In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:21:11 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Reality check: The existing "electric plane" designs barely keep themselves >aloft and have a niche as orbiting reflectors but not as cargo carriers.
Agreed. >With chemistry one can start with most anything and get anything else, >within reason, but not at reasonable cost. Agreed, however when a goal is presented, and the research funds made available, adequate catalysts can often be found that reduce the price. The recent emphasis on nano-technology is likely to increase the rate at which new and better catalysts are discovered. >Fir high performance aircraft, >there is no real substitute for jet fuel: if other sources are found for >ground transportation, jet fuel will be saved for aircraft. Don't forget the recent innovations in producing alkanes from biological sources. >As for AG, where >is the theory that says that does not require substantial power ? In practice, I would expect it to, though as food for thought, consider that gas filled balloons and kitchen tables expend no energy in keeping things aloft. IOW theoretically no energy expenditure is required as long as the altitude remains constant, so perhaps one day a means will be found to achieve AG that is highly efficient. >CF is a >very long way from producing useful net power. Agreed, however I mention it as a goal to strive for, not as a currently implementable solution. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
