Geoff_H
-
Posts
905 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Store
Aircraft
Resources
Tutorials
Articles
Classifieds
Movies
Books
Community Map
Quizzes
Videos Directory
Everything posted by Geoff_H
-
For a continuing flight the aircraft could use the boiloff in the APU. Defuel between longer flights. I don't see a need for a second tank. Fuel tanks would be in similar places to existing tanks. But with very good thermal insulation. I have worked on control systems design of two hydrogen plants, one using methane conversion the other electrolysis, never on liquid hydrogen but have worked on control systems for liquid oxygen/nitrogen plants. I expect that there would be difficulties but one has to be open to brain storming to advance technology.
-
The boil off would be fed into an aircraft engine at the appropriate compressor stage! Low pressure container very doable.
-
Got any real figures for your statements? My calculations do not support your statements particularly in respect of evaporation wastage. One damn lot lighter than batteries.
-
Should have added that transmission from H2 generation to you via methane gas pipeline systems.
-
Cryogenic for aircraft. Gas turbines can burn it with reduced put. Sydney to London would require several stops at least. Tank vented, some loss to atmosphere but lightweight tank ( done in space craft but with very high thermal resistance covering of tank....after all lead is used in passenger aircraft for sound absorption). H2 Gas can be transmitted from generation plant close to nuclear power station ( well only if we have sense enough to realise that it is probably the only way that we can have power at night or after a long period without the sun like we have now.)
-
I still think that hydrogen cryogenically stored in a lightweight tank. I am not sure what the tank would need to be made from, but some lightweight epoxy type maybe possible.
-
Actually the Otto combustion engine is theoretically more efficient than the diesel engine. It is just that the compression ratio of the diesel is far higher than the Otto combustion engine. However the recent dual cycle engines best the diesel for power and efficiency. BMW are looking at dumping the diesel for the dual cycle. Mercedes are getting over 400hp out of a 2 litre engine. Imagine a light 1 litre 2 cylinder engine giving 200hp....weight savings and efficiency.
-
Use the existing pipelines that feed methane to your house!
-
Pilot arrested over missing Vic campers
Geoff_H replied to red750's topic in AUS/NZ General Discussion
One News organisation, that I know of, use data from Facebook etc plus comments from this type of website to work out what is attractive to readers. Even to the extent of what media device followers what eg aggressive, sensational etc. I stay away from the mainstream media. All about getting your money. -
In the early 70's it was great to get an aircraft that had a cheap VW engine, open canopy absolute minimum instruments and a cruise speed of around 70 knots. Now we want a full panel enclosed canopy long range 100kt cruise speed. Leather interior etc etc. I think that the Corby starlet is one of the best minimum cost aircraft around.
-
I guess that a new chip would increase the output. But the Bosch engine control module must be encoded some difficult way. There are several kits to add the 60hp max increase at the moment. From what I can see all halve the manifold pressure to the Bosch unit, it then increases the boost. Mmmmmmm. But what a trick BMW is doing.
-
The intent is to only use the brakes for taxing and holding the aircraft during starting the engines. No starter motors. Virtually no electric system. Batteries in hand held radio fitted with remote headset, signals for tachos and kill switches. EFIS in phone. Nothing in the aircraft that doesn't have to be there.
-
The discs are 15mm larger than the rim. With two side walls and tread roughly calculated at 15mm the discs may touch the ground but only just. The calipers are very small and fully floating. I did some tests some time ago and the discs were extremely difficult to twist. The craft AUW is 200kg.
-
More pics
-
For some years I have been trying to make an aircraft for less than $10k. First attempt was scrapped as it was far too heavy. The idea was to make moulds and loan them out, really not feasible, too easy to damage the moulds. I am on second attempt now. Engines $4k, leaves $6k for fuselage etc. Use phone efis, may work. Hand held radio. Probably on target but making many parts in my lathe and milling machine. I expect that I will achieve the end result. The aircraft is small and I am using quad bike braking system. I machined wheels from single blocks of aluminium. Canopy will blowv$10 if it is bought, I will have to make it, doubt that the result will be ok. I have many 3d printed parts. I have spent $4k on tools, excluding lathe. I am 74 now, I don't think that I will finish it before I loose my medical.
