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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft
At 22:48 13 August 2007, Bill Daniels wrote:
'Dana M. Hague' wrote in message .. . On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:35:25 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote: I would assume that the source of these Li-ion Polymer battery fires is excessive electrical current flowing through the battery either from too high a charging rate, too high a discharge rate, or a short internal (as in the case of the Sony laptop cells) or external, or being over charged. Perhaps it would be prudent to install a circuit breaker of fuse to prevent too high a current and a timer to disconnect a forgotten charger. I imagine the root of the problem is very low internal resistance which, while making them very efficient, also allows the current to 'run away'. Good circuit design can alleviate many of the issues, but safety if the batteries are damaged in a crash is still an issue. -Dana -- Any battery chemistry, including lead-acid, can overheat with excess charging current - usually to the detriment of the battery and whatever it is in at the time. All can do damage if they are shorted. The problem with the first generation lithium cells was the chemistry released oxygen when overheated which combined with the flammable lithium made an incendiary bomb. The newest lithium-nanophosphate cells do not release oxygen and thus do not burn or explode although they can be damaged by overcharging. Cells made by A123 Systems, Saft, Valence and others are more than safe enough for use in aircraft or cars. They have a little less energy capacity than the old chemistry but they make up for it with fast charging and long life. They can typically manage a 20C discharge rate without harm - that's 200 amps for a 10 AH battery. Admittedly, you don't want to short that. Bill Daniels Here is a link to an article about some new batteries, Silver Zinc rechargeables, with 30% better energy density than Lithium ions'. They are much less volatile and much more eco-friendly, with 95% of the critical materials able to be recovered, check it out. http://www.gizmag.com/go/7743/ Paul Hanson "Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:40:29 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in : Larry Dighera wrote: On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:39:44 -0400, Dana M. Hague d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net wrote in : safety if the batteries are damaged in a crash is still an issue. I would think the hazard somewhat less than gasoline. The battery can produce it's own ignition source. You have a point. While a source of ignition (sparking wires, hot muffler?) is required to ignite post-crash gasoline fumes, it would take an un-fused short circuit or significant deformation of a battery to potentially ignite a lithium battery. Granted, if the crash occurs as a result of fuel exhaustion, there is little fire hazard, while the lithium would always be aboard. How much of a fire hazard would a paper battery be? http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/...per _999.html |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft
On Aug 10, 3:14 pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote: The only electric winch I've seen specs for, the ESW2B,http://www.startwinde.de/, solves that problem by consisting largely of a bank of heavy duty 88 AH SLAs. These act as a buffer between the mains supply and the winch motor, a 200 kW unit. I know of a winch in Denmark which is diesel-electric. It sits on an old Scania truck whose engine is connected to an alternator, and the alternator to the winch motor, all under (reasonably simple) computer control. It's self-contained, but gives smooth, powerful, controlled and repeatable launches. IMO it's probably the best winch design from a technical stand point. However it's much more expensive than a normal big V8/truck axle winch, and it's not clear that the benefits outweigh the costs. Dan |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:23:00 GMT, CanalBuilder
wrote in : How much of a fire hazard would a paper battery be? http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/...per _999.html That is an interesting device indeed. Given these quotes from the article: Rensselaer researchers infused this paper with aligned carbon nanotubes, which give the device its black color. The nanotubes act as electrodes and allow the storage devices to conduct electricity. The device, engineered to function as both a lithium-ion battery and a supercapacitor, can provide the long, steady power output comparable to a conventional battery, as well as a supercapacitor's quick burst of high energy. ... Along with use in small handheld electronics, the paper batteries' light weight could make them ideal for use in automobiles, aircraft, and even boats. The paper also could be molded into different shapes, such as a car door, which would enable important new engineering innovations. "Plus, because of the high paper content and lack of toxic chemicals, it's environmentally safe," Shaijumon said. ... "Plus, because of the high paper content and lack of toxic chemicals, it's environmentally safe," Shaijumon said. "It's a way to power a small device such as a pacemaker without introducing any harsh chemicals - such as the kind that are typically found in batteries - into the body," Pushparaj said. I find the article to be somewhat contradictory in its characterizing a lithium-ion battery as containing no harsh chemicals. And its claim of using carbon electrodes in a supercapacitor seem very counterintuitive for a low impedance device. It reads like an April Fools Day hoax. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft
