Electric aircraft in the near future? I don't think so.

[dugimodo]

Electric planes will happen, and we can only guess at the eventual power source be it fuel cells, diamond batteries, or something we haven't imagined yet.

Still, your first suggestion very much described perpetual motion which will never happen.

[wainuitech]

Electric planes will happen, and we can only guess at the eventual power source be it fuel cells, diamond batteries, or something we haven't imagined yet.

Still, your first suggestion very much described perpetual motion which will never happen.

I NEVER actually suggested perpetual motion exactly. Again not really understanding what I was getting at. Never mind cant be bothered anymore to many negative people.

21 years ago a guy who gave me a LOT of business advise when starting my own business said not everyone will get what you are trying to explain all the time - why because they cant see your ideas and those ideas are where the smarter people find ways to solve problems where as others just go with the flow.

End of subject from me!!

[B.M.]

I NEVER actually suggested perpetual motion exactly. Again not really understanding what I was getting at. Never mind cant be bothered anymore to many negative people.

21 years ago a guy who gave me a LOT of business advise when starting my own business said not everyone will get what you are trying to explain all the time - why because they cant see your ideas and those ideas are where the smarter people find ways to solve problems where as others just go with the flow.

End of subject from me!!

I just want to know what happens when you wake up.

[piroska]

I NEVER actually suggested perpetual motion exactly. Again not really understanding what I was getting at.
!

I understand what you are trying to say.

I also understand why the laughing....but never mind, you expect EV planes in the bigger ones to become possible is the point.

I hated physics at school, husband liked it...he used to spend a fair bit of time explaining electrical stuff and physics laws and such to me, some of it remained in my tiny little mind.

What they mean is, regardless of whether it's a battery, internal combustion engine or a horse is you need energy in to get energy out, and what you get out does not equal what goes in...for various reasons.

Think petrol....the momentum of the car is affected by traction on road, movement of all the bits in the engine - friction and wind resistance and such.

Horse, his food keeps him warm and runs other bodily processes as well as the feet.
Batteries, well I'll leave it there.

[1101]

Energy density & weight of the fuel .
batts are heavy & dont have the same energy density as Jet Fuel / av petrol.

So we wont see long range electric Jumbo jets .
We will see smaller electric planes . They wont be economically viable in the foreseeable future

Nice idea , but still not practical .
And yes, every year a new batt chemisty is announced that will change the world. Nothing ever comes of it .

[Roscoe]

The answer might be nuclear fusion which is different from a usual nuclear reaction. The good thing about fusion is that it does not leave any dangerous byproducts. That could be used to generate electricity to power the plane.

The other useful thing to consider is the scientific principle called ground effect. When a plane flies very close to the ground or over a flat surface like the ocean a cushion of air builds up between that surface and the wing and that gives the plane a little bit of extra lift which means you can float very close to the ground at very high speed and never touch it and that’s going to make it much easier to go faster and further and more efficiently than ever before something that all the all the militaries of the world were looking at, but it was the Soviets that really worked on it intensively from the 1950s onward. Perhaps the reason that it has not been taken any further is because planes do not, obviously, fly over flat ground or water to their destination. It is an effect that was noticed by pilots in WW2 when flying low over the water to avoid enemy radar.

[tweak'e]

The other useful thing to consider is the scientific principle called ground effect. When a plane flies very close to the ground or over a flat surface like the ocean a cushion of air builds up between that surface and the wing and that gives the plane a little bit of extra lift which means you can float very close to the ground at very high speed and never touch it and that’s going to make it much easier to go faster and further and more efficiently than ever before something that all the all the militaries of the world were looking at, but it was the Soviets that really worked on it intensively from the 1950s onward. Perhaps the reason that it has not been taken any further is because planes do not, obviously, fly over flat ground or water to their destination. It is an effect that was noticed by pilots in WW2 when flying low over the water to avoid enemy radar.

don't start on that one!

article in the paper of some brain dead investor who poured heaps of money into that dead duck. now trying to whip up a fenzy so they can offload their investment.

yes ground effect works, there is modern planes that use that to fly. eg airfish8.
but no commercial plane will ever be allowed to fly that close to the ground constantly as its a major safety risk, especially at the speeds they want to fly at.
doesn't matter if they have radar/lidar altitude management. its a case of what happens when things go wrong.
unfortunately there is the thinking that because its a float plane it can just land on the water. however that is not the case. they have wave height limits, so only sheltered areas are useable (like most flying boats) and that you also have to slow down to landing speed first. to fast you blow to bits. so basically if there is a problem, its drops 30ft, touches the water and kills everyone.
yeah that will go down well.

also things like sea birds become a big problem.

the Russians got around the issue by making the plane huge (so it can land on bigger waves) but it doing so runs into massive manoeuvring issues.

there is a reason no one is making more airfish8's. they look really cool, but limited to flat water. low speed, and non-commercial use.

btw pilots today still use ground effect on take off in small aircraft. you might noticed they don't just climb after wheels off the ground. they stay close to the ground to take advantage of ground effects to build up speed before climbing.

[1101]

. The good thing about fusion is that it does not leave any dangerous byproducts.

Not quite true. It does leave you with radioactice by products , incl the containment vessel
it doesnt have as much dangerous byproducts as fission though . way less .
start spitting out neutrons & things dont stay clean & safe for long :-)

There was a Fission powered plane .
Being the soviets , safety of the aircrew wasnt a high enough concern and they would have had high levels of exposure despite the lead shielding .
Also the small issue of what happens to all that radioactive fuel if the plane crashes , and risk of contaminating the air(then land) as it flys around.

[kenj]

Fusion has always been 30 years away. They are getting closer, but cannot yet get more energy output than what they have to input.

Ken

[R2x1]

There's a good time coming by and by !
Given a 120% efficient generator and a 124% efficient windmill, your car / boat / aircraft / bicycle can not only self power its 148% efficient motor but have sufficient power to run your house at night while charging the domestic batteries ready to energise the next day's proceedings. The super-conductors to link al this will be a bit of a cost burden initially, but development will surely fix that in the fullness of time. I'm quite sure it is already possible to buy shares in this technology.Mumbai alone probably has several hundred operators just waiting for your call RIGHT NOW.
Windows 12 will be small, powerful and reliable, but the flying pigs will be an increasing aviation hazard.