Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Wuhan Plasma Jets

14 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

It’s still an energy density issue.  Current energy density of electric systems don’t even really support prop aircraft.  Not sure what the energy density of hydrogen systems are but it isn’t a whole ton better.  Current systems for working out military non fossil fuel aircraft involve synthetic fuel which hydrogen systems usually are in some way.  Either way it is sliced this system wants higher energy density than is currently available in batteries for use in aircraft.    Not sure that matters for purposes of research.

A challenge indeed, but we do need to be looking at fossil fuel alternatives, it will run out.

 

just for the record Hydrogen has 33.33KWh/litre while Petrol and diesel 12KWh/litre. There are hurdles to overcome in generating hydrogen and generating electricity from it however.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

A challenge indeed, but we do need to be looking at fossil fuel alternatives, it will run out.

 

just for the record Hydrogen has 33.33KWh/litre while Petrol and diesel 12KWh/litre. There are hurdles to overcome in generating hydrogen and generating electricity from it however.

That’s not they system though that’s just the fuel.  You need the fuel container and the motor as well.  If measuring weights pure electricity the out and out winner.  e=mcWOW!.  It’s the container that is the bugbear.  They have a massive advantage in motor though which offsets that.  Fossil fuel only needs a metal shell container, but the motor needed is massively more complicated.  Heaviest single part of a vehicle generally, whereas with liion electricity it’s the battery pack.  Hydrogen is different yet. The container is difficult because hydrogen is such a small molecule it will just go right through things, and it needs to be either converted to electricity and use an electric motor, or mixed with oxygen and burned in a fossil fuel engine.

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

It’s not a cheap shot.

You’re probably right. Given the whole jet part is evidently unfounded, they haven’t done as much as the media we saw in OP would suggest. But that’s how media goes.

I think they’ve likely done that much and possibly more.  It didn’t seem to be misleading unless you only partially listen and come to inaccurate conclusions about what was said.
 

It was arguably kind of a cheap shot if coming from a country currently trying to make hay.  Coming from the USA for example it could very well be a right wing cheap shot designed to support the party in power.  Dovetails with the other arguable cheap shot about “media” that was even less accurate in this case.

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phill104 said:

A challenge indeed, but we do need to be looking at fossil fuel alternatives, it will run out.

 

just for the record Hydrogen has 33.33KWh/litre while Petrol and diesel 12KWh/litre. There are hurdles to overcome in generating hydrogen and generating electricity from it however.

You can't just look at the values and call it a day. Gasoline can be stored in a thin plastic tank that weighs next to nothing (and it's done at atmospheric pressure). You need to store just few kilograms of liquified hydrogen in massive super thick and super heavy cannisters under massive pressure. You can check thunderf00t's Youtube channel where he talks about energy density and hydrogen storage in particular. Hydrogen on paper is the shit, but storing any usable amount of it is such a problem it'll never be commercially usable.

Edited by RejZoR
Added some details.

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X | ASUS Strix X570-E | G.Skill 32GB 3600MHz CL16 | PALIT RTX 3080 10GB GamingPro | Samsung 850 Pro 2TB | Seagate Barracuda 8TB | Sound Blaster AE-9 MUSES

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

Arguable seems like a key term here.

True.  I don’t know you or your location or your motivation.  So arguable.  If for example a right winger from the USA arguable is more like “probable”.  I’d say, a british right winger it gets more complicated for me as I don’t know as much what goes on there so more arguable.  If a Chinese National it goes even more wonky.

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

You can't just look at the values and call it a day. Gasoline can be stored in a thin plastic tank that weighs next to nothing. You need to store just few kilograms of liquified hydrogen in massive super thick and super heavy cannisters. You can check thunderf00t's Youtube channel where he talks about energy density and hydrogen storage in particular. Hydrogen on paper is the shit, but storing any usable amount of it is such a problem it'll never be commercially usable.

