Re: Can Aircraft Be Far Behind

[[email protected]]

Actually, aircraft (specifically motor gliders) are far ahead!

See: http://www.nadler.com/public/Antares.html

It might take a little while before the power efficiency of batteries
equals the needs of a useful airplane...

Kirk
66

[Larry Dighera]

On 9 Jan 2007 10:28:29 -0800, wrote in
om>:

>Actually, aircraft (specifically motor gliders) are far ahead!
>
>See: http://www.nadler.com/public/Antares.html
>
>It might take a little while before the power efficiency of batteries
>equals the needs of a useful airplane...
>
>Kirk
>66

Yes. I've been following the evolution of the Antares 20E 20-meter
Electric Self-Launch Motor-Glider over the years. The Antares 20E
uses SAFT VL41M Li-Ion cells, much like the Tesla roadster. But
lithium-polymer batteries are superior.

There is little doubt, that electric drive vehicles will supplant
internal combustion engines just as electric motors replaced steam
powered locomotives. It's just a matter of time.

Unfortunately, it seems that most innovative, breakthrough technology
seems to occur outside the US these days:
http://www.gizmag.com/go/6104/1/
http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html

[Chris W]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> There is little doubt, that electric drive vehicles will supplant
> internal combustion engines just as electric motors replaced steam
> powered locomotives. It's just a matter of time.

If trains were battery powered, like the electric cars we are talking
about, you might have a valid comparison. Batteries are still the weak
point. While they are improving they are still a very long way from the
energy density fond in gas and diesel. Even when you take into account
the conversion efficiencies.

Also did you notice the base price for that Tesla Motors car? $92,000!!
It's just a guess, but I would bet that outside the battery powered
part of it, it is equivalent to at best a $45,000 gas car. When you
calculate that at $5/gal in a 25 mpg car, for gas over 100,000 miles,
costs $20,000. That is a huge price to pay just to have an electric car
even if the electricity to recharge it were free.

>
> Unfortunately, it seems that most innovative, breakthrough technology
> seems to occur outside the US these days:
> http://www.gizmag.com/go/6104/1/
> http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html


--
Chris W
KE5GIX

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Jay Somerset]

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:05:46 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On 9 Jan 2007 10:28:29 -0800, wrote in
> om>:
>
> >Actually, aircraft (specifically motor gliders) are far ahead!
> >
> >See: http://www.nadler.com/public/Antares.html
> >
> >It might take a little while before the power efficiency of batteries
> >equals the needs of a useful airplane...
> >
> >Kirk
> >66
>
> Yes. I've been following the evolution of the Antares 20E 20-meter
> Electric Self-Launch Motor-Glider over the years. The Antares 20E
> uses SAFT VL41M Li-Ion cells, much like the Tesla roadster. But
> lithium-polymer batteries are superior.
>
> There is little doubt, that electric drive vehicles will supplant
> internal combustion engines just as electric motors replaced steam
> powered locomotives. It's just a matter of time.

Just a bit misleading, Larry. Electric motors alone did not replace steam
powered locomotives, diesel-electric motor-generators did. The actual power
generation comes from a bank of diesel engines, turning generators, which
supply the electric current to the wheels. No batteries involved!!!.

>
> Unfortunately, it seems that most innovative, breakthrough technology
> seems to occur outside the US these days:
> http://www.gizmag.com/go/6104/1/
> http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:25:52 -0600, Chris W > wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> There is little doubt, that electric drive vehicles will supplant
>> internal combustion engines just as electric motors replaced steam
>> powered locomotives. It's just a matter of time.
>
>If trains were battery powered, like the electric cars we are talking
>about, you might have a valid comparison.

Why do you think trains are no longer steam powered?

>Batteries are still the weak point.

As they have been for a long time.

>While they are improving they are still a very long way from the
>energy density fond in gas and diesel

It's doubtful batteries will ever reach that density. But electric
motors are 85% to 95% efficient unlike the 40% to 60% efficiency of
internal combustion engines, so energy density isn't nearly as great a
factor when you look at the entire system as opposed to it's
individual components.

