Here is potentially why GA is doomed

[azblackbird]

Hydrogen makes up 4-6 percent of the atmosphere?

Water vapor dude... water vapor! You know... when H meets O.

And you didn't show why that prediction is incorrect, in light of us getting ~96% with our current chemistry.

Here dude... read this and report back to me. Then you'll understand where I'm coming from.

What waste? Tritium decays to a non-radioactive isotope of helium. Another example of posting beyond your knowledge.

I guess you're not very familiar with off gassing. That's where the greenies get a little ****ed. Especially when it's coming from.... OMG, wait for it.... a very weak radioactive isotope.

I should have added my statement that you were responding to when you said the instruments didn't have a calibration standard

Ahhhh... nice dodge dude.

Never mind you and your ilk depend heavily upon satellite data for the majority of your global warming GIGO data input/output.

What's your answer?

We all freeze our b**ls off.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Water vapor dude... water vapor! You know... when H meets O.

Here's what you wrote:

Why it's out looking for the O to hook up with. Obviously H must do a great job of finding O to bond with as it makes up 4-6% of our atmosphere vs. what... .04% of your beloved CO2 that's causing all the world's problems.

You said H makes up 4-6 percent of the atmosphere. Even so, it doesn't come close to the 25% water vapor number you were claiming.

Here dude... read this and report back to me. Then you'll understand where I'm coming from.

That article is 2 years old now. I cited you stuff from this past year.

I guess you're not very familiar with off gassing. That's where the greenies get a little ****ed. Especially when it's coming from.... OMG, wait for it.... a very weak radioactive isotope.

Actually, I am familiar with outgassing. A real pain when starting high-vacuum equipment. The tritium you mentioned earlier as your power source doesn't seem to cause much problems with anyone now. Have you calculated how much tritium you need to generate a watt?

Ahhhh... nice dodge dude.

Never mind you and your ilk depend heavily upon satellite data for the majority of your global warming GIGO data input/output.

"my ilk"? This is an example of the stupid comments that you make. I have no idea who you mean by "my ilk", except that you probably are using the term in a derogatory manner. I certainly don't see a compliment in it. It's as stupid as someone grouping a "conservative" as a "anti-science" without knowing them well. The climate scientists do try to get the best data that they can and probably try to correlate the satellite data to the ground stations. They really aren't as stupid as you make them out to be.

 

[Palmpilot]

We all freeze our b**ls off.

With that little water in the atmosphere, I don't think we would even exist.

Getting back to this:

Exactly! Same could be said if the roles were reversed. Albeit CO2 doesn't hold a candle to the radiative or absorption qualities that water vapor has (which is still a constant), thus the amplification effects would be minimal and we'd more than likely be freezing our b**ls off if that were the case.

Since you're talking here about role reversal, are you saying saying that CO2 does not significantly amplify the effects of water vapor? If so, I would say that's probably true. I just don't see how you get the following conclusion from that:

Mother Nature knows what she's doing, and mankind has no significant influence over her no matter what the climate scientists may believe.

The issue is whether mankind knows what Mother Nature is doing in response to mankind's activities. When it comes to a choice between climatologists and SGOTI, I'll go with the professionals.

 

[azblackbird]

That article is 2 years old now. I cited you stuff from this past year.

Oh oh... I forget with you guys it's all about the "here and now"... sorry for the mistake.

It's kind of ironic that even though what I cited may be a couple years old... the hurdles/problems still remain the same. Hmmm... wonder why that is?

The tritium you mentioned earlier as your power source doesn't seem to cause much problems with anyone now.

That's because it's either in outer space where nobody gives a crap, or else it's in such low volumes/doses that nobody else gives a crap either. Start mass producing "nuclear batteries" and whole new can of worms gets opened. The military is struggling with that dilemma as we speak.

Have you calculated how much tritium you need to generate a watt?

I'm not a self-proclaimed scientist much like yourself, so you're going to have to educate me on how much tritium I'd need to generate a watt. Can I use something else besides tritium?

I have no idea who you mean by "my ilk"

The global warming alarmists and doomsayers. And yes... a very high percentage of so-called "climate scientists" are at the very bottom of my list of what I would consider to be even remotely close to being real scientists.

With that little water in the atmosphere, I don't think we would even exist.