A few ships are running on Hydrogen now, will be interesting to see how that progresses. Here in the UK the hydrogen busses have been working well but are just too expensive to buy, same goes for cars like the Mirai or however you spell it. 
 

The key point is, we need to find a future for the end of fossil fuel. Any technology that can give propulsion such as this needs to be researched, and moreover how to power it. As a propulsion system this shows promise, other research is desperately going on in energy production.
 

As for hydrogen, much of the industry is investing in research for large vehicles, it is currently not really very good in small ones like the aforementioned Toyota and the Honda. Ford have invested billions in it but seemingly have produced nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

You can't just look at the values and call it a day. Gasoline can be stored in a thin plastic tank that weighs next to nothing (and it's done at atmospheric pressure). You need to store just few kilograms of liquified hydrogen in massive super thick and super heavy cannisters under massive pressure. You can check thunderf00t's Youtube channel where he talks about energy density and hydrogen storage in particular. Hydrogen on paper is the shit, but storing any usable amount of it is such a problem it'll never be commercially usable.

Hydrogen vs electricity are surprisingly close when all the math is worked out.  So close that the choice between them rests mostly on infrastructure build out.  The USA goes electric because too much infrastructure would be needed and the population is too sparse.  The EU goes electric too because while they do have the population density they also have a better electrical grid than the US so the infrastructure is practically totally in place.  Japan goes hydrogen because they have even more population density and their electrical grid is terrible.   So both technologies are being developed concurrently.  Each country is going to have to do the math for their particular situation.  Australia for example I have no idea as to the answer to.  It’s sparsely and unevenly populated with a good electrical grid.  They’re close to japan physically though.  My suspicion is electric because of the sheer distances but I really don’t know.

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

I stopped putting people into labelled buckets years ago.

That’s nice.  Totally non topical, and possibly untrue, but nice.  I assume this is some sort of veiled accusation that I do.  Kind of a left field comment really.-

 

The bucket system can get inaccurate because it allows for only one grouping.  frequently more than one bucket is required for a given person and the buckets tend to morph without warning.  Buckets are not what happened here.  

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

Verily. It was more your understanding than a recollection of facts. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Unfortunately, it would be quite hard to turn a bucket into a suitable propulsion system for an aircraft. 

 

The good thing about innovation wherever it is in the world, is it spreads knowledge and ideas.  The more we share knowledge the better we become.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Unfortunately, it would be quite hard to turn a bucket into a suitable propulsion system for an aircraft. 

 

The good thing about innovation wherever it is in the world, is it spreads knowledge and ideas.  The more we share knowledge the better we become.

So yes.

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phill104 said:

A few ships are running on Hydrogen now, will be interesting to see how that progresses. Here in the UK the hydrogen busses have been working well but are just too expensive to buy, same goes for cars like the Mirai or however you spell it. 
 

The key point is, we need to find a future for the end of fossil fuel. Any technology that can give propulsion such as this needs to be researched, and moreover how to power it. As a propulsion system this shows promise, other research is desperately going on in energy production.
 

As for hydrogen, much of the industry is investing in research for large vehicles, it is currently not really very good in small ones like the aforementioned Toyota and the Honda. Ford have invested billions in it but seemingly have produced nothing.

You can't compare ships with airplanes lol. You can literally make ships out of concrete and they'll float. Aircraft carriers have their own nuclear reactors and they can float on seas for so long, in the end it's not a problem of ship fuel but fuel for humans onboard (food). Airplanes on the other hand are made of aluminium and titanium. One of lightest metals around. For obvious reasons, those 380 ton 747's are already stupid heavy as is and they are powered by one of most energy dense fuels in existence known to us.

