/05/181407952/solar-powered-airplane-completes-first-leg-of-u-s-flight
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 13, 2013, 1:22:26 AM5/13/13
to
> <9ebc44b2-3733-485d-8415-519803ea9...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
assertion. If you were truly interested in education, you would
surely want to reach out to the team and learn about there projects
marginal abilities. But on the other hand if you want to sit back,
play monday morning quarterback based on your fist stories, the only
person you are convincing is yourself. My bet is that you are a troll,
pretending to have an interest, and you are too lazy and too scared to
back your words...
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 12, 6:01 pm, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <dde2d12e-9fb0-4970-a182-785ae63ed...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 12, 5:10 pm, george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> > > > > On 13/05/13 11:14, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > > > > > The above pretty well describes flight in a marginal aircraft --
> > > > > > something you will never understand.
>
> > > > > IO've been there in a J1 :)
>
> > > > So how does that validate his assertion of a stunt? [answer]- it does
> > > > not, as its appeal to his own authority to back his opinions. Now im
> > > > sure you all can tell some pretty stupid fish stories, ones you should
> > > > save for your diary not this thread.
>
> > > You mean like the one you are peddling about solar-powered aircraft
> > > being the wave of the future?
>
> > On the other hand your desire to marginalize the accomplishments of
> > the team based on your word "stunt", and your fear to contact the team
> > using such a term kind of takes the wind out of your sails :)....
>
> Why should I contact them? Their website tells me all I need to know
> about the project.
Because it would show you are more than a troll, as you made an
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 12, 6:01 pm, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <dde2d12e-9fb0-4970-a182-785ae63ed...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 12, 5:10 pm, george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> > > > > On 13/05/13 11:14, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > > > > > The above pretty well describes flight in a marginal aircraft --
> > > > > > something you will never understand.
>
> > > > > IO've been there in a J1 :)
>
> > > > So how does that validate his assertion of a stunt? [answer]- it does
> > > > not, as its appeal to his own authority to back his opinions. Now im
> > > > sure you all can tell some pretty stupid fish stories, ones you should
> > > > save for your diary not this thread.
>
> > > You mean like the one you are peddling about solar-powered aircraft
> > > being the wave of the future?
>
> > On the other hand your desire to marginalize the accomplishments of
> > the team based on your word "stunt", and your fear to contact the team
> > using such a term kind of takes the wind out of your sails :)....
>
> Why should I contact them? Their website tells me all I need to know
> about the project.
assertion. If you were truly interested in education, you would
surely want to reach out to the team and learn about there projects
marginal abilities. But on the other hand if you want to sit back,
play monday morning quarterback based on your fist stories, the only
person you are convincing is yourself. My bet is that you are a troll,
pretending to have an interest, and you are too lazy and too scared to
back your words...
Orval Fairbairn
May 13, 2013, 10:02:31 AM5/13/13
to
In article
<9311fa7b-3fb6-4085...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah, yes -- "I saw it on the Internet, so it HAS to be true!"
BTW -- Have you met that French model you contacted on the Internet?
Your fans await with bated breath.
Also -- I am not refuting the successful (and expen$sive) efforts of the
Solar Impulse team, but I do dispute its significance.
<9311fa7b-3fb6-4085...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
BTW -- Have you met that French model you contacted on the Internet?
Your fans await with bated breath.
Also -- I am not refuting the successful (and expen$sive) efforts of the
Solar Impulse team, but I do dispute its significance.
Orval Fairbairn
May 13, 2013, 10:05:21 AM5/13/13
to
In article
<f9c45f7d-9313-460a...@v9g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
As a trained (and experienced) engineer and pilot (unlike you), I can
get a pretty good estimate of its performance and flight characteristics.
BTW -- have you met that French model who contacted you on the Internet?
<f9c45f7d-9313-460a...@v9g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
get a pretty good estimate of its performance and flight characteristics.
BTW -- have you met that French model who contacted you on the Internet?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 13, 2013, 12:34:46 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 7:02 am, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net> wrote"
what is an interest is the this current flight and the next generation
vehicle.
http://www.solarimpulse.com/
Also -- I am not refuting the successful (and expen$sive) efforts of
the Solar Impulse team, but I do dispute its significance."
Your dispute is not really significant or interesting to me at all,
the Solar Impulse team, but I do dispute its significance."
what is an interest is the this current flight and the next generation
vehicle.
http://www.solarimpulse.com/
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 13, 2013, 12:35:43 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 7:05 am, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net>
wrote:" As a trained (and experienced) engineer and pilot"
laughing, nobody said you were good at either :)
wrote:" As a trained (and experienced) engineer and pilot"
laughing, nobody said you were good at either :)
Orval Fairbairn
May 13, 2013, 1:48:32 PM5/13/13
to
In article
<ebb7697b-faf1-41c7...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
What next generation? Not for manned aircraft! I can see uses for
high-altitude, long-endurance recon --- and possibly TV, but not
something you will find at your local airport that you can get into and
fly around the patch.
