Electric airplane - recharged

[Bill Daniels]

Take a look at this:
http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/12/19/stanford.nanowire.battery/

OK, it's just a laboratory development and needs to work it's way through
all the R&D to become an actual product. But, an order of magnetude
improvement? WOW!

Of course, as many 'negative experts' will point out, if this thing shorts
out, your airplane goes supernova.

However, if this thing works out, a 10 hour, 1000NM range electric airplane
is actually possible.

Bill Daniels

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> Take a look at this:
> http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/12/19/stanford.nanowire.battery/
>
> OK, it's just a laboratory development and needs to work it's way through
> all the R&D to become an actual product. But, an order of magnetude
> improvement? WOW!
>
> Of course, as many 'negative experts' will point out, if this thing shorts
> out, your airplane goes supernova.
>
> However, if this thing works out, a 10 hour, 1000NM range electric airplane
> is actually possible.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
>
>


This won't work in small aircraft but Toshiba has a new gadget that
should work for the big boys.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html

[Vaughn Simon]

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
. ..
> Take a look at this:
> http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/12/19/stanford.nanowire.battery/
>
> OK, it's just a laboratory development and needs to work it's way through all
> the R&D to become an actual product. But, an order of magnetude improvement?
> WOW!

Also, Exxon (yep, the gasoline folks) is actually bringing new lithium
battery technology to market. They are aimed at the EV/ hybrid vehicle market.
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1180/

Vaughn

[Bill Daniels]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
> . ..
>> Take a look at this:
>> http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/12/19/stanford.nanowire.battery/
>>
>> OK, it's just a laboratory development and needs to work it's way through
>> all the R&D to become an actual product. But, an order of magnetude
>> improvement? WOW!
>
> Also, Exxon (yep, the gasoline folks) is actually bringing new lithium
> battery technology to market. They are aimed at the EV/ hybrid vehicle
> market.
> http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1180/
>
> Vaughn

Here's an interview with Dr. Yi Cui the Stanford researcher who made the
breakthrough. Yi seems to be saying that his work is complementary to the
Lithium Iron (LiFeP04) batteries from companies like A123 Systems. If true,
and I very much hope it is, we will get 10 hour duration electric airplanes
that recharge in minutes and electric cars with 1000 mile range. Long life,
safety, high capacity, fast charge (<10 min) high current delivery, what's
not to like.

This could be, finally, the death nell for the internal combustion engine.

http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/12/21/gm-voltcom-interview-with-dr-cui-inventor-of-silicon-nanowire-lithium-ion-battery-breakthrough/

[Vaughn Simon]

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
. ..
> we will get 10 hour duration electric airplanes that recharge in minutes and
> electric cars with 1000 mile range.

That sounds incredibly optimistic, and far from necessary. I would be happy
to pay a lot less for a three hour airplane and/or a car with climate control
that will carry 4 folks an honest 100 miles or so.

Vaughn

[David Bridgham]

Gig601XLBuilder > writes:

> This won't work in small aircraft but Toshiba has a new gadget that
> should work for the big boys.
>
> http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html

It is 6'x20' and produces only 200kW or 268hp. That's a lot when
powering a building but not so much for a large aircraft.

-Dave

[Morgans[_2_]]

"David Bridgham" > wrote

>> http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html
>
> It is 6'x20' and produces only 200kW or 268hp. That's a lot when
> powering a building but not so much for a large aircraft.

And I'll bet that it was designed and built with lightness as the foremost
consideration.

April fools! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

> However, if this thing works out, a 10 hour, 1000NM range electric airplane
> is actually possible.

What are you basing that statement on?

[Bill Daniels]

> wrote in message
...
>> However, if this thing works out, a 10 hour, 1000NM range electric
>> airplane
>> is actually possible.
>
> What are you basing that statement on?

That there have been one hour and 100 miles flights made with the old Li-Po
batteries.

Even if it's half that, electrics would be viable.

Bill Daniels

[[email protected]]

> That there have been one hour and 100 miles flights made with the old Li-Po
> batteries.
>
> Even if it's half that, electrics would be viable.

In what aircraft was that?

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
>> That there have been one hour and 100 miles flights made with the old
>> Li-Po
>> batteries.
>>
>> Even if it's half that, electrics would be viable.
>
> In what aircraft was that?
>
None, at present.

He is talking about an airplane, if it were equipped with some new batteries
that are being developed, seen in an earlier link, that could have a 10 fold
increase in capacity, and with quicker recharge times, as icing on the cake.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On Dec 23, 11:12*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...>> That there have been one hour and 100 miles flights made with the old
> >> Li-Po
> >> batteries.
>
> >> Even if it's half that, electrics would be viable.
>
> > In what aircraft was that?
>
> None, at present.

Hmm.

