How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel: The ElectraFlyer-C

In rec.aviation.piloting Scott wrote:
wrote:


I think his point was that the "standard" lead acid battery has been
around in its basic form and pretty much unchanged for many years. If
that is, in fact, what he means, I agree. Newer technologies have
really only appeared in the last 20-30 years, ie NiCd, NiMh, Lithium
Ion, etc. If we had been working to make "better" batteries as we have
with planes, trains and automobiles, we'd have some pretty sweet
electric power now...just my opinion.

Lead acid batteries have changed a lot since they were invented.

Other types of batteries have been around for way more than 30 years.

The nickel-cadmium battery was invented in 1899 the Nike-Ajax missle
had them in the 1950's.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Stealth Pilot wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:19:52 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
wrote:

"Scott" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Andrew Sarangan wrote:

On Jun 21, 11:42 pm, Richard Riley wrote:

On Jun 16, 7:37 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:


How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel



The capacity and endurance numbers still look wrong to me--unless the
demonstration aircraft is using two of the largest battery packs. But the
point is that these technologies will remain immature for the remaining
lifetimes of most members of this group.

Also, in case anyone has not been watching, gasolene engines have continued
to mature and now weigh less than the did just twenty years ago.

Peter



I was looking at one of my sons model aircraft batteries.
a LiPo about the size of a cigarette packet.
the maximim current draw was 54 amps!!!!

Yeah, for a second or so.

some of this technology has the potential to go somewhere if it hasnt
already plateaued (sp)

It hasn't quite yet, but it is getting close.

In the meantime I'll watch, and burn 100/130 avgas.

Probably a good plan.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 23, 11:05 pm, wrote:


And when fustion reactors are invented they will replace coal and
fission plants.

You mean fusion? Take a look at ITER: International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor. It is far from reality, but it is not science
fiction either.

You can think what you want, but investment in batteries and fuel
cells have seen a huge growth in the last few years. If batteries have
been intensely developed for over a century and is very mature, all
these investors and their expectations must be pretty foolish.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:35:03 GMT, wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:15:03 GMT, wrote in
:

Except they can't as battery technology is an order of magnitude short
on energy density to be able to do it.

I've always thought that the energy stored in metallic aluminum might
be harnessed for motive power. If you look at it on the energy
density chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density, it would
appear to be a reasonable energy source.

Storage type Energy density Energy density
by mass (MJ/kg) by volume (MJ/L)
----------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline[7] 46.9 34.6
Aluminum (burned in air) 31.0 83.8
Hydrazine (toxic) 19.5 19.3
combusted to N2+H2O

So while aluminum isn't as rich an energy source pound-for-pound as
gasoline, it is significantly better than rocket fuel.

Well yeah, except it takes huge amounts of energy to make metallic
aluminum from ore in the first place

Right. http://electrochem.cwru.edu/ed/encyc...a01-al-prod.ht
It takes about 225 KWH to produce 50 lbs of metallic aluminum.

Which is about 35 MJ/kg.

All the energy that went into making the alumna into metallic aluminum
is just waiting to power an IC engine. Grind the Al into a fine dust
and blow it into the cylinders. :-)

Aluminum-gallium amalgam makes a fine sacrificial cathode for a low
temperature primary cell. The aluminum hydroxide and gallium get
recycled. Development and commercialization are in progress.

and burning aluminum is not something you really want to be around.

Can you tell me more about that?

It's awesome. You'll see spots until yer 'opsins unbleach unless
yer wearin' welding goggles.

--
nuts

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On Jun 23, 11:05 pm, wrote:

And when fustion reactors are invented they will replace coal and
fission plants.

You mean fusion? Take a look at ITER: International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor. It is far from reality, but it is not science
fiction either.

You can think what you want, but investment in batteries and fuel
cells have seen a huge growth in the last few years. If batteries have
been intensely developed for over a century and is very mature, all
these investors and their expectations must be pretty foolish.




And yet this happens and causes MASSIVE recalls.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/a...ery-214322.php

In rec.aviation.piloting Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On Jun 23, 11:05 pm, wrote:


And when fustion reactors are invented they will replace coal and
fission plants.