This is a one-off -- and I hope they make it without a major mishap.
<ebb7697b-faf1-41c7...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
high-altitude, long-endurance recon --- and possibly TV, but not
something you will find at your local airport that you can get into and
fly around the patch.
This is a one-off -- and I hope they make it without a major mishap.
Orval Fairbairn
May 13, 2013, 1:51:20 PM5/13/13
to
In article
<8201fae5-2d40-452e...@y5g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
What matters here is that I am better at it than you. It is sort of like
having a bear chase you and another. All that really matters here is
that you run faster than your companion.
I really don't understand the infatuation with this stunt.
<8201fae5-2d40-452e...@y5g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
having a bear chase you and another. All that really matters here is
that you run faster than your companion.
I really don't understand the infatuation with this stunt.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 13, 2013, 2:13:33 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 10:51 am, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net>
wrote:" What matters here is that I am better at it than you."
Na, but im sure your ego needs such a boost, dude get over yourself.
For instance you weak dismissal of my reference to increasing solar
cell efficiency with gallium phosphide does not take into account the
fact such a change will increase cruising altitude of the aircraft.
At the point you made that idiotic dismissal you disqualified your
appeal to your own authority, as the increase in solar cell efficiency
directly effects flight performance. The previous unmanned solar
powered aircraft formed as the foundation for manned flight, and the
progression will continue. What matters is that we keep pushing, our
technology to the edge, like we have before, not stagnate based on
fish stories from trolls like you.
wrote:" What matters here is that I am better at it than you."
Na, but im sure your ego needs such a boost, dude get over yourself.
For instance you weak dismissal of my reference to increasing solar
cell efficiency with gallium phosphide does not take into account the
fact such a change will increase cruising altitude of the aircraft.
At the point you made that idiotic dismissal you disqualified your
appeal to your own authority, as the increase in solar cell efficiency
directly effects flight performance. The previous unmanned solar
powered aircraft formed as the foundation for manned flight, and the
progression will continue. What matters is that we keep pushing, our
technology to the edge, like we have before, not stagnate based on
fish stories from trolls like you.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 13, 2013, 2:13:36 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 10:48 am, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> In article
> <ebb7697b-faf1-41c7-9293-2f0d302ad...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation
dictate reality, as you seem to be more interested in
wrote:
> In article
> <ebb7697b-faf1-41c7-9293-2f0d302ad...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 13, 7:02 am, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net> wrote"
> > Also -- I am not refuting the successful (and expen$sive) efforts of
> > the Solar Impulse team, but I do dispute its significance."
>
> > Your dispute is not really significant or interesting to me at all,
> > what is an interest is the this current flight and the next generation
> > vehicle.
>
> >http://www.solarimpulse.com/
>
> What next generation? Not for manned aircraft! I can see uses for
> high-altitude, long-endurance recon --- and possibly TV, but not
> something you will find at your local airport that you can get into and
> fly around the patch.
>
> This is a one-off -- and I hope they make it without a major mishap.
On the other hand one has to wonder why you think the your visions
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 13, 7:02 am, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net> wrote"
> > Also -- I am not refuting the successful (and expen$sive) efforts of
> > the Solar Impulse team, but I do dispute its significance."
>
> > Your dispute is not really significant or interesting to me at all,
> > what is an interest is the this current flight and the next generation
> > vehicle.
>
> >http://www.solarimpulse.com/
>
> What next generation? Not for manned aircraft! I can see uses for
> high-altitude, long-endurance recon --- and possibly TV, but not
> something you will find at your local airport that you can get into and
> fly around the patch.
>
> This is a one-off -- and I hope they make it without a major mishap.
dictate reality, as you seem to be more interested in
george152
May 13, 2013, 4:08:52 PM5/13/13
to
On 14/05/13 05:48, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> What next generation? Not for manned aircraft! I can see uses for
> high-altitude, long-endurance recon --- and possibly TV, but not
> something you will find at your local airport that you can get into and
> fly around the patch.
>
> This is a one-off -- and I hope they make it without a major mishap.
>
Reminds me of the 'electric powered C172' thread.
> What next generation? Not for manned aircraft! I can see uses for
> high-altitude, long-endurance recon --- and possibly TV, but not
> something you will find at your local airport that you can get into and
> fly around the patch.
>
> This is a one-off -- and I hope they make it without a major mishap.
