Why electric planes are inevitable

It's a closely guarded secret, but by current measurements the days were only 22 hours long just a few years ago. It's why many old people get up at 5 am, and have to take naps in the afternoon. I worked with a guy who was so old that he said, as a kid, he'd get dizzy just because the earth spun so fast. That's why dinosaurs were so heavy...had to be, to keep from flying off.
I'm getting old and I think the earth's rotation is speeding up. The days go by too fast now that I'm not working. At work they dragged on forever, and Friday was a long way off even on Thursday.

We're getting so old we don't buy green bananas anymore.
 
I’m just getting started in my career as a tour pilot.

Based on our fuel burn, how weight limited the R44 and most tour helicopters are, how many flights we have per day, compared to the power required and charge interval and charge time of a simple electric car, how many flights we need for the boss to pay us, pay for six figure overhauls for each helicopter every 2200hrs, and make enough for the business to make sense for him, if we were mandated electric helicopters I do not believe I would have a job.
 
Last edited:
The book I might write someday would be “Fast Eddie On Everything But Math”.

That said, there’s math - and physics - involved in this paper:

http://xenon.stanford.edu/~zjl/pdf/tide.pdf


I would have no way on determining if the math and/or physics in the paper are right or wrong, but the author has a PhD and I don’t. Here’s the abstract:

“It is wrong to consider tidal power as renewable, green energy. Using tidal energy poses more severe problems than using fossil fuels. It is quantitatively proved in this study how the Earth can be destroyed by using tidal energy in a short time. Tides are created by the rotation of the Earth with respect to the attractions from the Sun and the Moon. Tidal energy is actually dissipated from the rotational energy of the Earth. Consuming tidal energy is actually taking the rotational energy, increasing the energy loss, and decelerating the rotation of the Earth. Based on the average pace of world energy consumption for the last 50 years, if we were taking the rotational energy just to supplement 1% of world energy requirements, the rotation of the Earth could be literally stopped in about 1000 years. As a consequence, one side of the Earth would be exposed to the Sun for a much longer time than it is today. The temperature would be raised extremely high on that side, and extremely low on the other side. The environment would be intolerable and life would be wiped out from the Earth.”

 
Based on the average pace of world energy consumption for the last 50 years, if we were taking the rotational energy just to supplement 1% of world energy requirements, the rotation of the Earth could be literally stopped in about 1000 years.

Ain't buying that at all. Even if it were remotely possible one fact is certain, I don't have it to worry about.o_O
 
I'm getting old and I think the earth's rotation is speeding up. The days go by too fast now that I'm not working. At work they dragged on forever, and Friday was a long way off even on Thursday.

We're getting so old we don't buy green bananas anymore.
Not only that, but gravity is getting stronger every year! ;)
 
The book I might write someday would be “Fast Eddie On Everything But Math”.

That said, there’s math - and physics - involved in this paper:
http://xenon.stanford.edu/~zjl/pdf/tide.pdf
http://xenon.stanford.edu/~zjl/pdf/tide.pdf

I would have no way on determining if the math and/or physics in the paper are right or wrong, but the author has a PhD and I don’t. Here’s the abstract:

“It is wrong to consider tidal power as renewable, green energy. Using tidal energy poses more severe problems than using fossil fuels. It is quantitatively proved in this study how the Earth can be destroyed by using tidal energy in a short time. Tides are created by the rotation of the Earth with respect to the attractions from the Sun and the Moon. Tidal energy is actually dissipated from the rotational energy of the Earth. Consuming tidal energy is actually taking the rotational energy, increasing the energy loss, and decelerating the rotation of the Earth. Based on the average pace of world energy consumption for the last 50 years, if we were taking the rotational energy just to supplement 1% of world energy requirements, the rotation of the Earth could be literally stopped in about 1000 years. As a consequence, one side of the Earth would be exposed to the Sun for a much longer time than it is today. The temperature would be raised extremely high on that side, and extremely low on the other side. The environment would be intolerable and life would be wiped out from the Earth.”
I don’t buy that either. Doesn’t pass the sniff test for me.
 
