ZeroAvia's Val Miftakhov makes a compelling case for hydrogen aviation

On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 23:36:54 -0000, wrote:


To be totally candid, I envision photo-voltaic powered liquid H2
production through electrolysis employing cryo-cooling technology for
use in fuel-cell electric generation to power electric motors, be they
attached to wheels on the road, or propellers in the air. I'm
certainly no engineer, but the limited research I've done appears to
support this being feasible, with the possibility of 6Li use for
longer term H2 storage.

As a real engineer, I call this an utter pipe dream.


That is understandable. It is certainly a dream. Thank you for your
professional opinion.


Lots of things are "feasible", but that does not mean they are
economic, practical or even legal.

It is feasible to make a motor from a birthday candle, a permanet
magnet, and a Zippo lighter flint, but you will not find such
motors powering anything other than a physics class demonstration.


Well, consider that Michael Faraday created the first electric motor
with a piece of wire dangling into a cup of mercury. That ultimately
lead directly to Tesla electric automobiles achieving astounding
~three-second zero-to-sixty-mph automobile acceleration.

Even the brilliant scientist may not appreciate what he has
discovered. To wit, Heinrich Hertz, after discovering and proving the
existence of radio waves, postulated,

"I do not think that the radio waves I have discovered will have
any practical application."

He apparently lacked the vision of a less brilliant and poorly
schooled very young Guglielmo Marconi who at the turn of the
nineteenth century virtually single-handedly established a worldwide
communications network powered by electric sparks! The power of a
single determined person can be remarkable.

Today, in the age of instant worldwide communication via mobile
radio-telephones, Hertz's statement appears shortsighted indeed. But
his researches with extremely limited to nonexistent electric
apparatus resources available at the time (1880s) are absolutely
remarkable for their insight and inventiveness. I guess, we all have
blind spots at times.



snip

6Li is used to store hydrogen safely and efficiently. It is also
one of the key components in making a thermal-nuclear weapon, but
by itself is not dangerous. Because of crony capitalism and
ignorant politicians, the US government has banned 6Li and the
buying and selling of it. However, the making of 6Li H yourself
with your own particle accelerator IS NOT!

Right, airports that won't sell MOGAS are going to install particle
accelerators to produce a key component for nuclear weapons?


If you had watched the video, you'd be aware that it is the legal
system that necessitates the use of a particle accelerator to produce
6Li, as its sale is currently prohibited because it can be a
constituent of fission technology. If that law were to be rescinded,
an on-site accelerator wouldn't be necessary to create 6Li.

You are mixing apples and oranges.

ALL the methods of producing 6Li are complex and expensive but
the main point is that 6Li is a key compenent to make nuclear
weapons and all the major powers are opposed to it's production.


Okay. I haven't done any research on 6Li. It just looked like a
possible alternative H2 storage medium; of course, it's stable (not
radioactive). It's not really a necessary component for LH2 system
I'm proposing.


Utter fantasy.


Agreed, it's a fantastic idea.

Fantastic as in pixie dust, flying bull frogs, unicorns,
and pots of gold at the end of rainbows.


Perhaps. Lacking any supporting objective evidence/documentation to
support your allegation, it's difficult to take it seriously. Perhaps,
you'd care to provide quantifiable facts that support your contention.


So, I'm firmly on the side of the dreamers to lead us into the future.

I'm sure that is going to happen, all while riding unicorns.

I would dearly love to see your engineering analysis

My detailed engineering analysis can be had for $150/hr.

My back of the envelope analysis is that there are far too many
engineering, safety, economic, and international political issues
over making thermonuclear bomb components for this to EVER happen.


Ah, free advice; worth every penny. :-)

When you mention 'safety,' I hope you're not thinking Hindenberg
Disaster. After all, we routinely use highly flammable, if not
explosive, gasoline with reasonable safety in our current
transportation vehicles.

When you mention 'economic,' I agree there will be significant expense
in developing a network of fueling stations, however Nikola Motor
Company intends to just that for compressed H2. See:
https://nikolamotor.com/hydrogen


https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default...2019_Final.pdf
As of May 28, 2019, California's hydrogen fueling network consists
of 414 open retail hydrogen fueling stations, five more than
reported at the same time last year (at which time the Burbank
station was pre-emptively counted, but is not currently included
in open station reporting).Jul 1, 2019

The 'political' issues you mention may be significant for the use of
6Li, but 6Li is not crucial for the system I envision. Let's forget
about it for now.

So, how many hours would you estimate you might require to do a
serious analysis of the requirements to electrically split water into
its component molecules, and produce LH2 from that pure H3 with a
cryo-cooler, and quantify a comparison of LH2 feeding fuel-cells to
produce motive electric power, taking into consideration the reduced
weight/mass of LH2 (density: 0.07099 g/cm3) compared to kerosene
(density: 0.78–0.81 g/cm3)?

