142 replies to this topic

[Prancer]

Take a look at the future of aviation. :3

http://boeing.mediar...?s=43&item=1306

Edited by Wampa_Stompa, 13 July 2010 - 04:54 PM.

[jetblast787]

technically cant it travel for ever if its hydrogen powered? Consider all the hydrogen atoms within water in the atmosphere and clouds, technically it can if it can separate them

[Element94]

iranair787, on Jul 13 2010, 06:01 PM, said:

technically cant it travel for ever if its hydrogen powered? Consider all the hydrogen atoms within water in the atmosphere and clouds, technically it can if it can separate them

It requires more energy to extract hydrogen from most compounds than you'll get out of it.

[THBatMan8]

Hindenburg anyone?

Edited by Pope_Mischievous, 13 July 2010 - 06:03 PM.

[Prancer]

Pope_Mischievous, on Jul 13 2010, 05:59 PM, said:

Hindenburg anyone?

We've come a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way since that, I don't think what happened to that one air ship is going to be a problem.

[THBatMan8]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 13 2010, 07:40 PM, said:

Pope_Mischievous, on Jul 13 2010, 05:59 PM, said:

Hindenburg anyone?

We've come a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way since that, I don't think what happened to that one air ship is going to be a problem.

Knowledge of said particle is one thing, using it as a fuel is something else alltogether, and still in it's infancy. It will be a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time before hydrogen will even be considered as a source of commercial aviation fuel, so I wouldn't necessairly call it the future of aviation.

Edited by THBatMan8, 14 July 2010 - 08:44 AM.

[Prancer]

You do know helium and hydrogen are two different things, right?

Also, some points:

-Those air ships were made of canvas and wood

-There's an equally explosive element already in use. It's called jet fuel. Which is a lot less effiecent then hydrogen

-The space shuttle has been using hydrogen fuel without problem for 30 years.

-And who ever said this was a commercial exclusive topic?

Edited by Wampa_Stompa, 13 July 2010 - 07:36 PM.

[TopDollar]

Hahahaha, the Hindenburg was filled with hydrogen because it was lighter than air.  It was used to lift the aircraft.  That is much much different than an engine powered by a hydrogen fuel cell.

The aircraft in question may not be for commercial use, however I think it has fantastic potential.  Would save on a *lot* of oil which has much better uses than powering airliners.

Edited by TopDollar, 13 July 2010 - 08:23 PM.

[Element94]

TopDollar, on Jul 13 2010, 09:22 PM, said:

Would save on a *lot* of oil which has much better uses than powering airliners.

By today's standards, it really wouldn't. To extract hydrogen, the only commercially viable way to do so as a replacement for "fossil fuels" is by the electrolysis of the oceans. You do that by forcing large electric currents through saline water.

The kicker is, if you do the stoichiometry behind the process, you use more electricity in generating hydrogen than you do by burning it (as I mentioned above). Presently, the largest source for commercial electricity is fossil-fueled power plants. Thus, you'd actually burn more oil/coal/natural gas/etc. in generating the hydrogen than simply burning the fossil fuels in current applications. So, unless the United States (and the rest of the world) converts entirely to nuclear, it really provides no net benefit, and even an increase in fossil fuel consumption.

I'm putting my money in switch grass and algae derived biofuels, personally.

Edited by Element94, 13 July 2010 - 08:37 PM.

[TopDollar]

Guess we should stop producing aluminum as well.

[THBatMan8]

TopDollar, on Jul 13 2010, 09:22 PM, said:

Hahahaha, the Hindenburg was filled with hydrogen because it was lighter than air.  It was used to lift the aircraft.  That is much much different than an engine powered by a hydrogen fuel cell.

The aircraft in question may not be for commercial use, however I think it has fantastic potential.  Would save on a *lot* of oil which has much better uses than powering airliners.

That wasn't my point. My point was hydrogen storage. How are you going to store hydrogen in a fuel manifold without either compromising the safety of the aircraft or by adding too much weight?

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 13 2010, 08:33 PM, said:

You do know helium and hydrogen are two different things, right?