That's probably true. Thus the overall balance of the ecosystem we currently enjoy today provided by good 'ole Mother Nature herself.

Since you're talking here about role reversal, are you saying saying that CO2 does not significantly amplify the effects of water vapor? If so, I would say that's probably true.

You got it. CO2 makes for a very poor heat/cold conductor. Even plain 'ole air is better at heat/cold transfer.

The issue is whether mankind knows what Mother Nature is doing in response to mankind's activities. When it comes to a choice between climatologists and SGOTI, I'll go with the professionals.

I'll go with the professionals too. The professional geologists, weatherman, fisherman, farmers, ranchers, loggers, hunters,... you know... those who are actually out in the environment and are more in tune with it, rather than some academic sitting in a cubicle banging on a keyboard and collecting government grant money.

 

[mscard88]

 

[Palmpilot]

I'll go with the professionals too. The professional geologists, weatherman, fisherman, farmers, ranchers, loggers, hunters,... you know... those who are actually out in the environment and are more in tune with it, rather than some academic sitting in a cubicle banging on a keyboard and collecting government grant money.

Looks like you better cross geologists off your list:

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.​

And many geologists get [gasp!] government grants!

Looks like you better cross weathermen off your list too:

"A large majority of AMS members indicated that human activity is causing at least a portion of the changes in the climate over the past 50 years. Specifically: 29% think the change is largely or entirely due to human activity (i.e., 81 to 100%); 38% think most of the change is caused by human activity (i.e., 61 to 80%); 14% think the change is caused more or less equally by human activity and natural events; and 7% think the change is caused mostly by natural events. Conversely, 5% think the change is caused largely or entirely by natural events, 6% say they don’t know, and 1% think climate change isn’t happening."​

Out of your list of trusted sources, that leaves fishermen, farmers, ranchers, loggers, and hunters. Relying on them for information on climatology would make about as much sense as relying on climatologists for information on fishing, farming, ranching, logging, and hunting.

By the way, medical researchers get government grants, so you'd better stop going to the doctor.

 

[Skyrys62]

If it weren't for the ignore button

 

[azblackbird]

Looks like you better cross geologists off your list:

Nope, they stay on my list. Most geologists that I know... the ones that actually drill deep down in to the earth and sample the various formations realize that we've already BTDT concerning the earth and it's "global warming" and "global cooling" cycles.

Looks like you better cross weathermen off your list too:

Nope, they stay on my list also. Again, most all of your meteorologists recognize the cyclical nature of mother earth and her weather and climate patterns over the long term.

Here's a question for you... what exactly are the credentials required to become a "climate scientist"? Seems many have various degrees in various disciplines, but when you try to pin one down to ask them any questions about their credentials, they always pooh-pooh those with the very same degrees and credentials that many of their peers have... that is depending upon which agenda they may be pushing. If they're pushing the global warming agenda, they could be a 2-bit weatherman and that's perfectly acceptable. However, if they're a "denier"... then any and all formal education or advanced degrees are immediately dismissed. Unbelievable!

Here's what really kills me. The "father of climatology" himself (RIP) has changed his viewpoints and has confessed that it's all nothing but a big hoax. So it appears he who has once highly revered by many of the world's leading climate scientists, is now castigated by those very same. Again... UnFrickingBelievable!

 

[deonb]

Water vapor dude... water vapor! You know... when H meets O.

Wait - you think water vapor is formed due to a chemical reaction of H and O in the atmosphere?

 

[midlifeflyer]

May I join you?

Actually, since I firmly believe the greatest threat to GA is pilots who believe GA is doomed, I ignored the thread. But 200 posts got me curious.

I should have gone with my initial reaction. I'll skip the popcorn and stay in bed.

 

[genna]

I'm kind of interested in converting a classic of some sort to electric. Mainly just for another project but I'd make sure it could get me to the airport, around town for groceries and stuff, then home with reserve.

http://www.electricgt.com/

 

[azblackbird]

Wait - you think water vapor is formed due to a chemical reaction of H and O in the atmosphere?

Huh?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Oh oh... I forget with you guys it's all about the "here and now"... sorry for the mistake.

It's kind of ironic that even though what I cited may be a couple years old... the hurdles/problems still remain the same. Hmmm... wonder why that is?

