pmccarthy Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 Autonomous drone delivery trialled The drone is capable of delivering up to 1.5 kilograms of goods, and could carry anything from milk to medicines. Delivery drone being trialled at Googong, expansion to ACT possible This weird thing may be what a load carrying electric plane should look like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 Bex, thanks for the China insights you share. I didn't mind the thread drift. Our MSM fail miserably when it comes to bringing us meaningful news about the dynamic face of China. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted July 17, 2017 Author Share Posted July 17, 2017 Bex, thanks for the China insights you share. I didn't mind the thread drift. Our MSM fail miserably when it comes to bringing us meaningful news about the dynamic face of China. People might be shocked to learn it's a place where people go to work to earn enough to pay for their car, house and send their kids to school, and just want to watch a good movie on the weekend. Sound familiar? The internet is making the world and all of it's lies smaller all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Despite the risk of thread subject derailment - I don't know how many of you, know about, or have seen, China's SLJ900 bridge-launching machine.I was blown away when I first saw this thing in action, because there is nothing like it anywhere else in the Western world - not even the Americans with the likes of R.G. LeTourneau and his "big ideas", have ever designed or even thought of a machine like this. This innovative piece of machinery speeds up bridge construction or rail-line formation, to an astonishing pace. Not so fast fellas- There is a machine that looks just like that here in Sydney and has been doing the new overhead rail project at Rouse Hill. I do not now who owns or built it but its a Italian company doing the contract. I was amazed when I saw the big beast. Back to regular transmission. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Not sure if the denizens here have seen this;smartfish: SmartFish Having a look at the SmartFish site, I saw the following... ESA, the European Space Agency, has chosen SPACEFISH, based on the SmartFish design, for the Bexus Program. I'm getting chills... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted July 17, 2017 Author Share Posted July 17, 2017 There is a machine that looks just like that here in Sydney Sure, but the one in China actually gets used, night and day. the European Space Agency ... the Bexus Program. Damn secrets out, expect a knock on your front door shortly .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Bex, surely you should simply pick the best tool for the job. If a lifting body works best for this technology then use that. What may come across as an unusual shape now may well be seen as mainstream for electric aircraft down the track. Something that looks like a space shuttle might even attract potential buyers of this technology. It's performance and utility that matters far more than shape in my view.rgmwa PS. It may also help keep you out of jail in 6 years time if you come up with something that doesn't look like a Cessna. Once upon a time, a monoplane was considered a "radical shape". 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Sure, but the one in China actually gets used, night and day... ...and that, Bex is a major reason Oz is so far behind. "ROADWORKS IN PROGRESS" signs in Australia too often mean we will be driving slowly past millions of dollars worth of parked machinery. All imported and nearly new, but only used a few hours each day. It's been decades since this country build anything iconic or ground-breaking. As a nation we are resting on laurels won long ago. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 We rode on the sheep's back. Wool made a pound a pound. All Cockey's owned a Cessna. Tamworth had more Rolls Royces than Toorak. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Once, we manufactured aero engines and exported them to the world. Not so long ago... 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 You will not see gear standing around at mining operations. Australia leads the world in utilisation and automation. So we know how to do it. It's just the tossers who apply our public money to public works are not accountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Look out Bex, a young W.A. law student is hot on your tail. Once he realises he can also sell full-sized versions of his invention, you'll be marked down as an "also-ran" ... Be interesting to find out what his secret, "unique battery with a really high energy density, that can fly for about four times as long as anything that is currently on the market", actually comprises. I'll wager his phone is ringing non-stop. Law student takes flight and develops own drone concept 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 But... but... Bex said there won't be any advances in battery technology.... I'm so confused. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted July 18, 2017 Author Share Posted July 18, 2017 But... but... Bex said there won't be any advances in battery technology.... You can read my postings, in summary there is no known current tech that will take us any leaps forward other than further, and minor, optimising. If this young man has discovered how to offer 4 times greater density, i.e. the equivalent of petrol (but still the static weight penalty) he would literally become the richest man in the world over night. He hasn't and he won't. If he's learnt a packaging solution, that could be helpful. I also have said a number of times that the next big advance, if it ever happens, will be discovered accidentally by someone trying to find a result for something unrelated - when that would happen of course is impossible to state. I'm so confused. You're from Tassy, it's normal. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 At the 15 year timescale there are very likely technologies that will offer significant increases in battery energy density. Saying otherwise risks being quoted in future with Bill Gates* about 640kb and Simon Newcombe on the impossibility of flight. The graph below shows the specific energy of battery types over about the past 100 years. It was published in 2011 in the journal of energy and environmental science. Now the improvement isn't anywhere near as good as Moore's law there is still a pretty goo improvement over a 15 year timescale. Even in the 6 year since that paper was published there have been improvements. That paper looked at a huge range of possible battery chemistries. One of the conclusions of that paper was that Li/F2 had the highest energy density. Li/O2 was also very high. Lithium–air battery - Wikipedia These are probably at least 15 years away but in technology terms 15 years is a long time and so it's possible that this or some other technology will be available in commercial production. 15 years ago the iphone was not on the horizon and Windows XP was the dominant desktop operating system.... I suspect that the problem that electric aircraft will face is that in aircraft weight is far more critical than in cars. Imagine there were 2 new advances, one halved the battery weight but the other halved the cost, everything else being equal. An electric car maker would be far more interested in investing in halving the cost because the ~400kg weight is acceptable in a car that weights 1800kg. Less weight is always better but if a competitor is able to develop a slightly heavier car for a lot less money they will sell a lot more. For aircraft use we would much prefer to halve the weight. Halving the cost of a $30k battery in a $150K aircraft inst that much of a difference but taking 200kg out of the aircraft allows for 2 people plus a good amount of baggage. Who would pay $135k for a single seat aircraft when for $15K more you could have one that carried an extra 200kg, everything else being equal? So where then is the money going to come from to fund the development needed? I don't know... * OK yes he didn't actually say that "640K was more than enough for anyone". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted July 18, 2017 Author Share Posted July 18, 2017 very likely technologies "very likely", like all the other words used surrounding the future of batteries, are not terms of fact. As I have said, the biggest in the World in China and Tesla in the USA are spending billions right now gearing up the current various lithium battery cells, one could even be suspicious that any new tech might be purchased by them just to hold on to it, at least for the interim to save their current investment. Multiple companies do not spend billions when they know a new tech is coming "Next Wednesday". In fact, Tesla have just spent a lot of money protecting their latest (current tech) battery. Actually I'm just going to steal someone else's post from elswhere now; There's a short story to the 'new' Tesla batteries. These 'new' 21700 Tesla battery cells are made by Panasonic. The only change is that they ditched safety and longevity for capacity and affordability ('cheapness', as some would say). The old ones were 'rupture safe', moderate capacity and could last 2000 cycles (LiFePO4). The new ones need a metal case to contain flamability, have slightly larger capacity and last 1000 cycles (LiPO). They added proprietary rights so they could use lawyers to stop any competition from developing similar batteries at lower prices. They have to do that because some 26650 cells are cheaper and could fit into a car like Tesla at half the price. In other words, there isn't anything new about the 'new' Tesla batteries designed by Panasonic (and made in China like all other battery cells). The thing is that other Chinese factories are catching up with quality and affordability, so the cell dimensions were only changed to stop competition from installing other cells inside after the cycles run out. There are better battery cells for electric cars, like the Rimac battery pack. This is a much lighter pack, better designed, safer in many ways, and a lot more expensive. A Tesla costs around $100k , the Rimac Concept one costs $1.1M. The Rimac battery pack is made from prismatic cells, which are also used in electric aircraft. They are also more expensive, just because they are about 30% lighter than automotive cylindrical cells. In conclusion, Tesla batteries will not have much influence or significance on the further development of aircraft batteries. In fact, I am currently testing some 2017 Chinese 26650 battery cells which are superior to the 'new' 2017 Tesla battery cells - at a much lower price. They have higher capacity, same safety issues, heat disspiation challenges and quality control problems. They are also cylindrical, and they cannot achieve the same debsity as the prismatic cells. But they come pretty close at a much lower price. And that's what the market wants, that's the demand. Not the best, but the most affordable for a top moderate capacity. Does anyone remember Sony's Betamax video tapes? They were much better than VHS video tapes, but the latter system was cheaper to produce and lacked proprietary restrictions. So that's what might happen to Tesla battery cells in the near future, they might end up piling the battery cells which the market would not buy. If we'd look at it from that perspective, you are probably right that there is a big problem which Tesla has to resolve. Hopefully someone smart at Tesla will manage to see the whole picture, otherwise the company might start losing millions on a daily basis in a couple of years. Who would pay $135k for a single seat aircraft when for $15K more I understand you are demonstrating relativity, but 99% of the people reading this don't have $15K to save, and $135K is just nonsensical talk to them so the point is moot. I will continue to live in the real World where $15K is a lot of money, and hopefully develop product for the majority of others also living in the world. Windows XP was the dominant desktop operating system.... Still extremely popular, I have no reason to change yet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Still extremely popular, I have no reason to change yet. I would have thought "WanaCry" was the perfect reason to change from XP... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 At the end of the day even if there is 'new' battery tech only 15 years away from being viable why on earth should Bex wait or worse join the line of kickstarters promising everything for nothing when he could build a viable (albeit heavier) plane within the next 5ish years and have a decade of electric plane market? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 At the end of the day even if there is 'new' battery tech only 15 years away from being viable why on earth should Bex wait or worse join the line of kickstarters promising everything for nothing when he could build a viable (albeit heavier) plane within the next 5ish years and have a decade of electric plane market? He should(if he can)!!! And that is exactly what tesla and others are doing in the car industry. The batteries have got "good enough" and so they are getting on with it ramping up production of what they have now. I just disagree with his claim that batteries are unlikely to develop further. Past experience has shown those sorts of claims to be comical when viewed from the furture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 this technology didn't exist a 10 years ago Fast Rapid Charge | Quick Charge 2.0, 3.0 & 4 Devices | Qualcomm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Current Lithium-Ion batteries are only a stepping stone to other improved forms of battery. Any corporation that builds a mega-million dollar Li-Ion battery construction plant without engineering in the ability to easily convert it to other styles or forms of battery construction, is going to shoot itself in the foot. Current Li-Ion battery production not only requires a lot of Lithium, it also requires a lot of Cobalt. If everyone is going to drive an electric car and fly around in their cheap electric 'plane, then the worlds supply of Cobalt will rapidly become depleted, and battery costs will skyrocket. Cobalt is not a common metal, and world supplies of Cobalt are relatively limited. Mining the Moon or other close planets for Co is not an option. So the answer is to ensure that the construction constituents for the coming electric worlds high-density, high energy battery, are common minerals or metals or organic compounds, that will ensure continued cheapness of construction - and which ensure that no, one, exclusive-source, raw material supplier, can hold the world to ransom by demanding high prices for its rare metals or minerals. Caterpillar started out with this exact research profile for a new, improved battery for its products, when it entered into a JV with Firefly around the early 2000's. Caterpillars aim was probably too restrictive, it aimed to only utilise the likes of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, in any new battery design - essentially, the basic building blocks of our worlds chemistry. Caterpillar and Firefly failed in their primary aim - although they did learn a few things and Firefly have applied them to improving current battery technology. Firefly now produce an AGM battery utilising their proprietary Carbon-Foam, resulting in a long-life AGM battery - but at high initial cost. Firefly concentrate on the Marine market with their improved AGM battery. Cat and Firefly failed because they only committed US$10M to the project. It wasn't a deal-breaker for Cat, they just wanted to improve on the batteries fitted to their products. Naturally, they certainly weren't looking for lightweight batteries. If Cat and Firefly had committed US$500M to the project and included a number of prominent world universities, then they might now be sitting on a winner, with a world-leading, high-energy-density battery, produced at low cost, with cheap constituents. The next step in battery technology will be improved Lithium-Sulphur (or Sulfur, if you prefer) batteries. The technology is there, it is much more efficient than Lithium-Ion, and it only requires some more work on their current restriction, that of capacity fade, due to the sulphur dissolving. A Berkeley Lab researcher is on the right track, and he's made a surprising discovery in that he found they can utilise a common organic food-thickener - carrageenan, derived from seaweed - to chemically bind with the sulphur to prevent the sulphur dissolving (the researcher just happens to be Chinese, so no surprise there!) The potential is there for Lithium-Sulphur batteries, with substantially-improved energy-density, and cheap and abundant construction constituents, to rapidly become the worlds standard battery in the very near future. Have a look at Sion Power - Airbus and BASF have invested significant sums in Sion, and it's not because AB and BASF like to throw money at highly speculative investments. A Sion Power Li-S battery powered the 2010 record-breaking, AB Zephyr 7 UAV, which flew for 14 days non-stop at 70,000'. LG have also scurried to licence Li-S battery manufacturing technology from Sion, and I don't think the South Koreans are fools, by any measure. Seaweed derivative could be just what lithium-sulfur batteries need: Surprising discovery is a major advance for low-cost, high-energy batteries 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted July 19, 2017 Author Share Posted July 19, 2017 I just disagree with his claim that batteries are unlikely to develop further. Past experience has shown those sorts of claims to be comical when viewed from the furture. Well you've put yourself in a safe position, you can't prove a thing but you're going to sit your thumb on your nose and wait for the day you can wiggle your fingers saying "nah nah" if it happens regardless if you have to wait 5 years or 30 years to do so. "You see the news my little Great Grandchildren, I told Bex 43 years ago that this day would arrive that a new superlight battery would be invented, now where's my scull cap, I want to send a thought message to him via BrainWaveJump Version 3.48, don't give me the Martian made one either, cheap crap their stuff is, should not have let the Chinese buy up so much Martian land ...." 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 I say the young law student might be big on marketing and low on actual results. So far it's just claims Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted July 20, 2017 Author Share Posted July 20, 2017 I say the young law student might be big on marketing and low on actual results.So far it's just claims Well it's easy to prove or debunk, he has a measurable volume (the drone) and all he has to do is fly it for 'X' amount of time. This will show the energy density. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 Yes, but a bit short on details to make any real fair guess. As you have said, nothing with that big a difference in power density is yet on the horizon. So I take it with a large dose of salt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now