On 01/12/17 13:06, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 30 November 2017 21:04:53 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 18:48:26 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/11/17 17:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 16:54:32 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...-Royce-Siemens

Well if drone can fly by battery power why can't planes eventually run
on batteries.

They already can. Just not for very long

Solar Impulse 2, did OK

Pity about the number of pax it can carry. Like none, zero, nada, ziltch.

How many pax could the wright brothers plane carry ?


flight is all about energy density and power to weight.

Electric has the power to wighght , bit not the energy density, not even
in theory.

You could sick ducted fans in an airbus and lithium batteries in the
fuel tanks and take off with a full load. But you would only have the
juice for one circuit befiore landing.



--
€œA leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
€œWe did this ourselves.€�

ۥ Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On 01/12/2017 13:07, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 09:20:05 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/11/2017 12:08, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 18:48:26 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/11/17 17:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 16:54:32 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...-Royce-Siemens

Well if drone can fly by battery power why can't planes eventually run on batteries.

They already can. Just not for very long

Solar Impulse 2, did OK


You do know why it flew in the direction it did?
You won't see a return journey from it.
Hot air balloons did it quicker with more passengers.

You do know why planes follow the routes they do don't you ?


Do you think the solar plane followed the same routes as the airliners?

In article . com,
bm wrote:
That's certainly more assumptions than even you usually manage. But
I'll tell you something. I believe in improving the lot of the whole
country - not just the select few like you wannabe Tories.

Then why the hell do you support steptoe?

I don't. I don't support any fictitious character. I'll leave that
nonsense to you.

--
*"I am " is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article . com,
bm wrote:
Given how often you mention what you think are my circumstances,
jealousy is the only reasonable conclusion.

No Dave, I NEVER comment on what your circumstances might be. Your crystal
ball comments on mine though.
I just take the **** out of what you believe yourself to be.

Tee-hee. Not only a jealous idiot, but believes he can read minds too.

--
*I don't feel old. I don't feel anything until noon. Then it's time for my nap.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Bill wrote:
I well remember hiring an early Prius. MPG around town was amazing. But on
a long journey with a full load trying to keep up with motorway speeds,
MPG was abysmal - far worse than an equivalent performance petrol car.
let alone diesel.

OK, but my first LR 110 with its ancient, low powered but utterly
reliable 2.25 petrol engine could barely reach motorway speeds on its
own, let alone keep up.

It was rated for towing 3.5 tons and we towed lower weights with it
fine. I always thought that the towing rating was based on structural
strength and weight of the towing vehicle rather than power.

It's going to need an excess of 'power' over what it needs for itself to
tow. Especially up hills. Hybrids tend to provide the extra power for hill
climbing etc via the electric motor. On a ordinary vehicle you can just
use a lower gear, and do it more slowly. With a hybrid, when the battery
is exhausted, no additional power.

Not to say you couldn't make a tow vehicle using the technology.

--
*How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 01/12/2017 15:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill wrote:
I well remember hiring an early Prius. MPG around town was amazing. But on
a long journey with a full load trying to keep up with motorway speeds,
MPG was abysmal - far worse than an equivalent performance petrol car.
let alone diesel.

OK, but my first LR 110 with its ancient, low powered but utterly
reliable 2.25 petrol engine could barely reach motorway speeds on its
own, let alone keep up.

It was rated for towing 3.5 tons and we towed lower weights with it
fine. I always thought that the towing rating was based on structural
strength and weight of the towing vehicle rather than power.

It's going to need an excess of 'power' over what it needs for itself to
tow. Especially up hills. Hybrids tend to provide the extra power for hill
climbing etc via the electric motor. On a ordinary vehicle you can just
use a lower gear, and do it more slowly. With a hybrid, when the battery
is exhausted, no additional power.

Not to say you couldn't make a tow vehicle using the technology.


The rav4 hybrid can tow quite a bit.

On Friday, 1 December 2017 13:29:33 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/12/17 13:06, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 30 November 2017 21:04:53 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 18:48:26 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/11/17 17:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 16:54:32 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...-Royce-Siemens

Well if drone can fly by battery power why can't planes eventually run
on batteries.

They already can. Just not for very long

Solar Impulse 2, did OK

Pity about the number of pax it can carry. Like none, zero, nada, ziltch.

How many pax could the wright brothers plane carry ?


flight is all about energy density and power to weight.

which is where the new sodium battereis might come in .

it wasnt; that long ago that drones didnlt exist adn couldn;t be made with the tech avaiible otherwise they'd have them in WWII V2 was the closest but hardly stearable remotely.
Soem probbaly thought it wa simpossible to get to the moom and others said man couldn;t travel faster than the runnikng speed of a horse.




