Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #369293 > unrolled thread

Re: Technology's role in a climate solution

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-07 14:16 +0000
    Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 18:42 +0000
      Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-08 00:50 +0000
        Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 08:45 +0100
          Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 17:56 +0100
          Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-11 23:58 +0000
            Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 08:02 +0100
              Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 16:09 +0000
                Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 19:47 +0100
                  Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 19:38 +0000
                    Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 19:58 +0000
                  Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 19:52 +0000
                    Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 20:07 +0000
                      Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 21:28 +0000
                        Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 21:32 +0000
                          Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 22:20 +0000
                            Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 23:02 +0000
                    Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 21:59 +0100
                      Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 21:26 +0000
                  Re: Technology's role in a climate solution kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 16:05 -0500
                    Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 21:40 +0000
                      Re: Technology's role in a climate solution kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 18:01 -0500
                        Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 23:29 +0000
                          Re: Technology's role in a climate solution kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 20:20 -0500
                            Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-13 01:49 +0000
                              Re: Technology's role in a climate solution kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 22:35 -0500
                                Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-13 04:39 +0000
              Re: Technology's role in a climate solution benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 13:10 -0500
        Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-08 17:30 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#369839

In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:47:01 +0100, Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>On 11/12/2015 05:09 PM, Ludwig Böhm wrote:
>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> 
>>>>>> Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km.
>>>>>> ( Many people are not aware of the flying is more energy efficient
>>>>>> than 1 person car driving  )
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values
>>>>>
>>>>> Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar power.
>>>>> Nowhere to use litres.
>>>>
>>>> As rate of spent fuel volume is *closely* related to required solar
>>>> power.
>>> 
>>> Of course not. Same way you may say is *closely* related to cubic meters 
>>> etc. A solar powered device or machine is NOT using litres anywhere in 
>>> their particular configuration.
>>> 
>>
>>What does say the term equivalence to you ?
>>
>>1 Litre of kerosene contains roughly 40 MJ of chemical energy.
>>Spending rate 1 L/s is equivalent to providing power about 40 MW.
>>
>>Any solar based solution with comparable power and efficiency
>>of used engines hasa to provide equivalent power
>>comparable to fuel rate.
> 
>         40 MW is about 50,000 HP,
> the most solar an airliner could collect
> is about  40 KW.
> 
>         The power needed has confused
> even engineers (I think), the atomic 
> powered bomber reactors were only
> about 2 megawatt, the power of the
> gasoline reciprocating engines on 
> the B-36 were about 3000 HP each,
> or more than 2 megawatt, and the
> B-36 had 6 or 8 of them, so how
> could a B-36 be powered with
> 2 megawatt reactors?
> 

The reactor in the NB-36H was 3MW and did not power anything; it was
just a test of shielding.

The same goes for the Soviet Tu-119 program.

No nuclear powered airplane has flown.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369844

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:40:20 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:47:01 +0100, Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>On 11/12/2015 05:09 PM, Ludwig Böhm wrote:
>>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>>> Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km.
>>>>>>> ( Many people are not aware of the flying is more energy efficient
>>>>>>> than 1 person car driving  )
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar power.
>>>>>> Nowhere to use litres.
>>>>>
>>>>> As rate of spent fuel volume is *closely* related to required solar
>>>>> power.
>>>> 
>>>> Of course not. Same way you may say is *closely* related to cubic meters 
>>>> etc. A solar powered device or machine is NOT using litres anywhere in 
>>>> their particular configuration.
>>>> 
>>>
>>>What does say the term equivalence to you ?
>>>
>>>1 Litre of kerosene contains roughly 40 MJ of chemical energy.
>>>Spending rate 1 L/s is equivalent to providing power about 40 MW.
>>>
>>>Any solar based solution with comparable power and efficiency
>>>of used engines hasa to provide equivalent power
>>>comparable to fuel rate.
>> 
>>         40 MW is about 50,000 HP,
>> the most solar an airliner could collect
>> is about  40 KW.
>> 
>>         The power needed has confused
>> even engineers (I think), the atomic 
>> powered bomber reactors were only
>> about 2 megawatt, the power of the
>> gasoline reciprocating engines on 
>> the B-36 were about 3000 HP each,
>> or more than 2 megawatt, and the
>> B-36 had 6 or 8 of them, so how
>> could a B-36 be powered with
>> 2 megawatt reactors?
>> 
>
>The reactor in the NB-36H was 3MW and did not power anything; it was
>just a test of shielding.
>
>The same goes for the Soviet Tu-119 program.
>
>No nuclear powered airplane has flown.