The book I might write someday would be “Fast Eddie On Everything But Math”.

That said, there’s math - and physics - involved in this paper:
http://xenon.stanford.edu/~zjl/pdf/tide.pdf
http://xenon.stanford.edu/~zjl/pdf/tide.pdf

I would have no way on determining if the math and/or physics in the paper are right or wrong, but the author has a PhD and I don’t. Here’s the abstract:

“It is wrong to consider tidal power as renewable, green energy. Using tidal energy poses more severe problems than using fossil fuels. It is quantitatively proved in this study how the Earth can be destroyed by using tidal energy in a short time. Tides are created by the rotation of the Earth with respect to the attractions from the Sun and the Moon. Tidal energy is actually dissipated from the rotational energy of the Earth. Consuming tidal energy is actually taking the rotational energy, increasing the energy loss, and decelerating the rotation of the Earth. Based on the average pace of world energy consumption for the last 50 years, if we were taking the rotational energy just to supplement 1% of world energy requirements, the rotation of the Earth could be literally stopped in about 1000 years. As a consequence, one side of the Earth would be exposed to the Sun for a much longer time than it is today. The temperature would be raised extremely high on that side, and extremely low on the other side. The environment would be intolerable and life would be wiped out from the Earth.”

the math appears to be right. I did not rigorously verify every equation, but they are simple equations.

I’m not so sure about the physics. PhD or not, comparing “tidal friction” across the bottom of the ocean to brake calipers is flawed. Tides are gravitational energy in a potential state, they don’t experience friction and when they do, that potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. They are the effect of rotation, not the cause.

is there an impact of using tidal energy? Surely there must be. It is effectively harvesting gravity between the sun and the earth, reducing the amount of gravity holding the earth in place. A better fear would be that the earth’s orbit moves further from the sun, causing massive and irreversible global cooling.

there is no such thing as a free lunch.
 
The book I might write someday would be “Fast Eddie On Everything But Math”.

That said, there’s math - and physics - involved in this paper:

http://xenon.stanford.edu/~zjl/pdf/tide.pdf


I would have no way on determining if the math and/or physics in the paper are right or wrong, but the author has a PhD and I don’t. Here’s the abstract:

“It is wrong to consider tidal power as renewable, green energy. Using tidal energy poses more severe problems than using fossil fuels. It is quantitatively proved in this study how the Earth can be destroyed by using tidal energy in a short time. Tides are created by the rotation of the Earth with respect to the attractions from the Sun and the Moon. Tidal energy is actually dissipated from the rotational energy of the Earth. Consuming tidal energy is actually taking the rotational energy, increasing the energy loss, and decelerating the rotation of the Earth. Based on the average pace of world energy consumption for the last 50 years, if we were taking the rotational energy just to supplement 1% of world energy requirements, the rotation of the Earth could be literally stopped in about 1000 years. As a consequence, one side of the Earth would be exposed to the Sun for a much longer time than it is today. The temperature would be raised extremely high on that side, and extremely low on the other side. The environment would be intolerable and life would be wiped out from the Earth.”


The paper is completely wrong and the writer is a moron.

First, it’s true that tidal force is the reason we only see one side of the moon, the heavier side (probably a result of the collision with earth) generates more pull, so like holding a golf club in the middle, the heavier end (head end) gets pulled to the earth.

Earth is also lopsided a bit and is slowing but so slowly (search for leap seconds). The force on lopsided heavy areas is an extra pull towards the moon and what’s causing us to slow. But ocean tidal forces are not lopsided.
Tides are not a result of the pull of gravity to the moon, they are a result of compression of the earth from moons gravity (we’re mostly squeezed like an orange, not pulled like taffy as in the paper…the pulling forces as described are magnitudes less the compression forces).
In other words the gravity of the moon acts to the center of the moon, so while most of the force is parallel to moon-earth, a small component is inward, resulting in compression force on the water on the sides (low tides) which results in water rising on the other sides, just like if you squeezed an orange.
The extra pull of gravity on the near moon side and extra weak gravity on the far side which bulges from centrifugal force is just too small.
 