>
So long as you wanted a two seater low performance 40 minute range
imitation of a four seat 120 knot five hour range aircraft....
:)
emoneyjoe
May 13, 2013, 5:27:37 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 13:51:20 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
<orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article
><8201fae5-2d40-452e...@y5g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> <columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 13, 7:05!m, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net>
<orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article
><8201fae5-2d40-452e...@y5g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> <columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> wrote:" As a trained (and experienced) engineer and pilot"
>>
>> laughing, nobody said you were good at either :)
>
>What matters here is that I am better at it than you. It is sort of like
>having a bear chase you and another. All that really matters here is
>that you run faster than your companion.
>
>I really don't understand the infatuation with this stunt.
She is infatuated with anything that
>>
>> laughing, nobody said you were good at either :)
>
>What matters here is that I am better at it than you. It is sort of like
>having a bear chase you and another. All that really matters here is
>that you run faster than your companion.
>
>I really don't understand the infatuation with this stunt.
doesn't breathe in oxygen and breathe
out CO2.
emoneyjoe
May 13, 2013, 5:38:56 PM5/13/13
to
Even if cell efficiency was 100%, there
is not enough energy available to power
a manned aircraft with any utility more
than 60 MPH.
UAVs are reaching close to maximum
utility, control, and ease of use, but they
still will have huge problems.
Autonomous flight is good for some
things, useless for others.
And all this will have little impact on
fossil fuel use, which is your bugaboo.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 13, 2013, 5:56:35 PM5/13/13
to
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 13, 2013, 5:58:40 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 2:27 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:" She is"
On Mon, 13 May 2013 13:51:20 -0400, Orval Fairbairn""
Laughing, the sister twins of stupidity (emoney and orval)
Orval Fairbairn
May 13, 2013, 6:20:18 PM5/13/13
to
In article
<3a1002b2-4e80-4f0c...@y5g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Your argument about increasing efficiency in solar cells is about as
effective as a fart in a windstorm. For example, the Solar Impulse has
2200 sq ft of wing area, covered with solar cells, at an efficiency of,
say, 18%. Even boosting that efficiency to 100% would require a wing
area of around 400 sq. ft -- still 3 times the wing area of a typical
light aircraft -- and -- you get only 40 hp out of it.
That, sir, is why I dismiss the whole solar-powered aircraft as little
but a stunt.
It is also why it may have an application as a high-altitude UAV -- not
a manned aircraft to fly somewhere.
<3a1002b2-4e80-4f0c...@y5g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
effective as a fart in a windstorm. For example, the Solar Impulse has
2200 sq ft of wing area, covered with solar cells, at an efficiency of,
say, 18%. Even boosting that efficiency to 100% would require a wing
area of around 400 sq. ft -- still 3 times the wing area of a typical
light aircraft -- and -- you get only 40 hp out of it.
That, sir, is why I dismiss the whole solar-powered aircraft as little
but a stunt.
It is also why it may have an application as a high-altitude UAV -- not
a manned aircraft to fly somewhere.
emoneyjoe
May 13, 2013, 7:27:50 PM5/13/13
to
kills the most in light aircraft, just imagine
besides the usual fog and storms and
nightfall problems, that clouds shut down
the motor?
Orval Fairbairn
May 13, 2013, 8:52:17 PM5/13/13
to
In article
<bc889d35-f7f9-4749...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<bc889d35-f7f9-4749...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 2:38�pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:""
>
> did you say something of relevance?
You certainly have not!
> On May 13, 2:38�pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:""
>
> did you say something of relevance?
gordo
May 13, 2013, 8:53:37 PM5/13/13
to
Station. It is zipping around the earth at about 5 miles per second.
Man, that is fast. Man, those solar panels sure work. Did you see
where the cooling system had to be repaired so the solar panels could
still work. That sir, is why you should not dismiss solar power.I
think I will find out if there is a solar powered scooter that you can
dismiss as a stunt.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 13, 2013, 9:18:21 PM5/13/13
to
> <bc889d35-f7f9-4749-9a63-e36108c81...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation
key is battery weight. Increase the efficiency of the solar panels,
decrease the weight of the batteries and you have the ability to make
a stronger air frame, and use a bigger engines. Seems like a logical
progression of R&D, so why are you babbling so much about something
you really dont want to talk about?
http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130509electric-airplanes-eas-guides-the-way.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-electric-aircraft-take-to-the-skies
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 13, 2:38 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:""
>
> > did you say something of relevance?
>
> You certainly have not!
Electric motors for planes are of great interest to the industry the
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 13, 2:38 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:""
>
> > did you say something of relevance?