I don't think 10 fold would do the trick. The math shouldn't be too
hard to show one way or another. P = IV. Too much ampere draw to move
a plane.

[Ron Webb]

I just did a bit of playing with MathCad.

If we assume an ultralight can fly on 10HP, and we want at least 1/2 Hour,
then I get 300# worth of Lead Acid batteries (4 85 A*H Deep cycle
batteries), or 56 # worth of Lithium Ion batteries, in an unknown
configuration.

The lead acid batteries, along with 100# for a 10 HP motor and prop, weigh
more than an ultralight can carry.

The Lithium Ion batteries are not available off the shelf. So buy a couple
hundred laptops, and improvise!



> wrote in message
...
On Dec 23, 11:12 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...>>
> That there have been one hour and 100 miles flights made with the old
> >> Li-Po
> >> batteries.
>
> >> Even if it's half that, electrics would be viable.
>
> > In what aircraft was that?
>
> None, at present.

Hmm.

I don't think 10 fold would do the trick. The math shouldn't be too
hard to show one way or another. P = IV. Too much ampere draw to move
a plane.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:52:46 -0700, "Bill Daniels"
<bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:

>
>"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> Take a look at this:
>>> http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/12/19/stanford.nanowire.battery/
>>>
>>> OK, it's just a laboratory development and needs to work it's way through
>>> all the R&D to become an actual product. But, an order of magnetude
>>> improvement? WOW!
>>
>> Also, Exxon (yep, the gasoline folks) is actually bringing new lithium
>> battery technology to market. They are aimed at the EV/ hybrid vehicle
>> market.
>> http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1180/
>>
>> Vaughn
>
>Here's an interview with Dr. Yi Cui the Stanford researcher who made the
>breakthrough. Yi seems to be saying that his work is complementary to the
>Lithium Iron (LiFeP04) batteries from companies like A123 Systems. If true,
>and I very much hope it is, we will get 10 hour duration electric airplanes
>that recharge in minutes and electric cars with 1000 mile range. Long life,

Ahhh... you might get the capacity and duration, but stop and think
what you'd need for a charging capacity. First, I'd figure at least
180HP at 748 per HP that 8640 watts per hour X 10 or 86,400.
Neglecting losses in the motor power conversion as well as the charge
and discharge

If running 220 volts you could charge in 10 hours @ 30 amps, one hour
at 300 amps (that's a lot of amps) or the "10 minutes or less" = 1800
amps or more at the electrical mains. There are some practical
considerations here beyond the battery that at best would give a
charge time of several hours. Now given (again not considering
losses) 86 KWH at 10C per KWH = $8.60 Which sounds great. Even at the
Republik of kalafornia's 38 cents per KWH peak time it's only $32.68
which still sounds good compared to the 8 GPH of a 180 HP Engine for
10 hours = 80 gallons at $5.00 per gallon or $400

DC motors are running in the 94 to 96% range which is really good, but
I don't know about the battery charge and discharge efficiency.

Think of just 10 planes stopping in for a charge on a cross country.
With the minimum charge of 1 hour that would require 3,000 amps from
the 220 mains or 1500 from a 3 phase 440 system. That is one
industrial grade, have your own substation hook up. Even with trainers
we need 3 hours duration, but they could be on the order of 100 to 120
HP and those could meet the short charge times and require batters
about 15 to 20% the size above. Now used in the sport plane size
category they could make for some inexpensive flying. To be
competitive they still need a minimum of 500 mile range, but 500 miles
on half the HP means only a quarter of the energy is required. That
could make a fleet of trainers and flight training quote economical.


>safety, high capacity, fast charge (<10 min) high current delivery, what's
>not to like.
>
>This could be, finally, the death nell for the internal combustion engine.

Probably not right away, or more likely it'd take at least two or
three decades under the best of conditions if the technology is
available soon.

If batteries get this good where is the electricity going to come
from? We have no where near the grid capacity to power more than a
small fraction of the cars on the road. Solar is great, but not at
this scale at least from home even if you do live in the sunny SW.
To charge in 10 hours would take a pretty big and expensive array
however every little bit helps. On average the best you can hope for
is 12 hours of sunlight and less than 10 of strong sunlight. Up here,
this time of year it's only about 8 to 8.5 hours from dawn to dusk.
Most of that is from a shallow angle and it's cloudy most of the
time. Just to do my small house with a combination of active and
passive the quote came out to about $50,000 up here and there are no
subsidies available. When you consider the *current* low cost of
electricity and natural gas this is nowhere near being economically
feasible.