You mean fusion? Take a look at ITER: International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor. It is far from reality, but it is not science
fiction either.

Yeah, it is called a typo.

I'm aware of ITER and the fact that *IF* ITER is a success, you can
expect an operational fusion power plant no earlier than 2040, by
which time a good percentage of current posters, including myself,
will be long dead.

You can think what you want, but investment in batteries and fuel
cells have seen a huge growth in the last few years. If batteries have
been intensely developed for over a century and is very mature, all
these investors and their expectations must be pretty foolish.

The point is that contrary to what some think, the science of electro
chemistry is mature and all the easy stuff has already been done.

Current, cutting edge, laboratory batteries are still an order of
magnitude short of being a practical general replacement for liquid
fueled engines.

A startling new invention may appear next week that changes all that,
but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

In the mean time, you get increamental advances in the technology.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Andrew Sarangan wrote:


And yet this happens and causes MASSIVE recalls.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/a...ery-214322.php

Ford Pintos allegedly exploded, too, but, that didn't kill Ford, let
alone the automobile.

About your video: "This isn't a completely legitimate laptop battery
explosion—the folks at PC Pitstop forced a lithium-ion battery into an
unstable state" Didn't NBC or somebody ignite a Ford pickup with a
model rocket engine one time to demonstrate how explosive they are?

I work in the telecom/internet industry and we have hundreds of laptops
and talk to hundreds of people in the industry with laptops, and I've
never heard of any of them having laptop batteries explode on them.

Pretty cool video, though, although I have a pound of thermite that says
I can do a better job destroying a laptop...

-c

In rec.aviation.piloting gatt wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Andrew Sarangan wrote:


And yet this happens and causes MASSIVE recalls.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/a...ery-214322.php

Ford Pintos allegedly exploded, too, but, that didn't kill Ford, let
alone the automobile.

About your video: "This isn't a completely legitimate laptop battery
explosion?the folks at PC Pitstop forced a lithium-ion battery into an
unstable state" Didn't NBC or somebody ignite a Ford pickup with a
model rocket engine one time to demonstrate how explosive they are?

I work in the telecom/internet industry and we have hundreds of laptops
and talk to hundreds of people in the industry with laptops, and I've
never heard of any of them having laptop batteries explode on them.

Pretty cool video, though, although I have a pound of thermite that says
I can do a better job destroying a laptop...

AIR, there have been a couple of batches that were defective from
the manufacturer that went up by themselves, but that's hardly
a condemnation of all batteries.

Lithium batteries are a bit more likely to self destruct if operated
outside their design parameters then some other types, but lots of
things are like that.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

True for chemical batteries but EEStor devices store energy as an
electrostatic charge. If their press is to be believed, they have 10 - 100x
the capacity per pound as lithium ion. Even with lithium chemistry, silicon
nanowire anodes from Stanford promise 10x the charge.

Electric power is a fast moving target these days. Who is to say what might
be possible. Don't write it off too quickly.



"Bryan Martin" wrote in message
...
One major problem with battery powered electric systems is that all the
reactants must be carried onboard. This puts them at a major
disadvantage with fuel burning systems. An aircraft with a fuel burning
engine only has to carry its fuel onboard, the oxidizer is pulled out of
the air. This give a fuel burning engine a major weight and range
advantage over a battery powered electric system.

--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL, Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive.

In rec.aviation.piloting Bill Daniels bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
True for chemical batteries but EEStor devices store energy as an
electrostatic charge. If their press is to be believed, they have 10 - 100x
the capacity per pound as lithium ion. Even with lithium chemistry, silicon
nanowire anodes from Stanford promise 10x the charge.

EEStor's claim's are a little too good to be believed by anyone that
knows anything about capacitors, and that's being charitable.

Time will tell if their product matches their press releases.

One problem with using capacitors for energy storage for stuff like
motors is the discharge curve which will require some rather heavy
voltage conversion trickery, though the problem isn't that big a deal
for a ground vehicle.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.