2 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Hydrogen vs electricity are surprisingly close when all the math is worked out.  So close that the choice between them rests mostly on infrastructure build out.  The USA goes electric because too much infrastructure would be needed and the population is too sparse.  The EU goes electric too because while they do have the population density they also have a better electrical grid than the US so the infrastructure is practically totally in place.  Japan goes hydrogen because they have even more population density and their electrical grid is terrible.   So both technologies are being developed concurrently.  Each country is going to have to do the math for their particular situation.  Australia for example I have no idea as to the answer to.  It’s sparsely and unevenly populated with a good electrical grid.  They’re close to japan physically though.  My suspicion is electric because of the sheer distances but I really don’t know.

Problem with hydrogen is storage and supply chain. It's also incredibly volatile. Also, you can't really store a lot of it in those thick bulky heavy canisters.

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X | ASUS Strix X570-E | G.Skill 32GB 3600MHz CL16 | PALIT RTX 3080 10GB GamingPro | Samsung 850 Pro 2TB | Seagate Barracuda 8TB | Sound Blaster AE-9 MUSES

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

You can't compare ships with airplanes lol. You can literally make ships out of concrete and they'll float. Aircraft carriers have their own nuclear reactors and they can float on seas for so long, in the end it's not a problem of ship fuel but fuel for humans onboard (food). Airplanes on the other hand are made of aluminium and titanium. One of lightest metals around. For obvious reasons, those 380 ton 747's are already stupid heavy as is and they are powered by one of most energy dense fuels in existence known to us.

Problem with hydrogen is storage and supply chain. It's also incredibly volatile. Also, you can't really store a lot of it in those thick bulky heavy canisters.

Actually you can store it. It is also not as dangerous as many think. Usually when a pressurised tank leaks the hydrogen is very quickly dissipated into the atmosphere, you cannot say that about petrol. The Sainsbury’s near where I work has hydrogen pumps for cars and busses at the petrol station. Capacity wise, the Moirai has a 5kg capacity hydrogen tank that sits under the rear seat, it is smaller than the normal petrol tank in the similar Prius, and does 500km.

 

As I said, this is about the propulsion method, and one that looks quite exciting. How we get the energy to power it has yet to be seen, this is experimental tech and something to look for in the future. It will probably be just one of many propulsion ideas to come in the race towards the future of flight. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Actually you can store it. It is also not as dangerous as many think. Usually when a pressurised tank leaks the hydrogen is very quickly dissipated into the atmosphere, you cannot say that about petrol. The Sainsbury’s near where I work has hydrogen pumps for cars and busses at the petrol station. Capacity wise, the Moirai has a 5kg capacity hydrogen tank that sits under the rear seat, it is smaller than the normal petrol tank in the similar Prius, and does 500km.

 

As I said, this is about the propulsion method, and one that looks quite exciting. How we get the energy to power it has yet to be seen, this is experimental tech and something to look for in the future. It will probably be just one of many propulsion ideas to come in the race towards the future of flight. 

Heh.

“When”

like it can be stopped.  

 

the biggest issue with hydrogen is it can’t even be stored as h2 for any length of time.  The molecule is too small.  It literally passes through metal.

 

Hydrogen is somewhat more efficient than electricity mostly in speed of recharge, but requires more infrastructure.  Neither one is a magic bullet.  Or even a really good bullet.  They’re what we have to shoot though.

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Heh.

“When”

like it can be stopped.  

 

the biggest issue with hydrogen is it can’t even be stored as h2 for any length of time.  The molecule is too small.  It literally passes through metal.

 

Hydrogen is somewhat more efficient than electricity mostly in speed of recharge, but requires more infrastructure.  Neither one is a magic bullet.  Or even a really good bullet.  They’re what we have to shoot though.

Until we all get a Mr Fusion there are few other options.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Until we all get a Mr Fusion there are few other options.

I would say none. 

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RejZoR said:

You can't just look at the values and call it a day. Gasoline can be stored in a thin plastic tank that weighs next to nothing (and it's done at atmospheric pressure). You need to store just few kilograms of liquified hydrogen in massive super thick and super heavy cannisters under massive pressure. You can check thunderf00t's Youtube channel where he talks about energy density and hydrogen storage in particular. Hydrogen on paper is the shit, but storing any usable amount of it is such a problem it'll never be commercially usable.