Our electric alone is running 6 to 7 KWh per hour for a small home and
we already use the energy efficient lights in almost every fixture.
This doesn't count the natural gas.
What this works out to is even with these high efficiency batteries
the power used would well exceed the use of the average size home IF
you could continue to get it. OTOH this does have lots of
possibilities, but I think we are going to be stuck at the hybrid
level for at least a couple of decades. Even with high capacity
batteries with high efficiency charge and discharge cycles Hybrids
with the ability to charge when parked would give the best we could
hope for.
>
>http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/12/21/gm-voltcom-interview-with-dr-cui-inventor-of-silicon-nanowire-lithium-ion-battery-breakthrough/
>

There are even more efficient means of storage, but you're going to
have to get that room temperature super conductor perfected. However
with large capacity batteries that have *zero* internal resistance I
doubt the government would permit them. Remember, dynamite contains
far less energy than gas, it's the rate of release that does the
damage. Now take the equivalent of a 100 or so gallons of gas and
release that in a few milliseconds.

With the Lithium batteries you might get a big, hot, toxic fire, but
with the superconduting battery, it go "boom".

Roger (K8RI)

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Dec 21, 10:50*am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> Take a look at this:http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/12/19/stanford..nanowire.battery/
>
> OK, it's just a laboratory development and needs to work it's way through
> all the R&D to become an actual product. *But, an order of magnetude
> improvement? WOW!
>
> Of course, as many 'negative experts' will point out, if this thing shorts
> out, your airplane goes supernova.
>
> However, if this thing works out, a 10 hour, 1000NM range electric airplane
> is actually possible.
>
> Bill Daniels

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Pb_psj1A8

Wil

[Bill Daniels]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:52:46 -0700, "Bill Daniels"
> <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> Take a look at this:
>>>> http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/12/19/stanford.nanowire.battery/
>>>>
>>>> OK, it's just a laboratory development and needs to work it's way
>>>> through
>>>> all the R&D to become an actual product. But, an order of magnetude
>>>> improvement? WOW!
>>>
>>> Also, Exxon (yep, the gasoline folks) is actually bringing new lithium
>>> battery technology to market. They are aimed at the EV/ hybrid vehicle
>>> market.
>>> http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1180/
>>>
>>> Vaughn
>>
>>Here's an interview with Dr. Yi Cui the Stanford researcher who made the
>>breakthrough. Yi seems to be saying that his work is complementary to the
>>Lithium Iron (LiFeP04) batteries from companies like A123 Systems. If
>>true,
>>and I very much hope it is, we will get 10 hour duration electric
>>airplanes
>>that recharge in minutes and electric cars with 1000 mile range. Long
>>life,
>
> Ahhh... you might get the capacity and duration, but stop and think
> what you'd need for a charging capacity. First, I'd figure at least
> 180HP at 748 per HP that 8640 watts per hour X 10 or 86,400.
> Neglecting losses in the motor power conversion as well as the charge
> and discharge
>
> If running 220 volts you could charge in 10 hours @ 30 amps, one hour
> at 300 amps (that's a lot of amps) or the "10 minutes or less" = 1800
> amps or more at the electrical mains. There are some practical
> considerations here beyond the battery that at best would give a
> charge time of several hours. Now given (again not considering
> losses) 86 KWH at 10C per KWH = $8.60 Which sounds great. Even at the
> Republik of kalafornia's 38 cents per KWH peak time it's only $32.68
> which still sounds good compared to the 8 GPH of a 180 HP Engine for
> 10 hours = 80 gallons at $5.00 per gallon or $400
>
> DC motors are running in the 94 to 96% range which is really good, but
> I don't know about the battery charge and discharge efficiency.
>
> Think of just 10 planes stopping in for a charge on a cross country.
> With the minimum charge of 1 hour that would require 3,000 amps from
> the 220 mains or 1500 from a 3 phase 440 system. That is one
> industrial grade, have your own substation hook up. Even with trainers
> we need 3 hours duration, but they could be on the order of 100 to 120
> HP and those could meet the short charge times and require batters
> about 15 to 20% the size above. Now used in the sport plane size
> category they could make for some inexpensive flying. To be
> competitive they still need a minimum of 500 mile range, but 500 miles
> on half the HP means only a quarter of the energy is required. That
> could make a fleet of trainers and flight training quote economical.
>
>
>>safety, high capacity, fast charge (<10 min) high current delivery, what's
>>not to like.
>>
>>This could be, finally, the death nell for the internal combustion engine.
>
> Probably not right away, or more likely it'd take at least two or
> three decades under the best of conditions if the technology is
> available soon.
>
> If batteries get this good where is the electricity going to come
> from? We have no where near the grid capacity to power more than a
> small fraction of the cars on the road. Solar is great, but not at
> this scale at least from home even if you do live in the sunny SW.
> To charge in 10 hours would take a pretty big and expensive array
> however every little bit helps. On average the best you can hope for
> is 12 hours of sunlight and less than 10 of strong sunlight. Up here,
> this time of year it's only about 8 to 8.5 hours from dawn to dusk.
> Most of that is from a shallow angle and it's cloudy most of the
> time. Just to do my small house with a combination of active and
> passive the quote came out to about $50,000 up here and there are no
> subsidies available. When you consider the *current* low cost of
> electricity and natural gas this is nowhere near being economically
> feasible.
>
> Our electric alone is running 6 to 7 KWh per hour for a small home and
> we already use the energy efficient lights in almost every fixture.
> This doesn't count the natural gas.
> What this works out to is even with these high efficiency batteries
> the power used would well exceed the use of the average size home IF
> you could continue to get it. OTOH this does have lots of
> possibilities, but I think we are going to be stuck at the hybrid
> level for at least a couple of decades. Even with high capacity
> batteries with high efficiency charge and discharge cycles Hybrids
> with the ability to charge when parked would give the best we could
> hope for.
>>
>>http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/12/21/gm-voltcom-interview-with-dr-cui-inventor-of-silicon-nanowire-lithium-ion-battery-breakthrough/
>>
>
> There are even more efficient means of storage, but you're going to
> have to get that room temperature super conductor perfected. However
> with large capacity batteries that have *zero* internal resistance I
> doubt the government would permit them. Remember, dynamite contains
> far less energy than gas, it's the rate of release that does the
> damage. Now take the equivalent of a 100 or so gallons of gas and
> release that in a few milliseconds.
>
> With the Lithium batteries you might get a big, hot, toxic fire, but
> with the superconduting battery, it go "boom".
>
> Roger (K8RI)