The first part- why the stupid comment? What does that add to the discussion except to demonstrate to others that you are a fool?

As for the second...you keep citing reviews, which are useful for listing what has been done and the issues, but don't always show the state-of-the-art. The reviews are often not comprehensive.
Some of the issues seem to have been solved- UT seems to think their solid-state battery is ready for commercialization:
https://news.utexas.edu/2017/02/28/goodenough-introduces-new-battery-technology
The professor here is listed as the inventor of the lithium ion battery, so he probably knows something about it. I cited his research paper earlier in the thread. If it is as good as the press release, this could allow practical small electric planes. I'm a bit skeptical, but it won't take long to see to see if the hype approaches reality. This may be behind the flurry of press releases earlier this year from Toyota and some of the other electric vehicle manufacturers.

The UT information above seems better than this commercialized technology: http://www.sionpower.com/technology-licerion.php

That's because it's either in outer space where nobody gives a crap, or else it's in such low volumes/doses that nobody else gives a crap either. Start mass producing "nuclear batteries" and whole new can of worms gets opened. The military is struggling with that dilemma as we speak.

Yep, but I'm not saying "it can't be done", as you keep proclaiming about improving lithium-based batteries.

I'm not a self-proclaimed scientist much like yourself, so you're going to have to educate me on how much tritium I'd need to generate a watt. Can I use something else besides tritium?

Another dumb comment. I don't self-proclaim to be anything.

My calculations are probably on the high side with respect to the energy produced, but I calculated that a volume of around 6 gallons of tritium gas (about 1/2 the volume of a typical gasoline tank) would produce about 4 watts of power with 100% efficiency. I'm also assuming tritium as a molecule, 2 atoms of tritium per molecule, the same as hydrogen.
That doesn't include the semiconductor material needed to harvest those electrons. There's no way to improve those numbers for two reasons:
1) We can't control the energy of the emitted electrons.
2) We can't control the rate of decay- this is the half-life, so the current output is limited for a given amount of material.

As for using something else besides tritium- tritium is actually one of the more attractive choices. The decay products aren't radioactive, unlike the other choices. It has a relatively short half-life, so there is a large flux of electrons helping to increase the current. The electrons generated are comparatively low-power, so the damage the semiconductors used to capture the energy is greatly reduced compared to the other choices. That really can't be be fixed since those electron energies are much higher than any known chemical bonds.

Nickle 63 is another possible choice. The same number of nickle atoms as I used as molecules would only provide 0.36 watts, due to its longer half-life (100 years). Again, 100% efficiency assumed. The emitted electrons are more energetic, damaging the energy collectors and thus reducing collection efficiency over time. Other choices for betavoltaics have the same problems, and some also produce gamma rays and would need much better shielding.

I don't claim to be an expert on this, but the calculations are based on rates of decay and mean electron energies for the elements involved. As I assume 100% energy conversion, the wattage will be lower, perhaps much lower.

The global warming alarmists and doomsayers. And yes... a very high percentage of so-called "climate scientists" are at the very bottom of my list of what I would consider to be even remotely close to being real scientists.

I really don't consider myself of "that ilk", anymore than you are are "anti-science", "stupid", or the other tags applied to climate change deniers by some of those you mention. The only one doing the name-calling is you- please stop it, and the other asinine digs.

 

[Dav8or]

Mother Nature knows what she's doing, and mankind has no significant influence over her no matter what the climate scientists may believe.

Spoken with true scientific understanding! I guess that's it! The invisible being known as Mother Nature, is warming the planet just to make us miserable!

Thanks Mom...

 

[paflyer]

Spoken with true scientific understanding! I guess that's it! The invisible being known as Mother Nature, is warming the planet just to make us miserable!

Thanks Mom...

Her name is “Sunny” and her child is “Geothermal Activity”.

 

[ChrisK]

Not only that. The nephew of my best friend is a millenial and told us that people go to stadiums to watch people play video games on the big screens. Um. wow.

I play a mobile game that does that sort of thing. I have been suckered into watching it on occasion and mostly I'm just amazed at how much it is like boxing or the like in terms of the announcers and the broadcast quality. FYSA, I'm 44 years old..