Electric has the power to wighght , bit not the energy density, not even
in theory.

There are drones which can carry people availble NOW.
How do they work then ?


You could sick ducted fans in an airbus and lithium batteries in the
fuel tanks and take off with a full load. But you would only have the
juice for one circuit befiore landing.

How many horses can you get in car ?

On Friday, 1 December 2017 14:55:04 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/12/2017 13:07, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 09:20:05 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/11/2017 12:08, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 18:48:26 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/11/17 17:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 16:54:32 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...-Royce-Siemens

Well if drone can fly by battery power why can't planes eventually run on batteries.

They already can. Just not for very long

Solar Impulse 2, did OK


You do know why it flew in the direction it did?
You won't see a return journey from it.
Hot air balloons did it quicker with more passengers.

You do know why planes follow the routes they do don't you ?


Do you think the solar plane followed the same routes as the airliners?

No, but do you actually know why aircraft tend to follow the same 'path' ?

On 01/12/2017 16:37, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 14:55:04 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/12/2017 13:07, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 09:20:05 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/11/2017 12:08, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 18:48:26 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/11/17 17:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 16:54:32 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...-Royce-Siemens

Well if drone can fly by battery power why can't planes eventually run on batteries.

They already can. Just not for very long

Solar Impulse 2, did OK


You do know why it flew in the direction it did?
You won't see a return journey from it.
Hot air balloons did it quicker with more passengers.

You do know why planes follow the routes they do don't you ?


Do you think the solar plane followed the same routes as the airliners?

No, but do you actually know why aircraft tend to follow the same 'path' ?


Some crashes in the '50s.
Why do you think they do?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
bm wrote:
Given how often you mention what you think are my circumstances,
jealousy is the only reasonable conclusion.

No Dave, I NEVER comment on what your circumstances might be. Your
crystal
ball comments on mine though.
I just take the **** out of what you believe yourself to be.
I.e, a sound engineer, just one step down from the monarchy.


Tee-hee. Not only a jealous idiot, but believes he can read minds too.

Tee-hee??????????
How old are you?
Ain't the truth a *******.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 30 November 2017 21:04:53 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 18:48:26 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/11/17 17:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 16:54:32 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...-Royce-Siemens

Well if drone can fly by battery power why can't planes eventually
run
on batteries.

They already can. Just not for very long

Solar Impulse 2, did OK

Pity about the number of pax it can carry. Like none, zero, nada, ziltch.

How many pax could the wright brothers plane carry ?

Irrelevant to how viable solar power would be for a Dreamliner or A380

On 01/12/2017 12:56, Bill wrote:
OK, but my first LR 110 with its ancient, low powered but utterly
reliable 2.25 petrol engine could barely reach motorway speeds on its
own, let alone keep up.

A reliable Landrover???

It was rated for towing 3.5 tons and we towed lower weights with it
fine. I always thought that the towing rating was based on structural
strength and weight of the towing vehicle rather than power.

AIUI it's based on restarting on a 1 in 3 hill. With 4WD and low ratio
they can produce a ridiculously large force. Just not at any speed.

A heavy hybrid 4 x 4 might not be for me, it seems.

I didn't realise until after we'd bought it that my wife's new car won't
allow a towbar. I only need to tow 200Kg FFS...

Andy

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 1 December 2017 13:29:33 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/12/17 13:06, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 30 November 2017 21:04:53 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 18:48:26 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/11/17 17:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 16:54:32 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...-Royce-Siemens

Well if drone can fly by battery power why can't planes eventually
run
on batteries.

They already can. Just not for very long

Solar Impulse 2, did OK

Pity about the number of pax it can carry. Like none, zero, nada,
ziltch.

How many pax could the wright brothers plane carry ?


flight is all about energy density and power to weight.

which is where the new sodium battereis might come in .

Nope, nothing even remotely like the energy capacity
as the wings of an A380 or Dreamliner full of avgas.

it wasnt; that long ago that drones didnlt exist

Something like 80 years in fact.

adn couldn;t be made with the tech avaiible otherwise
they'd have them in WWII V2 was the closest

Nope, the V1 was.

but hardly stearable remotely. Soem probbaly thought it
wa simpossible to get to the moom and others said man
couldn;t travel faster than the runnikng speed of a horse.

The difference is the energy density between avgas and batterys, stupid.

Electric has the power to wighght , bit not
the energy density, not even in theory.