        My point was that 2 or 3 megawatt is not
enough power to propel a B-36 size aircraft
at 200 MPH, nowhere near enough.

        The R-4360 was well over 3000 HP,
that is 3000 * 746 watts, or 2,238,000 watts,
(2.238 megawatts each engine), and the
B-36 had 6 of those engines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgur50yMHwE

http://www.pw.utc.com/R4360_Wasp_Major_Engine

       The jet engines probably produced about 4000 HP
each, so the 10 petroleum engines produced the equivalent
of about  30 megawatts.

       The plane was dog with that power, what would
it been like with 3 megawatts, which may have been
3 megawatt thermal, I'm not sure if that even equates
to 4000 HP in practice, and it's probably certain the
plane was not planned to have more than one.     


        3 Megawatts sounds like a lot, but many piston
engine airplanes had more equivalent power than that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369848

In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:40:20 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:47:01 +0100, Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>On 11/12/2015 05:09 PM, Ludwig Böhm wrote:
>>>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km.
>>>>>>>> ( Many people are not aware of the flying is more energy efficient
>>>>>>>> than 1 person car driving  )
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar power.
>>>>>>> Nowhere to use litres.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As rate of spent fuel volume is *closely* related to required solar
>>>>>> power.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Of course not. Same way you may say is *closely* related to cubic meters 
>>>>> etc. A solar powered device or machine is NOT using litres anywhere in 
>>>>> their particular configuration.
>>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>What does say the term equivalence to you ?
>>>>
>>>>1 Litre of kerosene contains roughly 40 MJ of chemical energy.
>>>>Spending rate 1 L/s is equivalent to providing power about 40 MW.
>>>>
>>>>Any solar based solution with comparable power and efficiency
>>>>of used engines hasa to provide equivalent power
>>>>comparable to fuel rate.
>>> 
>>>         40 MW is about 50,000 HP,
>>> the most solar an airliner could collect
>>> is about  40 KW.
>>> 
>>>         The power needed has confused
>>> even engineers (I think), the atomic 
>>> powered bomber reactors were only
>>> about 2 megawatt, the power of the
>>> gasoline reciprocating engines on 
>>> the B-36 were about 3000 HP each,
>>> or more than 2 megawatt, and the
>>> B-36 had 6 or 8 of them, so how
>>> could a B-36 be powered with
>>> 2 megawatt reactors?
>>> 
>>
>>The reactor in the NB-36H was 3MW and did not power anything; it was
>>just a test of shielding.
>>
>>The same goes for the Soviet Tu-119 program.
>>
>>No nuclear powered airplane has flown.
> 
>         My point was that 2 or 3 megawatt is not
> enough power to propel a B-36 size aircraft
> at 200 MPH, nowhere near enough.

It isn't enough to do much more than taxi.

>         The R-4360 was well over 3000 HP,
> that is 3000 * 746 watts, or 2,238,000 watts,
> (2.238 megawatts each engine), and the
> B-36 had 6 of those engines.

Actually 3,800 HP.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgur50yMHwE
> 
> http://www.pw.utc.com/R4360_Wasp_Major_Engine
> 
>        The jet engines probably produced about 4000 HP
> each, so the 10 petroleum engines produced the equivalent
> of about  30 megawatts.

The jets produced about 6,000 lbf of thrust and were used for takeoff.

>        The plane was dog with that power, what would
> it been like with 3 megawatts, which may have been
> 3 megawatt thermal, I'm not sure if that even equates
> to 4000 HP in practice, and it's probably certain the
> plane was not planned to have more than one.     

Again, the reactor was there ONLY to test shielding.
 
>         3 Megawatts sounds like a lot, but many piston
> engine airplanes had more equivalent power than that.

And still do, but new engines over about 500 HP ( .37 MW) are these
days turbines; the day of the huge radial has pasted. 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369851