And there are new alternative fuel products on the horizon:
http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/HomeEnergyStation/
http://world.honda.com/factbook/auto/fcx/200212/12.html
http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/merc081504p.htm
http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/
http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/HomeEnergyStation/HomeEnergyStation2004/

>Even when you take into account the conversion efficiencies.

Agreed. But there economic, political and environmental issues with
petroleum based fuels that will come to the fore more and more as time
goes by.

>Also did you notice the base price for that Tesla Motors car? $92,000!!

This is a first product for a new startup company. As such, the cost
of development must be recouped before the economies of scale will
occur, like any new product. That's why they chose to introduce a
high performance sports card that hopefully will command a premium
price. The next follow on product will be a five passenger sedan,
priced at ~$50k, then a ~$30k coup.

> It's just a guess, but I would bet that outside the battery powered
>part of it, it is equivalent to at best a $45,000 gas car.

The Tesla roadster is built on a Lotus Elise chassis but exceeds its
performance: http://www.lotuscars.com/
http://wikicars.org/en/Lotus_Elise

>When you calculate that at $5/gal in a 25 mpg car, for gas over 100,000 miles,
>costs $20,000. That is a huge price to pay just to have an electric car
>even if the electricity to recharge it were free.

Talk about flawed comparisons, you are overlooking the performance of
the roadster compared to a 25 mpg car.

>
>>
>> Unfortunately, it seems that most innovative, breakthrough technology
>> seems to occur outside the US these days:
>> http://www.gizmag.com/go/6104/1/
>> http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:37:53 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke >
wrote in >:

>Chris W > wrote in
:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>> There is little doubt, that electric drive vehicles will supplant
>>> internal combustion engines just as electric motors replaced steam
>>> powered locomotives. It's just a matter of time.
>>
>> If trains were battery powered, like the electric cars we are talking
>> about, you might have a valid comparison. Batteries are still the weak
>> point.
>
>The railways fixed that problem by installing an extension cord above
>all but the remotest routes. The same will be extremely difficult to
>do for road vehicles :)

You must be referring to street cars. :-)

[Peter Dohm]

> > There is little doubt, that electric drive vehicles will supplant
> > internal combustion engines just as electric motors replaced steam
> > powered locomotives. It's just a matter of time.
>
> Just a bit misleading, Larry. Electric motors alone did not replace steam
> powered locomotives, diesel-electric motor-generators did. The actual
power
> generation comes from a bank of diesel engines, turning generators, which
> supply the electric current to the wheels. No batteries involved!!!.
>
Don't forget that weight is an advantage for a railway locomotive.

They need a lot of pulling power at very low speeds and they need a
reasonably high maximum speed, but acceleration at medium speeds is trivial
for them. (In other words, they don't need to accelerate and merge only an
expressway and they don't need "passing power" on a two lane road.)

However, I won't hold my breath waiting for a light enough power package for
typical light aircraft.

Peter

[Jay Somerset]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 03:31:49 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke >
wrote:

> Larry Dighera > wrote in
> :
>
> >>> If trains were battery powered, like the electric cars we are
> >>> talking about, you might have a valid comparison. Batteries are
> >>> still the weak point.
> >>
> >>The railways fixed that problem by installing an extension cord above
> >>all but the remotest routes. The same will be extremely difficult to
> >>do for road vehicles :)
> >
> > You must be referring to street cars. :-)
>
> No mainline. I understand US rail is mainly diesel(?) but in most
> European countries it's electric. German railway lines are 90%
> electrified. You can't have 200 mph with diesel traction.
> On topic: My airport is next to an ICE line, the runway (grass strip)
> is parallel to the tracks. Our microlight does 80/90ish knots cruise,
> we have no chance of keeping up with the trains, not even the faster
> C172s etc. (Someone in Paris will now point out that the TGV is much
> faster, I'll do it first :)

There is a substantial difference in SCALE -- North America is quite a bit
larger! Electifying long haul routes is not cost effective. Europe has no
"long haul" routes by comparison. :-)

Note that the east coast Boston-Washington corridor is electrified. That
area is somewhat comparable to Europe for distance and population density.

>
> Regards