Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.electromag > #19982 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-15 13:43 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-07-23 14:32 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 106 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.electromag
Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-15 13:43 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-07-15 18:39 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 18:31 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-15 20:09 +0100
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 19:19 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 05:44 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 15:24 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 12:17 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 17:07 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 13:42 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 18:05 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-07-21 13:46 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 15:07 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 19:30 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 17:31 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 22:11 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 19:04 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-22 00:22 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:46 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 02:00 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 22:38 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 03:07 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-16 09:20 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-15 21:46 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 02:13 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 05:49 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 15:26 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 12:45 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-21 12:08 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 17:10 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 13:43 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 18:07 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 15:10 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 19:32 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 17:32 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 22:11 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-22 10:51 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 17:55 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 17:58 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-22 18:56 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-22 21:25 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 20:01 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-24 05:35 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-24 08:39 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 20:15 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-25 11:56 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 20:23 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-26 20:28 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 18:47 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-29 21:18 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-29 23:59 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-31 17:05 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 20:13 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2017-07-17 22:29 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-21 04:18 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 15:29 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-15 12:51 -0700
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-15 23:47 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 00:58 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-16 09:22 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 01:13 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 08:46 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 06:26 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 15:32 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-21 11:09 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-21 21:44 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-21 22:17 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-22 02:16 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-23 10:33 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-23 16:34 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-24 12:10 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-07-24 05:19 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-24 12:32 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-24 08:52 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-24 16:56 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-24 12:02 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-24 23:51 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-07-24 17:16 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-25 01:12 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-07-24 18:25 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-25 11:54 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-24 17:19 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-24 17:10 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-24 23:33 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-24 21:02 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 13:12 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 17:25 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 13:45 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 18:08 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-21 18:53 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-22 00:23 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 06:00 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-07-21 09:48 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 13:30 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-21 17:30 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 13:34 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-07-21 13:08 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-07-15 19:51 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-21 06:05 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-07-21 19:36 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-22 10:39 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-22 12:47 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-26 18:18 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-07-26 18:27 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-22 11:40 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-07-23 14:32 -0500
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 13:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Question about power capacity of electrical motors. |
| Message-ID | <okdk1a$426$1@dont-email.me> |