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 23:29:28 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:40:20 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>>>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:47:01 +0100, Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>On 11/12/2015 05:09 PM, Ludwig Böhm wrote:
>>>>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km.
>>>>>>>>> ( Many people are not aware of the flying is more energy efficient
>>>>>>>>> than 1 person car driving  )
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar power.
>>>>>>>> Nowhere to use litres.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As rate of spent fuel volume is *closely* related to required solar
>>>>>>> power.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Of course not. Same way you may say is *closely* related to cubic meters 
>>>>>> etc. A solar powered device or machine is NOT using litres anywhere in 
>>>>>> their particular configuration.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>>What does say the term equivalence to you ?
>>>>>
>>>>>1 Litre of kerosene contains roughly 40 MJ of chemical energy.
>>>>>Spending rate 1 L/s is equivalent to providing power about 40 MW.
>>>>>
>>>>>Any solar based solution with comparable power and efficiency
>>>>>of used engines hasa to provide equivalent power
>>>>>comparable to fuel rate.
>>>> 
>>>>         40 MW is about 50,000 HP,
>>>> the most solar an airliner could collect
>>>> is about  40 KW.
>>>> 
>>>>         The power needed has confused
>>>> even engineers (I think), the atomic 
>>>> powered bomber reactors were only
>>>> about 2 megawatt, the power of the
>>>> gasoline reciprocating engines on 
>>>> the B-36 were about 3000 HP each,
>>>> or more than 2 megawatt, and the
>>>> B-36 had 6 or 8 of them, so how
>>>> could a B-36 be powered with
>>>> 2 megawatt reactors?
>>>> 
>>>
>>>The reactor in the NB-36H was 3MW and did not power anything; it was
>>>just a test of shielding.
>>>
>>>The same goes for the Soviet Tu-119 program.
>>>
>>>No nuclear powered airplane has flown.
>> 
>>         My point was that 2 or 3 megawatt is not
>> enough power to propel a B-36 size aircraft
>> at 200 MPH, nowhere near enough.
>
>It isn't enough to do much more than taxi.
>
>>         The R-4360 was well over 3000 HP,
>> that is 3000 * 746 watts, or 2,238,000 watts,
>> (2.238 megawatts each engine), and the
>> B-36 had 6 of those engines.
>
>Actually 3,800 HP.
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgur50yMHwE
>> 
>> http://www.pw.utc.com/R4360_Wasp_Major_Engine
>> 
>>        The jet engines probably produced about 4000 HP
>> each, so the 10 petroleum engines produced the equivalent
>> of about  30 megawatts.
>
>The jets produced about 6,000 lbf of thrust and were used for takeoff.
>
>>        The plane was dog with that power, what would
>> it been like with 3 megawatts, which may have been
>> 3 megawatt thermal, I'm not sure if that even equates
>> to 4000 HP in practice, and it's probably certain the
>> plane was not planned to have more than one.     
>
>Again, the reactor was there ONLY to test shielding.

         Testing to see if feasible as the propulsion power
for an unlimited range  bomber.

         The reactor itself was tested in Utah;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6

          Again, either of those reactors was only about
the power of one of the 10 engines of the B-36, and
the X-6 was to use a B-36 airframe.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion


>>         3 Megawatts sounds like a lot, but many piston
>> engine airplanes had more equivalent power than that.
>
>And still do, but new engines over about 500 HP ( .37 MW) are these
>days turbines; the day of the huge radial has pasted. 

           Not relevant to my point, the whole concept
was flawed because the plane would have needed
at least 20 MW to even get off the ground, the X-6
was planned to be heavier than the B-36.

          I don't know how to account for such a large
difference between the test reactors and the power
needed to get the plane in the air.

         Diesel engines with equivalent power might
have weighed less than the reactor with shielding.