Dispite what the electric companies say, charging big battery powered
vehicles will indeed stress the power grid - even if charging is done at
night. The generation and distribution grid will have to be improved - but
that will probably be neccessary anyway for electric cars. Airplanes are
way down the list but it could happen. It's pretty hard not to get excited
about a 10x battery improvement.

(Wasn't there a thread about personal nuclear power?
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9837400-7.html )

Bill Daniels

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:

> Think of just 10 planes stopping in for a charge on a cross country.
> With the minimum charge of 1 hour that would require 3,000 amps from
> the 220 mains or 1500 from a 3 phase 440 system. That is one
> industrial grade, have your own substation hook up. Even with trainers
> we need 3 hours duration, but they could be on the order of 100 to 120
> HP and those could meet the short charge times and require batters
> about 15 to 20% the size above. Now used in the sport plane size
> category they could make for some inexpensive flying. To be
> competitive they still need a minimum of 500 mile range, but 500 miles
> on half the HP means only a quarter of the energy is required. That
> could make a fleet of trainers and flight training quote economical.

Do like the propane tanks and exchange them out for a small fee...

This takes into consideration that they bring down the cost of making
the batteries to begin with. The "local battery exchange" can then
recharge the batteries using longer charge times, which would of course
extend their life...

[rpl]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> Take a look at this:
> http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/12/19/stanford.nanowire.battery/
>
> OK, it's just a laboratory development and needs to work it's way through
> all the R&D to become an actual product. But, an order of magnetude
> improvement? WOW!
>
> Of course, as many 'negative experts' will point out, if this thing shorts
> out, your airplane goes supernova.
>
> However, if this thing works out, a 10 hour, 1000NM range electric airplane
> is actually possible.
>
> Bill Daniels

I wonder why we haven't seen diesel/electric aircraft... surely a small
round engine would allow for cleaner airflow and you can stick the
diesel wherever you want to... something like the BD-5 wouldn't have
transmission/driveshaft problems (though possibly a weight problem on
such a small aircraft). As technology improves, replace the diesel with
batteries or fuel cells while more or less retaining CG. And something
like a V22, you might even be saving weight since you can drop the
physical transmissions and driveshafts.


rpl

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
rpl > wrote:

> Bill Daniels wrote:
> > Take a look at this:
> > http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/12/19/stanford.nanowire.battery/
> >
> > OK, it's just a laboratory development and needs to work it's way through
> > all the R&D to become an actual product. But, an order of magnetude
> > improvement? WOW!
> >
> > Of course, as many 'negative experts' will point out, if this thing shorts
> > out, your airplane goes supernova.
> >
> > However, if this thing works out, a 10 hour, 1000NM range electric airplane
> > is actually possible.
> >
> > Bill Daniels
>
> I wonder why we haven't seen diesel/electric aircraft... surely a small
> round engine would allow for cleaner airflow and you can stick the
> diesel wherever you want to... something like the BD-5 wouldn't have
> transmission/driveshaft problems (though possibly a weight problem on
> such a small aircraft). As technology improves, replace the diesel with
> batteries or fuel cells while more or less retaining CG. And something
> like a V22, you might even be saving weight since you can drop the
> physical transmissions and driveshafts.
>

Because the damn Diesel-electric setup:

1. weighs too damn much
2. Adds another potential inline failure mode
3. Reduces overall fuel efficiency.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.