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

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

"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

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.

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.

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/a...ery-214322.php

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.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Andrew Sarangan wrote:


And yet this happens and causes MASSIVE recalls.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/a...ery-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

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/a...ery-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.

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.

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.