• Solar plane makes first international flight
    95 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ridge;29826915][img_thumb]http://nurtz.com/upload/mirror.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] That is not stable, radiation pressure would fuck it all up.
[QUOTE=Gaza Pen Pal;29825369]creating the massive amount of solar panels that the plane needs to fly creates quite a bit of pollution[/QUOTE] Not to mention the actual plane. Or the materials used to construct the plane. Or the gas used to move the plane after it was constructed in parts. Or the gas used to transport the materials from the mines to wherever they where processed. Or the energy used to mine that material out of the ground. Or the material and energy needed to build the tools to mine the material out of the ground or get otherwise. Fuck this shit, I want to be pure energy.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29825532]See, this is a good idea [editline]14th May 2011[/editline] I'll put it this way : there's a limit to the solar intensity on earth. It's roughly 1400 watts per square metre, averaging out at 250 W/m^2 (check out the Solar Impulse website if you don't believe me). Meaning you'd need a ridiculously huge surface area to even think about getting something like, say, a jumbo jet off the ground.[/QUOTE] Yes but if you used solar panels to even partially power the electrical components on the jet and had the engines more devoted to just thrust you would save fuel
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29828268]Yes but if you used solar panels to even partially power the electrical components on the jet and had the engines more devoted to just thrust you would save fuel[/QUOTE] Yeah, you would. The only problems are that photovoltaics are expensive, and that the fuel save probably wouldn't be all that much anyway. Plus, you'd still be using fuel - it's like hybrid cars, they're a good idea, but they're not a permanent solution to the problem (which is using fossil fuels).
What happens if it gets cloudy?
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29828318]Yeah, you would. The only problems are that photovoltaics are expensive, and that the fuel save probably wouldn't be all that much anyway. Plus, you'd still be using fuel - it's like hybrid cars, they're a good idea, but they're not a permanent solution to the problem (which is using fossil fuels).[/QUOTE] Well it's something that could be fitted on existing jets instead of just scrapping them all in favour of a newer technology when that opportunity arises.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29828530]Well it's something that could be fitted on existing jets instead of just scrapping them all in favour of a newer technology when that opportunity arises.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I guess. I actually have no idea how much power avionics eats up (and I'm having trouble finding any estimates on google, and obviously it'll be different for every plane), but I suspect it isn't a huge amount compared to the power the engines produce.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29828577]Yeah, I guess. I actually have no idea how much power avionics eats up (and I'm having trouble finding any estimates on google, and obviously it'll be different for every plane), but I suspect it isn't a huge amount compared to the power the engines produce.[/QUOTE] Avionics usually don't use much power. Large planes usually have a small turbine (usually under 70kW) that can be deployed, to provide power after a complete engine failure (learned that reading about the Gimli Glider incident), so while it's not something you can run off batteries, it's not a huge amount relative to the power of the engines.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;29827568]That is not stable, radiation pressure would fuck it all up.[/QUOTE] In the tv show Futurama, they use that to reflect sunlight to stop global warming...a small rock hits it and spins it around, and it creates a death ray that sweeps across the planet.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;29828758]Avionics usually don't use much power. Large planes usually have a small turbine (usually under 70kW) that can be deployed, to provide power after a complete engine failure (learned that reading about the Gimli Glider incident), so while it's not something you can run off batteries, it's not a huge amount relative to the power of the engines.[/QUOTE] Thanks.
[QUOTE='[CWG]RustySpannerz;29828475']What happens if it gets cloudy?[/QUOTE] 99.999% of the time it'll be above clouds.
70,000/250 = 280 square metres' worth of solar panels at 100% efficiency needed to power the maximum amount of avionics independently.
[QUOTE=Ridge;29828775]In the tv show Futurama, they use that to reflect sunlight to stop global warming...a small rock hits it and spins it around, and it creates a death ray that sweeps across the planet.[/QUOTE] Because if it was on futurama, it must be true.
[QUOTE=nikomo;29828838]99.999% of the time it'll be above clouds.[/QUOTE] pretty sure they won't be constantly flying it, it'll be on the ground quite a bit.
[QUOTE=Icedshot;29828878]Because if it was on futurama, it must be true.[/QUOTE] You'd be surprised the amount of science some shows like that will include. The Simpsons twice included counter-proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem that were correct to ten decimal places.