Last edited:
The book I might write someday would be “Fast Eddie On Everything But Math”.

That said, there’s math - and physics - involved in this paper:
http://xenon.stanford.edu/~zjl/pdf/tide.pdf

I would have no way on determining if the math and/or physics in the paper are right or wrong, but the author has a PhD and I don’t. Here’s the abstract:

“It is wrong to consider tidal power as renewable, green energy. Using tidal energy poses more severe problems than using fossil fuels. It is quantitatively proved in this study how the Earth can be destroyed by using tidal energy in a short time. Tides are created by the rotation of the Earth with respect to the attractions from the Sun and the Moon. Tidal energy is actually dissipated from the rotational energy of the Earth. Consuming tidal energy is actually taking the rotational energy, increasing the energy loss, and decelerating the rotation of the Earth. Based on the average pace of world energy consumption for the last 50 years, if we were taking the rotational energy just to supplement 1% of world energy requirements, the rotation of the Earth could be literally stopped in about 1000 years. As a consequence, one side of the Earth would be exposed to the Sun for a much longer time than it is today. The temperature would be raised extremely high on that side, and extremely low on the other side. The environment would be intolerable and life would be wiped out from the Earth.”
I haven't been able find out whether that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
 
As an active chemist, I say lithium metal is reactive, and less reactive than sodium and the other group 1 metals. I tend to use "stable" in the context of molecules rather than elements, unless I'm talking radio chemistry.

Yup, reactive is a less ambiguous term. But if you are an active chemist then you are well aware that stable is also used and you are just being pedantic. So, you win, I guess. :)
 
I haven't been able find out whether that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

When I do a Google search for “Do tidal dams slow the earth’s rotation?” the consensus answer seems to be “yes”. Seems obvious the energy being produced has to
come from somewhere.
 
When I do a Google search for “Do tidal dams slow the earth’s rotation?” the consensus answer seems to be “yes”.

Did you see any peer-reviewed papers in that search? I didn't.

I don't know whether Dr. Liu is right or wrong. Evaluation of his article by others (with appropriate qualifications) would help.

Seems obvious the energy being produced has to
come from somewhere.

It seems obvious that energy would be required to slow Earth's rotation, and that energy would also have to come from somewhere. :dunno:
 
entropy will always win
 
It seems obvious that energy would be required to slow Earth's rotation, and that energy would also have to come from somewhere. :dunno:

It seems like we’re discussing energy being dissipated. That’s different, right? In the car brake analogy, you can cause an enormous amount of energy to be dissipated as heat with a minuscule amount of pressure on the brake pedal.
 
I would have no way on determining if the math and/or physics in the paper are right or wrong, but the author has a PhD and I don’t.
Doesn't matter. Science is about a process of experimentation and peer review, not personal credentials. Some absolute idiots have doctorates, like Jordan Peterson and Phil McGraw.

Come to think of it, I have one too. Hmm …
 
Yup, reactive is a less ambiguous term. But if you are an active chemist then you are well aware that stable is also used and you are just being pedantic. So, you win, I guess. :)
There's overlap between the terms "stable" and "reactive", but they aren't used the same way. Sulfuric acid is stable- we keep it for years. It is also quite reactive. Likewise, I keep sodium metal for years in a kerosene bath and it is very stable that way, but it is very reactive, too. Hydrogen peroxide is both unstable and reactive- I only get it as I need it because it doesn't keep. Nitrate esters tend to be unstable, but not necessarily reactive- cellulose nitrate is a good example. Billiard balls made from the stuff made for exciting pool games.

As for whether I'm practicing now:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acscombsci.8b00187
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00437
I'm submitting another paper now in another journal.
 
The chemical discussion is getting into the distinction between kinetic and thermodynamic stability. A stochiometric mix of hydrogen and oxygen gas is kinetically stable under standard conditions. But add a bit of energy, like from a spark, and the thermodynamic instability manifests!
 