There are drones which can carry people availble NOW.
How do they work then ?

They use avgas, stupid.

You could sick ducted fans in an airbus and lithium batteries
in the fuel tanks and take off with a full load. But you would
only have the juice for one circuit befiore landing.

reams of your even sillier **** flushed where it belongs

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 1 December 2017 13:29:33 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/12/17 13:06, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 30 November 2017 21:04:53 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 18:48:26 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/11/17 17:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 16:54:32 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...-Royce-Siemens

Well if drone can fly by battery power why can't planes eventually
run
on batteries.

They already can. Just not for very long

Solar Impulse 2, did OK

Pity about the number of pax it can carry. Like none, zero, nada,
ziltch.

How many pax could the wright brothers plane carry ?


flight is all about energy density and power to weight.

which is where the new sodium battereis might come in .

Nope, nothing even remotely like the energy capacity
as the wings of an A380 or Dreamliner full of avgas.

it wasnt; that long ago that drones didnlt exist

Something like 80 years in fact.

adn couldn;t be made with the tech avaiible otherwise
they'd have them in WWII V2 was the closest

Nope, the V1 was.

It wasn't a drone - it was an unguided weapon. Drones are controlled from
the ground.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 01/12/17 16:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 13:29:33 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


flight is all about energy density and power to weight.

which is where the new sodium battereis might come in .

Nope. Lithium air is the only piossible technology that even
theoretically can do te energy desnity




it wasnt; that long ago that drones didnlt exist adn couldn;t be made
with the tech avaiible otherwise they'd have them in WWII V2 was
the closest but hardly stearable remotely.
That hjas nothin g to do with electric fliaght.

Soem probbaly thought it wa simpossible to get to the moom and
others said man couldnt travel faster than the runnikng speed of a horse.
Man cant. Takes a machien.




Electric has the power to wighght , bit not the energy density, not
even in theory.

There are drones which can carry people availble NOW. How do they
work then ?


Dave, stop drinking and listen. Electric flight, carrying passnegers is
completely feasible. For about 30 minutes. MAX

You are muddled in your thinking. You confuse ' things we thought we
couldn't that do we have done' with 'anything is possioble'

Thats because you are a thick addled brain **** who probably doesnt even
have a maths O level.

Ther are things we cant do, that we conceivably might within the laws
of physics, and there are things that we cant do because the laws of
phsyics say so.

Flying passengers with chemical battery technology any commerially
useful distance is simply not possible except with one technologuy.
Lithium air. No opne has managed to make a decent producation calss
lithium air baqttery.

We use lithoum simply because it has the greatest battery potential in
terms of energy per unit weight of any element. there simply are none
better. And no amount of research will change that, any more then any
amount of research will make a windmill that extracts more energy from
the wind than is in it, etc. etc.

In short you are suiffereing from a completel lack of a scientific
education, which leads to lefty****ish 'magic thinking'

6 years ago I said renbbele energy would never work. Now people have
tried it out, and it doesn't work.,

Elkectric aeroplanes for more than sport6 flying will never work
*unless* someone can make a practical lithium air batteryty.

If they can all bets are off and a jumbo jet with electric fans is
entirely possible.





You could sick ducted fans in an airbus and lithium batteries in
the fuel tanks and take off with a full load. But you would only
have the juice for one circuit befiore landing.

How many horses can you get in car ?




--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On 02/12/2017 09:26, charles wrote:
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 1 December 2017 13:29:33 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/12/17 13:06, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 30 November 2017 21:04:53 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 18:48:26 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/11/17 17:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 16:54:32 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...-Royce-Siemens

Well if drone can fly by battery power why can't planes eventually
run
on batteries.

They already can. Just not for very long

Solar Impulse 2, did OK

Pity about the number of pax it can carry. Like none, zero, nada,
ziltch.

How many pax could the wright brothers plane carry ?


flight is all about energy density and power to weight.

which is where the new sodium battereis might come in .

Nope, nothing even remotely like the energy capacity
as the wings of an A380 or Dreamliner full of avgas.

it wasnt; that long ago that drones didnlt exist

Something like 80 years in fact.

adn couldn;t be made with the tech avaiible otherwise
they'd have them in WWII V2 was the closest

Nope, the V1 was.

It wasn't a drone - it was an unguided weapon. Drones are controlled from
the ground.


Of course the Germans did have guided weapons during WW2.

The allies also had some, one was a bomber that was radio controlled and
was loaded with explosives with the intention of crashing it into the
target. It failed as it exploded early and killed a Kennedy who was
piloting it for takeoff and was supposed to bail once it was in the air.

