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

[Larry Dighera]

How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel

Randall Fishman, president of Electric Aircraft Corp., flew his
ultralight trike at EAA Airventure 2007, Oshkosh. "I flew the trike
in front of the crowds, and the trike was mobbed with people every
day. The EAA folks really loved the idea." The ElectraFlyer won the
Grand Champion Ultralight and Innovation awards.

This year Fishman hopes to fly his new ElectraFlyer-C (a re-engined
Moni motorglider with an 18-horsepower electric motor) at EAA
Airventure 2008. The ElectraFlyer-C cruises at 70 mph, stalls at 45
mph, and has a top speed of 90 mph and a flight duration of ~1-1/2
hours. The electric motor directly drives a 45-inch ground
adjustable, two-blade PowerFin carbon fiber propeller, which lifts the
aircraft at a climb rate of 500 to 600 fpm. The experimental
amateur-built airplane is currently in its required 40-hour flight
testing phase.
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=123EL&cmndfind.x=16&cmndfind.y=5

The motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
cross-country flights.

More information:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27224985@N07/2539556704/sizes/o/

http://www.electraflyer.com/electraflyerc.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27224985@N07/2538737629/in/set-72157605355156982/

Video: http://www.electraflyer.com/news.html


http://www.aero-news.net/news/sport.cfm?ContentBlockID=07cb79e4-bde7-46da-b3be-f146a285a148

[Richard Riley[_1_]]

On Jun 16, 7:37 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel
>
> The motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
> battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
> 300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
> The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
> 220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
> a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
> it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
> cross-country flights.

1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.

Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.

[opqr304]

Very splendid, I like very muchhentai sex (http://www.love-sex-videos.com/sex-videos/hentai-sex_444.html)shower sex (http://www.love-sex-videos.com/free-sex-videos/shower-sex_443.html)british office sex (http://www.love-sex-videos.com/office-sex/british-office-sex_441.html)public sex videos (http://www.love-sex-videos.com/sex-videos/public-sex-videos_439.html)free anime sex videos (http://www.love-sex-videos.com/free-sex-videos/free-anime-sex-videos_432.html)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:42:12 -0700 (PDT), Richard Riley
> wrote in
>:

>On Jun 16, 7:37 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel
>>
>> The motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
>> battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
>> 300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
>> The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
>> 220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
>> a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
>> it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
>> cross-country flights.
>
>1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
>hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
>the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.
>
I would say that depends on how much power the aircraft requires for
sustained level flight. If that can be achieved on 5 hp, the battery
will theoretically provide 1.5 hours run time (assuming 100%
efficiency).

>Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
>Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.

What is the difference in cost between that amount of fuel and the
cost to charger the battery? Noise? Vibration? Reliability? ...

I give Mr. Fishman credit for the success his project has achieved to
date considering its funding and staff.

[Scott[_7_]]

Richard Riley wrote:

> On Jun 16, 7:37 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel
>>
>>The motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
>>battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
>>300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
>>The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
>>220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
>>a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
>>it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
>>cross-country flights.
>
>
> 1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
> hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
> the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.
>
> Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
> Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.

Wait a second...5.6 KWH doesn't really tell you how much HP it is, does
it? All it says is that it consumes 5.6KW in an hour. If you only ran
the motor for 5 minutes per hours, the HP would be 12 times that or
approx. 90 HP. Using KW HOURS doesn't tell the whole story. Running a
100W light bulb 10 hours uses 1 KWH and so does running a 500W bulb for
2 hours but the 500W bulb does more work at any instant in time (it's a
lot brighter!). Now, if that motor was rated at 5.6KW, then yes, I'd
agree it is about 7.5 HP.

