![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Orval Fairbairn wrote: In article . com, James Sleeman wrote: On Aug 6, 4:52 am, Larry Dighera wrote: Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft It's a nice idea, but realisitically there are too many problems, not the least of which is battery size, weight, cost and safety. I don't really see batteries as a viable in the near future (I struggle to see them as viable in the distant future either). Look at the problem this way: In an all-electric machine, you carry ALL of your energy supply with you: fuel and oxidizer -- to make electricity. With any IC engine, you carry the fuel only -- the air is free (20% oxygen), so, at 15:1 air/fuel ratio, you would need 90 lb of air for each gallon of fuel. Therefore, for a nominal 50 gallon fuel capacity (300 lb), you would have to carry an additional 7500 lb of air. That is a lot of weight for a 3000 lb aircraft! DUH! I meant 4500 lb of air! That is still a lot of weight penalty. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:57:47 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in : In article , Orval Fairbairn wrote: Look at the problem this way: In an all-electric machine, you carry ALL of your energy supply with you: fuel and oxidizer -- to make electricity. With any IC engine, you carry the fuel only -- the air is free (20% oxygen), so, at 15:1 air/fuel ratio, you would need 90 lb of air for each gallon of fuel. Therefore, for a nominal 50 gallon fuel capacity (300 lb), you would have to carry an additional 7500 lb of air. That is a lot of weight for a 3000 lb aircraft! DUH! I meant 4500 lb of air! That is still a lot of weight penalty. I hadn't thought of that. I wonder if a zinc-air batter might be lighter than a lithium-ion polymer battery. Lithium, being number three in the periodic table of elements, is pretty light; zinc is number 30, so it's ten times heaver. But there are other concerns like packaging requirements that come into play. Here's some information about zinc-air batteries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc-air_battery Zinc-air battery Zinc-air batteries, also called “zinc-air fuel cells,“ are non-rechargeable electro-chemical batteries powered by the oxidation of zinc with oxygen from the air. These batteries have very high energy densities and are relatively inexpensive to produce. They are used in hearing aids and in experimental electric vehicles. They may be an important part of a future zinc economy. Particles of zinc are mixed with an electrolyte (usually potassium hydroxide solution); water and oxygen from the air react at the cathode and form hydroxyls which migrate into the zinc paste and form zincate (Zn(OH)42-), at which point electrons are released and travel to the cathode. The zincate decays into zinc oxide and water is released back into the system. The water and hydroxyls from the anode are recycled at the cathode, so the water serves only as a catalyst. The reactions produce a maximum voltage level of 1.65 volts, but this is reduced to 1.4–1.35 V by reducing air flow into the cell; this is usually done for hearing aid batteries to reduce the rate of water drying out. The term zinc-air fuel cell usually refers to a zinc-air battery in which zinc fuel is replenished and zinc oxide waste is removed continuously. This is accomplished by pushing zinc electrolyte paste or pellets into an anode chamber. Waste zinc oxide is pumped into a waste tank or bladder inside the fuel tank, and fresh zinc paste or pellets are taken from the fuel tank. The zinc oxide waste is pumped out at a refueling station and sent to a recycling plant. Alternatively, this term may refer to an electro-chemical system in which zinc is used as a co-reactant to assist the reformation of hydrocarbon fuels on an anode of a fuel cell. Zinc-air batteries have properties of fuel cells as well as batteries: the zinc is the fuel, the rate of the reaction can be controlled by controlling the air flow, and used zinc/electrolyte paste can be removed from the cell and replaced with fresh paste. Research is being conducted in powering electric vehicles with zinc-air batteries. http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/electrom...s/zincair.html Zinc-air batteries produce electrochemical energy by using oxygen straight from the air. Oxygen becomes the cathode reactant, and is diffused directly into the battery. The air cathode uses an aqueous alkaline electrolyte to catalytically promote the reaction of oxygen, but is not depleted or transformed at discharge. The cathode is compact, yet at the same time has an almost unlimited capacity, and achieves high energy densities due to the additional volume available for the zinc anode. The advantages of a zinc-air battery include flat discharge voltage, safety and environmental benefits, good shelf life, and low cost. In addition, zinc-air batteries have high volumetric energy density compared to most primary batteries. The disadvantages of such batteries are that they rely on ambient conditions, they dry out once exposed to outside air, they have flooding potential, they have limited output, and their active life is short. It is important to note that when zinc turns it into zinc oxide it expands, and there must be adequate space within the battery for this expansion. The main form of gas transfer degradation is water vapor transfer. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article , Orval Fairbairn wrote: In article . com, James Sleeman wrote: On Aug 6, 4:52 am, Larry Dighera wrote: Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft It's a nice idea, but realisitically there are too many problems, not the least of which is battery size, weight, cost and safety. I don't really see batteries as a viable in the near future (I struggle to see them as viable in the distant future either). Look at the problem this way: In an all-electric machine, you carry ALL of your energy supply with you: fuel and oxidizer -- to make electricity. With any IC engine, you carry the fuel only -- the air is free (20% oxygen), so, at 15:1 air/fuel ratio, you would need 90 lb of air for each gallon of fuel. Therefore, for a nominal 50 gallon fuel capacity (300 lb), you would have to carry an additional 7500 lb of air. That is a lot of weight for a 3000 lb aircraft! DUH! I meant 4500 lb of air! That is still a lot of weight penalty. Well, to be fair Orval, you do get the 90% efficiency in an electric motor, vs the 30% in an IC engine. You'd only have to drop 1500lb of useful load with the electric motor. Isn't the useful load of most light airplanes somewhere between 600 and 2000lbs? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 178 | December 31st 07 08:53 PM |
Solar powered aircraft. Was: Can Aircraft Be Far Behind? | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 4 | February 9th 07 01:11 PM |
World's First Certified Electrically Propelled Aircraft? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 2 | September 22nd 06 01:50 AM |
Powered gliders = powered aircraft for 91.205 | Mark James Boyd | Soaring | 2 | December 12th 04 03:28 AM |
Help! 2motors propelled ultralight aircraft | [email protected] | Home Built | 3 | July 9th 03 01:02 AM |