In article , Bill
writes
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Bill wrote:
Just for interest, because there's no way I can afford one, why are
these relatively heavy hybrid 4 x 4's so lacking in towing performance
compared with a petrol or diesel vehicle?
The diesel Outlander is lighter, but can tow much more.


Because towing can require a fairly constant power output. A hybrid can
provide bursts of high power, but not sustained. They are basically town
vehicles.

I well remember hiring an early Prius. MPG around town was amazing. But on
a long journey with a full load trying to keep up with motorway speeds,
MPG was abysmal - far worse than an equivalent performance petrol car.
let alone diesel.

OK, but my first LR 110 with its ancient, low powered but utterly
reliable 2.25 petrol engine could barely reach motorway speeds on its
own, let alone keep up.


It was rated for towing 3.5 tons and we towed lower weights with it
fine. I always thought that the towing rating was based on structural
strength and weight of the towing vehicle rather than power.

The ability to tow a weight simply requires the vehicle to overcome the
rolling resistance of the load. Max towing weight depends upon a number
of factors. Just buy a motorhome and you will soon find out :-)
A heavy hybrid 4 x 4 might not be for me, it seems.

--
bert

On 04/12/2017 23:17, bert wrote:
In article , Bill
writes
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Â* Bill wrote:
Just for interest, because there's no way I can afford one, why are
these relatively heavy hybrid 4 x 4's so lacking in towing performance
compared with a petrol or diesel vehicle?
The diesel Outlander is lighter, but can tow much more.


Because towing can require a fairly constant power output. A hybrid can
provide bursts of high power, but not sustained. They are basically town
vehicles.

I well remember hiring an early Prius. MPG around town was amazing.
But on
a long journey with a full load trying to keep up with motorway speeds,
MPG was abysmalÂ* - far worse than an equivalent performance petrol car.
let alone diesel.

OK, but my first LR 110 with its ancient, low powered but utterly
reliable 2.25 petrol engine could barely reach motorway speeds on its
own, let alone keep up.


It was rated for towing 3.5 tons and we towed lower weights with it
fine. I always thought that the towing rating was based on structural
strength and weight of the towing vehicle rather than power.

I think they were 3.5 tons normally and 4.5 tons with a linked braking
system on the trailer.

I have heard of someone towing a 13 ton narrowboat along a private road
with one!

SteveW

In article , Steve Walker
writes
On 04/12/2017 23:17, bert wrote:
In article , Bill
writes
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
* Bill wrote:
Just for interest, because there's no way I can afford one, why are
these relatively heavy hybrid 4 x 4's so lacking in towing performance
compared with a petrol or diesel vehicle?
The diesel Outlander is lighter, but can tow much more.


Because towing can require a fairly constant power output. A hybrid can
provide bursts of high power, but not sustained. They are basically town
vehicles.

I well remember hiring an early Prius. MPG around town was amazing.
But on
a long journey with a full load trying to keep up with motorway speeds,
MPG was abysmal* - far worse than an equivalent performance petrol car.
let alone diesel.

OK, but my first LR 110 with its ancient, low powered but utterly
reliable 2.25 petrol engine could barely reach motorway speeds on its
own, let alone keep up.


It was rated for towing 3.5 tons and we towed lower weights with it
fine. I always thought that the towing rating was based on structural
strength and weight of the towing vehicle rather than power.

I think they were 3.5 tons normally and 4.5 tons with a linked braking
system on the trailer.

4000kg on road and 1500kg off road according to my 90's handbook
I have heard of someone towing a 13 ton narrowboat along a private road
with one!

I take it it wasn't in the water at the time.
SteveW

--
bert

In article ,
bert wrote:
The ability to tow a weight simply requires the vehicle to overcome the
rolling resistance of the load.

Really? No hills round your way?

--
*A journey of a thousand sites begins with a single click *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday, 1 December 2017 16:52:46 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/12/2017 16:37, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 14:55:04 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/12/2017 13:07, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 09:20:05 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/11/2017 12:08, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 18:48:26 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/11/17 17:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 16:54:32 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...-Royce-Siemens

Well if drone can fly by battery power why can't planes eventually run on batteries.

They already can. Just not for very long

Solar Impulse 2, did OK


You do know why it flew in the direction it did?
You won't see a return journey from it.
Hot air balloons did it quicker with more passengers.

You do know why planes follow the routes they do don't you ?


Do you think the solar plane followed the same routes as the airliners?

No, but do you actually know why aircraft tend to follow the same 'path' ?


Some crashes in the '50s.
Why do you think they do?