[QUOTE=Ridge;29828775]In the tv show Futurama, they use that to reflect sunlight to stop global warming...a small rock hits it and spins it around, and it creates a death ray that sweeps across the planet.[/QUOTE] "OH what a fine -"BZZZZZZZZZZGFAOHGHOGYHBAOIGBO Free BACON!
[QUOTE=Swilly;29826093]Proof?[/QUOTE] How about the fact that sunlight has an incident intensity on earth that will never ever increase unless you focus that light. Basic physics 101 man for christs sake. [editline]15th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Icedshot;29828878]Because if it was on futurama, it must be true.[/QUOTE] Ever used a magnifying glass to burn shit? Yeah it would do that, since mirrors and glass reflect light.
[QUOTE=bravehat;29832854]How about the fact that sunlight has an incident intensity on earth that will never ever increase unless you focus that light. Basic physics 101 man for christs sake.[/QUOTE] ....and if you don't know Physics? Seriously, wanting more than just some random guy's opinion on a subject is really that bad?
[QUOTE=Swilly;29833085]....and if you don't know Physics? Seriously, wanting more than just some random guy's opinion on a subject is really that bad?[/QUOTE] Right, the basics of it is that sunlight has a maximum intesity on earth and that's at the equator, where most light hits per square metre of earth, as you move north and south then the curvature of the earth takes effect and makes the ground slant away from the sun producing a higher are for a given number of photons from the sun, therby reducing intensity. So even if you managed to harvest all of those photons you have a maximum amount of energy you can gather through solar means. Of course you can set up solar farms in orbit and beam the power back down but that's pretty innefficient.
[QUOTE=Swilly;29833085]....and if you don't know Physics?[/QUOTE] Then you don't get into arguments about physics??? [QUOTE=Turnips5;29828318]photovoltaics are expensive[/QUOTE] Too bad solar is as heavily subsidized as it is, otherwise you'd see bigger R+D budgets from companies that actually had an incentive to produce a better product and some cheaper models. The cost kills their use for so many small-scale things right now, and almost nobody wants to invest in a massive-ass solar farm.
I have an idea: Have the plane made out of solar panels. :monocle: [editline]15th May 2011[/editline] It'll look futuristic, scaley and fast.
[QUOTE=TheGronk;29833472]I have an idea: Have the plane made out of solar panels. :monocle: [editline]15th May 2011[/editline] It'll look futuristic, scaley and fast.[/QUOTE] It would look futursitic, suck, and then fall apart.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;29833374]Then you don't get into arguments about physics???[/QUOTE] Okay jackass, The fact that as someone who doesn't know something didn't want to take some random person's word for on the internet when I was actually interested from an ecological point of view automatically makes me unable to question someone's knowledge since its you know, the internet?
[QUOTE=Swilly;29834528]Okay jackass, The fact that as someone who doesn't know something didn't want to take some random person's word for on the internet when I was actually interested from an ecological point of view automatically makes me unable to question someone's knowledge since its you know, the internet?[/QUOTE] I'm not sure anything you can say can justify the logic: -Someone made a statement -I do not understand or know any relevant information about said statement -Ergo, I should openly challenge said statement There's a difference between nicely asking for a science lesson and demanding information from a source with a nicer hat because you're utterly clueless.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;29834686]I'm not sure anything you can say can justify the logic: -Someone made a statement -I do not understand or know any relevant information about said statement -Ergo, I should openly challenge said statement There's a difference between nicely asking for a science lesson and demanding information from a source with a nicer hat because you're utterly clueless.[/QUOTE] ....I asked for source? I asked him how he knew it, how was I being an asshole? So I have to get on my knees and ask him with cherries on top?
The plane flew at a really slow speed !!! :smugissar:
[QUOTE=The Raptor;29834803]The plane flew at a really slow speed !!! :smugissar:[/QUOTE] Shit pun is shit, don't try again.
Sort-of-related: I thought I'd read that solar-thermal power stations were more efficient than photovoltaic, but now I can't seem to find any source saying this. Have photovoltaic cells been improved so much that they've overtaken solar-thermal or was my source-that-I-can't-quite-remember-but-was-probably-not-my-imagination wrong.
If by solar thermal do you mean using mirrors to focus light onto a sodium tower? If so then yeah those are pretty awesome.
[QUOTE=bravehat;29834835]Shit pun is shit, don't try again.[/QUOTE] I don't even get it. :what:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.