Scott

[[email protected]]

On Jun 22, 9:20 am, Scott > wrote:
> Richard Riley wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 7:37 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> >>How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel
>
> >>The motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
> >>battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
> >>300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
> >>The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
> >>220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
> >>a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
> >>it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
> >>cross-country flights.
>
> > 1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
> > hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
> > the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.
>
> > Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
> > Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.
>
> Wait a second...5.6 KWH doesn't really tell you how much HP it is, does
> it? All it says is that it consumes 5.6KW in an hour. If you only ran
> the motor for 5 minutes per hours, the HP would be 12 times that or
> approx. 90 HP. Using KW HOURS doesn't tell the whole story. Running a
> 100W light bulb 10 hours uses 1 KWH and so does running a 500W bulb for
> 2 hours but the 500W bulb does more work at any instant in time (it's a
> lot brighter!). Now, if that motor was rated at 5.6KW, then yes, I'd
> agree it is about 7.5 HP.
>
> Scott

True, KWH is a measure of energy, whereas HP (and KW) is a measure of
power. Of course, this makes me wonder why the OP said the battery has
a "power output" of 5.6KWH; that statement doesn't make any sense.
Granted, he was obviously talking about the capacity of the battery,
not the power output, but if somebody is making an electric plane one
would hope they would know their terminology :)

[Frank Olson]

Scott wrote:
> Richard Riley wrote:
>
>> On Jun 16, 7:37 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>> How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel
>>>
>>> The motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
>>> battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
>>> 300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
>>> The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
>>> 220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
>>> a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
>>> it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
>>> cross-country flights.
>>
>>
>> 1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
>> hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
>> the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.
>>
>> Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
>> Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.
>
> Wait a second...5.6 KWH doesn't really tell you how much HP it is, does
> it? All it says is that it consumes 5.6KW in an hour. If you only ran
> the motor for 5 minutes per hours, the HP would be 12 times that or
> approx. 90 HP. Using KW HOURS doesn't tell the whole story. Running a
> 100W light bulb 10 hours uses 1 KWH and so does running a 500W bulb for
> 2 hours but the 500W bulb does more work at any instant in time (it's a
> lot brighter!). Now, if that motor was rated at 5.6KW, then yes, I'd
> agree it is about 7.5 HP.
>
> Scott
>


The OP stated the motor was 18 H.P. "This year Fishman hopes to fly his
new ElectraFlyer-C (a re-engined Moni motorglider with an 18-horsepower
electric motor)..."

[Peter Dohm]

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Riley wrote:
>
>> On Jun 16, 7:37 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>>How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel
>>>
>>>The motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
>>>battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
>>>300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
>>>The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
>>>220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
>>>a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
>>>it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
>>>cross-country flights.
>>
>>
>> 1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
>> hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
>> the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.
>>
>> Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
>> Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.
>
> Wait a second...5.6 KWH doesn't really tell you how much HP it is, does
> it? All it says is that it consumes 5.6KW in an hour. If you only ran
> the motor for 5 minutes per hours, the HP would be 12 times that or
> approx. 90 HP. Using KW HOURS doesn't tell the whole story. Running a
> 100W light bulb 10 hours uses 1 KWH and so does running a 500W bulb for 2
> hours but the 500W bulb does more work at any instant in time (it's a lot
> brighter!). Now, if that motor was rated at 5.6KW, then yes, I'd agree it
> is about 7.5 HP.
>
> Scott
>
You have a good point, but the KW Hours rating of the battery does seem a
bit low. Even when you consider that cooling drag nearly absent, what
little I think I know about the base airframe suggests that the battery
rating needs to be at least twice the stated amount in order to provide the
stated performance and endurance. The usual power of ten error in
transcription does not make much sense in this case, but there are
apparently two batteries of equal sive--and everything that I could find
appeared to originate from a single article.

In any case, it is interesting; but the economics really do not work based
upon the stated maximum10 year and 1000 hour battery battery life. Even if
the electricity was free and gasolene was more than twice its current cost,
the gasolene powered airplane, on which it is bsed, would still give much
greated utility for less cost. Nontheless, my hat's off to him for the
effort.

Peter

[Andrew Sarangan]

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 motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
> > battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
> > 300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
> > The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
> > 220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
> > a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
> > it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
> > cross-country flights.
>
> 1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
> hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
> the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.
>
> Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
> Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.

The technology is immature, but this is on the right track. When a
suitable battery is invented, there is no arguing that it will easily
replace small gasoline engines. And battery development is just
getting started, so things can only get better. We have not invested
in batteries other than for portable electronics.
I am sure many in 1903 argued that a horse drawn carriage could go
much farther and safer than the Wright flyer.