|
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft
In rec.aviation.piloting Charles Vincent wrote:
wrote: In rec.aviation.piloting Tim Ward wrote: wrote in message ... The advantage from the electric engine at cruise is that it uses zero energy. Snippage -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. You want to support this, somehow? Tim Ward At cruise the electric motor is turned off. The only energy used is some slight bearing friction. The electric motor is only turned on when more power than the gas engine can provide is needed. To carry more weight at the same speed and altitude takes more power, so you have to account for the energy expended kiting you deadweight electric takeoff system around the sky as well. Sizing an engine for cruise has been done, if only backwards. Think JATO. Most JATO's are actually RATO (rocket assisted takeoff). I expect RATO would beat an electric system based on energy density and the fact that when it is done you have reduced your weight by the fuel. I also suspect for a given amount of thrust the rocket will be lighter than an electric motor and associated clutches and gearing. In my opinion, at this point in time it is just as practical for a homebuilt as well as in not. Well, that's true enough, but the above was about hybrid cars. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft
|
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft
In rec.aviation.piloting cavelamb himself wrote:
wrote: To carry more weight at the same speed and altitude takes more power, so you have to account for the energy expended kiting you deadweight electric takeoff system around the sky as well. Sizing an engine for cruise has been done, if only backwards. Think JATO. Most JATO's are actually RATO (rocket assisted takeoff). I expect RATO would beat an electric system based on energy density and the fact that when it is done you have reduced your weight by the fuel. I also suspect for a given amount of thrust the rocket will be lighter than an electric motor and associated clutches and gearing. In my opinion, at this point in time it is just as practical for a homebuilt as well as in not. Well, that's true enough, but the above was about hybrid cars. No, it's not true enough. To carry more weight at the same speed and altitude requires more LIFT. A higher CL - and/or more wing area. THEN, to overcome the increased drag, THEN you need more power. But more power by itself won't satisfy the constraints... So if I add 1 pound to a 2400 pound gross aircraft loaded to 2300 pounds, it would be impossible to cruise at the same speed and altitude without the 1 pound unless I added wing area? How about 50 pounds? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft
In rec.aviation.piloting Charles Vincent wrote:
wrote: In rec.aviation.piloting Charles Vincent wrote: wrote: In rec.aviation.piloting Tim Ward wrote: wrote in message ... The advantage from the electric engine at cruise is that it uses zero energy. Snippage -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. You want to support this, somehow? Tim Ward At cruise the electric motor is turned off. The only energy used is some slight bearing friction. The electric motor is only turned on when more power than the gas engine can provide is needed. To carry more weight at the same speed and altitude takes more power, so you have to account for the energy expended kiting you deadweight electric takeoff system around the sky as well. Sizing an engine for cruise has been done, if only backwards. Think JATO. Most JATO's are actually RATO (rocket assisted takeoff). I expect RATO would beat an electric system based on energy density and the fact that when it is done you have reduced your weight by the fuel. I also suspect for a given amount of thrust the rocket will be lighter than an electric motor and associated clutches and gearing. In my opinion, at this point in time it is just as practical for a homebuilt as well as in not. Well, that's true enough, but the above was about hybrid cars. Well in cruise in a car, more weight does not increase your aerodynamic drag like it does on an airplane, but it does increase your rolling resistance in the real world, so there is no free lunch. Different tradeoffs for different missions. I guess that is why cheetahs and sparrows look so different. Unless the added weight is enough to deform the tires, the increase in rolling resistance in the total energy expediture can't be found. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 178 | December 31st 07 08:53 PM |
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft | Larry Dighera | Home Built | 191 | August 21st 07 12:29 AM |
World's First Certified Electrically Propelled Aircraft? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 2 | September 22nd 06 01:50 AM |
Powered gliders = powered aircraft for 91.205 | Mark James Boyd | Soaring | 2 | December 12th 04 03:28 AM |
Help! 2motors propelled ultralight aircraft | [email protected] | Home Built | 3 | July 9th 03 01:02 AM |