>
> You certainly have not!
key is battery weight. Increase the efficiency of the solar panels,
decrease the weight of the batteries and you have the ability to make
a stronger air frame, and use a bigger engines. Seems like a logical
progression of R&D, so why are you babbling so much about something
you really dont want to talk about?
http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130509electric-airplanes-eas-guides-the-way.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-electric-aircraft-take-to-the-skies
emoneyjoe
May 13, 2013, 9:35:03 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:53:37 -0700, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca.remove>
wrote:
Now that's your speed, where would they
put the solar cells, on your hat?
wrote:
put the solar cells, on your hat?
emoneyjoe
May 13, 2013, 9:50:03 PM5/13/13
to
even with a 2 megawatt fuel cell, electric
is underpowered, 2 megawatts is about
3000 horsepower, the same as one
4360 engine from WWII.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=850
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 13, 2013, 11:33:09 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 6:50 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:18:21 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:18:21 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On May 13, 5:52 pm, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <bc889d35-f7f9-4749-9a63-e36108c81...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> >> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > On May 13, 2:38 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:""
>
> >> > did you say something of relevance?
>
> >> You certainly have not!
>
> >Electric motors for planes are of great interest to the industry the
> >key is battery weight. Increase the efficiency of the solar panels,
> >decrease the weight of the batteries and you have the ability to make
> >a stronger air frame, and use a bigger engines. Seems like a logical
> >progression of R&D, so why are you babbling so much about something
> >you really dont want to talk about?
>
> >http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130509electric-airplanes-e...
> >On May 13, 5:52 pm, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <bc889d35-f7f9-4749-9a63-e36108c81...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> >> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > On May 13, 2:38 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:""
>
> >> > did you say something of relevance?
>
> >> You certainly have not!
>
> >Electric motors for planes are of great interest to the industry the
> >key is battery weight. Increase the efficiency of the solar panels,
> >decrease the weight of the batteries and you have the ability to make
> >a stronger air frame, and use a bigger engines. Seems like a logical
> >progression of R&D, so why are you babbling so much about something
> >you really dont want to talk about?
>
>
> >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-electric-aircraf...
>
> Electric airplanes are a sport novelty,
> even with a 2 megawatt fuel cell, electric
> is underpowered, 2 megawatts is about
> 3000 horsepower, the same as one
> 4360 engine from WWII.
>
> http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=850
and what is the fuel consumption for such an engine? How much to fire
> Electric airplanes are a sport novelty,
> even with a 2 megawatt fuel cell, electric
> is underpowered, 2 megawatts is about
> 3000 horsepower, the same as one
> 4360 engine from WWII.
>
> http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=850
that thing up?
Orval Fairbairn
May 13, 2013, 11:39:40 PM5/13/13
to
In article
<f68c1558-7b54-48c0...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
There is nothing new in your posting above. The principles have been
known for more than a century.
1. Solar panels can't provide enough power to propel a practical
aircraft.
2. Regarding the weight/energy problems for batteries, you have a
fantastic grasp of the obvious. The basic problem is that you have to
store *in the battery* ALL the energy you are going to use. With
hydrocarbon engines, you carry only the fuel and engine and collect the
air (15:1 by weight) as you go along.
3. Re: "logical progression for R&D": What do you think the battery guys
have been working on for the past 120 years?
Battery technology is a mature technology.
Henry Ford knew that gasoline was the way to power cars (and planes)
more than a century ago. Therefore, he rejected electrics and steam
power. Things haven't changed much, except that kerosene is now used in
most large aircraft, rather than gasoline.
<f68c1558-7b54-48c0...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
known for more than a century.
1. Solar panels can't provide enough power to propel a practical
aircraft.
2. Regarding the weight/energy problems for batteries, you have a
fantastic grasp of the obvious. The basic problem is that you have to
store *in the battery* ALL the energy you are going to use. With
hydrocarbon engines, you carry only the fuel and engine and collect the
air (15:1 by weight) as you go along.
3. Re: "logical progression for R&D": What do you think the battery guys
have been working on for the past 120 years?
Battery technology is a mature technology.
Henry Ford knew that gasoline was the way to power cars (and planes)
more than a century ago. Therefore, he rejected electrics and steam
power. Things haven't changed much, except that kerosene is now used in
most large aircraft, rather than gasoline.
AM
May 14, 2013, 12:22:35 AM5/14/13
to
> 2. Regarding the weight/energy problems for batteries, you have a
> fantastic grasp of the obvious. The basic problem is that you have to
> store *in the battery* ALL the energy you are going to use. With
> hydrocarbon engines, you carry only the fuel and engine and collect the
> air (15:1 by weight) as you go along.
>
> 3. Re: "logical progression for R&D": What do you think the battery guys
> have been working on for the past 120 years?