[[email protected]]

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 motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
> > > battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
> > > 300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
> > > The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
> > > 220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
> > > a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
> > > it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
> > > cross-country flights.
> >
> > 1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
> > hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
> > the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.
> >
> > Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
> > Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.

> The technology is immature, but this is on the right track. When a
> suitable battery is invented, there is no arguing that it will easily
> replace small gasoline engines.

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

And when anti-gravity is invented, it will replace airplanes.

And when...

> And battery development is just
> getting started, so things can only get better.

Batteries have been under development for well over a hundred years.

>We have not invested
> in batteries other than for portable electronics.

What do you think powered ALL the world's submerged submarines before
the Nautilus was launched in 1954?

What do you think powers the stuff in torpedoes and missiles and has
for about a half century, an extension cord?

Have you any idea what has powered telephone offices for over a
century?

Do you know what a UPS is and have you ever seen one the size of a
small house?

> I am sure many in 1903 argued that a horse drawn carriage could go
> much farther and safer than the Wright flyer.

In 1903 both the airplane and the car were new; it is now 105 years
later.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Scott[_7_]]

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 motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
>>>>battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
>>>>300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
>>>>The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
>>>>220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
>>>>a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
>>>>it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
>>>>cross-country flights.
>>>
>>>1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
>>>hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
>>>the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.
>>>
>>>Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
>>>Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.
>
>
>>The technology is immature, but this is on the right track. When a
>>suitable battery is invented, there is no arguing that it will easily
>>replace small gasoline engines.
>
>
> And when fustion reactors are invented they will replace coal and
> fission plants.
>
> And when anti-gravity is invented, it will replace airplanes.
>
> And when...
>
>
>>And battery development is just
>>getting started, so things can only get better.
>
>
> Batteries have been under development for well over a hundred years.
>
>
>>We have not invested
>>in batteries other than for portable electronics.
>
>
> What do you think powered ALL the world's submerged submarines before
> the Nautilus was launched in 1954?
>
> What do you think powers the stuff in torpedoes and missiles and has
> for about a half century, an extension cord?
>
> Have you any idea what has powered telephone offices for over a
> century?
>
> Do you know what a UPS is and have you ever seen one the size of a
> small house?
>
>
>>I am sure many in 1903 argued that a horse drawn carriage could go
>>much farther and safer than the Wright flyer.
>
>
> In 1903 both the airplane and the car were new; it is now 105 years
> later.
>
>
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.

Scott

[Peter Dohm]

"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 motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
>>>>>battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
>>>>>300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
>>>>>The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
>>>>>220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
>>>>>a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
>>>>>it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
>>>>>cross-country flights.
>>>>
>>>>1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
>>>>hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
>>>>the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.
>>>>
>>>>Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
>>>>Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.
>>
>>
>>>The technology is immature, but this is on the right track. When a
>>>suitable battery is invented, there is no arguing that it will easily
>>>replace small gasoline engines.
>>
>>
>> And when fustion reactors are invented they will replace coal and
>> fission plants.
>>
>> And when anti-gravity is invented, it will replace airplanes.
>>
>> And when...
>>
>>
>>>And battery development is just
>>>getting started, so things can only get better.
>>
>>
>> Batteries have been under development for well over a hundred years.
>>
>>
>>>We have not invested
>>>in batteries other than for portable electronics.
>>
>>
>> What do you think powered ALL the world's submerged submarines before
>> the Nautilus was launched in 1954?
>>
>> What do you think powers the stuff in torpedoes and missiles and has
>> for about a half century, an extension cord?
>>
>> Have you any idea what has powered telephone offices for over a
>> century?
>>
>> Do you know what a UPS is and have you ever seen one the size of a
>> small house?
>>
>>
>>>I am sure many in 1903 argued that a horse drawn carriage could go
>>>much farther and safer than the Wright flyer.
>>
>>
>> In 1903 both the airplane and the car were new; it is now 105 years
>> later.
>>
>>
> 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.
>
> Scott
>
We are talking about Lithium batteries, which power the Electra Flyer, and
they are included in the price list at
http://www.electraflyer.com/prices.html

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

[[email protected]]

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.

