Recover some waste heat?
electricity from heat - Search
Wing flexing = electricity?
Piezoelectric Energy System
Last edited:
Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:
Recover some waste heat?
Wing flexing = electricity?
henryk
Well-Known Member
=wing flexing potential energy my be transmitted into kinetic energy,
thas lowering effective drag (better L/D)
(it was old russian glider with "pneumo-spring"...)
На машущих крыльях - Альтернативная История
На машущих крыльях - Альтернативная История
alternathistory.com
=thermoelectric convertes have small efficiency,
they can work in car industry .(in place of alternator).
=wing flexing potential energy my be transmitted into kinetic energy,
thas lowering effective drag (better L/D)
(it was old russian glider with "pneumo-spring"...)
На машущих крыльях - Альтернативная История
На машущих крыльях - Альтернативная История
=thermoelectric convertes have small efficiency,
they can work in car industry .(in place of alternator).
So perpetual motion flying machine?
henryk
Well-Known Member
=NO != thermonuclear energy (synthezis He on auer SUN...)
BTW=ALL Flying mashines and bids/insects are transfering thermic energy from SUN acumulated in auer atmospheric air N2,O2 ) into Lift and Drag.
(>0 deg.Kelvin)
henryk
Well-Known Member
Flying Magazine
books.google.pl
=for me hard to read,but some thauts= exercing energy by VORTEX generation...
(KASPERwing can fly horisontally vith 5 m/s airspeed !)
iff we remember, the power for horisontal fly
N= F thrust * V horis.
Fthrust= G/L/D =1500 N /10=150 N = Fdrag
N (at 5 m/s)=150*5=750 W
=in middle="Response to Horisontal Gust"...
PS=sorry for "offtop" , but BEKAS1-N is good candidate to e-soaring conversion !
Last edited:
Flying Magazine
books.google.pl
=for me hard to read,but some thauts= exercing energy by VORTEX generation...
(KASPERwing can fly horisontally vith 5 m/s airspeed !)
iff we remember, the power for horisontal fly
N= F thrust * V horis.
Fthrust= G/L/D =1500 N /10=150 N = Fdrag
N (at 5 m/s)=150*5=750 W
=in middle="Response to Horisontal Gust"...
PS=sorry for "offtop" , but BEKAS1-N is good candidate to e-soaring conversion !
Maybe round 750 W up a little? Weight of motor, controller, batteries, and the modern obese pilot (rolls into cockpit). Then redesign wing for added stress so more weight.
John.Roo
Well-Known Member
It is OK, no need to apologize.
Kasper wing is not suitable for e-soaring mission, but BEKAS really could be option.
According to info from Wiki had BEKAS L/D 45:1 with 15 meters wing.
Kasper Bekas - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In case of BEKAS is bigger problem with weights....
EW 159 kg vs MTOM 249 gives only 90 kg to pilot.
Would be necessary to re-design airframe for hogher MTOM = performance will be a bit different.
As I wrote at the beginning... flying wing is generally not a problem, however my "dream" configuration is standard glider design. Why? Because pilots are conservative. and e-glider shoud cover two most important pilot groups - very young pilots without large experience and older (retired) pilots looking to something nice and easy to fly with self launch capabilities. Group of sport glider pilots (competition pilots) will anyway look for high end gliders and rest of pilots (with limited budget) will look for used gliders like ASW15, Cirrus etc. is price range 10-30K EUR.
With actual prices will be light self launch e-glider in Ready To Fly config starting arround 40K EUR. That is probably minimum.
I will try to check actual prices, however expected prices for example for Birdie = +-60K EUR, ATOS Wing = 60-70K EUR etc.
So if you know actual prices of other projects (AXEL, GP, Silent, Apis.... whatever is actually in production) it would be interesting info for comparizon
henryk
Well-Known Member
=we try to made lighter wings (35 versus 65 kg !),but still simple PARABEAM technology...
BTW=orginal wooden wings was weighty=3 persons/halfwing montage !
Attachments
henryk
Well-Known Member
=yes! (low CP drift)
=STATIC Stability & Controlability of BKB1-A (?) was discovered in first flys by Witold Kasper
(NOT predicted by constructor Stefan Brochocki !)
=possibility of BEKAS1-N soaring in thermiclose atmosphere too !!!
-first fly tests in car towings = L/D<100 ! (2-3 m high...)
=after 22 sec. airtowing (WILGA !)=
Attachments
Last edited:
John.Roo
Well-Known Member
"A team of researchers at the US Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has created a solar cell with a record efficiency of 39.5 percent under 1-sun global illumination, breaking the world record for solar cell efficiency.
Amazingly, it has the highest efficiency recorded for any type of cell ever measured in real-world conditions."
I like the part - "measured in real world coditions".
Amazingly, it has the highest efficiency recorded for any type of cell ever measured in real-world conditions."
I like the part - "measured in real world coditions".