http://www.dieselserviceandsupply.com/CAT_Power_Plant_Packages.aspx

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369852

In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 23:29:28 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:40:20 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:47:01 +0100, Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>On 11/12/2015 05:09 PM, Ludwig Böhm wrote:
>>>>>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km.
>>>>>>>>>> ( Many people are not aware of the flying is more energy efficient
>>>>>>>>>> than 1 person car driving  )
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar power.
>>>>>>>>> Nowhere to use litres.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As rate of spent fuel volume is *closely* related to required solar
>>>>>>>> power.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Of course not. Same way you may say is *closely* related to cubic meters 
>>>>>>> etc. A solar powered device or machine is NOT using litres anywhere in 
>>>>>>> their particular configuration.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What does say the term equivalence to you ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1 Litre of kerosene contains roughly 40 MJ of chemical energy.
>>>>>>Spending rate 1 L/s is equivalent to providing power about 40 MW.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Any solar based solution with comparable power and efficiency
>>>>>>of used engines hasa to provide equivalent power
>>>>>>comparable to fuel rate.
>>>>> 
>>>>>         40 MW is about 50,000 HP,
>>>>> the most solar an airliner could collect
>>>>> is about  40 KW.
>>>>> 
>>>>>         The power needed has confused
>>>>> even engineers (I think), the atomic 
>>>>> powered bomber reactors were only
>>>>> about 2 megawatt, the power of the
>>>>> gasoline reciprocating engines on 
>>>>> the B-36 were about 3000 HP each,
>>>>> or more than 2 megawatt, and the
>>>>> B-36 had 6 or 8 of them, so how
>>>>> could a B-36 be powered with
>>>>> 2 megawatt reactors?
>>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>The reactor in the NB-36H was 3MW and did not power anything; it was
>>>>just a test of shielding.
>>>>
>>>>The same goes for the Soviet Tu-119 program.
>>>>
>>>>No nuclear powered airplane has flown.
>>> 
>>>         My point was that 2 or 3 megawatt is not
>>> enough power to propel a B-36 size aircraft
>>> at 200 MPH, nowhere near enough.
>>
>>It isn't enough to do much more than taxi.
>>
>>>         The R-4360 was well over 3000 HP,
>>> that is 3000 * 746 watts, or 2,238,000 watts,
>>> (2.238 megawatts each engine), and the
>>> B-36 had 6 of those engines.
>>
>>Actually 3,800 HP.
>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgur50yMHwE
>>> 
>>> http://www.pw.utc.com/R4360_Wasp_Major_Engine
>>> 
>>>        The jet engines probably produced about 4000 HP
>>> each, so the 10 petroleum engines produced the equivalent
>>> of about  30 megawatts.
>>
>>The jets produced about 6,000 lbf of thrust and were used for takeoff.
>>
>>>        The plane was dog with that power, what would
>>> it been like with 3 megawatts, which may have been
>>> 3 megawatt thermal, I'm not sure if that even equates
>>> to 4000 HP in practice, and it's probably certain the
>>> plane was not planned to have more than one.     
>>
>>Again, the reactor was there ONLY to test shielding.
> 
>          Testing to see if feasible as the propulsion power
> for an unlimited range  bomber.

Testing to see if it was feasible to have a reactor in an airplane
and have the crew survive.

>          The reactor itself was tested in Utah;
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6
> 
>           Again, either of those reactors was only about
> the power of one of the 10 engines of the B-36, and
> the X-6 was to use a B-36 airframe.
>  
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion
> 
> 
>>>         3 Megawatts sounds like a lot, but many piston
>>> engine airplanes had more equivalent power than that.
>>
>>And still do, but new engines over about 500 HP ( .37 MW) are these
>>days turbines; the day of the huge radial has pasted. 
> 
>            Not relevant to my point, the whole concept
> was flawed because the plane would have needed
> at least 20 MW to even get off the ground, the X-6
> was planned to be heavier than the B-36.
> 
>           I don't know how to account for such a large
> difference between the test reactors and the power
> needed to get the plane in the air.

Because you keep overlooking the fact that the tests were to TEST SHIELDING
and nothing more.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369856

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 01:49:18 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 23:29:28 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>>>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:40:20 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:47:01 +0100, Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>On 11/12/2015 05:09 PM, Ludwig Böhm wrote:
>>>>>>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km.
>>>>>>>>>>> ( Many people are not aware of the flying is more energy efficient
>>>>>>>>>>> than 1 person car driving  )
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar power.
>>>>>>>>>> Nowhere to use litres.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As rate of spent fuel volume is *closely* related to required solar
>>>>>>>>> power.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Of course not. Same way you may say is *closely* related to cubic meters 
>>>>>>>> etc. A solar powered device or machine is NOT using litres anywhere in 
>>>>>>>> their particular configuration.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What does say the term equivalence to you ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1 Litre of kerosene contains roughly 40 MJ of chemical energy.
>>>>>>>Spending rate 1 L/s is equivalent to providing power about 40 MW.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Any solar based solution with comparable power and efficiency
>>>>>>>of used engines hasa to provide equivalent power
>>>>>>>comparable to fuel rate.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>         40 MW is about 50,000 HP,
>>>>>> the most solar an airliner could collect
>>>>>> is about  40 KW.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>         The power needed has confused
>>>>>> even engineers (I think), the atomic 
>>>>>> powered bomber reactors were only
>>>>>> about 2 megawatt, the power of the
>>>>>> gasoline reciprocating engines on 
>>>>>> the B-36 were about 3000 HP each,
>>>>>> or more than 2 megawatt, and the
>>>>>> B-36 had 6 or 8 of them, so how
>>>>>> could a B-36 be powered with
>>>>>> 2 megawatt reactors?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>>The reactor in the NB-36H was 3MW and did not power anything; it was
>>>>>just a test of shielding.
>>>>>
>>>>>The same goes for the Soviet Tu-119 program.
>>>>>
>>>>>No nuclear powered airplane has flown.
>>>> 
>>>>         My point was that 2 or 3 megawatt is not
>>>> enough power to propel a B-36 size aircraft
>>>> at 200 MPH, nowhere near enough.
>>>
>>>It isn't enough to do much more than taxi.
>>>
>>>>         The R-4360 was well over 3000 HP,
>>>> that is 3000 * 746 watts, or 2,238,000 watts,
>>>> (2.238 megawatts each engine), and the
>>>> B-36 had 6 of those engines.
>>>
>>>Actually 3,800 HP.
>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgur50yMHwE
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.pw.utc.com/R4360_Wasp_Major_Engine
>>>> 
>>>>        The jet engines probably produced about 4000 HP
>>>> each, so the 10 petroleum engines produced the equivalent
>>>> of about  30 megawatts.
>>>
>>>The jets produced about 6,000 lbf of thrust and were used for takeoff.
>>>
>>>>        The plane was dog with that power, what would
>>>> it been like with 3 megawatts, which may have been
>>>> 3 megawatt thermal, I'm not sure if that even equates
>>>> to 4000 HP in practice, and it's probably certain the
>>>> plane was not planned to have more than one.     
>>>
>>>Again, the reactor was there ONLY to test shielding.
>> 
>>          Testing to see if feasible as the propulsion power
>> for an unlimited range  bomber.
>
>Testing to see if it was feasible to have a reactor in an airplane
>and have the crew survive.
>
>>          The reactor itself was tested in Utah;
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6
>> 
>>           Again, either of those reactors was only about
>> the power of one of the 10 engines of the B-36, and
>> the X-6 was to use a B-36 airframe.
>>  
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion
>> 
>> 
>>>>         3 Megawatts sounds like a lot, but many piston
>>>> engine airplanes had more equivalent power than that.
>>>
>>>And still do, but new engines over about 500 HP ( .37 MW) are these
>>>days turbines; the day of the huge radial has pasted. 
>> 
>>            Not relevant to my point, the whole concept
>> was flawed because the plane would have needed
>> at least 20 MW to even get off the ground, the X-6
>> was planned to be heavier than the B-36.
>> 
>>           I don't know how to account for such a large
>> difference between the test reactors and the power
>> needed to get the plane in the air.
>
>Because you keep overlooking the fact that the tests were to TEST SHIELDING
>and nothing more.

        Which would be a pointless waste of money
if it was not part of the development of an unlimited
range atomic powered airplane.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369863

In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 01:49:18 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 




>>Because you keep overlooking the fact that the tests were to TEST SHIELDING
>>and nothing more.
> 
>         Which would be a pointless waste of money
> if it was not part of the development of an unlimited
> range atomic powered airplane.

The development of an unlimited range atomic powered airplane would
be a pointless waste of money if it killed the crew with radiation,
hence the initial testing to see if a reactor in an airplance could
be sucessfully shielded.



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369803

On 11/12/2015 02:02 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 12/11/2015 v 00:58 Ludwig Böhm napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>>>> How do you power an airliner with solar power?
>>>>
>>>> Very easy. You just need to present the right attitude.
>>>>
>>> It is not so easy.
>>>
>>> Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km.
>>> ( Many people are not aware of the flying is more energy efficient than
>>> 1 person car driving  )
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values
>>
>> Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar power.
>> Nowhere to use litres.
>>
>
> It seems you were not patient enough to read all the post,
> otherwise you would notice your reply is not relevant,
> as it was addressed there.
>
> As rate of spent fuel volume
> is *closely* related to required solar power.

Come on Pooter, Warmballers aren't interested in any "technological 
solution" to climate control. They are only interested in a TAX solution!



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369391

In sci.physics Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> wrote:
> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik jimp napisał:
> 
>>>> Solar energy isn't going to > power ships, airplanes, trucks,
>>>> construction equipment or large farm  machinery. And you completely
>>>> overlook current nuclear technology. You are a babbling Chicken
>>>> Little.
>>> 
>>> You are batshit crazy. Only in rotten poor capitalist countries around
>>> the world would believe such that.
>> 
>> How do you power an airliner with solar power?
> 
> Very easy. You just need to present the right attitude.

Like, what, closing your eyes and wishing real hard that you could?

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web