 

I wouldn't take anything thunderfoot says seriously just as a matter of good caution. I remember getting several of his video's in my recommended list and all of them where well put together and mostly based on good science, but there was allways at least one bit that was flat out wrong and it tended to badly undermine his argument. Whilst i don't think it's remotely intentional on his part his videos often ended up for me coming off very much like the very well put together conspiracy theories he likes to go after in some of his videos.

 

it's why when i make my statements around here i always try to be clear about the limits of what i know. Because the stuff that trips you up isn't the stuff you know you don't know, it's the stuff you think you know and it turns out you don't know that gets you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who would rather take a boat to travel overseas, rather than fly?

 

I'm a bit wide in the shoulders, so planes are uncomfortable as hell to me. Then there's the noise, the smells, the overpriced-to-fucking-hell alcohol, and the fact that I can't vape or smoke.

 

I'll take a passenger berth on a cargo vessel before I fly overseas. I don't even like flying within the US. Too much of a hassle, too uncomfortable, I'd rather drive.

 

This is neat, if it can be used for shipping, but as for travelling, give me a car or a boat.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Am I the only one who would rather take a boat to travel overseas, rather than fly?

 

I'm a bit wide in the shoulders, so planes are uncomfortable as hell to me. Then there's the noise, the smells, the overpriced-to-fucking-hell alcohol, and the fact that I can't vape or smoke.

 

I'll take a passenger berth on a cargo vessel before I fly overseas. I don't even like flying within the US. Too much of a hassle, too uncomfortable, I'd rather drive.

 

This is neat, if it can be used for shipping, but as for travelling, give me a car or a boat.

I quit flying 10 years ago.  I was physically unable to fit in the seats.  These days if I can’t drive or take a train if I’ve got a choice I don’t go.

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

I quit flying 10 years ago.  I was physically unable to fit in the seats.  These days if I can’t drive or take a train if I’ve got a choice I don’t go.

I'm 5 foot 11in. and weigh 250lbs. And I hate flying because I'm just too wide physically, and wearing a size 13W US shoe size just means if I'm not in first class, I'm stuffed in like a sardine can.

 

In the last three months I've made two trips to Florida from my home state. 15 hour drive, roughly. Totally worth it. I can stop for decent food without breaking the bank, and I can vape. I'm a former 2 pack a day smoker so that's a huge bonus to me. Than and honestly I just hate the concept of flying. Too much lack of control and safety.

 

I don't give a damn what the statistics say, I have far more control and safety behind the wheel of a car than stuffed into a plane. A car crash going 60mph is far more survivable than a plane crash going a few hundred miles per hour. Statistics are a poor way of measuring this in my opinion.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to post
Share on other sites

inb4 people start saying that the plasma jet is really just a focused beam of coronavirus and this is China's way to spread it😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

I wouldn't take anything thunderfoot says seriously just as a matter of good caution. I remember getting several of his video's in my recommended list and all of them where well put together and mostly based on good science, but there was allways at least one bit that was flat out wrong and it tended to badly undermine his argument. Whilst i don't think it's remotely intentional on his part his videos often ended up for me coming off very much like the very well put together conspiracy theories he likes to go after in some of his videos.

 

it's why when i make my statements around here i always try to be clear about the limits of what i know. Because the stuff that trips you up isn't the stuff you know you don't know, it's the stuff you think you know and it turns out you don't know that gets you.

Well, there re no conspiracy theories behind physical properties of hydrogen. You can only fit it as much into a heavy duty canister and that makes it unfeasible for most transportation applications, especially airborne ones.

