More fuel for thought

In article Jim Logajan writes:
(Alan) wrote:
Now, if I had the cash, I would be inclined to see if that 3 horsepower
could be fed to a reasonably efficient prop to drive an ultralight
around. It might be difficult to stay ultralight with all the solar
power weight, but it would be fun if it could be made to work.

You are about 28 years too late - it was demonstrated in 1980. Here's a
brief history of solar powered flight:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/n...-054-DFRC.html

Yet none of these efforts were funded and built by individuals.
Research projects are nice, but many of those were extreme cases of
extra light aircraft.

I expect that you have never flown one. Neither have I. Many of
these were special case aircraft, similar to the ones for human powered
flight. They weren't exactly something that you haul out, hop in, and
fly off casually.

With increases in efficiency and dropping prices for solar cells, we
may one day be able to fly our own solar aircraft, instead of just
reading about better funded researchers doing it.

Alan

On 2008-04-15, Dudley Henriques wrote:
I'm FAR from being any kind of an expert on these matters, but I can't
help but wonder, considering the fact that the world's economies are so
completely dependent on oil for survival, that the world has waited WAY
too long on this issue and that we have already passed the point where
the changes necessary and either implemented or discovered, can no
longer be made in time to make any difference in the inevitable outcome;
......a self made dooms day scenario so to speak.

There are really two possible scenarios:

Scenario 1: The oil production declines at a rate that's too fast for
the market to respond: the economy collapses before alternatives are
developed.

Scenario 2: The oil production declines at a rate where market forces
have time to work, such that more and more alternatives become
economically viable (cheaper than oil), and as they are developed,
become steadily less expensive due to technological improvement and
competition.

I'm an optimist, I think we'll do Scenario 2. There may be some pain on
the way, but it's interesting to note that most oil companies haven't
called themselves oil companies for some time, instead calling
themselves energy companies - and spending R&D money on developing all
sorts of energy products.

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

On 2008-04-16, Alan wrote:
With increases in efficiency and dropping prices for solar cells, we
may one day be able to fly our own solar aircraft, instead of just
reading about better funded researchers doing it.

I've got many hours of solar powered aircraft time.

OK, so the solar panel was the ground, and the transfer medium was a
thermal... but many of us enjoy soaring for two or three hours at a
time in gliders :-)

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

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:cVUMj.67331$TT4.15571@attbi_s22:

The current president also renewed the treaty that cedes oil
rights to a significant portion of the Florida Straits to Cuba,
which in turn leases their rights to the Chinese and others.
Which indicates the Republicrat (nee: statist) Congress needs a
massive enema.
I was merely pointing out some common fallicies about offshore
drilling.
Both parties are to blame for the energy mess we're in. Neither party
offers any answers.

We *need* a third political party in the U.S.

You re an idiot.


Bertie



He can always vote "Communist"... ducking

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-04-15, Dudley Henriques wrote:
I'm FAR from being any kind of an expert on these matters, but I can't
help but wonder, considering the fact that the world's economies are so
completely dependent on oil for survival, that the world has waited WAY
too long on this issue and that we have already passed the point where
the changes necessary and either implemented or discovered, can no
longer be made in time to make any difference in the inevitable outcome;
......a self made dooms day scenario so to speak.

There are really two possible scenarios:

Scenario 1: The oil production declines at a rate that's too fast for
the market to respond: the economy collapses before alternatives are
developed.

Scenario 2: The oil production declines at a rate where market forces
have time to work, such that more and more alternatives become
economically viable (cheaper than oil), and as they are developed,
become steadily less expensive due to technological improvement and
competition.

I'm an optimist, I think we'll do Scenario 2. There may be some pain on
the way, but it's interesting to note that most oil companies haven't
called themselves oil companies for some time, instead calling
themselves energy companies - and spending R&D money on developing all
sorts of energy products.


Don't forget to inject into your "survival" scenario the extremely
distinct possibility that government, (and the absolute geniuses that
this term implies) manages to succeed in placing itself into your
equation, thus accessing all that nice R&D money for their own
"re-election", thus changing the dynamic of the free market.
:-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

Frank Olson wrote in
news:WumNj.55012$rd2.30218@pd7urf3no:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:cVUMj.67331$TT4.15571@attbi_s22:

The current president also renewed the treaty that cedes oil
rights to a significant portion of the Florida Straits to Cuba,
which in turn leases their rights to the Chinese and others.
Which indicates the Republicrat (nee: statist) Congress needs a
massive enema.
I was merely pointing out some common fallicies about offshore
drilling.
Both parties are to blame for the energy mess we're in. Neither
party
offers any answers.

We *need* a third political party in the U.S.

You re an idiot.


Bertie



He can always vote "Communist"... ducking


I doubt he could spell it well enough not to spoil the vote if he wrote
it in.

Bertie

Phil J wrote:
On Apr 15, 2:47 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that we trash the world
economy.
There are lot's of Greens out there that would do exactly that and if
the truth were known they would be happy about it. These are the same
people that were pro-USSR prior to the 90s. They are watermelons. Green
on the outside and red on the inside. That is a friend of mine's
favorite saying. He probably got it from Rush but it is a pretty good
description.

Really? How many Communist Greens have you met that wanted to trash
the world's economy?

Phil


Which ones don't?

We *need* a third political party in the U.S.

I'm not so sure that would help, until you get rid of the special interest
group lobby on the politicians.

True. Trouble is your "special interest group" might be my "worthy
cause" -- and vice versa...

I think the real solution would be to go back to a part-time Congress, with
legislator's pay insufficient to support a family. This would force
CongressCritters to actually work for a living, and would be a great impetus
to get things done quickly and efficiently -- and to leave Washington after
their duty was done, rather than turning into Kennedy-esque quasi-permanent
fixtures in government.

I know, wake up, Honeck -- you're dreaming!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-04-15, Dudley Henriques wrote:
I'm FAR from being any kind of an expert on these matters, but I can't
help but wonder, considering the fact that the world's economies are so
completely dependent on oil for survival, that the world has waited WAY
too long on this issue and that we have already passed the point where
the changes necessary and either implemented or discovered, can no
longer be made in time to make any difference in the inevitable outcome;
......a self made dooms day scenario so to speak.

There are really two possible scenarios:

Scenario 1: The oil production declines at a rate that's too fast for
the market to respond: the economy collapses before alternatives are
developed.

Scenario 2: The oil production declines at a rate where market forces
have time to work, such that more and more alternatives become
economically viable (cheaper than oil), and as they are developed,
become steadily less expensive due to technological improvement and
competition.

I'm an optimist, I think we'll do Scenario 2. There may be some pain on
the way, but it's interesting to note that most oil companies haven't
called themselves oil companies for some time, instead calling
themselves energy companies - and spending R&D money on developing all
sorts of energy products.


There is a Scenario 3: Oil production increases as technology advances
and allows for exploitation of oil that we can't get to now and gives us
reason to look for oil in places we don't look now because we couldn't
get to it if we found it. Of course, sooner or later you get to Scenario
2 but there is more time to do it.

Frank Olson wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in


We *need* a third political party in the U.S.

You re an idiot.




He can always vote "Communist"... ducking

Or Green though it is the same thing.

It actually surprised me that during this years primary there were three
ballots to choose from in Arkansas Republican, Democrat and Green. What
really shocked me was that there were as many Green presidential
hopefuls as there were Republicans.