[Andrew Sarangan]

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.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

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/actual-video-of-an-exploding-laptop-battery-214322.php

[[email protected]]

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.

[gatt[_5_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:

>
> And yet this happens and causes MASSIVE recalls.
>
> http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/actual-video-of-an-exploding-laptop-battery-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

[[email protected]]

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/actual-video-of-an-exploding-laptop-battery-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.

[Bill Daniels]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

gatt wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
>>
>> And yet this happens and causes MASSIVE recalls.
>>
>> http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/actual-video-of-an-exploding-laptop-battery-214322.php
>
>
> Ford Pintos allegedly exploded, too, but, that didn't kill Ford, let
> alone the automobile.

No, but it certainly killed off the Pinto.


>
> 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?

The journalistic problem with NBC's action was that they led the
audience to believe that the truck exploded without the addition of the
rocket engine. And yet that didn't change the fact that the saddle bag
tanks were a hazard and had caused fires.


>
> 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.
>

A simple Google search or better yet a search of the Consumer Product
Safety Commission's website shows that the igniting batteries were real.
Since you mentioned the Pinto. I knew several people that had those as
well and none of them blew-up. That doesn't change the fact that several
did.

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

That would be what NBC would have done. What PC Pitstop did was with
nothing but what came with the laptop.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-24, > wrote:
> Batteries have been under development for well over a hundred years.

But not all batteries are equal.

I have a small radio controlled helicopter. It has full cyclic and
collective pitch controls, tail rotor, etc. It runs off a battery, and
this helicopter would have not been practical just 20 years ago. What
made it practical is the lithium polymer battery, and making the
electronics to control a small but very powerful brushless motor small
enough and light enough. Everything else could have been built 20 years
ago (the main rotor blades are wooden and the PPM receiver is old hat).

It took about 15 years for the LiPoly battery to go from the lab to a
widely available commercial technology. In the lab, they've increased
the LiPoly battery's energy density by an order of magnitude (so based
on past performance, it'll be 15-20 years before we get to see this in
the shops).

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-25, Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> A simple Google search or better yet a search of the Consumer Product
> Safety Commission's website shows that the igniting batteries were real.

How many hundreds of millions of lithium ion batteries are supplied per
year? How many blow up per year?

Any high density energy storage has inherent risks whether it's a
battery or a fuel tank. At least two Boeing 737s have spontaneously
burst into flames, too - so the rate of exploding B737s is much higher
than the rate of exploding Li-Ion batteries, but we still fly 'em.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Jun 24, 6:59 am, Scott > wrote:
> 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 motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
> >>>>battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
> >>>>300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
> >>>>The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
> >>>>220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
> >>>>a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
> >>>>it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
> >>>>cross-country flights.
>
> >>>1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
> >>>hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
> >>>the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.
>
> >>>Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
> >>>Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.
>
> >>The technology is immature, but this is on the right track. When a
> >>suitable battery is invented, there is no arguing that it will easily
> >>replace small gasoline engines.
>
> > And when fustion reactors are invented they will replace coal and
> > fission plants.
>
> > And when anti-gravity is invented, it will replace airplanes.
>
> > And when...
>
> >>And battery development is just
> >>getting started, so things can only get better.
>
> > Batteries have been under development for well over a hundred years.
>
> >>We have not invested
> >>in batteries other than for portable electronics.
>
> > What do you think powered ALL the world's submerged submarines before
> > the Nautilus was launched in 1954?
>
> > What do you think powers the stuff in torpedoes and missiles and has
> > for about a half century, an extension cord?
>
> > Have you any idea what has powered telephone offices for over a
> > century?
>
> > Do you know what a UPS is and have you ever seen one the size of a
> > small house?
>
> >>I am sure many in 1903 argued that a horse drawn carriage could go
> >>much farther and safer than the Wright flyer.
>
> > In 1903 both the airplane and the car were new; it is now 105 years
> > later.
>
> 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.
>
> Scott

You can add fuel cells to that list too, as a recent development. But
I am sure one could claim that fuel cells are in the Smithsonian
museum as a century-old technology.

My opinion is that the current oil prices is not a crisis, but a
necessary condition to refocus our technology. No one took electric
powered automobiles seriously when oil was less than $60.