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X | ASUS Strix X570-E | G.Skill 32GB 3600MHz CL16 | PALIT RTX 3080 10GB GamingPro | Samsung 850 Pro 2TB | Seagate Barracuda 8TB | Sound Blaster AE-9 MUSES

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Well, there re no conspiracy theories behind physical properties of hydrogen. You can only fit it as much into a heavy duty canister and that makes it unfeasible for most transportation applications, especially airborne ones.

That is in your opinion. The issues lie in extracting the amount of energy it contains. One hydrogen atom can do quite a bit of damage, ask Mr Oppenheimer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Well, there re no conspiracy theories behind physical properties of hydrogen. You can only fit it as much into a heavy duty canister and that makes it unfeasible for most transportation applications, especially airborne ones.

 

Oh not arguing on that point, i just wanted to throw a general caution about his videos up ;).

 

The biggest problem/s with hydrogen is that A) it forms combustible and explosive mixtures over a huge rnage of mixtures with air, (much more than most other substances, and B) it has an insanely low ignition threshold, ignition sources that petrol vapors or natural gas would never ignite to will set hydrogen off with ease.

 

2 hours ago, Phill104 said:

That is in your opinion. The issues lie in extracting the amount of energy it contains. One hydrogen atom can do quite a bit of damage, ask Mr Oppenheimer.

 

I suggest doing some research of your own. if there was a way to compactly store large volumes of hydrogen in a form that was both small and light space agencies the world over would be all over it.

 

Yes Kilo for Kilo Hydrogen is very energetic compared to virtually anything else. However it's density is amongst the lowest of any possibble fuel and that makes storing sufficient quantities of it really hard. As a noted above the safety aspects are honestly worse for general use, but the storage isn't a selling point ethier. Liquid Hydrogen, (the densest form you can reasonably get), is about 1/20th as dense as jet fuel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, stoichiometric ratio for hydrogen is pretty wide. Where most other fuels explode at very specific ratio and at others they either don't ignite or they ignite, but sort of just burn out somewhat slowly through the volume.

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X | ASUS Strix X570-E | G.Skill 32GB 3600MHz CL16 | PALIT RTX 3080 10GB GamingPro | Samsung 850 Pro 2TB | Seagate Barracuda 8TB | Sound Blaster AE-9 MUSES

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

Oh not arguing on that point, i just wanted to throw a general caution about his videos up ;).

 

The biggest problem/s with hydrogen is that A) it forms combustible and explosive mixtures over a huge rnage of mixtures with air, (much more than most other substances, and B) it has an insanely low ignition threshold, ignition sources that petrol vapors or natural gas would never ignite to will set hydrogen off with ease.

 

 

I suggest doing some research of your own. if there was a way to compactly store large volumes of hydrogen in a form that was both small and light space agencies the world over would be all over it.

 

Yes Kilo for Kilo Hydrogen is very energetic compared to virtually anything else. However it's density is amongst the lowest of any possibble fuel and that makes storing sufficient quantities of it really hard. As a noted above the safety aspects are honestly worse for general use, but the storage isn't a selling point ethier. Liquid Hydrogen, (the densest form you can reasonably get), is about 1/20th as dense as jet fuel.

I have read the research, and I am not suggesting it is right for aircraft. It is right for other uses as many have shown. We have yet to have a hydrogen car, bus, lorry or ship

explode due to hydrogen but that is partly due to their limited numbers. 
 

People seem to be looking at all the negatives here. This is just one technology that is in its infancy (the propulsion method) and something we have to investigate. We smile cannot keep burning fossil fuels forever as they are a finite resource. While there are other fuels we can burn, that will also cause huge damage to the environment. Fortunately people are willing to think outside the box and research new ideas. We cannot just sit back and rely on what we are currently doing.

 

As for air travel, I think that will change massively in the short term at least. Delta have just begun scrapping their whole 777 fleet for instance, just months after refurbishing them at huge cost. It seems they only see a future for short haul for quite some time. I would bet we will not be seeing huge planes full of people for a long time. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×