-
The power curve of the BMW 2 litre engine. I have often thought that this engine would be good for aircraft. What do you think about the odd power vs rpm curve? BMW are limiting output to increase as models evolve. I have found how to add 60hp to output very simply.
-
We will have blackouts. Liddell was commissioned in 1971 designed for 20 life. In 1988 I led a team to work out what we needed to do to extend life to 2004. Most was done. But I am surprised that it is running at all. But when it comes to an end the price of electricity will increase. Gas will fill the hole. When coal plant keeps falling over and all the gas plant is operating then any system failure will result in blackouts. Look at the formation of the electricity commission of NSW history. We are back to where it was in mid 1950's. I have just overhauled my little generator.
-
I worked for the electricity commission of NSW and in the early 1970' we looked into going nuclear with a power station built on federal land in Jervis bay. It was not economic then. The cost of a power station consists of the cost of money to build it, the cost of fuel and the cost of labour to maintain it. Coal is medium for interest low for fuel and medium for labour. Nuclear costs at least 10x a coal station. With 70's interest rates far from low interest was enormous, fuel is quite low and labour was high. Just not worth building. These days interest is low. We should do it. The eastern Australian grid would only produce 5 44gallon drums of waste per year.
-
Say that to an engineer at Eraring or Bayswater power stations. They have been designed to come on Quickly and go up in very fast time. I commissioned one of the systems. There is so much BS out there that is put out with a political agenda. Greatest of all is the two most CO2 emitting countries are Indonesia and Brazil. Land clearing! In 2008 when I had a contract with a big mining company to investigate renewable energy I discovered this. One eyed climate change obsessed people usually deny it. Politically impossible to change those emissions. In 2008 land clearing emitted more CO2 each year than all the aircraft that had ever flown since the Wright brothers took off
-
I will have to look it up again. I will get back to you. It is a government site on power and emissions in Australia. It is interesting that the 2019 average nbulk purchase price of electricity was $0.14/kWh. I pay a lot more than that to get it into my house.y
-
People will say that they have solar cells that charge their Tesla so they don't cause any emissions. One 300watt solar panel will generate, on a sunny day, enough energy for a Tesla to travel 4km. So your Tesla has to be in your garage or you need storage batteries at your house to transfer the energy. These batteries and inverters are expensive. But even if you do charge your Tesla using solar cells you only reduce the emissions of CO2 if the solar cells are dedicated to your car. If you are using solar cells that are connected to the grid then while you are charging your Tesla the power that was being injected into the grid has to be generated by some other source, the only other source that allows variation is coal or gas fired generators. So the emissions of CO2 don't change. Solar cells for your Tesla don't reduce emissions.
-
My petrol fuelled BMW 330i creates less CO2 emissions than a Model S Tesla. I expect that this is also true for petrol engined vehicles that have dual cycle engines, many vehicles for sale today. Tesla charge with power from the eastern Australian grid. The grid hass a high emissions per kilowatt hour generated. Basically owing to the use of coal for power generation. The Tesla in NSW generates 0.164kg/km of CO2, the BMW generates 0.147kg/km of CO2. If this is so then why are Tesla's so successful around the world? As an example I examined the New York grid. It is approximately the same side as the Eastern Australian Grid. New York emissions of CO2 are approximately 1/4 of ours. Is used hydro (Niagara Falls) gas (mostly combined cycle) and Nuclear ( 3 Mile Island). Approximately 1/3 of each. Tesla vehicles in New York state emit 1/4 when charged of their grid, and emit far less CO2 than a BMW 330i driving around New York state.
-
Please quote your source of both figures. Particularly the coal cost does not correlate with delivered cost of retail supply costs according to the official website
-
What happened was that he glued the fabric to the timber. Unfortunately most of the glue soaked into the timber leaving a very small amount of glue holding the fabric. The fabric parted from the timber and all aerodynamic shape was lost. I now paint any timber with epoxy, let that cure, sand timber back to smooth then glue attachment to the timber.
-
Bose. They fixed them for free when I have had an problems with the 2 I have over 10 years