I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more current. Carbon nanotubes are such a material. In tests they can carry orders of magnitude more current than ordinary conductors such as copper, aluminum, or gold. The problem is they've only be able to be produced for short lengths, a few centimeters at most. But an interesting research on nanotube-copper composites showed they can carry a 100 times more current than standard copper. So for the same size electric motor we could produce 100 times more power than currently: Posted: Aug 06, 2013 Novel CNT-copper nanocomposite delivers a 100-fold increase in current density http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=31710.php For the Tesla that would not be as major a deal because of the small size of the motor at only about 32 kilos for the Tesla S, a vehicle that weighs thousands of kilos. But that would be major for large scale motors used in other scenarios. These can weigh thousands of kilos, and could then be reduced to only tens of kilos. It would also be especially important for proposed electric aircraft that many groups are working towards. So is it really true we can increase electric motor power levels simply by using wire of higher current capacity? Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 18:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okdnhk$bug$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #19982 |
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:43:55 -0400, Robert Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Got a super-battery to go with your super-motor, though?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 18:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9l3q3e-vor.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #19982 |
In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable power > to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical gasoline > engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore > being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we should be > able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more > current. We have such a material and it is called silver. > Carbon nanotubes are such a material. In tests they can carry orders of > magnitude more current than ordinary conductors such as copper, aluminum, or > gold. The problem is they've only be able to be produced for short lengths, > a few centimeters at most. > > But an interesting research on nanotube-copper composites showed they can > carry a 100 times more current than standard copper. So for the same size > electric motor we could produce 100 times more power than currently: > > Posted: Aug 06, 2013 > Novel CNT-copper nanocomposite delivers a 100-fold increase in current > density > http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=31710.php Current density and power are two different things. The actual issue is temperature rise because of winding resistance. > For the Tesla that would not be as major a deal because of the small size of > the motor at only about 32 kilos for the Tesla S, a vehicle that weighs > thousands of kilos. > > But that would be major for large scale motors used in other scenarios. > These can weigh thousands of kilos, and could then be reduced to only tens > of kilos. It would also be especially important for proposed electric > aircraft that many groups are working towards. The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. > So is it really true we can increase electric motor power levels simply by > using wire of higher current capacity? No, you need to reduce resistive losses and/or get rid of heat. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 20:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <okdp1l$k6a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #19984 |
On 15/07/2017 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is > comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. > Solar cells work so long as you stay above the cloud and keep to the lit hemisphere! piglet --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 19:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kf6q3e-b4s.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #19985 |
In sci.physics.electromag Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 15/07/2017 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >> comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. >> > > Solar cells work so long as you stay above the cloud and keep to the lit > hemisphere! > > piglet Only for powered sailplanes otherwise the area available to collect energy is too small to meet power requirements. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 05:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oksi6e$kvp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #19986 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 3:19 PM: > In sci.physics.electromag Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 15/07/2017 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>> The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >>> comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. >>> >> >> Solar cells work so long as you stay above the cloud and keep to the lit >> hemisphere! >> >> piglet > > Only for powered sailplanes otherwise the area available to collect energy > is too small to meet power requirements. So you are saying the only aircraft that can be powered by solar cells are the ones that can be powered by solar cells? What point are you trying to make? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 15:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1ui94e-1on.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #20022 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 3:19 PM: >> In sci.physics.electromag Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On 15/07/2017 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>> The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >>>> comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. >>>> >>> >>> Solar cells work so long as you stay above the cloud and keep to the lit >>> hemisphere! >>> >>> piglet >> >> Only for powered sailplanes otherwise the area available to collect energy >> is too small to meet power requirements. > > So you are saying the only aircraft that can be powered by solar cells are > the ones that can be powered by solar cells? > > What point are you trying to make? If you would read the post for understanding, you would know that I am saying only sailplanes have enough surface area to collect enough energy to keep themselves in the air. For the vast majority of airplanes the available surface area is too small to provide the energy the airplace requires to remain airborne. You do know that the amount of solar energy available is limited by the solar irradiance, which is apporximately 1 kM/m^2 at noon on a clear day, don't you? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 12:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <okt973$9sn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #20032 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:24 AM: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 3:19 PM: >>> In sci.physics.electromag Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 15/07/2017 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >>>>> comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Solar cells work so long as you stay above the cloud and keep to the lit >>>> hemisphere! >>>> >>>> piglet >>> >>> Only for powered sailplanes otherwise the area available to collect energy >>> is too small to meet power requirements. >> >> So you are saying the only aircraft that can be powered by solar cells are >> the ones that can be powered by solar cells? >> >> What point are you trying to make? > > If you would read the post for understanding, you would know that I am > saying only sailplanes have enough surface area to collect enough energy > to keep themselves in the air. > > For the vast majority of airplanes the available surface area is too small > to provide the energy the airplace requires to remain airborne. > > You do know that the amount of solar energy available is limited by the > solar irradiance, which is apporximately 1 kM/m^2 at noon on a clear > day, don't you? I know that a sailplane is a glider which the solar powered planes are *not*. I know that you haven't made a point about the solar powered plane. It is constructed like a glider, so what? Have you seen pictures of the Wright brothers plane? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 17:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <30p94e-ebo.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #20037 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:24 AM: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 3:19 PM: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 15/07/2017 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >>>>>> comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Solar cells work so long as you stay above the cloud and keep to the lit >>>>> hemisphere! >>>>> >>>>> piglet >>>> >>>> Only for powered sailplanes otherwise the area available to collect energy >>>> is too small to meet power requirements. >>> >>> So you are saying the only aircraft that can be powered by solar cells are >>> the ones that can be powered by solar cells? >>> >>> What point are you trying to make? >> >> If you would read the post for understanding, you would know that I am >> saying only sailplanes have enough surface area to collect enough energy >> to keep themselves in the air. >> >> For the vast majority of airplanes the available surface area is too small >> to provide the energy the airplace requires to remain airborne. >> >> You do know that the amount of solar energy available is limited by the >> solar irradiance, which is apporximately 1 kM/m^2 at noon on a clear >> day, don't you? > > I know that a sailplane is a glider which the solar powered planes are *not*. There are powered sailplanes, also known as motor gliders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_glider > I know that you haven't made a point about the solar powered plane. It is > constructed like a glider, so what? Have you seen pictures of the Wright > brothers plane? You still don't get it do you, or are you being dense on purpose just to argue? There is some minimum amount of power required to keep an airplane flying. Powered sailplanes require very little power to keep flying and have wings with a very large surface area, therefore it is practical to have a solar powered sailplane. A common airplane such as a Cessna 172 does not have enough wing area to collect enough energy to fly, therefore it is not practical to have a solar powered Cessna 172. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 13:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <okte65$qqu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #20041 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:07 PM: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:24 AM: >>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 3:19 PM: >>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 15/07/2017 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >>>>>>> comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Solar cells work so long as you stay above the cloud and keep to the lit >>>>>> hemisphere! >>>>>> >>>>>> piglet >>>>> >>>>> Only for powered sailplanes otherwise the area available to collect energy >>>>> is too small to meet power requirements. >>>> >>>> So you are saying the only aircraft that can be powered by solar cells are >>>> the ones that can be powered by solar cells? >>>> >>>> What point are you trying to make? >>> >>> If you would read the post for understanding, you would know that I am >>> saying only sailplanes have enough surface area to collect enough energy >>> to keep themselves in the air. >>> >>> For the vast majority of airplanes the available surface area is too small >>> to provide the energy the airplace requires to remain airborne. >>> >>> You do know that the amount of solar energy available is limited by the >>> solar irradiance, which is apporximately 1 kM/m^2 at noon on a clear >>> day, don't you? >> >> I know that a sailplane is a glider which the solar powered planes are *not*. > > There are powered sailplanes, also known as motor gliders. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_glider > >> I know that you haven't made a point about the solar powered plane. It is >> constructed like a glider, so what? Have you seen pictures of the Wright >> brothers plane? > > You still don't get it do you, or are you being dense on purpose just to argue? Just waiting for you to actually *say* something. > There is some minimum amount of power required to keep an airplane flying. > > Powered sailplanes require very little power to keep flying and have wings > with a very large surface area, therefore it is practical to have a solar > powered sailplane. > > A common airplane such as a Cessna 172 does not have enough wing area to > collect enough energy to fly, therefore it is not practical to have a > solar powered Cessna 172. So??? I'm still waiting for you to say something significant about this. It's also not practical to launch a Cessna 172 to the moon. SO WHAT? Solar powered planes exist and have flown around the world. Unlike gas powered or jet engines they can stay up for days as they don't need to be refueled after six hours or so. They fly well above the weather and collect sun all day and continue to fly at night using batteries and altitude accumulated during the day. Where is the problem? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 18:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ebs94e-6oo.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #20046 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:07 PM: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:24 AM: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 3:19 PM: >>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 15/07/2017 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >>>>>>>> comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Solar cells work so long as you stay above the cloud and keep to the lit >>>>>>> hemisphere! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> piglet >>>>>> >>>>>> Only for powered sailplanes otherwise the area available to collect energy >>>>>> is too small to meet power requirements. >>>>> >>>>> So you are saying the only aircraft that can be powered by solar cells are >>>>> the ones that can be powered by solar cells? >>>>> >>>>> What point are you trying to make? >>>> >>>> If you would read the post for understanding, you would know that I am >>>> saying only sailplanes have enough surface area to collect enough energy >>>> to keep themselves in the air. >>>> >>>> For the vast majority of airplanes the available surface area is too small >>>> to provide the energy the airplace requires to remain airborne. >>>> >>>> You do know that the amount of solar energy available is limited by the >>>> solar irradiance, which is apporximately 1 kM/m^2 at noon on a clear >>>> day, don't you? >>> >>> I know that a sailplane is a glider which the solar powered planes are *not*. >> >> There are powered sailplanes, also known as motor gliders. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_glider >> >>> I know that you haven't made a point about the solar powered plane. It is >>> constructed like a glider, so what? Have you seen pictures of the Wright >>> brothers plane? >> >> You still don't get it do you, or are you being dense on purpose just to argue? > > Just waiting for you to actually *say* something. Yeah, right. >> There is some minimum amount of power required to keep an airplane flying. >> >> Powered sailplanes require very little power to keep flying and have wings >> with a very large surface area, therefore it is practical to have a solar >> powered sailplane. >> >> A common airplane such as a Cessna 172 does not have enough wing area to >> collect enough energy to fly, therefore it is not practical to have a >> solar powered Cessna 172. > > So??? I'm still waiting for you to say something significant about this. > It's also not practical to launch a Cessna 172 to the moon. SO WHAT? So solar powered airplanes other than motor gliders are not practical. Attempts to drag in red herrings about the Wright Brothers and the Moon noted. > Solar powered planes exist and have flown around the world. Unlike gas > powered or jet engines they can stay up for days as they don't need to be > refueled after six hours or so. They fly well above the weather and collect > sun all day and continue to fly at night using batteries and altitude > accumulated during the day. All of those are motor gliders, thus proving my point. > Where is the problem? Your utter lack of understanding. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 13:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oktht1$vhf$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #20050 |
On 7/21/2017 1:05 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:07 PM: >>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:24 AM: >>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 3:19 PM: >>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 15/07/2017 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >>>>>>>>> comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Solar cells work so long as you stay above the cloud and keep to the lit >>>>>>>> hemisphere! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> piglet >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Only for powered sailplanes otherwise the area available to collect energy >>>>>>> is too small to meet power requirements. >>>>>> >>>>>> So you are saying the only aircraft that can be powered by solar cells are >>>>>> the ones that can be powered by solar cells? >>>>>> >>>>>> What point are you trying to make? >>>>> >>>>> If you would read the post for understanding, you would know that I am >>>>> saying only sailplanes have enough surface area to collect enough energy >>>>> to keep themselves in the air. >>>>> >>>>> For the vast majority of airplanes the available surface area is too small >>>>> to provide the energy the airplace requires to remain airborne. >>>>> >>>>> You do know that the amount of solar energy available is limited by the >>>>> solar irradiance, which is apporximately 1 kM/m^2 at noon on a clear >>>>> day, don't you? >>>> >>>> I know that a sailplane is a glider which the solar powered planes are *not*. >>> >>> There are powered sailplanes, also known as motor gliders. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_glider >>> >>>> I know that you haven't made a point about the solar powered plane. It is >>>> constructed like a glider, so what? Have you seen pictures of the Wright >>>> brothers plane? >>> >>> You still don't get it do you, or are you being dense on purpose just to argue? >> >> Just waiting for you to actually *say* something. > > Yeah, right. > >>> There is some minimum amount of power required to keep an airplane flying. >>> >>> Powered sailplanes require very little power to keep flying and have wings >>> with a very large surface area, therefore it is practical to have a solar >>> powered sailplane. >>> >>> A common airplane such as a Cessna 172 does not have enough wing area to >>> collect enough energy to fly, therefore it is not practical to have a >>> solar powered Cessna 172. >> >> So??? I'm still waiting for you to say something significant about this. >> It's also not practical to launch a Cessna 172 to the moon. SO WHAT? > > So solar powered airplanes other than motor gliders are not practical. > > Attempts to drag in red herrings about the Wright Brothers and the Moon > noted. > >> Solar powered planes exist and have flown around the world. Unlike gas >> powered or jet engines they can stay up for days as they don't need to be >> refueled after six hours or so. They fly well above the weather and collect >> sun all day and continue to fly at night using batteries and altitude >> accumulated during the day. > > All of those are motor gliders, thus proving my point. > >> Where is the problem? > > Your utter lack of understanding. Jim, there is no reward in arguing with the troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 15:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oktj5s$b76$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #20050 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 2:05 PM: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:07 PM: >>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:24 AM: >>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 3:19 PM: >>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 15/07/2017 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >>>>>>>>> comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Solar cells work so long as you stay above the cloud and keep to the lit >>>>>>>> hemisphere! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> piglet >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Only for powered sailplanes otherwise the area available to collect energy >>>>>>> is too small to meet power requirements. >>>>>> >>>>>> So you are saying the only aircraft that can be powered by solar cells are >>>>>> the ones that can be powered by solar cells? >>>>>> >>>>>> What point are you trying to make? >>>>> >>>>> If you would read the post for understanding, you would know that I am >>>>> saying only sailplanes have enough surface area to collect enough energy >>>>> to keep themselves in the air. >>>>> >>>>> For the vast majority of airplanes the available surface area is too small >>>>> to provide the energy the airplace requires to remain airborne. >>>>> >>>>> You do know that the amount of solar energy available is limited by the >>>>> solar irradiance, which is apporximately 1 kM/m^2 at noon on a clear >>>>> day, don't you? >>>> >>>> I know that a sailplane is a glider which the solar powered planes are *not*. >>> >>> There are powered sailplanes, also known as motor gliders. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_glider >>> >>>> I know that you haven't made a point about the solar powered plane. It is >>>> constructed like a glider, so what? Have you seen pictures of the Wright >>>> brothers plane? >>> >>> You still don't get it do you, or are you being dense on purpose just to argue? >> >> Just waiting for you to actually *say* something. > > Yeah, right. > >>> There is some minimum amount of power required to keep an airplane flying. >>> >>> Powered sailplanes require very little power to keep flying and have wings >>> with a very large surface area, therefore it is practical to have a solar >>> powered sailplane. >>> >>> A common airplane such as a Cessna 172 does not have enough wing area to >>> collect enough energy to fly, therefore it is not practical to have a >>> solar powered Cessna 172. >> >> So??? I'm still waiting for you to say something significant about this. >> It's also not practical to launch a Cessna 172 to the moon. SO WHAT? > > So solar powered airplanes other than motor gliders are not practical. > > Attempts to drag in red herrings about the Wright Brothers and the Moon > noted. > >> Solar powered planes exist and have flown around the world. Unlike gas >> powered or jet engines they can stay up for days as they don't need to be >> refueled after six hours or so. They fly well above the weather and collect >> sun all day and continue to fly at night using batteries and altitude >> accumulated during the day. > > All of those are motor gliders, thus proving my point. I've never disputed these planes are like gliders. I'm asking why this is significant??? Who cares? I've already told you why they are significant. They fly missions that no other plane can do. I don't understand what your issue with them is. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 19:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9b1a4e-a8p.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #20054 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 2:05 PM: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:07 PM: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:24 AM: >>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 3:19 PM: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 15/07/2017 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >>>>>>>>>> comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Solar cells work so long as you stay above the cloud and keep to the lit >>>>>>>>> hemisphere! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> piglet >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Only for powered sailplanes otherwise the area available to collect energy >>>>>>>> is too small to meet power requirements. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you are saying the only aircraft that can be powered by solar cells are >>>>>>> the ones that can be powered by solar cells? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What point are you trying to make? >>>>>> >>>>>> If you would read the post for understanding, you would know that I am >>>>>> saying only sailplanes have enough surface area to collect enough energy >>>>>> to keep themselves in the air. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the vast majority of airplanes the available surface area is too small >>>>>> to provide the energy the airplace requires to remain airborne. >>>>>> >>>>>> You do know that the amount of solar energy available is limited by the >>>>>> solar irradiance, which is apporximately 1 kM/m^2 at noon on a clear >>>>>> day, don't you? >>>>> >>>>> I know that a sailplane is a glider which the solar powered planes are *not*. >>>> >>>> There are powered sailplanes, also known as motor gliders. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_glider >>>> >>>>> I know that you haven't made a point about the solar powered plane. It is >>>>> constructed like a glider, so what? Have you seen pictures of the Wright >>>>> brothers plane? >>>> >>>> You still don't get it do you, or are you being dense on purpose just to argue? >>> >>> Just waiting for you to actually *say* something. >> >> Yeah, right. >> >>>> There is some minimum amount of power required to keep an airplane flying. >>>> >>>> Powered sailplanes require very little power to keep flying and have wings >>>> with a very large surface area, therefore it is practical to have a solar >>>> powered sailplane. >>>> >>>> A common airplane such as a Cessna 172 does not have enough wing area to >>>> collect enough energy to fly, therefore it is not practical to have a >>>> solar powered Cessna 172. >>> >>> So??? I'm still waiting for you to say something significant about this. >>> It's also not practical to launch a Cessna 172 to the moon. SO WHAT? >> >> So solar powered airplanes other than motor gliders are not practical. >> >> Attempts to drag in red herrings about the Wright Brothers and the Moon >> noted. >> >>> Solar powered planes exist and have flown around the world. Unlike gas >>> powered or jet engines they can stay up for days as they don't need to be >>> refueled after six hours or so. They fly well above the weather and collect >>> sun all day and continue to fly at night using batteries and altitude >>> accumulated during the day. >> >> All of those are motor gliders, thus proving my point. > > I've never disputed these planes are like gliders. I'm asking why this is > significant??? As has been said many times now, because gliders require very little power to remain airborne. And that is very little in both relative and absolute terms. <snip nonsense> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 17:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oktrk1$76v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #20056 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 3:30 PM: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 2:05 PM: >>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:07 PM: >>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:24 AM: >>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 3:19 PM: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 15/07/2017 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >>>>>>>>>>> comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Solar cells work so long as you stay above the cloud and keep to the lit >>>>>>>>>> hemisphere! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> piglet >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Only for powered sailplanes otherwise the area available to collect energy >>>>>>>>> is too small to meet power requirements. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So you are saying the only aircraft that can be powered by solar cells are >>>>>>>> the ones that can be powered by solar cells? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What point are you trying to make? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you would read the post for understanding, you would know that I am >>>>>>> saying only sailplanes have enough surface area to collect enough energy >>>>>>> to keep themselves in the air. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the vast majority of airplanes the available surface area is too small >>>>>>> to provide the energy the airplace requires to remain airborne. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You do know that the amount of solar energy available is limited by the >>>>>>> solar irradiance, which is apporximately 1 kM/m^2 at noon on a clear >>>>>>> day, don't you? >>>>>> >>>>>> I know that a sailplane is a glider which the solar powered planes are *not*. >>>>> >>>>> There are powered sailplanes, also known as motor gliders. >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_glider >>>>> >>>>>> I know that you haven't made a point about the solar powered plane. It is >>>>>> constructed like a glider, so what? Have you seen pictures of the Wright >>>>>> brothers plane? >>>>> >>>>> You still don't get it do you, or are you being dense on purpose just to argue? >>>> >>>> Just waiting for you to actually *say* something. >>> >>> Yeah, right. >>> >>>>> There is some minimum amount of power required to keep an airplane flying. >>>>> >>>>> Powered sailplanes require very little power to keep flying and have wings >>>>> with a very large surface area, therefore it is practical to have a solar >>>>> powered sailplane. >>>>> >>>>> A common airplane such as a Cessna 172 does not have enough wing area to >>>>> collect enough energy to fly, therefore it is not practical to have a >>>>> solar powered Cessna 172. >>>> >>>> So??? I'm still waiting for you to say something significant about this. >>>> It's also not practical to launch a Cessna 172 to the moon. SO WHAT? >>> >>> So solar powered airplanes other than motor gliders are not practical. >>> >>> Attempts to drag in red herrings about the Wright Brothers and the Moon >>> noted. >>> >>>> Solar powered planes exist and have flown around the world. Unlike gas >>>> powered or jet engines they can stay up for days as they don't need to be >>>> refueled after six hours or so. They fly well above the weather and collect >>>> sun all day and continue to fly at night using batteries and altitude >>>> accumulated during the day. >>> >>> All of those are motor gliders, thus proving my point. >> >> I've never disputed these planes are like gliders. I'm asking why this is >> significant??? > > As has been said many times now, because gliders require very little power > to remain airborne. > > And that is very little in both relative and absolute terms. I still don't see the relevance. Why should anyone care about this fact? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0paa4e-95q.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #20058 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 3:30 PM: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 2:05 PM: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:07 PM: >>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:24 AM: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 3:19 PM: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 15/07/2017 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >>>>>>>>>>>> comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Solar cells work so long as you stay above the cloud and keep to the lit >>>>>>>>>>> hemisphere! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> piglet >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Only for powered sailplanes otherwise the area available to collect energy >>>>>>>>>> is too small to meet power requirements. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you are saying the only aircraft that can be powered by solar cells are >>>>>>>>> the ones that can be powered by solar cells? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What point are you trying to make? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you would read the post for understanding, you would know that I am >>>>>>>> saying only sailplanes have enough surface area to collect enough energy >>>>>>>> to keep themselves in the air. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For the vast majority of airplanes the available surface area is too small >>>>>>>> to provide the energy the airplace requires to remain airborne. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You do know that the amount of solar energy available is limited by the >>>>>>>> solar irradiance, which is apporximately 1 kM/m^2 at noon on a clear >>>>>>>> day, don't you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I know that a sailplane is a glider which the solar powered planes are *not*. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are powered sailplanes, also known as motor gliders. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_glider >>>>>> >>>>>>> I know that you haven't made a point about the solar powered plane. It is >>>>>>> constructed like a glider, so what? Have you seen pictures of the Wright >>>>>>> brothers plane? >>>>>> >>>>>> You still don't get it do you, or are you being dense on purpose just to argue? >>>>> >>>>> Just waiting for you to actually *say* something. >>>> >>>> Yeah, right. >>>> >>>>>> There is some minimum amount of power required to keep an airplane flying. >>>>>> >>>>>> Powered sailplanes require very little power to keep flying and have wings >>>>>> with a very large surface area, therefore it is practical to have a solar >>>>>> powered sailplane. >>>>>> >>>>>> A common airplane such as a Cessna 172 does not have enough wing area to >>>>>> collect enough energy to fly, therefore it is not practical to have a >>>>>> solar powered Cessna 172. >>>>> >>>>> So??? I'm still waiting for you to say something significant about this. >>>>> It's also not practical to launch a Cessna 172 to the moon. SO WHAT? >>>> >>>> So solar powered airplanes other than motor gliders are not practical. >>>> >>>> Attempts to drag in red herrings about the Wright Brothers and the Moon >>>> noted. >>>> >>>>> Solar powered planes exist and have flown around the world. Unlike gas >>>>> powered or jet engines they can stay up for days as they don't need to be >>>>> refueled after six hours or so. They fly well above the weather and collect >>>>> sun all day and continue to fly at night using batteries and altitude >>>>> accumulated during the day. >>>> >>>> All of those are motor gliders, thus proving my point. >>> >>> I've never disputed these planes are like gliders. I'm asking why this is >>> significant??? >> >> As has been said many times now, because gliders require very little power >> to remain airborne. >> >> And that is very little in both relative and absolute terms. > > I still don't see the relevance. Why should anyone care about this fact? Because someone with at least a small amount of sense is capable of understanding that airplanes, other than sailplanes, do not have enough surface area to be able to capture enough solar energy to supply their energy rquirements to remain airborne. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 19:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oku12h$paj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #20060 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 6:11 PM: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 3:30 PM: >>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 2:05 PM: >>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:07 PM: >>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:24 AM: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 3:19 PM: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/07/2017 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >>>>>>>>>>>>> comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Solar cells work so long as you stay above the cloud and keep to the lit >>>>>>>>>>>> hemisphere! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> piglet >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Only for powered sailplanes otherwise the area available to collect energy >>>>>>>>>>> is too small to meet power requirements. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So you are saying the only aircraft that can be powered by solar cells are >>>>>>>>>> the ones that can be powered by solar cells? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What point are you trying to make? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you would read the post for understanding, you would know that I am >>>>>>>>> saying only sailplanes have enough surface area to collect enough energy >>>>>>>>> to keep themselves in the air. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For the vast majority of airplanes the available surface area is too small >>>>>>>>> to provide the energy the airplace requires to remain airborne. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You do know that the amount of solar energy available is limited by the >>>>>>>>> solar irradiance, which is apporximately 1 kM/m^2 at noon on a clear >>>>>>>>> day, don't you? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know that a sailplane is a glider which the solar powered planes are *not*. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are powered sailplanes, also known as motor gliders. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_glider >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know that you haven't made a point about the solar powered plane. It is >>>>>>>> constructed like a glider, so what? Have you seen pictures of the Wright >>>>>>>> brothers plane? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You still don't get it do you, or are you being dense on purpose just to argue? >>>>>> >>>>>> Just waiting for you to actually *say* something. >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, right. >>>>> >>>>>>> There is some minimum amount of power required to keep an airplane flying. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Powered sailplanes require very little power to keep flying and have wings >>>>>>> with a very large surface area, therefore it is practical to have a solar >>>>>>> powered sailplane. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A common airplane such as a Cessna 172 does not have enough wing area to >>>>>>> collect enough energy to fly, therefore it is not practical to have a >>>>>>> solar powered Cessna 172. >>>>>> >>>>>> So??? I'm still waiting for you to say something significant about this. >>>>>> It's also not practical to launch a Cessna 172 to the moon. SO WHAT? >>>>> >>>>> So solar powered airplanes other than motor gliders are not practical. >>>>> >>>>> Attempts to drag in red herrings about the Wright Brothers and the Moon >>>>> noted. >>>>> >>>>>> Solar powered planes exist and have flown around the world. Unlike gas >>>>>> powered or jet engines they can stay up for days as they don't need to be >>>>>> refueled after six hours or so. They fly well above the weather and collect >>>>>> sun all day and continue to fly at night using batteries and altitude >>>>>> accumulated during the day. >>>>> >>>>> All of those are motor gliders, thus proving my point. >>>> >>>> I've never disputed these planes are like gliders. I'm asking why this is >>>> significant??? >>> >>> As has been said many times now, because gliders require very little power >>> to remain airborne. >>> >>> And that is very little in both relative and absolute terms. >> >> I still don't see the relevance. Why should anyone care about this fact? > > Because someone with at least a small amount of sense is capable of > understanding that airplanes, other than sailplanes, do not have enough > surface area to be able to capture enough solar energy to supply their > energy rquirements to remain airborne. You keep saying the same simple fact over and over. I have no idea why you feel this is so important. I'm done asking you to explain. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 00:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qeia4e-luq.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #20064 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 6:11 PM: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 3:30 PM: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 2:05 PM: >>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:07 PM: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:24 AM: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 3:19 PM: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/07/2017 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Solar cells work so long as you stay above the cloud and keep to the lit >>>>>>>>>>>>> hemisphere! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> piglet >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Only for powered sailplanes otherwise the area available to collect energy >>>>>>>>>>>> is too small to meet power requirements. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying the only aircraft that can be powered by solar cells are >>>>>>>>>>> the ones that can be powered by solar cells? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What point are you trying to make? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you would read the post for understanding, you would know that I am >>>>>>>>>> saying only sailplanes have enough surface area to collect enough energy >>>>>>>>>> to keep themselves in the air. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For the vast majority of airplanes the available surface area is too small >>>>>>>>>> to provide the energy the airplace requires to remain airborne. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You do know that the amount of solar energy available is limited by the >>>>>>>>>> solar irradiance, which is apporximately 1 kM/m^2 at noon on a clear >>>>>>>>>> day, don't you? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I know that a sailplane is a glider which the solar powered planes are *not*. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are powered sailplanes, also known as motor gliders. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_glider >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I know that you haven't made a point about the solar powered plane. It is >>>>>>>>> constructed like a glider, so what? Have you seen pictures of the Wright >>>>>>>>> brothers plane? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You still don't get it do you, or are you being dense on purpose just to argue? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just waiting for you to actually *say* something. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, right. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is some minimum amount of power required to keep an airplane flying. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Powered sailplanes require very little power to keep flying and have wings >>>>>>>> with a very large surface area, therefore it is practical to have a solar >>>>>>>> powered sailplane. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A common airplane such as a Cessna 172 does not have enough wing area to >>>>>>>> collect enough energy to fly, therefore it is not practical to have a >>>>>>>> solar powered Cessna 172. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So??? I'm still waiting for you to say something significant about this. >>>>>>> It's also not practical to launch a Cessna 172 to the moon. SO WHAT? >>>>>> >>>>>> So solar powered airplanes other than motor gliders are not practical. >>>>>> >>>>>> Attempts to drag in red herrings about the Wright Brothers and the Moon >>>>>> noted. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Solar powered planes exist and have flown around the world. Unlike gas >>>>>>> powered or jet engines they can stay up for days as they don't need to be >>>>>>> refueled after six hours or so. They fly well above the weather and collect >>>>>>> sun all day and continue to fly at night using batteries and altitude >>>>>>> accumulated during the day. >>>>>> >>>>>> All of those are motor gliders, thus proving my point. >>>>> >>>>> I've never disputed these planes are like gliders. I'm asking why this is >>>>> significant??? >>>> >>>> As has been said many times now, because gliders require very little power >>>> to remain airborne. >>>> >>>> And that is very little in both relative and absolute terms. >>> >>> I still don't see the relevance. Why should anyone care about this fact? >> >> Because someone with at least a small amount of sense is capable of >> understanding that airplanes, other than sailplanes, do not have enough >> surface area to be able to capture enough solar energy to supply their >> energy rquirements to remain airborne. > > You keep saying the same simple fact over and over. I have no idea why you > feel this is so important. I'm done asking you to explain. And I am done trying to explain it to you as either you are the dumbest nob on the planet or a troll pretending not to understand something so simple. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 18:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qn6lmc9umq4vqsgomhfou5rjf4gja7of0g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #19984 |
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 18:31:37 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable power >> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical gasoline >> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we should be >> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >> current. > >We have such a material and it is called silver. That would make the chop shops happy. >> Carbon nanotubes are such a material. In tests they can carry orders of >> magnitude more current than ordinary conductors such as copper, aluminum, or >> gold. The problem is they've only be able to be produced for short lengths, >> a few centimeters at most. >> >> But an interesting research on nanotube-copper composites showed they can >> carry a 100 times more current than standard copper. So for the same size >> electric motor we could produce 100 times more power than currently: >> >> Posted: Aug 06, 2013 >> Novel CNT-copper nanocomposite delivers a 100-fold increase in current >> density >> http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=31710.php > >Current density and power are two different things. > >The actual issue is temperature rise because of winding resistance. > >> For the Tesla that would not be as major a deal because of the small size of >> the motor at only about 32 kilos for the Tesla S, a vehicle that weighs >> thousands of kilos. >> >> But that would be major for large scale motors used in other scenarios. >> These can weigh thousands of kilos, and could then be reduced to only tens >> of kilos. It would also be especially important for proposed electric >> aircraft that many groups are working towards. > >The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. Props are rather old-school, too. >> So is it really true we can increase electric motor power levels simply by >> using wire of higher current capacity? > >No, you need to reduce resistive losses and/or get rid of heat. And.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 02:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7utq3e-ic1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #19989 |
In sci.physics.electromag krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 18:31:37 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable power >>> to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a typical gasoline >>> engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in its coils therefore >>> being able to carry more current in the same space. If so, then we should be >>> able to produce more power if we have a material that can carry more >>> current. >> >>We have such a material and it is called silver. > > That would make the chop shops happy. Barbers, salad stores or those stripping stolen cars? >>> Carbon nanotubes are such a material. In tests they can carry orders of >>> magnitude more current than ordinary conductors such as copper, aluminum, or >>> gold. The problem is they've only be able to be produced for short lengths, >>> a few centimeters at most. >>> >>> But an interesting research on nanotube-copper composites showed they can >>> carry a 100 times more current than standard copper. So for the same size >>> electric motor we could produce 100 times more power than currently: >>> >>> Posted: Aug 06, 2013 >>> Novel CNT-copper nanocomposite delivers a 100-fold increase in current >>> density >>> http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=31710.php >> >>Current density and power are two different things. >> >>The actual issue is temperature rise because of winding resistance. >> >>> For the Tesla that would not be as major a deal because of the small size of >>> the motor at only about 32 kilos for the Tesla S, a vehicle that weighs >>> thousands of kilos. >>> >>> But that would be major for large scale motors used in other scenarios. >>> These can weigh thousands of kilos, and could then be reduced to only tens >>> of kilos. It would also be especially important for proposed electric >>> aircraft that many groups are working towards. >> >>The problem with electric airplanes is the lack of a power source that is >>comparable to gasoline or jet fuel not the weight of electric motors. > > Props are rather old-school, too. But quit efficient. >>> So is it really true we can increase electric motor power levels simply by >>> using wire of higher current capacity? >> >>No, you need to reduce resistive losses and/or get rid of heat. > > And. And what in regards to electric motors? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.electromag
csiph-web