Electric airplanes will be next

[Mark]

Are you ready to wheego?
http://wheego.net/more/gallery-2/

Or pick an electric car from this
old list from 2 years ago?
http://venturebeat.com/2008/01/10/27-electric-cars-companies-ready-to-take-over-the-road/

World's fastest electric car:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOPFXTpuNgg

Here's a nice one!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hxf50zic7o&feature=related

Sorry, but these links only show a fraction
of what is actually happening to date. Every
single one of these cars is using battery
technology that is about to be replaced with
a ten-fold battery density improvement.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Oct 19, 8:17*am, Mark > wrote:
> Are you ready to wheego?http://wheego.net/more/gallery-2/
>
> Or pick an electric car from this
> old list from 2 years ago?http://venturebeat.com/2008/01/10/27-electric-cars-companies-ready-to...
>
> World's fastest electric car:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOPFXTpuNgg
>
> Here's a nice one!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hxf50zic7o&feature=related
>
> Sorry, but these links only show a fraction
> of what is actually happening to date. Every
> single one of these cars is using battery
> technology that is about to be replaced with
> a ten-fold battery density improvement.
>
> ---
> Mark

New electric cars are better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RnQuDvvg6M&NR=1

[Ari Silverstein]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:17:04 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Sorry,

No work...again...today? lol
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> Are you ready to wheego?
> http://wheego.net/more/gallery-2/

Oh boy, a two seat cracker box that goes 100 miles max and costs over
$30,000.

Yes sir, they will be lining up to by those things.

>
> Or pick an electric car from this
> old list from 2 years ago?
> http://venturebeat.com/2008/01/10/27-electric-cars-companies-ready-to-take-over-the-road/

Most of those are not cars and several have already gone defunct.

> World's fastest electric car:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOPFXTpuNgg

Whoopee, an Ariel Atom with an electric motor!

Yet another one off wonder.

> Here's a nice one!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hxf50zic7o&feature=related

Yet another over priced techo-toy that exists only as a prototype.

> Sorry, but these links only show a fraction
> of what is actually happening to date. Every
> single one of these cars is using battery
> technology that is about to be replaced with
> a ten-fold battery density improvement.

Sorry, but these links only show pathetic crap.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Alpha Propellerhead]

On Oct 19, 9:35*am, wrote:

> Sorry, but these links only show pathetic crap.

True, perhaps, but electric airplanes are coming. Folks are building
them. Folks I know who build airplanes and also electric trucking
equipment are waiting for battery technology to come up a little. For
example, NiCad batteries are obsolete. Lithium ion is obsolete.
Lithium polymer (LiPo) is awesome, but, if you've ever seen one of
those things overheat and go incendiary, you'll never put one in an
airplane.

Turns out if you yank out your Lycoming, all of the fuel systems, oil
systems, fuel tanks, fuel, oil, etc, you end up with a really light
aircraft, a vacant space on each wing for batteries, plenty of room
for an electric motor/gearbox, a spare battery by the firewall to use
as your reserve and provide the ballast eliminated by the internal
combustion engine.

Ten years ago you'd have been called a treehugger or dreamer out here
for suggesting such a thing might exist, but, ten years ago LiPo was
something obese people had done. Stuff is happening and it's
comforting that the people I know who are telling me about it are out
flying their home built airplanes waiting for the next generation of
batteries hit the industry.

[vaughn[_3_]]

"Alpha Propellerhead" > wrote in message
...
>Lithium polymer (LiPo) is awesome, but, if you've ever seen one of
>those things overheat and go incendiary, you'll never put one in an
>airplane.

The same could be said for a tank full of avgas.

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

Alpha Propellerhead > wrote:
> On Oct 19, 9:35Â*am, wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but these links only show pathetic crap.
>
> True, perhaps, but electric airplanes are coming. Folks are building
> them. Folks I know who build airplanes and also electric trucking
> equipment are waiting for battery technology to come up a little. For
> example, NiCad batteries are obsolete. Lithium ion is obsolete.
> Lithium polymer (LiPo) is awesome, but, if you've ever seen one of
> those things overheat and go incendiary, you'll never put one in an
> airplane.
>
> Turns out if you yank out your Lycoming, all of the fuel systems, oil
> systems, fuel tanks, fuel, oil, etc, you end up with a really light
> aircraft, a vacant space on each wing for batteries, plenty of room
> for an electric motor/gearbox, a spare battery by the firewall to use
> as your reserve and provide the ballast eliminated by the internal
> combustion engine.
>
> Ten years ago you'd have been called a treehugger or dreamer out here
> for suggesting such a thing might exist, but, ten years ago LiPo was
> something obese people had done. Stuff is happening and it's
> comforting that the people I know who are telling me about it are out
> flying their home built airplanes waiting for the next generation of
> batteries hit the industry.

And absent some astounding unforseen breakthrough in battery technology
they are going to grow old and die waiting for a production battery
system that will power a practical airplane other than a motor glider.

The range of pure electric cars is crap and the price makes them toys for
the "eco aware" rich.

The only pure electric car in production with anything like a useful range
is on the order of $100,000 and does not have to meet any of the requirements
that an airplane does.

Care to guess what an electric 172 with the range of a conventional 172
would cost?

The Cessna proof of concept electric 172 is shooting for a whole hour on a
charge, which gives it a legal range of about a half hour of flight before
"refueling".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

vaughn > wrote:
>
> "Alpha Propellerhead" > wrote in message
> ...
>>Lithium polymer (LiPo) is awesome, but, if you've ever seen one of
>>those things overheat and go incendiary, you'll never put one in an
>>airplane.
>
> The same could be said for a tank full of avgas.
>
> Vaughn

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


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
Alpha Propellerhead > wrote:

> On Oct 19, 9:35*am, wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but these links only show pathetic crap.
>
> True, perhaps, but electric airplanes are coming. Folks are building
> them. Folks I know who build airplanes and also electric trucking
> equipment are waiting for battery technology to come up a little. For
> example, NiCad batteries are obsolete. Lithium ion is obsolete.
> Lithium polymer (LiPo) is awesome, but, if you've ever seen one of
> those things overheat and go incendiary, you'll never put one in an
> airplane.

>
> Turns out if you yank out your Lycoming, all of the fuel systems, oil
> systems, fuel tanks, fuel, oil, etc, you end up with a really light
> aircraft, a vacant space on each wing for batteries, plenty of room
> for an electric motor/gearbox, a spare battery by the firewall to use
> as your reserve and provide the ballast eliminated by the internal
> combustion engine.
>
> Ten years ago you'd have been called a treehugger or dreamer out here
> for suggesting such a thing might exist, but, ten years ago LiPo was
> something obese people had done. Stuff is happening and it's
> comforting that the people I know who are telling me about it are out
> flying their home built airplanes waiting for the next generation of
> batteries hit the industry.



I'm sorry, but battery technology will never get there! It like carrying
all the air you use in an IC engine (IOW, a rocket), rather than just
the fuel and gathering the air as you go (present method).

At 15:1 air/fuel ratio, you would have to carry 90# of air for every
gallon of fuel, so a battery equivalent would have to weigh (50
gallons*6# + 50*90# air = 4800#) -- just in equivalent energy.

Lycoming + prop = 450# + 300# fuel = 750#

This is assuming that you can get equivalent energy storage, which is a
LONG way off!

[Jim Logajan]

(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.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

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.

[Jim Logajan]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[a[_3_]]

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/

[Frank Stutzman[_3_]]

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"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

[Jim Logajan]

"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.