Any transformative technology is not going to happen in a couple of
years. I think 2050 is still very optimistic for fusion power, but
that is still worth investing in. We can't always be thinking of
ourselves and screw the rest after we die. We owe it to our
children.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:45:44 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote in
>:

>A simple Google search or better yet a search of the Consumer Product
>Safety Commission's website shows that the igniting batteries were real.

The Sony manufactured lithium cells were victim of inadequate quality
control during manufacture. Apparently there were burs on metal parts
that could cause shorts within the cells. Lithium cells possess a
comparatively higher energy density, so their failure mode is more
spectacular than older battery technologies.

How many laptop batteries have spontaneously combusted since the Sony
battery recall?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dylan Smith > wrote in
:

> On 2008-06-25, Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>> A simple Google search or better yet a search of the Consumer Product
>> Safety Commission's website shows that the igniting batteries were
>> real.
>
> How many hundreds of millions of lithium ion batteries are supplied
> per year? How many blow up per year?
>
> Any high density energy storage has inherent risks whether it's a
> battery or a fuel tank. At least two Boeing 737s have spontaneously
> burst into flames, too - so the rate of exploding B737s is much higher
> than the rate of exploding Li-Ion batteries, but we still fly 'em.
>

You mean the refueling accidents? That wasn't spontaneous, they both had
causes, static and wide cut fuel..


Bertie

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-25, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> You mean the refueling accidents? That wasn't spontaneous, they both had
> causes, static and wide cut fuel..

One incident I have in mind was a near empty centre tank combined with
an electrical fault - May 1990, Phillippine Air Lines (on the ground, 8
died). There was another one I remember more recently, but I can't find
any information about it (perhaps I've mentally duplicated the
Phillippine Air Lines incident).

All the Li-Ion batteries that have burned have had causes, too. (Faulty
charging circuitry in the main).

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:54:33 +0000 (UTC), Dylan Smith
> wrote in
>:

>All the Li-Ion batteries that have burned have had causes, too. (Faulty
>charging circuitry in the main).

I wouldn't expect faulty charging circuitry to be the main cause of
lithium batteries spontaneously catching fire.

Here is the cause of the massive Sony battery recall:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060928-7858.html
They cite microscopic metal particles that enter the battery
during the manufacturing process as the reason for the battery
failures. The particles, they say, come into contact with other
parts of the battery cell, causing the battery to short-circuit.
Sony claims that these batteries would normally just power off,
but in "rare cases" may overheat and cause flames.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Jun 24, 9:45*am, Jim Pennino wrote:

> 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.

I don't see why the long time until payback is an issue. My attitude
is that we've already squandered enough of our grandkids' resources,
the very least we can do is throw them a bone. Comparing the risk/
benefit ratio of ITER with that of other current nonsense like the war
in Iraq, it seems like a no-brainer to me.

And even if ITER doesn't meet full success, the lessons of its failure
will drive all sorts of different technology innovations.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Peter Dohm]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:54:33 +0000 (UTC), Dylan Smith
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>All the Li-Ion batteries that have burned have had causes, too. (Faulty
>>charging circuitry in the main).
>
> I wouldn't expect faulty charging circuitry to be the main cause of
> lithium batteries spontaneously catching fire.
>
> Here is the cause of the massive Sony battery recall:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060928-7858.html
> They cite microscopic metal particles that enter the battery
> during the manufacturing process as the reason for the battery
> failures. The particles, they say, come into contact with other
> parts of the battery cell, causing the battery to short-circuit.
> Sony claims that these batteries would normally just power off,
> but in "rare cases" may overheat and cause flames.

IMHO, that is far more frightening than charging problems!

Peter

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Jun 24, 9:45?am, Jim Pennino wrote:

> > 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.

> I don't see why the long time until payback is an issue. My attitude
> is that we've already squandered enough of our grandkids' resources,
> the very least we can do is throw them a bone. Comparing the risk/
> benefit ratio of ITER with that of other current nonsense like the war
> in Iraq, it seems like a no-brainer to me.

The long lead time isn't an issue, it is reality.