>
> Battery technology is a mature technology.
care....
>
> Henry Ford knew that gasoline was the way to power cars (and planes)
> more than a century ago. Therefore, he rejected electrics and steam
> power. Things haven't changed much, except that kerosene is now used in
> most large aircraft, rather than gasoline.
>
makes airplanes fly, or the safety requirements required in aircraft
that transport people.
To him/her/it all that matters is not using fossil fuels. The hazards
otherwise incurred are meaningless to him/her/it.
CAI is clueless in the real demands of MANNED powered flight !
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 14, 2013, 12:28:50 AM5/14/13
to
> <f68c1558-7b54-48c0-a973-6dd9b56b8...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> > -the-way.html
>
> >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-electric-aircraf...
when my links dispute your bs?
http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130509electric-airplanes-eas-guides-the-way.html
"Power, measured in watts or horsepower, is the output of an engine or
motor. Electrical energy is measured in watt hours; a watt hour is one
watt expended over one hour. Batteries simply don’t yet provide enough
energy per pound, especially when compared with avgas. To compete
successfully a battery must be capable of producing a great deal of
energy (watts) for a good length of time (hours) per pound (or
kilogram). According to Wilcke, a typical lead-acid battery such as
the one in a Cessna or Piper has a practical energy rating of about 40
watthours/kilogram (Wh/kg); lithium-ion batteries are rated at 100 to
200 Wh/kg. Lithium-air (oxygen) batteries have a practical rating of
approximately 1,800 Wh/kg and a theoretical rating more than 5,500 Wh/
kg.
It’s thought that lithium-air batteries will be capable of producing
energy/hour/weight levels on par with gasoline; however there are
still many hurdles to leap before this technology is produced on a
practical scale."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-21/lithium-air-battery-gives-ibm-hope-of-power-without-fires.html
Lithium Air Battery Gives IBM Hope of Power Without Fires
By Christopher Martin - Feb 21, 2013 7:55 AM PT
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 13, 5:52 pm, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <bc889d35-f7f9-4749-9a63-e36108c81...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 13, 2:38 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:""
>
> > > > did you say something of relevance?
>
> > > You certainly have not!
>
> > Electric motors for planes are of great interest to the industry the
> > key is battery weight. Increase the efficiency of the solar panels,
> > decrease the weight of the batteries and you have the ability to make
> > a stronger air frame, and use a bigger engines. Seems like a logical
> > progression of R&D, so why are you babbling so much about something
> > you really dont want to talk about?
>
> >http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130509electric-airplanes-e...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 13, 5:52 pm, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <bc889d35-f7f9-4749-9a63-e36108c81...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 13, 2:38 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:""
>
> > > > did you say something of relevance?
>
> > > You certainly have not!
>
> > Electric motors for planes are of great interest to the industry the
> > key is battery weight. Increase the efficiency of the solar panels,
> > decrease the weight of the batteries and you have the ability to make
> > a stronger air frame, and use a bigger engines. Seems like a logical
> > progression of R&D, so why are you babbling so much about something
> > you really dont want to talk about?
>
> > -the-way.html
>
> >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-electric-aircraf...
> > -the-skies
>
> There is nothing new in your posting above. The principles have been
> known for more than a century.
>
> 1. Solar panels can't provide enough power to propel a practical
> aircraft.
>
> 2. Regarding the weight/energy problems for batteries, you have a
> fantastic grasp of the obvious. The basic problem is that you have to
> store *in the battery* ALL the energy you are going to use. With
> hydrocarbon engines, you carry only the fuel and engine and collect the
> air (15:1 by weight) as you go along.
>
> 3. Re: "logical progression for R&D": What do you think the battery guys
> have been working on for the past 120 years?
>
> Battery technology is a mature technology.
>
> Henry Ford knew that gasoline was the way to power cars (and planes)
> more than a century ago. Therefore, he rejected electrics and steam
> power. Things haven't changed much, except that kerosene is now used in
> most large aircraft, rather than gasoline.
Why do you think your so called declarations actually hold any water,
>
> There is nothing new in your posting above. The principles have been
> known for more than a century.
>
> 1. Solar panels can't provide enough power to propel a practical
> aircraft.
>
> 2. Regarding the weight/energy problems for batteries, you have a
> fantastic grasp of the obvious. The basic problem is that you have to
> store *in the battery* ALL the energy you are going to use. With
> hydrocarbon engines, you carry only the fuel and engine and collect the
> air (15:1 by weight) as you go along.
>
> 3. Re: "logical progression for R&D": What do you think the battery guys
> have been working on for the past 120 years?
>
> Battery technology is a mature technology.