My wife is working on a degree at the University of Akron and noted that they have added several varsity eSports:
http://uakron.edu/im/news/varsity-esports-program-being-added-at-the-university-of-akron

Unfortunately she only plays Pokemon Go and that isn't listed

 

[hankrausch]

Looks like this thread has migrated or metastasized is more apt, but here is my take:

I don't think GA is dying as much as it is changing. People just have more things to spend leisure time on.

An analogy is the broadcast networks, they used to command tens of millions of viewers, now they compete with streaming services but they are still around albeit at lower viewing rates. GA will be around but perhaps not like it was in the 60s.

 

[azblackbird]

The professor here is listed as the inventor of the lithium ion battery, so he probably knows something about it. I cited his research paper earlier in the thread. If it is as good as the press release, this could allow practical small electric planes. I'm a bit skeptical, but it won't take long to see to see if the hype approaches reality. This may be behind the flurry of press releases earlier this year from Toyota and some of the other electric vehicle manufacturers.

Alright... enough of the BS. I can tell you're in to all of this stuff which is pretty cool. It's nice to converse with somebody that has a somewhat scientific background more so than myself.

Here's the problem as I see it with the solid state design. It's all about scalability. As I stated previously, everything looks good in a lab until it doesn't. I've already been on that train with a well funded (through many government grants) algae company that made all of these "pie-in-the-sky" promises of bringing algae based bio-fuel to the masses. I did a lot of research on algae and found out it's actually pretty hard to grow on a commercial scale. The slightest little contamination (which is very easy to do) and the entire batch is ruined. I studied up on all of the equipment (SS fermentation vessels, centrifuges, etc.) required to grow and process the algae and extract the oil. What this company was touting in all of their research papers and press releases just didn't add up. So I shorted their stock, as I knew by looking at their pilot plant layout, the equipment they had on hand, and by reading all of their job posts, that they weren't even close to scaling up to become commercially viable. To make a long story short, they were never able to scale because 9 out of 10 batches they tried to produce in a "commercial" plant based environment would become contaminated and they'd have to toss the batch. They eventually started producing smaller batches in a more lab based sterile environment, and would sell their oil ($1500 a gallon) to cosmetic and food additive companies. Their stock obviously plummeted and they changed their name to remove the stigma of being associated with the "bio-fuel" craze. I haven't kept up on them lately as I've already made my money off them.

Back to solid state batteries. Basically the same dilemma faces those that are wanting to produce the solid state design on a commercial scale. The manufacturing process is a little more involved than with regular Li batteries. It all has to be done in a controlled sterile environment (meaning big $$$) under tight quality controlled conditions. Does this preclude somebody with tons of money at their disposal from ever making it happen. No, but there are some enormous hurdles to overcome before the entire manufacturing process can be perfected if they're ever going to be available on a more commercialized basis. Don't get me wrong... I'm all for advancements in battery design, but I've already been on this train before, so I don't get my hopes up too much until I can actually see more progress being made.

I don't claim to be an expert on this, but the calculations are based on rates of decay and mean electron energies for the elements involved. As I assume 100% energy conversion, the wattage will be lower, perhaps much lower.

Actually I'm quite impressed you took the time to do some quick calculations.

Regarding "nuclear" batteries. If I was going to get involved in the research and manufacturing, I'd probably be exploring the further use of strontium-90 and figure out a way to bring that to scale. By all appearances, our military is already leaning towards that direction. However, all of this stuff is so far out of my wheelhouse, that all I'm basically doing is just skimming the surface only as a fan of nuclear energy. I just find it all interesting and think it's worth taking a more in-depth look at.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Alright... enough of the BS. I can tell you're in to all of this stuff which is pretty cool. It's nice to converse with somebody that has a somewhat scientific background more so than myself.

Here's the problem as I see it with the solid state design. It's all about scalability. As I stated previously, everything looks good in a lab until it doesn't. I've already been on that train with a well funded (through many government grants) algae company that made all of these "pie-in-the-sky" promises of bringing algae based bio-fuel to the masses. I did a lot of research on algae and found out it's actually pretty hard to grow on a commercial scale. The slightest little contamination (which is very easy to do) and the entire batch is ruined. I studied up on all of the equipment (SS fermentation vessels, centrifuges, etc.) required to grow and process the algae and extract the oil. What this company was touting in all of their research papers and press releases just didn't add up. So I shorted their stock, as I knew by looking at their pilot plant layout, the equipment they had on hand, and by reading all of their job posts, that they weren't even close to scaling up to become commercially viable. To make a long story short, they were never able to scale because 9 out of 10 batches they tried to produce in a "commercial" plant based environment would become contaminated and they'd have to toss the batch. They eventually started producing smaller batches in a more lab based sterile environment, and would sell their oil ($1500 a gallon) to cosmetic and food additive companies. Their stock obviously plummeted and they changed their name to remove the stigma of being associated with the "bio-fuel" craze. I haven't kept up on them lately as I've already made my money off them.

