Honestly quite surprised at this!
Honestly quite surprised at this!
Amazing ! 😉
Boeing 737-9 e-tron by audi
With TDI “clean” diesel range extender.
This gearbox concept goes back a while. The Airbus A340-300 and -200 were originally supposed to get a geared engined called the “Superfan” as it was called back then… but the gearbox was too much of a problem so they switched to CFM 56s instead.
Ok, but why don’t we just use nuclear energy to turn hydrogen to a liquid and then upgrade our current engine’s strength to run on hydrogen? The only emissions would be water vapor and we’d never have to worry about running out of it since it’s the most abundant element we know today.
MaxSez: Money is the problem. The conversion from carbon base would be astronomical. Atomic is the ansewer. Hell carbon burners have a higher acedant rate than nuclear over the long term. If the money put into Carbon for mschines/engines development over the last 30 years towards nuc safety we’d be well ahead of the power curve. Nuc subs hsve been around for 50+ years you can count there accident rate on your hands.
What’s going on at 3:23? It looks like the middle part is spinning, but not the fanblades. Lol
i guesst the damage risk is higher for nuclear
i thought the same
It is very hard to store LH2; it corrodes away metal tanks like it’s no one’s business. Also, it takes way too much energy to get to its condensation point, its comparative energy density is quite low, and hydrogen engines run at temperatures so high that the engine would be so heavy it would never get off the ground or negate any Isp advantages.
Agreed I think electric engines are the way forward
Once again, it’s an energy density and charging issue. They need lighter batteries and faster chargers. That’s why JetA is so popular, high energy density, flows quickly, and relatively stable. In theory, you can throw a lit match into a puddle of JetA and it won’t catch fire. Don’t try that at home.
That’s the problem: Because when it fails it fails hard. Meaning the risk is just too high. Even when you think you have thought every issue and danger through there is always a way to overcome safety barriers. If it’s by coincidence (two small issues that would not do anything bad themselves combined) or just by sheer power (A meteor hitting it). In my opinion we should stay away from nuclear power even though it is the most practical and very efficient. THere were much more nuclear accidents than you might think: For example in Switzerland there was a little accident that could have ended up like Tschernobyl: We just acted fast enough and sealed the underground research reactor with tons of tons of concrete. Electric is the future in my opinion.
@Kilt_McHaggis I’m sure you’d be very interested in that video :D
Yes, but how do you make the electric?
Nuclear powered planes using submarine technology is an interesting idea. I don’t think it’s really any more dangerous than conventional fuel burning engines.
Nuclear while having a few downsides is in the short term the only viable option until significantly more efficient batteries and solar cells are created to actually be of use with storing solar power. While advancements have been made with batteries such as the ones used in Tesla cars, they are still not efficient enough to be a viable large scale replacement in highly developed countries.
All this information comes from a highly credible source.
I hardly doubt that nuclear options will be the future. They are relatively safe and very usable but out of general opinion and political views I don’t think and don’t hope at all this will be allowed. It’s not like we have to switch from fossile to all electric tomorrow: I think over the course of the coming years electricity will be upgraded always a bit more to be able to hand the always growing use of it, allowing more electric cars to replace normal cars. In the end it’s still a long road to achieve.
What about Fusion Reactors? ;)
Fusion reactors dont have this safety problem. The element produced by a fusion reaction, He-4, is not radioactive and a fusion reaction cannot sustain itself and because of such cannot result in a runaway nuclear reaction. This is because there is combining of atoms leading to a reduction of reactions available, not an increase as seen in fission reactions.
How the development of carbon-free energy ideally should go.
Fission nuclear reactions----- high efficiency solar cell electricity with batteries----- highly efficient solar cell power supplementing and sustaining the high energy requirement and element production requirements for a fusion reactor.
Supplementing solar power to initiate a fusion reaction and produce the elements needed for a fusion reaction to sustain itself is ideal as a controlled fusion reaction requires an incredible amount of energy to begin, so much that with current technology controlled fusion reactions are not a viable option for energy due to the energy required to initiate a controlled fusion reaction is substantially higher than any energy produced by one. Supplementing solar power in would allow the cost of the reaction to be significantly lower and thus make it economically viable and attractive for energy. Controlled artificial fusion reactions, when sustained, have a near infinite lifespan, one that would far outlast any natural fusion reaction occurring in stars.
Anyway this is off-topic now and should continue in PM.
Whilst you discuss alternative power sources, I’ll mention one too. It’s an emerging nuclear technology called LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.
Many people are linking it with cold fusion. It sort of is, sort of isn’t. Think of it more like a cousin of cold fusion rather than a sibling.
But industrials like Mitsubishi, universities like MIT and a bunch of aviation geeks called NASA are throwing huge resources at this field of research.
It would be 100% safe to fly, no nuclear waste to worry about.
If LENR couldn’t directly power a aircraft, it could definitely generate 100% clean, carbon free energy the airport / land side power generation needs to charge up the aircrafts batteries during turn around.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.