Also, some points:

-Those air ships were made of canvas and wood

-There's an equally explosive element already in use. It's called jet fuel. Which is a lot less effiecent then hydrogen

-The space shuttle has been using hydrogen fuel without problem for 30 years.

-And who ever said this was a commercial exclusive topic?

2) No, hydrogen is not equally as explosive as jet fuel. Consult a MSDS before making such accusations. And as already stated, it is not much more efficient.

3) The space shuttle has more than enough thrust from it's boosters to counter the added weight, which a airplane doesn't have. Not to mention you're comparing a rocket to a turbine, which are two completely different concepts. And 30 years with no problems? Does Challenger ring a bell? Or Columbia?

4) In order for something to be 'the future of aviation', that means/includes the commercial industry as well.

Edited by THBatMan8, 14 July 2010 - 11:13 AM.

[pyruvate]

Pope_Mischievous, on Jul 14 2010, 05:29 PM, said:

TopDollar, on Jul 13 2010, 09:22 PM, said:

Hahahaha, the Hindenburg was filled with hydrogen because it was lighter than air.  It was used to lift the aircraft.  That is much much different than an engine powered by a hydrogen fuel cell.

The aircraft in question may not be for commercial use, however I think it has fantastic potential.  Would save on a *lot* of oil which has much better uses than powering airliners.

That wasn't my point. My point was hydrogen storage. How are you going to store hydrogen in a fuel manifold without either compromising the safety of the aircraft or by adding too much weight?

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 13 2010, 08:33 PM, said:

You do know helium and hydrogen are two different things, right?

Also, some points:

-Those air ships were made of canvas and wood

-There's an equally explosive element already in use. It's called jet fuel. Which is a lot less effiecent then hydrogen

-The space shuttle has been using hydrogen fuel without problem for 30 years.

-And who ever said this was a commercial exclusive topic?

2) No, hydrogen is not equally as explosive as jet fuel. Consult a MSDS before making such accusations. And as already stated, it is not much more efficient.

3) The space shuttle has more than enough thrust from it's boosters to counter the added weight, which a airplane doesn't have.

4) In order for something to be 'the future of aviation', that means/includes the commercial industry as well.

Finally someone said it, those are the 2 biggest problems with using Hydrogen as a every-day source of fuel.

And Zarqueen, comparing this to the space shuttle?   The space shuttle uses Rocket Engines, commercial aircraft use jets...  It's like running a Cessna on the same jet fuel that you run a B747 with.

[THBatMan8]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 13 2010, 08:33 PM, said:

You do know helium and hydrogen are two different things, right?

Yes, I know. It's called a mistake.

TopDollar, on Jul 13 2010, 09:40 PM, said:

Guess we should stop producing aluminum as well.

Edited by THBatMan8, 14 July 2010 - 11:27 AM.

[Prancer]

pyruvate, on Jul 14 2010, 08:30 AM, said:

[

And Zarqueen, comparing this to the space shuttle? :mellow:  The space shuttle uses Rocket Engines, commercial aircraft use jets...  It's like running a Cessna on the same jet fuel that you run a B747 with.

And this new aircraft doesn't use jets, so it's logical to think aircraft built based on this design won't use jets either.

Use some common sense before you start crying about what the 'glorious' commercial planes of today use, because they're absolutely meaningless in this discussion. Not to mention it was never said this was going to be commercial technology, so why the heck do you keep crying about it? The Boeing Defense, Space, and Security branch is working on this, not the flying taxi cab branch.

Edited by Wampa_Stompa, 14 July 2010 - 02:10 PM.

[LA_PHX]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 03:08 PM, said:

pyruvate, on Jul 14 2010, 08:30 AM, said:

[

And Zarqueen, comparing this to the space shuttle? :mellow:  The space shuttle uses Rocket Engines, commercial aircraft use jets...  It's like running a Cessna on the same jet fuel that you run a B747 with.

And this new aircraft doesn't use jets, so it's logical to think aircraft built based on this design won't use jets either.