The book I might write someday would be “Fast Eddie On Everything But Math”.

That said, there’s math - and physics - involved in this paper:
http://xenon.stanford.edu/~zjl/pdf/tide.pdf

I would have no way on determining if the math and/or physics in the paper are right or wrong, but the author has a PhD and I don’t. Here’s the abstract:

“It is wrong to consider tidal power as renewable, green energy. Using tidal energy poses more severe problems than using fossil fuels. It is quantitatively proved in this study how the Earth can be destroyed by using tidal energy in a short time. Tides are created by the rotation of the Earth with respect to the attractions from the Sun and the Moon. Tidal energy is actually dissipated from the rotational energy of the Earth. Consuming tidal energy is actually taking the rotational energy, increasing the energy loss, and decelerating the rotation of the Earth. Based on the average pace of world energy consumption for the last 50 years, if we were taking the rotational energy just to supplement 1% of world energy requirements, the rotation of the Earth could be literally stopped in about 1000 years. As a consequence, one side of the Earth would be exposed to the Sun for a much longer time than it is today. The temperature would be raised extremely high on that side, and extremely low on the other side. The environment would be intolerable and life would be wiped out from the Earth.”

Edit: to make it simpler:
We have two sets of tides. We have a minor one from the sun, is from the earth's rotation. The other one is from the moon orbiting the earth, and is the major tide we observe. If we really could stop the earth from rotating, we would still have tides from the moon orbiting the earth. The author of that paper neglected that the moon causes most of our tides, and even if we used all of the power from tides, we minimally affect the orbit of the moon.
 
Last edited:
The simple fact of the matter is that almost all energy, global warming and pollution issues stem from overpopulation. Organized Religion insures this issue will never be addressed by man. Nature may eventually come up with a fix but who knows.

Explain, please? I haven't a clue if your premise is right, but I'd be more likely to blame the sophistication and advancement of the medical field as cause of overpopulation. Unless you are wanting to run around, free to murder anyone you want, I don't see how "organized religion" is to blame. The "organized religion" I'm familar with condemns not only the act of killing a child in womb, but also the required act to create that child outside of a family. True, helping our elders kill themselves is also a no-no, but if the medical field wasn't so capable of keeping dying people alive, that wouldn't even be a question.

I'm totally treading on thin ice here, but Nature has come up with methods. Pandemics of diseases. Famines and starvation. Wars. Accidents. All of Nature's lovely ways of population control. For some reason, though, man has a self-preservative instinct and does his best to cheat death every day.
 
The simple fact of the matter is that almost all energy, global warming and pollution issues stem from overpopulation. Organized Religion insures this issue will never be addressed by man. Nature may eventually come up with a fix but who knows.

This is simply bizarre. We've already found a solution. Economic development, education, and reduced infant and child mortality has lead to reduced births in every country. Many developed countries now have shrinking populations.
 
In 1950, five years after the founding of the United Nations, world population was estimated at around 2.6 billion people. It reached 5 billion in 1987 and 6 billion in 1999. In October 2011, the global population was estimated to be 7 billion. A global movement 7 Billion Actions was launched to mark this milestone. The world’s population is expected to increase by 2 billion persons in the next 30 years, from 7.7 billion currently to 9.7 billion in 2050 and could peak at nearly 11 billion around 2100.
 
In 1950, five years after the founding of the United Nations, world population was estimated at around 2.6 billion people. It reached 5 billion in 1987 and 6 billion in 1999. In October 2011, the global population was estimated to be 7 billion. A global movement 7 Billion Actions was launched to mark this milestone. The world’s population is expected to increase by 2 billion persons in the next 30 years, from 7.7 billion currently to 9.7 billion in 2050 and could peak at nearly 11 billion around 2100.
See the response below:
This is simply bizarre. We've already found a solution. Economic development, education, and reduced infant and child mortality has lead to reduced births in every country. Many developed countries now have shrinking populations.
Even China has recently noticed they will have a contraction of population. Most (all?) European countries are seeing population decline. The USA is seeing population increases only due to immigration.
 