Fusion holds the promise of solving a huge percentage of the worlds
energy problems if it can be make to work.

The reality is it will not be before 2040 that the first one goes
into operation, and only then if ITER is a success.

> And even if ITER doesn't meet full success, the lessons of its failure
> will drive all sorts of different technology innovations.

It is more likely it will drive ITER-B.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-06-24, > wrote:
> > Batteries have been under development for well over a hundred years.

> But not all batteries are equal.

> I have a small radio controlled helicopter. It has full cyclic and
> collective pitch controls, tail rotor, etc. It runs off a battery, and
> this helicopter would have not been practical just 20 years ago. What
> made it practical is the lithium polymer battery, and making the
> electronics to control a small but very powerful brushless motor small
> enough and light enough. Everything else could have been built 20 years
> ago (the main rotor blades are wooden and the PPM receiver is old hat).

> It took about 15 years for the LiPoly battery to go from the lab to a
> widely available commercial technology. In the lab, they've increased
> the LiPoly battery's energy density by an order of magnitude (so based
> on past performance, it'll be 15-20 years before we get to see this in
> the shops).

Yeah, new stuff gets invented all the time.

Thanks for the news flash, I didn't know that.

The point is electrochemistry is NOT a new field of science and
all the easy stuff has already been done.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Dohm]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 24, 9:45 am, Jim Pennino wrote:

> 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.

I don't see why the long time until payback is an issue. My attitude
is that we've already squandered enough of our grandkids' resources,
the very least we can do is throw them a bone. Comparing the risk/
benefit ratio of ITER with that of other current nonsense like the war
in Iraq, it seems like a no-brainer to me.

And even if ITER doesn't meet full success, the lessons of its failure
will drive all sorts of different technology innovations.

Thanks, Bob K.

Yes, we can live much better on less.

No, there is not a dire problem as you appear to suppose. In fact the known
petroleum reserves, both in quantity and expected duration are greater than
they were fifty years ago. In addition, as a result of a link in a recent
thread which I cannot currently find, I also read of an experimental
technique using genetically engineered "bugs" to eat waste products and
excerete petroleum. IMHO, there is ample reason to suppose that the
"genetic engineering" merely recreatess something that existed previously
and produced the copeous quantity of petroleum that lies beneath our
planet's surface.

The article about the experiment can be read at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece

Peter

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:56:29 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:54:33 +0000 (UTC), Dylan Smith
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>All the Li-Ion batteries that have burned have had causes, too. (Faulty
>>>charging circuitry in the main).
>>
>> I wouldn't expect faulty charging circuitry to be the main cause of
>> lithium batteries spontaneously catching fire.
>>
>> Here is the cause of the massive Sony battery recall:
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060928-7858.html
>> They cite microscopic metal particles that enter the battery
>> during the manufacturing process as the reason for the battery
>> failures. The particles, they say, come into contact with other
>> parts of the battery cell, causing the battery to short-circuit.
>> Sony claims that these batteries would normally just power off,
>> but in "rare cases" may overheat and cause flames.
>
>IMHO, that is far more frightening than charging problems!
>
>Peter

As technology advances and the energy density of batteries increases,
there is a higher probability of more spectacular failure modes.

Here are some more things to think about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_battery
Safety

Lithium-ion batteries can rupture, ignite, or explode when exposed
to high temperature environments, for example in an area that is
prone to prolonged direct sunlight.[40] Short-circuiting a Li-ion
battery can cause it to ignite or explode, and as such, any
attempt to open or modify a Li-ion battery's casing or circuitry
is dangerous. Li-ion batteries contain safety devices that protect
the cells inside from abuse, and, if damaged, can cause the
battery to ignite or explode.

Contaminants inside the cells can defeat these safety devices. For
example, the mid-2006 recall of approximately 10 million Sony
batteries used in Dell, Sony, Apple, Lenovo/IBM, Panasonic,
Toshiba, Hitachi, Fujitsu and Sharp laptops was stated to be as a
consequence of internal contamination with metal particles. Under
some circumstances, these can pierce the separator, causing the
cell to short, rapidly converting all of the energy in the cell to
heat resulting in an exothermic oxidizing reaction, increasing the
temperature to a few hundred degrees Celsius in a fraction of a
second.[41] This causes the neighboring cells to heat up, causing
a chain thermal reaction.