>
> Henry Ford knew that gasoline was the way to power cars (and planes)
> more than a century ago. Therefore, he rejected electrics and steam
> power. Things haven't changed much, except that kerosene is now used in
> most large aircraft, rather than gasoline.
when my links dispute your bs?
http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130509electric-airplanes-eas-guides-the-way.html
"Power, measured in watts or horsepower, is the output of an engine or
motor. Electrical energy is measured in watt hours; a watt hour is one
watt expended over one hour. Batteries simply don’t yet provide enough
energy per pound, especially when compared with avgas. To compete
successfully a battery must be capable of producing a great deal of
energy (watts) for a good length of time (hours) per pound (or
kilogram). According to Wilcke, a typical lead-acid battery such as
the one in a Cessna or Piper has a practical energy rating of about 40
watthours/kilogram (Wh/kg); lithium-ion batteries are rated at 100 to
200 Wh/kg. Lithium-air (oxygen) batteries have a practical rating of
approximately 1,800 Wh/kg and a theoretical rating more than 5,500 Wh/
kg.
It’s thought that lithium-air batteries will be capable of producing
energy/hour/weight levels on par with gasoline; however there are
still many hurdles to leap before this technology is produced on a
practical scale."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-21/lithium-air-battery-gives-ibm-hope-of-power-without-fires.html
Lithium Air Battery Gives IBM Hope of Power Without Fires
By Christopher Martin - Feb 21, 2013 7:55 AM PT
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 14, 2013, 12:54:58 AM5/14/13
to
On May 13, 9:22 pm, AM <sctu...@comcast.net> wrote:""
On the other hand, the record of this group clearly shows you are a
politically motivated hack with no honor or integrity. Now being that
i have demonstrated your lack of integrity, its only obvious why you
would be lashing out in a trolling manner never addressing the
facts.
On the other hand, the record of this group clearly shows you are a
politically motivated hack with no honor or integrity. Now being that
i have demonstrated your lack of integrity, its only obvious why you
would be lashing out in a trolling manner never addressing the
facts.
Orval Fairbairn
May 14, 2013, 12:48:14 PM5/14/13
to
In article <yvednXDvwfuQIQzM...@giganews.com>,
Agreed! All I did was led him/her/it into water deep enough to drown in.
Like other GreeNazis, CAI just hates the oil companies and modern
conveniences (in other people's hands, of course).
Like other GreeNazis, CAI just hates the oil companies and modern
conveniences (in other people's hands, of course).
Orval Fairbairn
May 14, 2013, 12:53:18 PM5/14/13
to
In article
<94f99fdf-76c4-493c...@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Typical Green response -- There is always a greener pasture over the
next hill (even though it may be just another desert).
I notice that you did not include the Wh.kg of gasoline or Diesel fuel
for comparison.
<94f99fdf-76c4-493c...@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
next hill (even though it may be just another desert).
I notice that you did not include the Wh.kg of gasoline or Diesel fuel
for comparison.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 14, 2013, 5:40:49 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 9:53 am, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/897bc27de0421609
> In article
> <94f99fdf-76c4-493c-a2a2-dcd44932c...@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130509electric-airplanes-e...
researching, and developing lithium air battery. You were wrong on
your assertion that battery tech is stagnant, my link validates my
point that you are wrong. Use of such a battery would allow a solar
aircraft to have a stronger airframe. Development of such a battery
is based on market principles, but nothing has stopped you from
posting bs before, why should the concept of conservative market based
solutions to develop a better battery be any different?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/897bc27de0421609
> In article
> <94f99fdf-76c4-493c-a2a2-dcd44932c...@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > -the-way.html
> > "Power, measured in watts or horsepower, is the output of an engine or
> > motor. Electrical energy is measured in watt hours; a watt hour is one
> > watt expended over one hour. Batteries simply don t yet provide enough
> > energy per pound, especially when compared with avgas. To compete
> > successfully a battery must be capable of producing a great deal of
> > energy (watts) for a good length of time (hours) per pound (or
> > kilogram). According to Wilcke, a typical lead-acid battery such as
> > the one in a Cessna or Piper has a practical energy rating of about 40
> > watthours/kilogram (Wh/kg); lithium-ion batteries are rated at 100 to
> > 200 Wh/kg. Lithium-air (oxygen) batteries have a practical rating of
> > approximately 1,800 Wh/kg and a theoretical rating more than 5,500 Wh/
> > kg.
> > It s thought that lithium-air batteries will be capable of producing
> > energy/hour/weight levels on par with gasoline; however there are
> > still many hurdles to leap before this technology is produced on a
> > practical scale."
> >http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-21/lithium-air-battery-gives-ib...