Use some common sense before you start crying about what the 'glorious' commercial planes of today use, because they're absolutely meaningless in this discussion. Not to mention it was never said this was going to be commercial technology, so why the heck do you keep crying about it? The Boeing Defense, Space, and Security branch is working on this, not the flying taxi cab branch.

Nobody is crying...

They are just making counter points and they don't see this as the "future of aviation," as you had said.  And I completely agree with them.

Edited by LA_BOS, 14 July 2010 - 02:21 PM.

[TopDollar]

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 09:45 AM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 13 2010, 08:33 PM, said:

You do know helium and hydrogen are two different things, right?

Yes, I know. It's called a mistake.

TopDollar, on Jul 13 2010, 09:40 PM, said:

Guess we should stop producing aluminum as well.

Hahaha sort of.

I brought up aluminum in particular because of the huge amounts of electricity that is required to produce it (through electrolysis).  But an interesting thing to note is that most aluminum plants you will find near sources of cheap electricity.  Most common being hydroelectric.  Last time I checked, hydroelectric power didn't have anything to with fossil fuels.  If hydrogen power went mainstream, I doubt refining plants would be placed arbitrarily.

That being said, I don't know if Hydrogen fuel cells are the way to go.  There are some pretty specific risks with it (see attached publication).  These mostly involve in safety risks to humans.  A non-issue when it comes to UAVs.

http://www.fire.stat...hicleSafety.pdf

I personally think solar power is the future of aviation, but hydrogen may be the future of unmanned aviation.

Edited by TopDollar, 14 July 2010 - 02:21 PM.

[Prancer]

LA_BOS, on Jul 14 2010, 02:20 PM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 03:08 PM, said:

pyruvate, on Jul 14 2010, 08:30 AM, said:

[

And Zarqueen, comparing this to the space shuttle? :mellow:  The space shuttle uses Rocket Engines, commercial aircraft use jets...  It's like running a Cessna on the same jet fuel that you run a B747 with.

And this new aircraft doesn't use jets, so it's logical to think aircraft built based on this design won't use jets either.

Use some common sense before you start crying about what the 'glorious' commercial planes of today use, because they're absolutely meaningless in this discussion. Not to mention it was never said this was going to be commercial technology, so why the heck do you keep crying about it? The Boeing Defense, Space, and Security branch is working on this, not the flying taxi cab branch.

Nobody is crying...

They are just making counter points and they don't see this as the "future of aviation," as you had said.  And I completely agree with them.

Nobody said it was the future of all aviation. But it is in aviation's future. Those commercial guys are more than welcome to stay in the stone age for all I care, which they pretty much are anyway.

And yeah, they do keep whining about that one aspect of aviation, while they are oblivious to the parts of aviation where this is going to be very, very useful. Bombers, recon aircraft, research vehicles, and even some cargo lifters are really going to benefit from this.

And like it or not, UAVs are the future.

Edited by Wampa_Stompa, 14 July 2010 - 02:31 PM.

[pyruvate]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 12:38 AM, said:

pyruvate, on Jul 14 2010, 08:30 AM, said:

[

And Zarqueen, comparing this to the space shuttle? :mellow:  The space shuttle uses Rocket Engines, commercial aircraft use jets...  It's like running a Cessna on the same jet fuel that you run a B747 with.

And this new aircraft doesn't use jets, so it's logical to think aircraft built based on this design won't use jets either.

Use some common sense before you start crying about what the 'glorious' commercial planes of today use, because they're absolutely meaningless in this discussion. Not to mention it was never said this was going to be commercial technology, so why the heck do you keep crying about it? The Boeing Defense, Space, and Security branch is working on this, not the flying taxi cab branch.

Quote

Take a look at the future of aviation.

[Prancer]

pyruvate, on Jul 14 2010, 02:32 PM, said:

Quote

Take a look at the future of aviation.

Yes.  

It's in aviation's future, therefore it is part of the future of aviation....are you seriously that dense I needed to explain that?

[SwitchFX]

I don't see this going to production in my lifetime. It's an interesting project, but it just isn't worthwhile.