I don;t think I kknow.

There was a program on it a week or so ago.

The reason is radar. ONly 10% of teh earth has radar coverage and it;s risky lettign a plane go off radar as yuo don;t know where it will be and can't predict it's exact course, so planes were told to follow routes.
Now with more planes havign GPS and with the increased number of GPS satellites it has now become possible to use just GPS and not rely on radar, so now planes can travel across the centre of oceans and still be tracked.
The london city airport is rolling out it;s new system, so you can be in the controll tower anywhere in the world as it's just a roon with lots of large 4K screesn that take teh place of windows, yuo can zoon right in on the plane even more so than prevuious using binoculars to see the planes coming in.
This will or so they think will enable them to fly more planes as theere can be more routes.

On Saturday, 2 December 2017 15:35:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/12/17 16:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 13:29:33 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


flight is all about energy density and power to weight.

which is where the new sodium battereis might come in .

Nope. Lithium air is the only piossible technology that even
theoretically can do te energy desnity

http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored...ic-flight/208/

On 07/12/17 11:00, whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 2 December 2017 15:35:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/12/17 16:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 13:29:33 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


flight is all about energy density and power to weight.

which is where the new sodium battereis might come in .

Nope. Lithium air is the only piossible technology that even
theoretically can do te energy desnity

http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored...ic-flight/208/

€œTodays batteries allow us, with the most advanced car or the most
advanced plane, a range of about 400 km,€� explained Ohlmann. €œIn five
years, we will have double [capacity]. In ten years, some scientists
speak about ten times more capacity.€�

And they are lying. That plane is representative of what is now bleeding
edge possibility for a battery that will last less than a hundred
flights and will only do about 300 passenger miles

The gulf between that and 3000 passenger miles, and lasted for 1000
flights or more is too great for any other technology but lithium air
that some extensive search has revealed.

Perhaps what is obvious to engineers is not obvious to you. There are no
breakthrough in *established* technology. Only by introducing new things
do we get major breakthroughs, and we can calculate the energy density
for a battery made with any element or compound, and we know that there
are no new elements, so there can be no major breakthrough in 'chemical'
batteries. Steady development has and is making Lithium ion approach its
*theoretical* potential, but its theoretical potential ain't enough .

A PERFECT LITHIUM ION BATTERY IS STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH...to match a tank
of kerosene.

A perfect lithium air battery, is.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On Thursday, 7 December 2017 11:44:51 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/12/17 11:00, whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 2 December 2017 15:35:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/12/17 16:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 13:29:33 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


flight is all about energy density and power to weight.

which is where the new sodium battereis might come in .

Nope. Lithium air is the only piossible technology that even
theoretically can do te energy desnity

http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored...ic-flight/208/

€œTodays batteries allow us, with the most advanced car or the most
advanced plane, a range of about 400 km,€� explained Ohlmann. €œIn five
years, we will have double [capacity]. In ten years, some scientists
speak about ten times more capacity.€�

So what's wrong with that.
https://www.autotrader.com/best-cars...-ranges-263793

In case you didn't know 315 miles is about 500KM, and 500KM is longer than 400KM

They are also are talking about the future.


And they are lying. That plane is representative of what is now bleeding
edge possibility for a battery that will last less than a hundred
flights and will only do about 300 passenger miles

So.


The gulf between that and 3000 passenger miles, and lasted for 1000
flights or more is too great for any other technology but lithium air
that some extensive search has revealed.

So are you saying it is do-able ?


Perhaps what is obvious to engineers is not obvious to you. There are no
breakthrough in *established* technology.

Of course not and that has always been the case.
When we relied on horse and carts there wasn't any technology that could take man to the moon.


Only by introducing new things
do we get major breakthroughs,

That has been happening since the stone age.

and we can calculate the energy density
for a battery made with any element or compound, and we know that there
are no new elements, so there can be no major breakthrough in 'chemical'
batteries. Steady development has and is making Lithium ion approach its
*theoretical* potential, but its theoretical potential ain't enough .

A PERFECT LITHIUM ION BATTERY IS STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH...to match a tank
of kerosene.

A perfect lithium air battery, is.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
bert wrote:
The ability to tow a weight simply requires the vehicle to overcome the
rolling resistance of the load.

Really? No hills round your way?

And there is never a need to change speed promptly (up or down)?

--

Roger Hayter

On 07/12/2017 10:53, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 16:52:46 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/12/2017 16:37, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 14:55:04 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/12/2017 13:07, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 09:20:05 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/11/2017 12:08, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 18:48:26 UTC, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 29/11/17 17:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 16:54:32 UTC, harry
wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...-Royce-Siemens



Well if drone can fly by battery power why can't planes eventually run
on batteries.