> > "Power, measured in watts or horsepower, is the output of an engine or
> > motor. Electrical energy is measured in watt hours; a watt hour is one
> > watt expended over one hour. Batteries simply don t yet provide enough
> > energy per pound, especially when compared with avgas. To compete
> > successfully a battery must be capable of producing a great deal of
> > energy (watts) for a good length of time (hours) per pound (or
> > kilogram). According to Wilcke, a typical lead-acid battery such as
> > the one in a Cessna or Piper has a practical energy rating of about 40
> > watthours/kilogram (Wh/kg); lithium-ion batteries are rated at 100 to
> > 200 Wh/kg. Lithium-air (oxygen) batteries have a practical rating of
> > approximately 1,800 Wh/kg and a theoretical rating more than 5,500 Wh/
> > kg.
> > It s thought that lithium-air batteries will be capable of producing
> > energy/hour/weight levels on par with gasoline; however there are
> > still many hurdles to leap before this technology is produced on a
> > practical scale."
> > -power-without-fires.html
> > Lithium Air Battery Gives IBM Hope of Power Without Fires
> > By Christopher Martin - Feb 21, 2013 7:55 AM PT
> Typical Green response -- There is always a greener pasture over the next hill (even though it may be just another desert).
> I notice that you did not include the Wh.kg of gasoline or Diesel fuel for comparison.
Quite to the contrary, the link i provided were showed IBM investing,
> > Lithium Air Battery Gives IBM Hope of Power Without Fires
> > By Christopher Martin - Feb 21, 2013 7:55 AM PT
> Typical Green response -- There is always a greener pasture over the next hill (even though it may be just another desert).
> I notice that you did not include the Wh.kg of gasoline or Diesel fuel for comparison.
researching, and developing lithium air battery. You were wrong on
your assertion that battery tech is stagnant, my link validates my
point that you are wrong. Use of such a battery would allow a solar
aircraft to have a stronger airframe. Development of such a battery
is based on market principles, but nothing has stopped you from
posting bs before, why should the concept of conservative market based
solutions to develop a better battery be any different?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 14, 2013, 5:41:46 PM5/14/13
to
Orval Fairbairn
May 14, 2013, 10:39:57 PM5/14/13
to
In article
<fe27f526-d604-4041...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
One slight problem: Lithium is pyroforic, making the lithium/air battery
a fire hazard -- much moreso that the lithium-ion batteries that
bedeviled the Boeing 787.
<fe27f526-d604-4041...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
a fire hazard -- much moreso that the lithium-ion batteries that
bedeviled the Boeing 787.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 15, 2013, 1:29:08 AM5/15/13
to
> <fe27f526-d604-4041-bb83-ea14b65a7...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
So is fuel, let me get this straight you are now complaining about the
chance of fire, while advocating the use of fuel, wow are you caught
in a loop of bad logic. Lithium air battery shows promise, as i
previously stated reduce the weight of the battery, you can increase
the strength of the air frame for the solar aircraft.
http://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/356685
"Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology
Transfer Program
ALL SOLID STATE LITHIUM AIR BATTERY
Abstract:
A novel approach is proposed for the development of safe lithium-air
batteries that offer high-energy storage capacity and extended standby
and operational life. The proposed battery will use a lithium anode,
an air cathode having an air stable non-volatile electrolyte and a
multilayer polymer electrolyte/glass electrolyte barrier to protect
the lithium anode from direct reactions with water and oxygen from the
atmosphere. Since there will be no volatile liquid electrolyte, safety
performance of the lithium-air battery will be enhanced. The areas to
be studied include the ionic conductivity of the polymer electrolyte,
as well as the interface between lithium metal and polymer
electrolyte, and the moisture absorption behavior of the air
electrode. In Phase II we will investigate the performance of the
whole battery system and battery structure to produce an all solid
state lithium oxygen battery."
chance of fire, while advocating the use of fuel, wow are you caught
in a loop of bad logic. Lithium air battery shows promise, as i
previously stated reduce the weight of the battery, you can increase
the strength of the air frame for the solar aircraft.
http://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/356685
"Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology
Transfer Program
ALL SOLID STATE LITHIUM AIR BATTERY
Abstract:
A novel approach is proposed for the development of safe lithium-air
batteries that offer high-energy storage capacity and extended standby
and operational life. The proposed battery will use a lithium anode,
an air cathode having an air stable non-volatile electrolyte and a
multilayer polymer electrolyte/glass electrolyte barrier to protect
the lithium anode from direct reactions with water and oxygen from the
atmosphere. Since there will be no volatile liquid electrolyte, safety
performance of the lithium-air battery will be enhanced. The areas to
be studied include the ionic conductivity of the polymer electrolyte,
as well as the interface between lithium metal and polymer
electrolyte, and the moisture absorption behavior of the air
electrode. In Phase II we will investigate the performance of the
whole battery system and battery structure to produce an all solid
state lithium oxygen battery."
