![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:05:04 GMT, wrote in : Despite the fact that electric motors must use iron/steel in their construction, they are significantly lighter (50%) than their internal combustion counterparts. But when the wiring, controls, batteries and perhaps fuel-cells are considered, I would guess the weight of an electrically powered aircraft would be roughly comparable to one powered by an internal combustion engine. So, with significantly less power/energy density than gasoline, batteries will not provide the same range/duration until they are improved further. But it is encouraging to see progress being made at last. Not going to happen. I hesitate to attempt to infer your meaning in that phrase, but if you mean Li-ion batteries, perhaps. If you're referring to electrically powered aircraft, they have already happened, and development is progressing. Energy densities fuel MJ/kg MJ/L JET-A 43 33 ethenol 30 24 Li-ion battery (projected) 1 2 NiMH battery .2 .4 ultracapacitor .02 .05 Regenerative fuel cell come in a bit under 2 MJ/kg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density Thank you for the factual data. It's interesting that gasoline is omitted: As were many other things. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ArthurGolnik.shtml Liquid Fuel MJ/litre litre/Tonne GJ/Tonne MJ/kg Gasoline, aviation 33.0 1412 49.6 36.4 Here's a little more data on Li-ion cells: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_battery Specific energy density: 150 to 200 Wh/kg (540 to 720 kJ/kg) Volumetric energy density: 250 to 530 Wh/l (900 to 1900 J/cm?) Specific power density: 300 to 1500 W/kg (@ 20 seconds and 285 Wh/l) There's a great comparison chart of energy densities he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density Which is where the above came from. Here are a few of the entries: Storage Type Energy Density By Mass (MJ/kg) ================================================== ================ lead acid battery 0.090.09?0.11[36]sm=n lithium ion battery-present capability 0.230.23?0.28 lithium ion battery-predicted future capability 0.540.54?0.9sm=n Regenerative Fuel Cell (fuel cell with internal Hydrogen reservoir used much as a battery) 1.62 Lithium ion battery with nanowires 2.54-2.72 TNT 4.184 dry cowdung and cameldung 15.5 calcium (burned in air) 15.9 PET pop bottle plastic 23.5?23.5 ethanol 30 aluminum (burned in air) 31.0 Jet A aviation fuel 42.8 gasoline 46.9 compressed natural gas at 200 bar (2,900.8 psi) 53.6 compressed hydrogen gas at 700 bar (10,423.5054 psi) 143 Enriched uranium (3.5% U235) in light water reactor 3,456,000 nuclear fission (of U-235) (Used in nuclear power plants) 88,250,000 From the data in the chart it would appear that a best-case Lithium ion battery with nanowires (2.54-2.72 MJ/kg) that would provide the equivalent energy of a given amount of gasoline (46.9 MJ/kg) would weigh 17.24 times as much as the gasoline it replaces. That doesn't look too terribly feasible for aviation use. Oh well.... Or any other vehicle. Another limitation is that for something the size of a C-172, your battery has to deliver around 120 kW to get off the ground and climb to altitude. However, hydrogen gas compressed to a pressure of ~10,500 psi (143 MJ/kg) would only weigh ~1/3 as much as the equivalent gasoline energy it replaces. If that hydrogen were used along with atmospheric oxygen to produce electricity by a fuel-cell with a typical efficiency of ~36% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Efficiency, and the efficiency of the electrical motor, wiring, and controller were 90%, and the weights of the total systems were roughly equivalent, it would appear that there would be a close approximation of performance of today's aircraft including waste heat, but not noxious emissions nor noise. I'm not sure exactly how the overall efficiency would be affected by the use of pressurized oxygen, or if both the hydrogen and oxygen were produced by the electrolysis of water by photovoltaics. (Now, if the compressed hydrogen were carried in a tubular wing spar, imagine it's rigidity... /dream mode) You are forgetting about the enormous weight of a tank capable of containing hydrogen at 10,500 psi as well as the problem of hydrogen embittlement at those pressures. The very last thing you would want to do is put it in a wing spar. Of course these rough theoretical calculations are predicated on existing technologies, and don't consider the inevitable future technical advancements. Which are no better than a wish and a hope in the real world. Thank you for providing the catalyst that led to this insight into the issue. Electricity is great stuff, but damn awkward to carry around. So it appears. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Well, It flies! | Doug Palmer | Home Built | 8 | June 17th 07 04:58 PM |
it flies and is huge. | Jim Macklin | Piloting | 12 | October 2nd 06 09:39 PM |
Antares Electric Motorglider | [email protected] | Soaring | 11 | July 15th 05 11:03 PM |
Jet Sailplane Flies! | Mhudson126 | Soaring | 10 | January 5th 04 09:10 PM |
C-119 flies again | Ron | Military Aviation | 9 | December 22nd 03 08:44 AM |