Sraight'nlevel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2021
- Messages
- 321
"A team of researchers at the US Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has created a solar cell with a record efficiency of 39.5 percent under 1-sun global illumination, breaking the world record for solar cell efficiency.
Amazingly, it has the highest efficiency recorded for any type of cell ever measured in real-world conditions."
I like the part - "measured in real world coditions".
Is this practical solar cell now ?
Last edited:
John.Roo
Well-Known Member
I don´t know... for me is important that this type of solar cells has been tested in standard conditions (not in laboratory).
I also suppose that it will be not available as a super light flexible panel and price will be higher.
But even if will be new panel not suitable for installation on wings we will see other benefits.
I suppose that at least "standard panels" price will go down and maybe will be possible to buy "older" solar panels from solar power stations for very low price
Frustrating. Others have solar power 23% efficient ten years ago and those solar panels still 20% efficient predicting 20 years life with empirical evidence supporting and I am talking about on wings on gliders. But for majority of us unobtainable, What a croc? Somebody is lying? This smells like a dead stinking Rat? And then speculation for better? How are most common people who can not get 23% efficient solar panels for wings now ten years or more later expected to believe? Faith I suppose? "O" I know ..... .... MAGIC.
Kiss my grits.
Kiss my grits.
Last edited:
Warren Hall
New Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2022
- Messages
- 2
If we had a light weight glider with 20 sqm of wing area (curved) we would approach 8kw of power in full sun with this cell. Barely enough as a sustainer, don't hold your breath for even this cell to be commercially viable at a weight and price we could use.
John.Roo
Well-Known Member
Seems that development of solar cells has been "in the shadow" of battery cells development.
I stay optimistic - development of batteries and solar cells is very slow proces (much slower than we expected) but is possible to see small movement forward
John.Roo
Well-Known Member
I have smaller requirements
20 sqm is a large wing area.
For example....
Dood old L-13 Blanik has wing area 19,15 sqm.
Modern Duo Discus has 16,40 sqm wing area.
Small one seat e-glider will have wing area below 10 sqm (probably 8-9 sqm) so area useable for solar panels will be 5-6 sqm. With actual solar cells efficienci we can get arround 1 kW. Of course 2 kW (40% efficiency) would be better but still not enough power for horizontal flight.
However it doesn´t means it is useless. 1-2 kW of power still can be used as slow "in flight" charger or for "L/D sponzoring"
trimtab
Well-Known Member
The only product from Otto Aviation regarding the Celera has been the pay-to-play magazine and social media spends they've been putting out for a long while every month to garner investment interest.Celerra 500 airframe is claimed to be 5 times more efficient than a turboprop, and 7 times more efficient than an executive-jet......Celera 500 has 23:1 glide-ratio, Celera 500 is fitted with a conventional diesel with cams/valves/chains etc.
Just wondering why Celera 500 doesn't have the most efficient aero-diesel of all time....the Achates diesel......?
Approach - Achates Power
The Achates Power OP Engine is the key to a sustainable future of clean, efficient and cost-effective transportation.achatespower.com
It's unfortunate. It was an absurd idea to me on paper, then a narrow path to "maybe" for the aerodynamics alone and a hard no on the aeropropulsion, and I have not seen any data that softens my cynicism since then.
It would be nice to see some new reality come to aviation, but those have been in short supply for more decades than I'd like to admit.
Secretive development with interesting claims in aviation has a long storied history of being disappointing.
proppastie
Well-Known Member
more descriptive term might be FRAUD......it is a shame that qualifiers are often in very small print at the end of these claims rather than in bold print at the beginning such as perhaps "NOT CURRENTLY VERIFIED BY TESTING".....examples are in investment offerings because the SEC requires it......it might be interesting to study their investment offerings.
Last edited:
John.Roo
Well-Known Member
"Celerra 500 airframe is claimed to be 5 times more efficient than a turboprop, and 7 times more efficient than an executive-jet....."
5 times more efficient.... 7 times more efficient....
I am also really tired of "estimated performance" and words "up to 100% better" etc.
I like idea of mandatory warning - "NOT CURRENTLY VERIFIED BY TESTING" - if product exists only on paper (or in 3D animation)
5 times more efficient.... 7 times more efficient....
I am also really tired of "estimated performance" and words "up to 100% better" etc.
I like idea of mandatory warning - "NOT CURRENTLY VERIFIED BY TESTING" - if product exists only on paper (or in 3D animation)
Sraight'nlevel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2021
- Messages
- 321
Mark Drela's double bubble has been estimated to be 70% more efficient than a round body."Celerra 500 airframe is claimed to be 5 times more efficient than a turboprop, and 7 times more efficient than an executive-jet....."
5 times more efficient.... 7 times more efficient....
I am also really tired of "estimated performance" and words "up to 100% better" etc.
I like idea of mandatory warning - "NOT CURRENTLY VERIFIED BY TESTING" - if product exists only on paper (or in 3D animation)
