A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Electric Sonex



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 26th 07, 03:48 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,130
Default Electric Sonex

On Jul 25, 8:40 am, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:

Obviously, the problem with electric airplanes is range. It's doubtful if
electricity storage will ever reach the energy density of gasoline. One
thing that amazes me is that electrons weight almost nothing. A charged
battery, for all practical purposes, weighes the same charged or not - the
energy the battery contains weighs nothing. It seems like the boffins could
figure out a way to pressurize a container with electrons.



Batteries don't store electrons. They store energy in the form of
chemical changes. Every electron that leaves a battery via the
negative terminal is replaced by another coming in the positive
terminal.
In a lead-acid battery, lead and lead peroxide react with sulfuric
acid and end up as lead sulfate and water. Two electrons are released
for every lead peroxide/sulfuric acid molecule reaction, and two are
absorbed by the lead sulfate/water result. When we recharge the
battery, we're forcing electrons backward through it, converting the
lead sulfate and water back to lead, lead peroxide and sulfuric acid.
So there's no weight change because there are no atoms coming or
going, and no electrons leaving that aren't replaced. Just a molecular
change within the battery.
The lead sulfate eventually wrecks the battery. Not all of it
is converted back to lead and lead peroxide, and it gradually
accumulates on the plates and reduces their effectiveness. Time for a
new battery.

Dan

  #23  
Old July 26th 07, 02:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Gig 601XL Builder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,317
Default Electric Sonex

Morgans wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote

I think it is funny that the environmentalists are getting back on
the Nuke bandwagon, since it was mainly they that stopped
construction of new nuclear power plants in the first place.


I had not heard that they were back on the nuke bandwagon.

Could you point me at some reading along those lines?


http://www.ecolo.org/


  #24  
Old July 26th 07, 02:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Gig 601XL Builder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,317
Default Electric Sonex

Vaughn Simon wrote:


I am an ex-Navy nuclear power plant operator, so I have also slept
a night or two on a Navy nuke ship (submarine actually).

I am not nearly as down on the civilian plants as you are. In
ways, their operations are safer (or at least easier) than those the
of the Navy because they tend to operate at a constant power for
months at a time. They have (for example) no such thing as a fast
scram recovery procedure, and, being attached firmly to the ground, don't
have to deal with the pitch, roll and vibration of operating at
sea. Furthermore, they use injected fission poisons so that they can
operate with the rods pulled out, resulting in safer core power
distributions and giving them a tremendous shutdown margin for
emergencies.


Cool, maybe you can answer my question. If one of the Navy Nukes were set up
and run at a continuous power how much electricity could the plant provide.


  #26  
Old July 26th 07, 03:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 472
Default Electric Sonex

"
"For years, environmentalists have attacked nuclear power. However, one of the
co-founders of Greenpeace believes times have changed. "

"Patrick Moore, Ph.D., environmentalist: "Nuclear is one of the safest
industries in this country, and it's time that environmental activists recognize
the facts around the fact that much nuclear energy is not only safe, but it's
also clean." "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm ex-Navy, worked for Bechtel's nuclear power division for a while.
If you're bright enough to pour **** out of a boot you knew the tree-
huggers had their facts all wrong when it came to nukes, which are
mother's milk compared to coal. The nuclear power industry hired a
firm to do a survey to try and learn where all the bum dope was coming
in order to formulate a strategy to counteract it.

Turns out over 90% of those intelligent, college-educated tree-
huggers, got their nuclear 'education' from a television cartoon show
called 'The Simpsons.'

Network television didn't come along until I was in my teens and I
never caught the habit, had never heard of 'The Simpsons' until I saw
the report. Indeed, most didn't believe it... until a second firm
came up with similar results.

Given enough money a properly conducted propaganda campaign can
convince people of literally ANYTHING. But the estimated cost of
altering the public's cartoon-based misconceptions about nuclear power
was on the order of several BILLION 1980-era dollars and the nuclear
power industry budget for PR was less than a million. Ergo, no more
nuke plants in the USA.

Newton Minow was right :-)

-R.S.Hoover






  #27  
Old July 26th 07, 03:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Charles Vincent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 170
Default Electric Sonex

Vaughn Simon wrote:

I am an ex-Navy nuclear power plant operator, so I have also slept a night
or two on a Navy nuke ship (submarine actually).

I am not nearly as down on the civilian plants as you are. In ways, their
operations are safer (or at least easier) than those the of the Navy because
they tend to operate at a constant power for months at a time.


It also seems that a lot of the executives and the operating personnel
at US nuclear facilities are ex Navy bubbleheads as well. I believe
the first Nuclear plant on the grid was a Navy sub that was connected to
the Philadelphia grid and run for some time, but I can't find a
reference for that now. Another factoid, the US Navy is the fifteenth
largest utility in the US, although they buy most of their power rather
than generate it themselves.

Charles
  #29  
Old July 26th 07, 04:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 472
Default Electric Sonex


The first episode of The Simpsons didn't air until 12/17/89. A quick look
shows the last increase in the number of operating reactors happened between
before 1990. I think there was some bad info out there before The Simpsons.

------------------------------------------------------------------

So it must of been Palo Verde instead of San Onofre. Like I said, I
don't watch TV. But the same message applies: the bulk of American
'intelligence' regarding nuclear power is based on a cartoon.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Another point folks fail to appreciate is that civilian tea-kettles
are operated 'way down the curve compared to Navy reactors. Plus,
being shore-based they are hardened to an extent that's difficult to
understand. Up on the turbine deck of SONGS-2 Japanese and Korean
engineers would actually giggle and take pictures of each other
standing beside a 10x10 I-beam stanchion supporting a 1" high-pressure
instrument line, which is what it takes to guarantee Richter 9
survivability. (As a point of interest, the Japanese have recently
learned what happens when they fail to build to worse-case standards.)

-R.S.Hoover

  #30  
Old July 26th 07, 04:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,130
Default Electric Sonex

On Jul 26, 7:37 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
wrote:
The lead sulfate eventually wrecks the battery. Not all of it
is converted back to lead and lead peroxide, and it gradually
accumulates on the plates and reduces their effectiveness. Time for a
new battery.


Dan


Which is the problem that has yet to be dealt with as far as the
"environmental friendliness" of all the new hybrid cars. What are they going
to do with the old used batteries?


Same as they do now: break them up, retrieve the plastic,
acid and lead compounds, refine everything and make new batteries.

Dan

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
High-wing Sonex??? Montblack Home Built 9 April 8th 06 03:34 PM
Static thrust for Sonex with 54" prop Mel Home Built 3 November 2nd 05 01:31 AM
Electric DG Robbie S. Owning 0 March 19th 05 04:20 AM
Spicer Sonex/Jabiru [email protected] Home Built 1 January 4th 05 03:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.