Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #530784 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-06 14:17 -0600 |
| Last post | 2015-11-07 14:50 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 89 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 14:17 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Puppet_Sock <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-06 13:26 -0800
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-06 22:28 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-06 22:31 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 17:55 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-06 23:07 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 18:09 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 18:16 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 00:57 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 19:44 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution "Ringer" <byoung@peoplestel.net> - 2015-11-06 20:02 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 21:37 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-11-06 20:59 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 22:03 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-11-06 23:20 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 00:56 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-11-07 10:46 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 18:17 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-11-08 19:06 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-07 16:09 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Trawley Trash <trash@invalid.invalid> - 2015-11-07 05:42 -0800
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-06 17:56 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 09:33 +0100
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-07 10:22 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 00:58 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 22:27 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 23:40 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 00:20 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 01:00 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 07:10 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 08:23 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 10:31 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 10:00 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 11:16 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 10:21 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 11:29 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 10:35 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 11:48 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 18:39 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:11 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 20:17 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:42 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 21:17 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 18:37 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:12 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 20:19 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:43 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 21:18 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 18:37 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:12 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 20:20 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:44 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 21:18 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 09:43 +0100
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 07:08 +0000
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
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-07 09:37 -0800
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 12:43 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 18:43 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 16:52 -0800
US climate trolling militants infecting sci.physics 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2015-11-07 14:50 +0000
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 23:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n20knt$1dh$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #531149 |
Poutnik wrote: >>> How do you power an airliner with solar power? >> >> Very easy. You just need to present the right attitude. >> > It is not so easy. > > Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km. > ( Many people are not aware of the flying is more energy efficient than > 1 person car driving ) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar power. Nowhere to use litres.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 08:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n21dda$dca$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #532229 |
Dne 12/11/2015 v 00:58 Ludwig Böhm napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >>>> How do you power an airliner with solar power? >>> >>> Very easy. You just need to present the right attitude. >>> >> It is not so easy. >> >> Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km. >> ( Many people are not aware of the flying is more energy efficient than >> 1 person car driving ) >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values > > Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar power. > Nowhere to use litres. > It seems you were not patient enough to read all the post, otherwise you would notice your reply is not relevant, as it was addressed there. As rate of spent fuel volume is *closely* related to required solar power. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n22dk3$ic2$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #532290 |
Poutnik wrote: >>> Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km. >>> ( Many people are not aware of the flying is more energy efficient >>> than 1 person car driving ) >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values >> >> Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar power. >> Nowhere to use litres. > > As rate of spent fuel volume is *closely* related to required solar > power. Of course not. Same way you may say is *closely* related to cubic meters etc. A solar powered device or machine is NOT using litres anywhere in their particular configuration.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 19:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n22mms$b1s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #532324 |
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. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 19:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rd6fhc-fu2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #532390 |
In sci.physics 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. You are arguing with a nym shifting troll idiot. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 19:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n22r21$jb0$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #532425 |
jimp wrote: >> What does say the term equivalence to you ? >> >> 1 Litre of kerosene contains roughly 40 MJ of chemical energy. Spending >> rate 1 L/s is equivalent to providing power about 40 MW. >> >> Any solar based solution with comparable power and efficiency of used >> engines hasa to provide equivalent power comparable to fuel rate. > > You are arguing with a nym shifting troll idiot. No, you are arguing with an idiot. No litres. Finalmente, una aerotabla que puede volar de verdad - No litres https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpBkT6h1SLA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 19:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n22ql8$iq4$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #532390 |
Poutnik wrote: >>>> 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 ? To me, nothing. I dont need to equivalence anything. Solar panels and electric motors are not using litres. > 1 Litre of kerosene contains roughly 40 MJ of chemical energy. Spending > rate 1 L/s is equivalent to providing power about 40 MW. I'm not paying attention, Pout. > Any solar based solution with comparable power and efficiency of used > engines hasa to provide equivalent power comparable to fuel rate. No. Different domains, construction and everything else. Watch this, no litres. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqcKL2G2Ews
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 20:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n58fhc-l33.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #532429 |
In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote: > Poutnik wrote: > >>>>> 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 ? > > To me, nothing. I dont need to equivalence anything. Solar panels and > electric motors are not using litres. If you are not a troll, you are an utter idiot. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 21:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n230af$u8k$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #532436 |
jimp wrote: >>> What does say the term equivalence to you ? >> >> To me, nothing. I dont need to equivalence anything. Solar panels and >> electric motors are not using litres. > > If you are not a troll, you are an utter idiot. Oh boy, saying that an electric motor uses litres makes you a terribly supersized imbecile. Hahahahaa. Solar panels and electric motors in litres, hahhahaha
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 21:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i4dfhc-mj3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #532470 |
In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote: > jimp wrote: > >>>> What does say the term equivalence to you ? >>> >>> To me, nothing. I dont need to equivalence anything. Solar panels and >>> electric motors are not using litres. >> >> If you are not a troll, you are an utter idiot. > > Oh boy, saying that an electric motor uses litres makes you a terribly > supersized imbecile. Hahahahaa. Solar panels and electric motors in > litres, hahhahaha Your utter ignorance is showing badly, troll. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 22:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n233bd$5i0$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #532472 |
jimp wrote: >> Oh boy, saying that an electric motor uses litres makes you a terribly >> supersized imbecile. Hahahahaa. Solar panels and electric motors in >> litres, hahhahaha > > Your utter ignorance is showing badly, troll. The only sentence you repeat stupidly over and over again. Man, you are so f. stupid. When I need to build an electric solar panel driven aeroplane I need to worry about whatever other fossil fuel motor is used in a completely other aeroplane. Can you become more stupid than that, jimp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 23:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7difhc-384.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #532501 |
In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote: > jimp wrote: > >>> Oh boy, saying that an electric motor uses litres makes you a terribly >>> supersized imbecile. Hahahahaa. Solar panels and electric motors in >>> litres, hahhahaha >> >> Your utter ignorance is showing badly, troll. > > The only sentence you repeat stupidly over and over again. Man, you are so > f. stupid. When I need to build an electric solar panel driven aeroplane I > need to worry about whatever other fossil fuel motor is used in a > completely other aeroplane. Can you become more stupid than that, jimp. Babbling nonsense. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 21:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n22ueq$bf8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #532429 |
Dne 12/11/2015 v 20:52 Ludwig Böhm napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >>> >>> Of course not. Same way you may say is *closely* related to cubic >>> meters etc. A solar powered device or machine is NOT using litres >>> anywhere in their particular configuration. >> >> What does say the term equivalence to you ? > > To me, nothing. I see. But such level of ignorance disqualifies you from further discussion. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 21:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n2306k$u8k$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #532452 |
Poutnik wrote: >>>> 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 ? >> >> To me, nothing. > > I see. > But such level of ignorance disqualifies you from further discussion. Disqualifies you!, as proven, the reason you snip the content and not relate at. Electric currents and charges are not measured in litres. But rather something close to q=it, which is this an electric motor consumes when activated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 16:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o7v94b50tpiuguve07s5c9q29c6nc3h7dv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #532390 |
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?
Other engineers worked on
a project to power airliners with
a 2 megawatt fuel cell, that isn't
much more than some of the new
aux power units electric produce.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 21:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4jdfhc-mj3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #532454 |
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]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 18:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <b35a4b5uu6sf7oa91090l8st875qm1b2un@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #532473 |
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]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 23:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ovjfhc-384.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #532520 |
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]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 20:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <hica4b9adr3snfgat0atf3ced73dg2vqvb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #532538 |
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]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 01:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u5sfhc-775.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #532583 |
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]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web