Well allow me to rephrase, shit attempt to be funny.
yeah btw it is called the solar constant
[QUOTE=gman003-main;29828955]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]
Oh yeah. Futurama is ESPECIALLY good with their science and maths based stuff. After all, David X. Cohen, the series executive producer (and he 'perfects' the scripts), has a bachelors in physics, and a masters in computer science. Ken Keeler, a writer and a co-executive producer of the show has a Ph.D in applied mathematics.
The people over at Futurama (and the Simpsons) know their shit when it comes to science and maths. If they say something serious in relation to the fields then you can probably take it as fact.
[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]
But once you have the panels, you have them for a long time.
A one time pollution "cost" up front is better than a recurring "cost" every time you want to fly.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29825454]There is a FUCKING LIMIT to how FUCKING EFFICIENT fucking SOLAR PANELS can BE
I'll repeat it a third time if you want[/QUOTE]
And technology will [B]never[/B] make solar panels more efficient. :downs:
[QUOTE=Bassplaya7;29845214]And technology will [B]never[/B] make solar panels more efficient. :downs:[/QUOTE]
There is a physical limit to how much energy from sunlight is available for a certain surface area and it is not enough to power a fucking jumbo jet
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29845665]There is a physical limit to how much energy from sunlight is available for a certain surface area and it is not enough to power a fucking jumbo jet[/QUOTE]
So then we get more planes in the sky?
What if a pane of magnifying material or glass were adhered to the top layer of a photovoltaic panel? Would that change anything?
That's probably a stupid suggestion, but oh well.
[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]
well I suppose by 'pollution free' they mean that it doesn't pollute while flying
This is cool as a form of assistive power, I can see hybrid oil/solar vehicles becoming popular easily curbing oil and other natural resources. Like Turnips said, I think solar panels are around 44% efficient at best nowadays, and based on the materials existing that's pretty close to the max, so I can't see solar taking everything over, but it will be a cool way to help power newer technologies.
This would be handy for short distances. Expense wise.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;29828955]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]
Thats not a counter proof. Thats as wrong as very other number.
[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]
Wow, I didn't realize 70kW was enough to power everything
[QUOTE=wutanggrenad;29826040]Rated informative, hopefully in 10-20 years they'll be more efficient (i'm sure they'll figure out a way)[/QUOTE]
Holy fuck, don't you get it? The sun is only emitting that much energy, you can't magically have more energy!
[QUOTE=Rct33;29847535]Thats not a counter proof. Thats as wrong as very other number.[/QUOTE]
He said it was correct to ten decimal places, not that it was correct.
[editline]15th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DrLuke;29847802]Holy fuck, don't you get it? The sun is only emitting that much energy, you can't magically have more energy![/QUOTE]
thank you, that's what I've been saying forever
[QUOTE=DrLuke;29847802]Holy fuck, don't you get it? The sun is only emitting that much energy, you can't magically have more energy![/QUOTE]
But you can fine tune the other equipment to be more effiencent and use lighter materials. Its not enough power to thrust a current jumbo jet.
Is it possible to make small nuclear reactors on aircraft? If so wouldn't that be a better alternative all together?
[QUOTE=Gaza Pen Pal;29825111]that's not pollution free :colbert:[/QUOTE]
Windturbines aren't either.
China makes them from the most toxic elements on the planet, the waste of which is chucked into rivers.
[QUOTE=Swilly;29847961]But you can fine tune the other equipment to be more effiencent and use lighter materials. Its not enough power to thrust a current jumbo jet.[/QUOTE]
Okay so basically we're gonna invoke the power of magic
brb in 8 hours, gotta rest a little
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29848205]Okay so basically we're gonna invoke the power of magic
brb in 8 hours, gotta rest a little[/QUOTE]
So you're saying there is no possible way to make these massive planes more efficient and lighter?
[QUOTE=Swilly;29848261]So you're saying there is no possible way to make these massive planes more efficient and lighter?[/QUOTE]
shush, how do you expect me to memorise spells if you're yapping at me
[QUOTE=Swilly;29848261]So you're saying there is no possible way to make these massive planes more efficient and lighter?[/QUOTE]
There is ways, but you have to remember that there is a point at which companies are not willing to pay any more for the materials - if you could pay 500 billion dollars to get a vehicle that flew entirely on solar power, would it be worth it? Not in the slightest, because it would never make that money back and it would probably cost large percentages of that 500 billion constantly because airplanes need constant maintenance.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29848406]shush, how do you expect me to memorise spells if you're yapping at me[/QUOTE]
I'm actually asking if there is a legitimately anyway to actual make planes work with this. You're saying there is no way. A logic which has shown to be false before except for the Law of Relativity and traveling faster than the speed of light.