They already can. Just not for very long

Solar Impulse 2, did OK


You do know why it flew in the direction it did? You won't
see a return journey from it. Hot air balloons did it
quicker with more passengers.

You do know why planes follow the routes they do don't you ?


Do you think the solar plane followed the same routes as the
airliners?

No, but do you actually know why aircraft tend to follow the same
'path' ?


Some crashes in the '50s. Why do you think they do?

I don;t think I kknow.

There was a program on it a week or so ago.

The reason is radar. ONly 10% of teh earth has radar coverage and
it;s risky lettign a plane go off radar as yuo don;t know where it
will be and can't predict it's exact course, so planes were told to
follow routes.

They were allocated routes after some crashes as they didn't follow
routes and flew by eye.
That meant that more than one plane could be travelling in the area at
the same altitude and different directions.
They then assigned routes to keep them apart.

Radar had nothing to do with it.


Now with more planes havign GPS and with the increased number of GPS
satellites it has now become possible to use just GPS and not rely on
radar, so now planes can travel across the centre of oceans and still
be tracked. The london city airport is rolling out it;s new system,
so you can be in the controll tower anywhere in the world as it's
just a roon with lots of large 4K screesn that take teh place of
windows, yuo can zoon right in on the plane even more so than
prevuious using binoculars to see the planes coming in. This will or
so they think will enable them to fly more planes as theere can be
more routes.


Totally wrong.

On Thursday, 7 December 2017 17:10:25 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/12/2017 10:53, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 16:52:46 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/12/2017 16:37, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 14:55:04 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/12/2017 13:07, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 09:20:05 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/11/2017 12:08, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 18:48:26 UTC, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 29/11/17 17:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 16:54:32 UTC, harry
wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...-Royce-Siemens



Well if drone can fly by battery power why can't planes eventually run
on batteries.

They already can. Just not for very long

Solar Impulse 2, did OK


You do know why it flew in the direction it did? You won't
see a return journey from it. Hot air balloons did it
quicker with more passengers.

You do know why planes follow the routes they do don't you ?


Do you think the solar plane followed the same routes as the
airliners?

No, but do you actually know why aircraft tend to follow the same
'path' ?


Some crashes in the '50s. Why do you think they do?

I don;t think I kknow.

There was a program on it a week or so ago.

The reason is radar. ONly 10% of teh earth has radar coverage and
it;s risky lettign a plane go off radar as yuo don;t know where it
will be and can't predict it's exact course, so planes were told to
follow routes.

They were allocated routes after some crashes as they didn't follow
routes and flew by eye.

So they didnlt know where the planes were at a specific time because they weren't on radar.


That meant that more than one plane could be travelling in the area at
the same altitude and different directions.

So why was that a problem ?

They then assigned routes to keep them apart.

exactly.


Radar had nothing to do with it.

It had everything to do with it.



Now with more planes havign GPS and with the increased number of GPS
satellites it has now become possible to use just GPS and not rely on
radar, so now planes can travel across the centre of oceans and still
be tracked. The london city airport is rolling out it;s new system,
so you can be in the controll tower anywhere in the world as it's
just a roon with lots of large 4K screesn that take teh place of
windows, yuo can zoon right in on the plane even more so than
prevuious using binoculars to see the planes coming in. This will or
so they think will enable them to fly more planes as theere can be
more routes.


Totally wrong.

Not according to those that know about such things.

On 07/12/17 17:21, whisky-dave wrote:
Radar had nothing to do with it.
It had everything to do with it.

Wrong. Pre war and pre radar aircraft were limited to flight corridors
for safety.


--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

On 07/12/2017 17:21, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 7 December 2017 17:10:25 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/12/2017 10:53, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 16:52:46 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/12/2017 16:37, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 14:55:04 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/12/2017 13:07, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 09:20:05 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/11/2017 12:08, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 18:48:26 UTC, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 29/11/17 17:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 16:54:32 UTC, harry
wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...-Royce-Siemens



Well if drone can fly by battery power why can't planes eventually run
on batteries.

They already can. Just not for very long

Solar Impulse 2, did OK


You do know why it flew in the direction it did? You won't
see a return journey from it. Hot air balloons did it
quicker with more passengers.

You do know why planes follow the routes they do don't you ?


Do you think the solar plane followed the same routes as the
airliners?

No, but do you actually know why aircraft tend to follow the same
'path' ?