The mid-2006 Sony laptop battery recall was not the first of its
kind, however it was the largest to date. During the past decade
there have been numerous recalls of lithium-ion batteries in
cellular phones and laptops owing to overheating problems. In
October 2004, Kyocera Wireless recalled approximately 1 million
batteries used in cellular phones, due to counterfeit batteries
produced in Kyocera's name.[42] In December 2006, Dell recalled
approximately 22,000 batteries from the U.S. market.[43] In March
2007, Lenovo recalled approximately 205,000 9-cell lithium-ion
batteries due to an explosion risk. In August 2007, Nokia recalled
over 46 million lithium-ion batteries, warning that some of them
might overheat and possibly explode.[44] There was an incident in
the Philippines involving a Nokia N91, which uses the BL-5C
battery.[45]

It is possible to replace the lithium cobalt oxide cathode
material in li-ion batteries with lithiated metal phosphate
cathodes that are not as sensitive to temperature, and so are less
prone to explode. This also extends their shelf life. However,
currently these 'safer' li-ion batteries are mainly destined for
electric cars and other large-capacity battery applications, where
the safety issues are more critical. Unfortunately, a problem with
these 'safer' li-ion batteries is that lithiated metal phosphate
batteries hold only about 75 percent as much energy.[46]

Another option is to use manganese oxide or iron phosphate
cathode.




http://www.batteriesdigest.com/lithium_ion_recall.htm
The Apple recall of Computer Batteries

Lithium-ion batteries in computers were once again voluntarily
recalled in May 2005 when Apple, in conjunction with the U.S.
Product Safety Commission, said that an internal short in three
model notebooks could have battery cells which could overheat and
pose a fire hazard to consumers. Apple received six reports
worldwide of batteries overheating, including two in the United
States.

The batteries are said to be manufactured by LG Chem Ltd., of
South Korea.

The computers were sold through regional resellers, catalogers,
and Apple’s on-line retail stores with batteries from October 2004
through May 2005 for between $900 to $2,300. The batteries also
were sold separately for about $130.

Although Sony and LG chem have provided the bulk of Lithium-ion
batteries for Apple Computer, about 20 percent have been supplied
by DynaPack, a Taiwan-based company. According to an article in
the DigiTimes, DynaPack began shipments to Apple for its
Powerbook earlier this year and Simplo, another Taiwan-based
company will begin shipments to Apple starting at the end of the
year. (“Apple notebook battery recall may benefit Taiwan makers”
by Huang Kung Tien, Taipei; Jessie Shen, DigiTimes.com, 05/25/05)

[Vaughn Simon]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
. ..
>> but in "rare cases" may overheat and cause flames.
>
> IMHO, that is far more frightening than charging problems!


In "rare cases" entire tanks of 100LL have been known to burst into flames,
even explode! In less rare cases, fuel lines have been know to fail, dousing
the engine area with highly flammable fuel...with predictable results.

Vaughn

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dylan Smith > wrote in
:

> On 2008-06-25, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> You mean the refueling accidents? That wasn't spontaneous, they both
>> had causes, static and wide cut fuel..
>
> One incident I have in mind was a near empty centre tank combined with
> an electrical fault - May 1990, Phillippine Air Lines (on the ground,
> 8 died). There was another one I remember more recently, but I can't
> find any information about it (perhaps I've mentally duplicated the
> Phillippine Air Lines incident).

Didn't know about that accident. Very interesting. We're only allowed to
burn our center tank down to about 1,000 lbs of fuel. Maintenance empty the
rest occasionally, but mostly we're running around with that much much of
the time due to this concern.

>
> All the Li-Ion batteries that have burned have had causes, too.


Yeah, but not "spontaneous"

Bertie

[Scott[_7_]]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

>
>
> You can add fuel cells to that list too, as a recent development. But
> I am sure one could claim that fuel cells are in the Smithsonian
> museum as a century-old technology.

Actually, the fuel cell was invented in 1839 so the Smithsonian may
actually have one! :)

http://www.nuvant.com/education/who.html

Scott