China had a hard rule allowing only one child. They have eased that rule so population will grow. The US and Europe are nearly stable on births. The rest of the world is growing like crazy! We have 330 million people in the US. The rest of the world has 7.4 billion people!
 
China had a hard rule allowing only one child. They have eased that rule so population will grow. The US and Europe are nearly stable on births. The rest of the world is growing like crazy! We have 330 million people in the US. The rest of the world has 7.4 billion people!
First, that one-child rule didn't apply everywhere. I know many Chinese in the People's republic in their 30's and 40's who have brothers and sisters near their age. I realize that's contrary to what we "know" here, but given a direct visual observation, I'll take that over what people tell me. It is possible that the rule wasn't applied rigorously, or it wasn't applied everywhere, or I happen to know a lot of children of party officials. China is facing a population crash.
Europe, North America- Populations are stable or declining. This includes Russia. The places with the highest growth are in Africa. Overall, the planet sees about 1.1% population growth at this time.
 
.

I read a very long article by a demographer on China's one child policy .... and the unintended consequences

Everyone wanted a son ..... thus 20-30 years later there were no girls for them to marry.

It is one thing not to be able to find a wife ... but it has created a HUGE problem for the government .... china does not have old-folks homes like we do .... their children house and feed the elderly parents .... and without a wife the son has no children to take care of the elderly.

I repeat ... it is a huge problem but is covered up by the government. They do not want to admit their mistakes.

.
 
There are always unexpected consequences. We humans are not smart to recognize everything impacting a situation.
 
.

I read a very long article by a demographer on China's one child policy .... and the unintended consequences

Everyone wanted a son ..... thus 20-30 years later there were no girls for them to marry.

It is one thing not to be able to find a wife ... but it has created a HUGE problem for the government .... china does not have old-folks homes like we do .... their children house and feed the elderly parents .... and without a wife the son has no children to take care of the elderly.

I repeat ... it is a huge problem but is covered up by the government. They do not want to admit their mistakes.

.
Please explain the people I've met in the PROC with brothers and sisters. I realize this is something we've all been told, but the reality seems otherwise. I've read the same sort of thing, but reality needs to Trump what people write.
 
When I was in high school a guy named Paul Ehrlich was warning of overpopulation and all the disasters that would come from it. Instead, the world just adapted, and now poverty worldwide has decreased enormously and famine has diminished as well. Ehrlich was wrong on just about everything, and he still sticks to his predictions.

upload_2021-10-6_10-32-54.png

At my age there are a lot of us that can see that all the fearmongering is making money for a lot of unethical people and our confidence in government and media is totally shot. Truth and evidence don't matter anymore.
 
I leave for 10 minutes and we go from the energy density of batteries and how to recycle them to discussing China's one child policy [sic] and religion's impact on overpopulation and climate change

EPIC
 
I leave for 10 minutes and we go from the energy density of batteries and how to recycle them to discussing China's one child policy [sic] and religion's impact on overpopulation and climate change

EPIC
Yeah. We took the opportunity while the moderator was out of the room...
 
When I was in high school a guy named Paul Ehrlich was warning of overpopulation and all the disasters that would come from it. Instead, the world just adapted, and now poverty worldwide has decreased enormously and famine has diminished as well. Ehrlich was wrong on just about everything, and he still sticks to his predictions.
Is it possible he is wrong because the world adapted? I don't think that anyone then realized that improved economic status would lead to lowered birthrates. Things like "the pill" and other birth control weren't as widespread as now.

At my age there are a lot of us that can see that all the fearmongering is making money for a lot of unethical people and our confidence in government and media is totally shot. Truth and evidence don't matter anymore.
I agree, although there's a lot of bad information floating around now from people who choose other "news" sources because they don't trust the media (and with reason, I might add).
 
