Electric airplanes will be next

In article ,
(Edward A. Falk) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

A tank full of gas doesn't get hot because it is being used but batteries do.

A friend of mine pointed out that although gasoline needs to have oxygen
added before it can burn, a battery already contains everything it needs
to explode.

I really, really want to see electric batteries come of age, but gasoline
has set the bar very high in terms of safety and energy density.

This feature of batteries also explains why they will NEVER compete with
air/fuel engines!

You have to carry a complete supply of BOTH chemicals required to make
them work, rather than just one (fuel).

Until we get some breakthroughs in physics (Zero Point Energy, dilithium
crystals, etc.) Electric planes and cars will remain at the periphery of
practicality.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
(Edward A. Falk) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

A tank full of gas doesn't get hot because it is being used but
batteries do.

A friend of mine pointed out that although gasoline needs to have
oxygen added before it can burn, a battery already contains
everything it needs to explode.

I really, really want to see electric batteries come of age, but
gasoline has set the bar very high in terms of safety and energy
density.

This feature of batteries also explains why they will NEVER compete
with air/fuel engines!

You have to carry a complete supply of BOTH chemicals required to make
them work, rather than just one (fuel).

Actually that's not strictly true - a class of batteries called fuel cells
could (actually already can) utilize the oxygen in air. Instead of
generating heat when the chemical reaction occurs, the released energy can
be converted mostly to electrical power.

Ironically, the fuel for fuel cell batteries that doesn't require any new
costly infrastructure is gasoline. Some work has been done on gasoline fuel
cells; so far as I can see the advantages over heat engines are that they
theoretically can be mechanically simpler and operate at a higher
efficiency.

Jim Logajan wrote:
(Edward A. Falk) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

A tank full of gas doesn't get hot because it is being used but
batteries do.

A friend of mine pointed out that although gasoline needs to have
oxygen added before it can burn,

What does your friend think caused TWA flight 800 to explode, killing 230
people?

Other incidents include one in 1990 in which a Philippine Airlines 737-300
fuel tank exploded and another in 2001 in which a Thai 737-400 jet's fuel
tank exploding while sitting on an apron at Bangkok airport.

And of course you'll find many examples of general aviation aircraft
catching fire during fueling - sometimes because grounding isn't done, or
is done incorrectly.

a battery already contains everything
it needs to explode.

That just makes for another good reason to avoid cell phones. ;-)

Battery explosions are relatively muted compared to fuel vapor/air
mixtures. Batteries don't have that much energy - or energy density - to
make them as dangerous when they explode.

Which is why batteries are basically useless for powering practical vehicles.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim Logajan wrote:
Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
(Edward A. Falk) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

A tank full of gas doesn't get hot because it is being used but
batteries do.

A friend of mine pointed out that although gasoline needs to have
oxygen added before it can burn, a battery already contains
everything it needs to explode.

I really, really want to see electric batteries come of age, but
gasoline has set the bar very high in terms of safety and energy
density.

This feature of batteries also explains why they will NEVER compete
with air/fuel engines!

You have to carry a complete supply of BOTH chemicals required to make
them work, rather than just one (fuel).

Actually that's not strictly true - a class of batteries called fuel cells
could (actually already can) utilize the oxygen in air. Instead of
generating heat when the chemical reaction occurs, the released energy can
be converted mostly to electrical power.

Ironically, the fuel for fuel cell batteries that doesn't require any new
costly infrastructure is gasoline. Some work has been done on gasoline fuel
cells; so far as I can see the advantages over heat engines are that they
theoretically can be mechanically simpler and operate at a higher
efficiency.

Mechanically simpler doesn't mean a whole lot since the invention of
NC machining and the realizable efficiency of a fuel cell in a vehicle
isn't that much better than that of a modern piston engine.

If the world actually ever ran out of oil as the chicken little's predict,
fuel cells run on natural gas could be a practical alternative, but then
again so would a conventional piston engine run on natural gas.

All of which is a bit moot as the Obama administration cut off funding for
vehicle fuel cells in favor of batteries.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Nov 2, 12:56*am, wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
(Edward A. Falk) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

A tank full of gas doesn't get hot because it is being used but
batteries do.

A friend of mine pointed out that although gasoline needs to have
oxygen added before it can burn, a battery already contains
everything it needs to explode.

I really, really want to see electric batteries come of age, but
gasoline has set the bar very high in terms of safety and energy
density.

This feature of batteries also explains why they will NEVER compete
with air/fuel engines!

You have to carry a complete supply of BOTH chemicals required to make
them work, rather than just one (fuel).

Actually that's not strictly true - a class of batteries called fuel cells
could (actually already can) utilize the oxygen in air. Instead of
generating heat when the chemical reaction occurs, the released energy can
be converted mostly to electrical power.

Ironically, the fuel for fuel cell batteries that doesn't require any new
costly infrastructure is gasoline. Some work has been done on gasoline fuel
cells; so far as I can see the advantages over heat engines are that they
theoretically can be mechanically simpler and operate at a higher
efficiency.

Mechanically simpler doesn't mean a whole lot since the invention of
NC machining and the realizable efficiency of a fuel cell in a vehicle
isn't that much better than that of a modern piston engine.

If the world actually ever ran out of oil as the chicken little's predict,
fuel cells run on natural gas could be a practical alternative, but then
again so would a conventional piston engine run on natural gas.

All of which is a bit moot as the Obama administration cut off funding for
vehicle fuel cells in favor of batteries.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

If there was profit on the horizon it would not take gvmt money, of
course. Anyone waiting for battery operated GA airplanes before
getting his or her certificate is apt to wait a long time. I was about
to suggest someone has his head in the clouds, but that could start a
different thread/

a wrote:

If there was profit on the horizon it would not take gvmt money, of
course.

True.

However, there are many very profitable technologies developed
on the tax payer dime that have become exceedingly profitable and were
well beyond anyone's horizon. This little internet thing being one of
them.


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

"Jim Logajan" wrote

Actually that's not strictly true - a class of batteries called fuel cells
could (actually already can) utilize the oxygen in air.

A fuel cell is about as much of a battery as a Honda Generator.

A fuel cell is an electrical generating device. You put fuel and an
oxidizer in and you get power and water out. They store no energy.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote

Actually that's not strictly true - a class of batteries called fuel
cells could (actually already can) utilize the oxygen in air.

A fuel cell is about as much of a battery as a Honda Generator.

My 5th edition copy of "Physical Chemistry" by Peter Atkins states "A fuel
cell operates like a conventional galvanic cell with the exception that the
reactants are supplied from outside rather than forming an integral part of
its construction."

So from a chemistry standpoint they are batteries. The Honda Generator is a
heat engine that converts the reactants first to heat, then to mechanical
motion, and finally to electrical current.

A fuel cell is an electrical generating device. You put fuel and an
oxidizer in and you get power and water out. They store no energy.

The atmosphere is a handy place to store part of the reactants. But there
generally isn't any need to make an earth-bound fuel cell fully reversable
and self-contained like other batteries, but it has been done.