Some crashes in the '50s. Why do you think they do?

I don;t think I kknow.

There was a program on it a week or so ago.

The reason is radar. ONly 10% of teh earth has radar coverage and
it;s risky lettign a plane go off radar as yuo don;t know where it
will be and can't predict it's exact course, so planes were told to
follow routes.

They were allocated routes after some crashes as they didn't follow
routes and flew by eye.

So they didnlt know where the planes were at a specific time because they weren't on radar.


That meant that more than one plane could be travelling in the area at
the same altitude and different directions.

So why was that a problem ?

They then assigned routes to keep them apart.

exactly.


Radar had nothing to do with it.

It had everything to do with it.


They still didn't have radar coverage after they introduced the routes.
Radar had nothing to do with it.
routes were a safety thing they could do without radar so they did.
They still have defined routes now even with radar and gps.



Now with more planes havign GPS and with the increased number of GPS
satellites it has now become possible to use just GPS and not rely on
radar, so now planes can travel across the centre of oceans and still
be tracked. The london city airport is rolling out it;s new system,
so you can be in the controll tower anywhere in the world as it's
just a roon with lots of large 4K screesn that take teh place of
windows, yuo can zoon right in on the plane even more so than
prevuious using binoculars to see the planes coming in. This will or
so they think will enable them to fly more planes as theere can be
more routes.


Totally wrong.

Not according to those that know about such things.



Stop reading wiki and look for some facts.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 1 December 2017 16:52:46 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/12/2017 16:37, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 14:55:04 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/12/2017 13:07, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 09:20:05 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/11/2017 12:08, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 18:48:26 UTC, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 29/11/17 17:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 16:54:32 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...-Royce-Siemens

Well if drone can fly by battery power why can't planes
eventually run on batteries.

They already can. Just not for very long

Solar Impulse 2, did OK


You do know why it flew in the direction it did?
You won't see a return journey from it.
Hot air balloons did it quicker with more passengers.

You do know why planes follow the routes they do don't you ?


Do you think the solar plane followed the same routes as the
airliners?

No, but do you actually know why aircraft tend to follow the same
'path' ?


Some crashes in the '50s.
Why do you think they do?

I don;t think I kknow.

There was a program on it a week or so ago.

The reason is radar.

Nope.

ONly 10% of teh earth has radar coverage

But the radar is where most planes travel for some strange reason.

and it;s risky lettign a plane go off radar as yuo don;t
know where it will be and can't predict it's exact course,

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you
usually manage, and thats saying something.

so planes were told to follow routes.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you
usually manage, and thats saying something.

Now with more planes havign GPS and with the
increased number of GPS satellites it has now become
possible to use just GPS and not rely on radar,

Pity about INS.

so now planes can travel across the
centre of oceans and still be tracked.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you
usually manage, and thats saying something.

The london city airport is rolling out it;s new system, so you
can be in the controll tower anywhere in the world as it's just
a roon with lots of large 4K screesn that take teh place of
windows, yuo can zoon right in on the plane even more so
than prevuious using binoculars to see the planes coming in.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you
usually manage, and thats saying something.

This will or so they think will enable them to
fly more planes as theere can be more routes.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you
usually manage, and thats saying something.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 2 December 2017 15:35:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/12/17 16:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 13:29:33 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


flight is all about energy density and power to weight.

which is where the new sodium battereis might come in .

Nope. Lithium air is the only piossible technology that even
theoretically can do te energy desnity

http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored...ic-flight/208/

Nothing even remotely like an A380 or Dreamliner, ****wit.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
The ability to tow a weight simply requires the vehicle to overcome the
rolling resistance of the load.

Really? No hills round your way?

You are pathetic. The gravitational force down the hill forms part of
the total rolling resistance.
--
bert

In article , Roger Hayter
writes
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
bert wrote:
The ability to tow a weight simply requires the vehicle to overcome the
rolling resistance of the load.

Really? No hills round your way?

And there is never a need to change speed promptly (up or down)?

As I said in the part snipped there is more to max towing weight than
simply pulling the load.
--
bert

On Thursday, 7 December 2017 21:38:32 UTC, bert wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
writes
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert wrote:
The ability to tow a weight simply requires the vehicle to overcome the
rolling resistance of the load.

Really? No hills round your way?

And there is never a need to change speed promptly (up or down)?

As I said in the part snipped there is more to max towing weight than
simply pulling the load.

Of course. A big engined car that weighs half as much as your loaded trailer is a recipe for disaster. DAMHIKT. Then there's brakes... and stability...


