Why Gas Engines Are Far From Dead - Biggest EV Problems
- Thread starter Bill-Higdon
- Start date
Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:
can you elaborate,at least to the extent of the concepts viability bieng without merit,or was it the case of big companys having a
"disruptive technology division" ?
Dan Thomas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 5,238
It's called liquified natural gas, and it requires refrigeration to very low temps as well as some pressure. Then the chill and pressure have to be maintained to keep it liquid. Neither cheap nor light.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_natural_gas
Last edited:
pictsidhe
Well-Known Member
There are fuel cells that run on methanol. When i last looked, there was some progress on ethanol cells. Either would be far more practical than hydrogen. The catalysts needed is the catch.
Yes, but there are huge practical advantages to fuels which are liquid at ambient environmental temperature.
Last time I checked, ethanol and methanol qualified.
Propane is the most ideal liquid fuel to synthesize from nuclear power. I think propane is already the number three liquid transportation fuel.
??Obviously. And much more practical than pure hydrogen.
Very common, useful practical liquid fuels based on hydrogen would be those ubiquitous "hydrocarbons."
Dan Thomas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 5,238
Yup. Gasoline, diesel, jet fuels. Ethanol and methanol are solutions in search of a problem. Liquified or compressed gas storage is heavy and risky.
Unless battery technology advances a long way, as our member says in his video, electric light airplanes won't be practical. Or light. And even then we're stuck with lengthy recharging times.
Some proponents keep hammering at the idea that early cars couldn't get gas any old place, either. That's true, but they carried (and had the carrying capacity) extra fuel in jerry cans, and they often got stuck when they ran out of gas. It took many years for refueling stations to appear along the nation's highways, sooner in the cities, simply because the low traffic density meant that the station owner would starve while waiting for a customer. Remember (young folks, realize) that the first sort-of-practical motorcars appeared in the 1880s, but horses and wagons or buggies were still evident in rural areas in the 1930s. Fifty years. It took a LONG time for the infrastructure to make economic sense.
And that, folks, is what drives everything. The economy of it all. If it can't deliver, it doesn't sell. If it can't make money, it doesn't get built in any numbers. If it isn't safe, people won't want it. If it does kill, the estate can sue until the manufacturer is broke. If there isn't good profit in inventing a better mousetrap, it ain't gonna get invented. If there are already too many people making it, you likely aren't going to get a sizeable piece of the pie. If it will cost a billion dollars to research and develop a new engine that might sell ten thousand copies, it's unlikely to get R&D'd, though SMA had spent a billion dollars on their aviation diesel as of 2011 when I was working on one, and they had 50 flying worldwide at that point. Fifty. I hope they have sold some more since then, but at something like $100K per, it's not too likely.
Developing new battery technology isn't cheap, and so the new product won't be real soon and probably won't be cheap. Like physics, economics is really inconvenient at times.
poormansairforce
Well-Known Member
And don't forget that the last few percent of increases are the most expensive! I suspect we have already seen the highest rate of growth in battery storage.....
People always want to extend current trends into the future and history says that is a mistake.
People always want to extend current trends into the future and history says that is a mistake.
Yes. It's too bad Gordon Moore got it so wrong for so long. Also that the rest of the,world isn't devoting far more funds and effort to this than we are. Also that ther aren't at least ten charging stations within a mile and a half of my house, and that there isn't a 220V outlet in my garage.
As we know, it took centuries for airplanes to advance from 50 mph to Mach 5.
As we know, it took centuries for airplanes to advance from 50 mph to Mach 5.
There's an interesting and, IMO, valid case to be made that the pace of meaningful change isn't accelerating, it is slowing. That's not the conventional wisdom.
There are a lot of folks out there who are confusing "data" with "knowledge"
A 21 minute NPR Planet Money podcast on this idea is here: https://www.npr.org/2020/02/05/803037185/episode-772-small-change
Moore's "Law" has very narrow applicability (transistors on a microchip). Breakfast waffles, cars, airplanes, batteries, etc don't improve on his timeline.
There are a lot of folks out there who are confusing "data" with "knowledge"
A 21 minute NPR Planet Money podcast on this idea is here: https://www.npr.org/2020/02/05/803037185/episode-772-small-change
Moore's "Law" has very narrow applicability (transistors on a microchip). Breakfast waffles, cars, airplanes, batteries, etc don't improve on his timeline.
Last edited:
I would like to thank all of the posters for there contributions to battery deveopment.
The complaining about the unsatisfactory performance of your many many battery powered
devices is helping thousands of researchers and
physisists,chemists,etc develope the next generation of battery.
That is one of the beuties of batteries,what will make a realy good cell phone battery will also
power an airplane.
So keep up the good work.
The complaining about the unsatisfactory performance of your many many battery powered
devices is helping thousands of researchers and
physisists,chemists,etc develope the next generation of battery.
That is one of the beuties of batteries,what will make a realy good cell phone battery will also
power an airplane.
So keep up the good work.
Dan Thomas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 5,238
Sarcasm. So, your optimistic views represent reality? Many of us here are old enough to have read about the next revolutionary airplane or engine or motor or whatever for decades, and we're still waiting. I remember Popular Mechanics and Mechanix Illustrated and Science Illustrated bombarding us with the stuff we ould be flying or driving within a year or two, all through the '50s and '60s and'70s. It was all fake news by journalists trying to get advertising revenue and a big paycheck, based on interviews with guys with ideas and very seldom with a working model. Unscrupulous journalists have multiplied like rabbits and are a blight on the landscape of technology, convincing so many that the new technologies are ready to replace all fossil fuels. They're not, not even close.
pictsidhe
Well-Known Member
Current technology is nowhere near replacing IC engines. Those that can do the science know this. Journalists and their lay readers don't. Weren't flying cars just around the corner 60 years ago? Batteries have improved enough that electric power is now suitable for some niche applications.
For instance. A look at the rules of Air race E and Formula one, followed by some minimal calcs, suggest that for the sub 10 minute races, the planes will have weight and performance in the same ballpark.
For instance. A look at the rules of Air race E and Formula one, followed by some minimal calcs, suggest that for the sub 10 minute races, the planes will have weight and performance in the same ballpark.
One technology that is here now, is forum software that lets you quote the poster that you are replying to in a quotation box, with your reply outside of that box.
BJC
BJC
2
