Paphos Life

This will gladden ther hearts of Cyprusmax and Devil, and others

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/11/worlds- ... light.html

Aargent wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 7:44 am This will gladden ther hearts of Cyprusmax and Devil, and others

No way does it gladden my heart.
a) If you charge the batteries from mains electricity generated from fossil fuels???
b) If the battery fails in flight???
c) If the plane is diverted to another airport (beyond its range)???
d) There is no proof of its viability for the Seattle-Vancouver run in a region noted for strong winds.
e) IMHO, as with cars, hybrid planes may just be an answer, with a fuel engine capable of maintaining level flight and landing and keeping the batteries charged when possible.

I'm surprised they used a seaplane. The drag of the floats on take-off must be horrendously energy-consuming. OTOH, it means they can 'land' on the sea if the batteries fail in flight but there may be enough power left to allow them to call a lifeboat to offload the passengers.

I congratulate Piccard & Co. for their round-the-world electric flight but their aircraft was totally unsuitable for development into a real plane. It carried only the pilot in relatively short hops over a long period of time. And that plane has a massive wing area to support solar panels, as well as to provide lift at low speeds.

I know Boeing and Airbus both have research departments studying the potential viability of real planes for airlines, but don't expect anything more than prototypes in the next 10 (or more) years.

Even Rolls Royce are involved

https://www.engineering.com/AdvancedMan ... Plane.aspx

Devil, such a cant do attitude and a negative post!

Didn't they say such things about steam trains, iron ships and even flying.

boycott wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 11:49 am Devil, such a cant do attitude and a negative post!
Didn't they say such things about steam trains, iron ships and even flying.

Not really! One 10 minute test flight is hardly the green light to go ahead. The second half of my post is more factually down-to-earth. If the FAA give the company the green light for their proposed adventure, then I might be more positive. For the moment, it is more pie-in-the-sky than plane in the sky.

I am old enough to remember when Standard produced a Diesel Vanguard which had a top speed of 40 mph [ about half of what most cars could do at the time ] and people said that Diesel cars would never replace petrol. Devil, I am sure that some of your arguments, range batteries etc, were the ones used against early Electric Cars. I am sure that Electric powered Airliners are in the distant future but " Never say Never."

Aargent wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:35 am I am old enough to remember when Standard produced a Diesel Vanguard which had a top speed of 40 mph [ about half of what most cars could do at the time ] and people said that Diesel cars would never replace petrol. Devil, I am sure that some of your arguments, range batteries etc, were the ones used against early Electric Cars. I am sure that Electric powered Airliners are in the distant future but " Never say Never."

I have never said never. I'm saying that we do not have the technology to pursue safe electric passenger flying, yet. It may come but not in my lifetime (I'm already 87!).

Wouldn´t it be a more realistic option to use biofuels? At least for the next decade or so.

I am a great believer that the Electric Car is not the answer and that Hydrogen powered cars are. I understand the production problems and costs but I would think that eventually economy of scale would sort this out. Anyway I had a look at what was happening with Hydrogen powered planes [ which would not need batteries and the weight problems etc that would go with them ] and there is quite a lot going on with Hydrogen powered planes.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90388931/th ... y-hydrogen

I'm definitely opposed to hydrogen. There is no source of H2 on this planet and it therefore has to be manufactured. There are two major ways of generating H2, by breaking down methane (natural gas), an energy-consuming process which leaves us with what as residue? Yes, you guessed it, CO2. The other way of producing hydrogen is by electrolysis of water, requiring important electricity generation capacity (or km2 of photovoltaics), with an overall average efficiency of energy-to-energy of 50-60% (lower for fossil-fuel-burning electricity). By catalysis, the energy-to-energy efficiency may be improved a little. The important thing is that hydrogen is NOT a fuel, it is a means of converting one form of energy to another form of energy with inevitable inefficiencies.

I am no expert and I read what Devil says, but I look up what others which much greater knowledge then I write. This Blog gives both sides of the argument and I leave it to you to make up your own mind.

https://futureofworking.com/10-advantag ... uel-cells/

If you don't want to wade through it just read the conclusion.

My take on hydrogen as a means of storing energy, written several years ago, is at

https://bnellis.eu/global/glhydrocar.html

It is shorter than the link in the above post which is very interesting.