emoneyjoe
May 15, 2013, 1:40:00 AM5/15/13
to
there is no way to put enough solar cells on
a manned aircraft with any utility to give it the
horsepower to go 40 MPH?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 15, 2013, 1:53:11 AM5/15/13
to
On May 14, 10:40 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote"Why is it a
woman"
Not that im gender biased like you, but it begs the question as to why
are you making fun of yourself, as that can be said about every post
you make.
woman"
Not that im gender biased like you, but it begs the question as to why
are you making fun of yourself, as that can be said about every post
you make.
Orval Fairbairn
May 15, 2013, 3:55:21 PM5/15/13
to
In article
<c1aa325a-5090-43de...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
WRONG AGAIN, Science Flunkout! Fuel in air requires a spark or open
flame to set it afire. For you enlightenment, "pyroforic" means "igites
spontaneously in air".
> http://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/356685
> "Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology
> Transfer Program
> ALL SOLID STATE LITHIUM AIR BATTERY
> Abstract:
> A novel approach is proposed for the development of safe lithium-air
> batteries that offer high-energy storage capacity and extended standby
> and operational life. The proposed battery will use a lithium anode,
> an air cathode having an air stable non-volatile electrolyte and a
> multilayer polymer electrolyte/glass electrolyte barrier to protect
> the lithium anode from direct reactions with water and oxygen from the
> atmosphere. Since there will be no volatile liquid electrolyte, safety
> performance of the lithium-air battery will be enhanced. The areas to
> be studied include the ionic conductivity of the polymer electrolyte,
> as well as the interface between lithium metal and polymer
> electrolyte, and the moisture absorption behavior of the air
> electrode. In Phase II we will investigate the performance of the
> whole battery system and battery structure to produce an all solid
> state lithium oxygen battery."
From what I have read, the Li/air battery is not yet ready for prime
time. It seems that the developers have problems keeping it from
catching fire (again, "pyroforic").
<c1aa325a-5090-43de...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
flame to set it afire. For you enlightenment, "pyroforic" means "igites
spontaneously in air".
> http://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/356685
> "Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology
> Transfer Program
> ALL SOLID STATE LITHIUM AIR BATTERY
> Abstract:
> A novel approach is proposed for the development of safe lithium-air
> batteries that offer high-energy storage capacity and extended standby
> and operational life. The proposed battery will use a lithium anode,
> an air cathode having an air stable non-volatile electrolyte and a
> multilayer polymer electrolyte/glass electrolyte barrier to protect
> the lithium anode from direct reactions with water and oxygen from the
> atmosphere. Since there will be no volatile liquid electrolyte, safety
> performance of the lithium-air battery will be enhanced. The areas to
> be studied include the ionic conductivity of the polymer electrolyte,
> as well as the interface between lithium metal and polymer
> electrolyte, and the moisture absorption behavior of the air
> electrode. In Phase II we will investigate the performance of the
> whole battery system and battery structure to produce an all solid
> state lithium oxygen battery."
time. It seems that the developers have problems keeping it from
catching fire (again, "pyroforic").
emoneyjoe
May 15, 2013, 5:30:57 PM5/15/13
to
have a big problem, any moisture sets
the lithium on fire.
Either lithium is like sodium, or they
have it confused with sodium.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdvONg8OQKA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ypUVpwgcAA
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 15, 2013, 5:37:24 PM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 12:55 pm, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/a3a174147aa6b680
> In article
> <c1aa325a-5090-43de-99d7-9977ce0b1...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Your point was fire hazard, my point was that you are arguing to keep
fuel on board the plane, which means you must include accidents
involving fuel transfer, etc. not to mention accidents involving fuel
mismanagement. Come on or
wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/a3a174147aa6b680
> In article
> <c1aa325a-5090-43de-99d7-9977ce0b1...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
fuel on board the plane, which means you must include accidents
involving fuel transfer, etc. not to mention accidents involving fuel
mismanagement. Come on or
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 15, 2013, 5:55:01 PM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 2:30 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:""
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/real-time-charging-of-lithium-air-battery-0513.html
May 13, 2013
Research update: Team observes real-time charging of a lithium-air
battery
Imaging reveals what happens during charging; could lead to improved
batteries for electric car
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/real-time-charging-of-lithium-air-battery-0513.html
May 13, 2013
Research update: Team observes real-time charging of a lithium-air
battery
Imaging reveals what happens during charging; could lead to improved
batteries for electric car
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages