It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Finally putting an end to chemtrails

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Electric jet airplanes soon to be a reality:



An airline and EV startup to bring electric airplanes for short haul trips

U.S.-based startup Wright Electric and British budget airline Easy-jet have announced a partnership to build electric airplanes. The goal is for the all-electric plane to be capable of ferrying 150 people on flights under 300 miles.


revolution-green.com...




posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Hard to imagine the battery power required to do this.
This has to be many years away.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Then they had better start on inventing ways to make the chemtrails invisible.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

And be EMP proof.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: dfnj2015

Hard to imagine the battery power required to do this.
This has to be many years away.


Oh they will be powered by a small nuclear reactor.............(jK)

but..........



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I could see using battery to get the plane in the air but once it's up there as long as air moves around the craft I don't see how we can't harness that energy. I know perpetual motion but still...like in cars. Why isn't there a generator wrapped around the drive shaft and all four tires. Seems wasted energy to me.

That's just my opinion and it has no value.
edit on 2-10-2017 by ConscienceZombie because: I can



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: dfnj2015

Hard to imagine the battery power required to do this.
This has to be many years away.


Batteries are heavy but LiFe have enough energy density.

LENR nuclear reactors may work too:



It's a very simple concept. You add a sufficient number of neutrons to an Hydrogen atom it fuses into Helium and releases a HUGE amount of energy.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

They're already flying demonstrators and prototypes. We'll probably see them flying within 10-15 years tops.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: SolAquarius

I love the technical post. But honestly you have do some research here. The Air Force had it's own nuclear power plant design much safer than the Navy design. The Air Force had a working design in the 1950s and was done with Thorium:




posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Electric airplanes! #ing awesome!!



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConscienceZombie
I could see using battery to get the plane in the air but once it's up there as long as air moves around the craft I don't see how we can't harness that energy. I know perpetual motion but still...like in cars. Why isn't there a generator wrapped around the drive shaft and all four tires. Seems wasted energy to me.

That's just my opinion and it has no value.


You would have to sacrifice speed for that energy storage built up by the generators.
Remember the speed of the car is directly proportional to the energy used to rotate the tires.
The generator would have to take some of the finite amount of energy produced by motion.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Zunum Aero is looking at a hybrid design that would reduce noise and increase efficiency significantly. It would have a turbine for charging the batteries, and they're looking at 700 miles for the range.

www.wired.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Zunum Aero is looking at a hybrid design that would reduce noise and increase efficiency significantly. It would have a turbine for charging the batteries, and they're looking at 700 miles for the range.

www.wired.com...


Nice.
yeah until we get super efficient batteries hybrid is the way to go.

Cool article. It says if the tech works we would see smaller planes making short hops to all the small airports instead of the huge jumps the big planes make now. That means less time spent boarding and less time in the air.
Lot of ifs coming from the engineers about that tech though.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Your source:

“The energy density for batteries isn’t high enough to even get a couple of people off the ground, let alone 30 or 40,” says aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia. And if the hybridization scheme isn’t as efficient as engineers hope, it could require just as much fuel as a conventional jet engine or turboprop—in a much newer, less proven, system.


Batteries (and nukes) tend to be heavy. Not a good feature for something that flies. Unless you just want to prove a point.



edit on 10/2/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConscienceZombie
I could see using battery to get the plane in the air but once it's up there as long as air moves around the craft I don't see how we can't harness that energy. I know perpetual motion but still...like in cars. Why isn't there a generator wrapped around the drive shaft and all four tires. Seems wasted energy to me.

That's just my opinion and it has no value.


In my advanced physics class back in the late 90s I had a really intelligent professor who spent a whole week showing us the physics of a car and how much of the gasoline's energy value was wasted via friction.

Here ya go:

Of the energy output of fuel in a car engine, 33% is spent in exhaust, 29% in cooling and 38% in mechanical energy, of which friction losses account for 33% and air resistance for 5%. ... With current technology, only 21.5% of the energy output of the fuel is used to actually move the car; the rest is wasted


Phys.org link

So your opinion actually has a lot of value because we could be finding new ways to waste less energy and get AT LEAST 3 times more output from each gallon of gasoline just in terms of proper utilization and mitigation techniques.

We aren't even talking about building better components like the miracle 100mpg carburetor or anything. We're just talking about mitigation and conservation theory, where we find a way to prevent losing what we already have.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

I think there is quite a bit of incentive to improve efficiency. The trouble lies in that cost/benefit thing.

Case in point; there are a lot of people who buy hybrids, but they are expensive. Technology is closing the gap, but it's still cheaper to buy a straight petroleum powered vehicle. When it costs less, people will buy it.

edit on 10/3/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I really do think we could prolong the viability of petro combustion engines by centuries without it really being a major problem. But we have to really improve their efficiency, safety, improve our overall designs greatly, resolve various logistical problems even down to the way we operate gas stations, etc.

Every single little aspect of the entire process could be improved upon many times over, and we could snag a % here or there and just build upon it.

Having electric hybrids or fully electric vehicles seems fine, especially if we can devise a wireless transmission system for electrically powered motors where you'd never have to refuel.

Although I've read into a lot of Nic Tesla's stuff, it's really arcane and challenging for me to understand even basic magnetism and so due to my technical shortcomings (in terms of mechanics and electrical engineering), I don't know exactly how to build an electric generator that would transmit wireless energy to receivers or what distances or weather conditions or geological features would do or any of that stuff.

I guess I could figure all of that out but it'd take years of hard study into the topics and I'm currently all over the place and simply am not up for the challenge. I'd need to go read everything by several dozen scientists, Ohm, Hertz, Maxwell, Gauss, Faraday, Franklin, Gilbert, Guericke, Volta, Ampere, Henry, etc etc.

I actually don't know hardly any of that massive body of work.
I cannot imagine what I could achieve if I learned the entire history and theories of electric and how it applies to mechanics and metallurgy, etc.

Phage, if you ever find one of those time-chambers where I can go inside and spend 100 years reading books and come back out and only 1 day passed in our time-frame, let me spend a few weeks in it with a library of books and a coffee machine with a ton of grounds and a running water source. I'd love to have the time to learn all this stuff.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 03:53 AM
link   
No , please not nuclear powered aircraft
One crashes and....there goes the neighborhood.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Hence the "10-15 years" in my previous post.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   
[batman]
Atomic batteries to power; turbines to speed...
[/batman]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join