NT

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
The ability to tow a weight simply requires the vehicle to overcome
the rolling resistance of the load.

Really? No hills round your way?

You are pathetic. The gravitational force down the hill forms part of
the total rolling resistance.

Ah - right. All the hills round your way only go downhill.

Tell me something bert. Have you never pulled/pushed something yourself?
Obviously not a wheelbarrow, because that would be DIY. But perhaps a
pram? But then perhaps not. Too dangerous.

--
*I yell because I care

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 07/12/17 21:34, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Â* bert wrote:
The ability to tow a weight simply requires the vehicle to overcome the
rolling resistance of the load.

Really? No hills round your way?

You are pathetic. The gravitational force down the hill forms part of
the total rolling resistance.

No, technically it is quite different.

'Rolling resistance' is generally held to be that part of the resistance
to motion that is independent of acceleration or road slopes.


I hate to say it, but this time the plow**** has by sheer random
accident hit the right keys.



--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/12/17 21:34, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
The ability to tow a weight simply requires the vehicle to overcome the
rolling resistance of the load.

Really? No hills round your way?

You are pathetic. The gravitational force down the hill forms part of
the total rolling resistance.

No, technically it is quite different.

'Rolling resistance' is generally held to be that part of the resistance
to motion that is independent of acceleration or road slopes.


I hate to say it, but this time the plow**** has by sheer random
accident hit the right keys.

Still waiting for you to follow my example. One day...


-

--
*If tennis elbow is painful, imagine suffering with tennis balls *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thursday, 7 December 2017 17:38:09 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/12/17 17:21, whisky-dave wrote:
Radar had nothing to do with it.
It had everything to do with it.

Wrong. Pre war and pre radar aircraft were limited to flight corridors
for safety.

So are commercial aircraft.

On Thursday, 7 December 2017 20:19:00 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/12/2017 17:21, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 7 December 2017 17:10:25 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/12/2017 10:53, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 16:52:46 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/12/2017 16:37, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 14:55:04 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/12/2017 13:07, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 09:20:05 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/11/2017 12:08, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 18:48:26 UTC, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 29/11/17 17:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 16:54:32 UTC, harry
wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...-Royce-Siemens



Well if drone can fly by battery power why can't planes eventually run
on batteries.

They already can. Just not for very long

Solar Impulse 2, did OK


You do know why it flew in the direction it did? You won't
see a return journey from it. Hot air balloons did it
quicker with more passengers.

You do know why planes follow the routes they do don't you ?


Do you think the solar plane followed the same routes as the
airliners?

No, but do you actually know why aircraft tend to follow the same
'path' ?


Some crashes in the '50s. Why do you think they do?

I don;t think I kknow.

There was a program on it a week or so ago.

The reason is radar. ONly 10% of teh earth has radar coverage and
it;s risky lettign a plane go off radar as yuo don;t know where it
will be and can't predict it's exact course, so planes were told to
follow routes.

They were allocated routes after some crashes as they didn't follow
routes and flew by eye.

So they didnlt know where the planes were at a specific time because they weren't on radar.


That meant that more than one plane could be travelling in the area at
the same altitude and different directions.

So why was that a problem ?

They then assigned routes to keep them apart.

exactly.


Radar had nothing to do with it.

It had everything to do with it.


They still didn't have radar coverage after they introduced the routes.
Radar had nothing to do with it.
routes were a safety thing they could do without radar so they did.
They still have defined routes now even with radar and gps.



Now with more planes havign GPS and with the increased number of GPS
satellites it has now become possible to use just GPS and not rely on
radar, so now planes can travel across the centre of oceans and still
be tracked. The london city airport is rolling out it;s new system,
so you can be in the controll tower anywhere in the world as it's
just a roon with lots of large 4K screesn that take teh place of
windows, yuo can zoon right in on the plane even more so than
prevuious using binoculars to see the planes coming in. This will or
so they think will enable them to fly more planes as theere can be
more routes.


Totally wrong.

Not according to those that know about such things.



Stop reading wiki and look for some facts.

I didn't use wiki there was a program on TV about the new systems coming in and the first in the UK was at london city airport they have one in brussles IIRC.

On 08/12/2017 11:40, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 7 December 2017 17:38:09 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/12/17 17:21, whisky-dave wrote:
Radar had nothing to do with it.
It had everything to do with it.

Wrong. Pre war and pre radar aircraft were limited to flight corridors
for safety.

So are commercial aircraft.


Light aircraft aren't generally limited to corridors only commercial
aircraft.

Light aircraft still fly by sight most of the time.