[editline]15th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Elspin;29848703]There is ways, but you have to remember that there is a point at which companies are not willing to pay any more for the materials - if you could pay 500 billion dollars to get a vehicle that flew entirely on solar power, would it be worth it? Not in the slightest, because it would never make that money back and it would probably cost large percentages of that 500 billion constantly because airplanes need constant maintenance.[/QUOTE]
I know that, but as time progresses and as we get further along those methods would get cheaper and actually would stand out more as a better choice in the long run.
[QUOTE=Swilly;29848707]I'm actually asking if there is a legitimately anyway to actual make planes work with this. You're saying there is no way. A logic which has shown to be false before except for the Law of Relativity and traveling faster than the speed of light.[/QUOTE]
Sure you can make planes work with this. There's one in the OP, if you hadn't noticed.
The problem is there's a limit to how heavy these planes can be. Don't forget, even if you somehow managed to make a whole plane out of nothing but some future hyper-advanced aerogel analogue, you'd still need to carry the weight of a full complement of crew and passengers, and their luggage.
[editline]15th May 2011[/editline]
And there are other things that are impossible apart from those... like getting more energy out of a system than there is in the first place. :|
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29848866]Sure you can make planes work with this. There's one in the OP, if you hadn't noticed.
The problem is there's a limit to how heavy these planes can be. Don't forget, even if you somehow managed to make a whole plane out of nothing but some future hyper-advanced aerogel analogue, you'd still need to carry the weight of a full complement of crew and passengers, and their luggage.
[editline]15th May 2011[/editline]
And there are other things that are impossible apart from those... like getting more energy out of a system than there is in the first place. :|[/QUOTE]
Dude you've been saying all this shit that solar panels cannot become more efficient but i don't think you understand the term 'efficiency'. Solar panels with our current technology don't create as much energy as is inputted. By making it more efficient, the same amount of light can produce more energy than before.
Stop trying to make the other guy out to be some massive dumbfuck when you lack basic common sense.
[QUOTE=Gareth;29849016]Dude you've been saying all this shit that solar panels cannot become more efficient but i don't think you understand the term 'efficiency'. Solar panels with our current technology don't create as much energy as is inputted. By making it more efficient, the same amount of light can produce more energy than before.
Stop trying to make the other guy out to be some massive dumbfuck when you lack basic common sense.[/QUOTE]
:sigh: how many fucking times do I gotta explain this
I understand efficiency just fine.
useful output energy/input energy * 100 = percentage efficiency
What I'm saying is that there's simply [I]not enough power per square metre[/I] from the sun on Earth for us to get enough energy to fly a jetliner without having a huge amount of surface area covered in photovoltaic cells (enough to make the plane impossible to fly). Which is true.
What IS feasible is using solar panels to generate the electricity needed to power avionics.
[QUOTE=Swilly;29825059]And people say solar power is useless....[/QUOTE]
Who has ever said that?
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29825454]There is a FUCKING LIMIT to how FUCKING EFFICIENT fucking SOLAR PANELS can BE
I'll repeat it a third time if you want[/QUOTE]
but some day it will be as fast as commercial jets
[QUOTE=bobste;29849247]but some day it will be as fast as commercial jets[/QUOTE]
yes i agree totally
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;29848157]Is it possible to make small nuclear reactors on aircraft? If so wouldn't that be a better alternative all together?[/QUOTE]
Uh...that one's a mess worthy of it's own thread.
Short answer is "maybe kinda but it'd be hella wonky to figure out." I mean, sure, we've made things fly entirely via nuclear power before, ramjets for weaponry and that, but they're about as safe as playing catch-the-baby over a woodchipper, and there are no safe compact alternatives right now.
[QUOTE=Gareth;29849016]Stop trying to make the other guy out to be some massive dumbfuck when you lack basic common sense.[/QUOTE]
Everything he's said in this thread thus far checks out. Not sure what else to say.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.