It's always a pleasure to debate technical matters with an intelligent
and knowledgeable person as you are. Perhaps we can each learn
something.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 23:36:54 -0000, wrote:

snip

Lots of things are "feasible", but that does not mean they are
economic, practical or even legal.

It is feasible to make a motor from a birthday candle, a permanet
magnet, and a Zippo lighter flint, but you will not find such
motors powering anything other than a physics class demonstration.


Well, consider that Michael Faraday created the first electric motor
with a piece of wire dangling into a cup of mercury. That ultimately
lead directly to Tesla electric automobiles achieving astounding
~three-second zero-to-sixty-mph automobile acceleration.

Utter nonsense.

BTW, the Tesla came out dead last in over all quality.

Even the brilliant scientist may not appreciate what he has
discovered. To wit, Heinrich Hertz, after discovering and proving the
existence of radio waves, postulated,

"I do not think that the radio waves I have discovered will have
any practical application."

Yawn.

snip romanticized arm waving

snip

Fantastic as in pixie dust, flying bull frogs, unicorns,
and pots of gold at the end of rainbows.


Perhaps. Lacking any supporting objective evidence/documentation to
support your allegation, it's difficult to take it seriously. Perhaps,
you'd care to provide quantifiable facts that support your contention.

Which part?

That all the world's government's are opposed to the production
of 6Li or the utter fantasy that airports that won't install MOGAS
tanks are going to install particle accerators (also highly
regulated)?


snip

Ah, free advice; worth every penny. :-)

When you mention 'safety,' I hope you're not thinking Hindenberg
Disaster. After all, we routinely use highly flammable, if not
explosive, gasoline with reasonable safety in our current
transportation vehicles.

What part of key component to thermonuclear bombs are you failing
to understand?

When you mention 'economic,' I agree there will be significant expense
in developing a network of fueling stations, however Nikola Motor
Company intends to just that for compressed H2. See:
https://nikolamotor.com/hydrogen

Whoop de ****ing do.

There are 12 MOGAS stations less than a mile from KCCB which has
a large number of aircraft that can run on MOGAS yet KCCB does
not sell MOGAS.

snip irrelevant crap about auto fuel stations

The 'political' issues you mention may be significant for the use of
6Li, but 6Li is not crucial for the system I envision. Let's forget
about it for now.

So, how many hours would you estimate you might require to do a
serious analysis of the requirements to electrically split water into
its component molecules, and produce LH2 from that pure H3 with a
cryo-cooler, and quantify a comparison of LH2 feeding fuel-cells to
produce motive electric power, taking into consideration the reduced
weight/mass of LH2 (density: 0.07099 g/cm3) compared to kerosene
(density: 0.78?0.81 g/cm3)?

Already done, many, many, many times by many, many people.

And it is orders of magnitude more expensive than a MOGAS tank,
pump, and credit card reader.


--
Jim Pennino

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 02:15:58 -0000, wrote:

My detailed engineering analysis can be had for $150/hr.

So, how many hours would you estimate you might require to do a
serious analysis of the requirements to electrically split water into
its component molecules, and produce LH2 from that pure H3 with a
cryo-cooler, and quantify a comparison of LH2 feeding fuel-cells to
produce motive electric power, taking into consideration the reduced
weight/mass of LH2 (density: 0.07099 g/cm3) compared to kerosene
(density: 0.78?0.81 g/cm3)?

Already done, many, many, many times by many, many people.


So, your offer was insincere, eh?

I noticed that you failed to provide even one reference to support
your allegation that the engineering had already been "many, many,
many" times.

It's become difficult to take you seriously. Oh well ...

Stay safe, and be well, my friend.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 02:15:58 -0000, wrote:

My detailed engineering analysis can be had for $150/hr.

So, how many hours would you estimate you might require to do a
serious analysis of the requirements to electrically split water into
its component molecules, and produce LH2 from that pure H3 with a
cryo-cooler, and quantify a comparison of LH2 feeding fuel-cells to
produce motive electric power, taking into consideration the reduced
weight/mass of LH2 (density: 0.07099 g/cm3) compared to kerosene
(density: 0.78?0.81 g/cm3)?

Already done, many, many, many times by many, many people.


So, your offer was insincere, eh?

Grow up.

I noticed that you failed to provide even one reference to support
your allegation that the engineering had already been "many, many,
many" times.

There have been billions upon billions of dollars expended on
hydrogen research by a lot of different people around the
globe.

Look it up yourself, google is your friend.

It's become difficult to take you seriously. Oh well ...

I'm not the one touting a convicted pimp as the one that has
solved the problems of hydrogen storage in his garage when
all the world's real scientists and engineers with billions
of dollars haven't.

Stay safe, and be well, my friend.

--
Jim Pennino