I leave for 10 minutes and we go from the energy density of batteries and how to recycle them to discussing China's one child policy [sic] and religion's impact on overpopulation and climate change

EPIC

It gets worse

China has stated they plan to greatly increase battery powered electric cars for their citizens.

Yet right now china is experiencing electrical supply shortages and coal shortages to power them.

Europe and the UK too ... coal shortages and fears of freezing in the dark this winter.

All because of the politics of global warming.

Powering aircraft with batteries will not solve that .
Powering aircraft with batteries is the subject of this thread.
Thus every bit of information is relevant including political agendas .

.
 
Please explain the people I've met in the PROC with brothers and sisters. I realize this is something we've all been told, but the reality seems otherwise. I've read the same sort of thing, but reality needs to Trump what people write.
.

The china one child policy ramifications was an article written by a world renowned demographer and market analyst who studies and predicts trends ... I read it about 3 years ago and will provide the link if I can find it again.

.
 
It gets worse

China has stated they plan to greatly increase battery powered electric cars for their citizens.

Yet right now china is experiencing electrical supply shortages and coal shortages to power them.

Europe and the UK too ... coal shortages and fears of freezing in the dark this winter.

All because of the politics of global warming.

Powering aircraft with batteries will not solve that .
Powering aircraft with batteries is the subject of this thread.
Thus every bit of information is relevant including political agendas .

.
.

The china one child policy ramifications was an article written by a world renowned demographer and market analyst who studies and predicts trends ... I read it about 3 years ago and will provide the link if I can find it again.

.
Doesn't matter. I know what I saw and with whom I spoke. Something is wrong someplace. It would be helpful to explain the discrepancy. I doubt the Chinese government is telling lots of people to lie to a single American.
 
It gets worse

China has stated they plan to greatly increase battery powered electric cars for their citizens.

Yet right now china is experiencing electrical supply shortages and coal shortages to power them.

Europe and the UK too ... coal shortages and fears of freezing in the dark this winter.

All because of the politics of global warming.

Powering aircraft with batteries will not solve that .
Powering aircraft with batteries is the subject of this thread.
Thus every bit of information is relevant including political agendas .

.
It's a bit more complex than that. China has plenty of coal, but the power industries won't pay the price increases. They are contracted to sell electricity at a particular price, but they don't have price controls on the coal.
 
Is it possible he is wrong because the world adapted?
He wrote the book "The Population Bomb" and made definitive statements in it. They were going to happen as predicted. They didn't, partly because the population growth slowed significantly, and partly because agricultural output increased with better technology and because of fertilizers and pesticides made from fossil fuels. Ehrlich made the classic mistake of extrapolating statistics to come up with a prediction, except that the tapering off of the Baby Boom (shortly before he wrote his book) wrecked his prophecies.

We see the same statistical mistakes being made in some other areas now, too. I won't elaborate. Back to electric airplanes and the "rapid" development of new battery technology that we can extrapolate to....oops.........
 
He wrote the book "The Population Bomb" and made definitive statements in it. They were going to happen as predicted. They didn't, partly because the population growth slowed significantly, and partly because agricultural output increased with better technology and because of fertilizers and pesticides made from fossil fuels. Ehrlich made the classic mistake of extrapolating statistics to come up with a prediction, except that the tapering off of the Baby Boom (shortly before he wrote his book) wrecked his prophecies.

We see the same statistical mistakes being made in some other areas now, too. I won't elaborate. Back to electric airplanes and the "rapid" development of new battery technology that we can extrapolate to....oops.........
I think we are saying the same thing from different points of view. It's very easy to say, with 20/20 hindsight, that his assumptions were wrong due to the items you list above, but he didn't have that knowledge prior to 1968. Predicting the future is hard, because we don't know what can affect our predictions. OTOH, don't entirely discount more recent, modern models that incorporate the possibility of improved assumptions, but also keep a healthy skepticism. I don't think he made a "statistical mistake" which seems to imply a math error. His models simply couldn't account for the changes you list because they were only starting to be felt in 1968.
 
Back
Top