Back to solid state batteries. Basically the same dilemma faces those that are wanting to produce the solid state design on a commercial scale. The manufacturing process is a little more involved than with regular Li batteries. It all has to be done in a controlled sterile environment (meaning big $$$) under tight quality controlled conditions. Does this preclude somebody with tons of money at their disposal from ever making it happen. No, but there are some enormous hurdles to overcome before the entire manufacturing process can be perfected if they're ever going to be available on a more commercialized basis. Don't get me wrong... I'm all for advancements in battery design, but I've already been on this train before, so I don't get my hopes up too much until I can actually see more progress being made.



Actually I'm quite impressed you took the time to do some quick calculations.

Regarding "nuclear" batteries. If I was going to get involved in the research and manufacturing, I'd probably be exploring the further use of strontium-90 and figure out a way to bring that to scale. By all appearances, our military is already leaning towards that direction. However, all of this stuff is so far out of my wheelhouse, that all I'm basically doing is just skimming the surface only as a fan of nuclear energy. I just find it all interesting and think it's worth taking a more in-depth look at.

I know about that algae company, as well as Sapphire and a few others. I'd be cool if they could make it work, and good on them for stepping back and making something salable. Maybe they'll have a chance to get it figured out. It isn't easy to get those microbes (yeast and others) to produce what we want in a decent yield. Despite a lot of work, there aren't a lot of fermented products out there, or they are grown on a relatively small scale (cell cultures for proteins and other biological medicines- "biologics". It's less contamination and more keeping the organisms happy while growing to a large batch and getting them to produce what we want them to produce. Been there more than once.

As for the batteries, I don't think you mean "sterile" as much as you mean "clean" conditions. There's a lot of experience with that- semiconductors need to be made in very clean environments. I know the electrolytes for the current batteries are very reactive towards humidity and are probably added in a controlled atmosphere. Assuming the "glass batteries" from UTexas work, the initial units will be probably be expensive until they understand the process to mass produce them and start to get a return on the new equipment they need to buy for the new process.

Getting back on thread topic, I hope the UTexas glass battery does work at a reasonable cost....1/2 the energy density of gasoline, but coupled to the efficiency of an electric motor (~3x that of the ICE). We still come out ahead by 50%, though I'd be happy to break even. Even if it doesn't, there are other things people are trying and one of them will work. A plane won't sound the same, but hopefully less expensive to fly.

 

[denverpilot]

Alright... enough of the BS.

200 posts too late.

 

[azblackbird]

It's less contamination and more keeping the organisms happy while growing to a large batch and getting them to produce what we want them to produce.

For awhile I was keeping an eye on the ex owner of SkyMall. He hooked up with APS and built a solar tube based algae farm up in NE Arizona. It looked promising. I don't know whatever became of it. I think it was more experimental than anything and didn't produce very much. Last I heard he was chopping down trees for biomass that he uses in a small power plant he built that feeds in to our local power companies.

As for the batteries, I don't think you mean "sterile" as much as you mean "clean" conditions. There's a lot of experience with that- semiconductors need to be made in very clean environments.

Yes, clean room environment ($$$) much like how semiconductors are produced. SS batteries will basically have to be manufactured under the same/similar type conditions.

Getting back on thread topic, I hope the UTexas glass battery does work at a reasonable cost....1/2 the energy density of gasoline, but coupled to the efficiency of an electric motor (~3x that of the ICE). We still come out ahead by 50%, though I'd be happy to break even.

That's just one technology of many currently under development. I'm keeping my eye on all of them and will invest accordingly. I've always liked Johnson Controls and A123 Systems and have done quite well with them in the past.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

Thread locked pending MC Review. I'm going to keep posting this video until you stop arguing about spin zone things on PoA.