Here is potentially why GA is doomed

[Cap'n Jack]

BTW... you and your ilk sure love to use the word "theoretical" a lot... what's up with that? Don't you guys ever study facts?

This from someone who claims the atmosphere is 25% water vapor. The theoretical capacity I cited is based on facts, such as the redox potentials of the elements involved in the reaction, the densities of the compounds, amount of the compounds used, and so forth. It represents a goal to reach for- we know we can't exceed that energy density. In most processes, we can't reach that goal for a variety of reasons. For a gasoline engine, you'll know that a certain amount of gasoline will only produce so much energy when burned efficiently. If someone tried to sell you an engine that produces more than that amount of energy on that amount of gasoline, you'd call BS, wouldn't you? As we currently achieve up to ~50% efficiency with internal combustion engines (1), we'd both say "show me" if someone claimed 75% efficiency for that sort of engine since the losses that prevent us getting near 100% efficiency are also well understood. Since we are getting up to 94% of the theoretical capacity of some of our current batteries (1), I'd say the theoretical capacity is a worthwhile goal.

Daayyyyuuummm dude... I must have stung you something awful bad for you to keep bringing that up.

No, but it does demonstrate that you really don't have a clue about chemistry, and simply make up stuff. I did note your post that said the ~21% oxygen represented potential water vapor(3). One problem with that statement are that there isn't enough hydrogen to react with the oxygen, all the available hydrogen is already reacted. Another problem with that comment is that it the same as claiming that metallic sodium and chlorine gas behave the same as table salt.

You do know what "bonded" means. Oh snap... the same thing even applies to lithium based batteries, thus the reason why we're reaching the limits of their energy/density capacities.

Since you didn't mention "bonding" in your posts in this thread, I'm not sure what you are saying here. I understand chemical bonds but as this is the first time I see "bonds" mentioned by you in this discussion, I'm not sure what you are getting at. I suspect that you may be referring to reference 3 below. If so, and as mentioned above, the oxygen in our atmosphere doesn't behave like water, and there isn't any free hydrogen to react with it.

(1) https://www.webcitation.org/5tDljlT....co.jp/technology/review/pdf/e451/e451021.pdf

(2) https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2705

(3)

What I probably should have made more clear is the combination of H and O whether bonded as water vapor or inert equals approx. 25% of the atmosphere. Hope that makes it more clear.

 

[azblackbird]

It represents a goal to reach for- we know we can't exceed that energy density. In most processes, we can't reach that goal for a variety of reasons.

It's nice to see that you admit that.

I did note your post that said the ~21% oxygen represented potential water vapor.

It's nice to see that you admit that.

If so, and as mentioned above, the oxygen in our atmosphere doesn't behave like water, and there isn't any free hydrogen to react with it.

And you call yourself a scientist.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

It's nice to see that you admit that.



It's nice to see that you admit that.



And you call yourself a scientist.

So why can't we get 5-6x what we get now on lithium? Show your data or citations, or show how the chemists I cited are wrong.

Also, please explain how water and oxygen behave the same. I do have a difficult time running an engine on a water/gasoline mixture.

 

[GRG55]

They’re not a real threat at all without the tax breaks.

 

[azblackbird]

So why can't we get 5-6x what we get now on lithium? Show your data or citations, or show how the chemists I cited are wrong.

You probably can with a few chemical modifications, but the issue is containing the exothermic runaways which are becoming more and more prevalent, especially among the cheap ass manufacturers. So what do you do? Look for more viable/safer alternatives, or light the world on fire?

Also, please explain how water and oxygen behave the same.

I didn't say they did.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

You probably can with a few chemical modifications, but the issue is containing the exothermic runaways which are becoming more and more prevalent, especially among the cheap ass manufacturers. So what do you do? Look for more viable/safer alternatives, or light the world on fire?

Or you can continue with lithium in a "solid state" battery that has 3x the power density of our current batteries and can't catch fire. See http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2017/EE/C6EE02888H#!divAbstract

Also, how do you figure the other lithium technologies that can get higher energy densities are more likely to catch fire?

I didn't say they did.[/QUOTE]
Actually, you did, or you need to clarify this comment that you made after your claim that the atmosphere was 25% water vapor:

What I probably should have made more clear is the combination of H and O whether bonded as water vapor or inert equals approx. 25% of the atmosphere. Hope that makes it more clear.

 

[deonb]

your claim that the atmosphere was 25% water vapor:

I guess the Food Babe was right after all and nitrogen is just this stuff that airlines mix into the cabin air to save money...

 

[azblackbird]

Or you can continue with lithium in a "solid state" battery that has 3x the power density of our current batteries and can't catch fire.

3x huh? What happened to the 5x-6x density? I still call BS. They haven't perfected the solid state design. It's still all conjecture at this point. Scientists love theory until it applies to real world conditions. Remember what I said about "chemical modifications"? So now they're playing around with Mg, S, Na, or Cl to see what offers the best return. If I was a scientist I'd be researching betavoltaic/tritium and how to bring that technology to the masses in a safe and unobtrusive manner. It's an old standby that's been proven over the years.

 

[denverpilot]

So is all this battery crap why we’re doooooooooooomed? LOL.

 

[Palmpilot]

...Scientists love theory until it applies to real world conditions...

Scientists love gathering data to test theories.

 

[nauga]

So is all this battery crap why we’re doooooooooooomed? LOL.

No, but "Google/Wikipedia/SGOTI = research" might be.

Nauga,
and his due diligence

 

[Skyrys62]

Haven't read the whole thread...but, I just spoke with a local FBO owner about renting his planes.
He said they have picked up 32 students this past year, 7 just last week. He's begging for CFI's and even asked me if I would consider becoming one.
Earlier this year I couldn't get into training in my town because they were overbooked, with a waiting list.
Went 45 minutes away to get enrolled...then they got so busy in the summer I could barely get a lesson in sometimes.
I don't have any information about how many of them are headed for ATP vs. GA, but it's hoppin around here on an overall scale.

 

[hindsight2020]

No, but "Google/Wikipedia/SGOTI = research" might be.

Nauga,
and his due diligence

People in academia always go there, but "peer review" is specious to me. Your "peer" review, my "collusion/cabal/echo chamber". tomato tomáto. Much like multi-level marketing, if it was legitimate, it would sell itself. No need for a down-line of sycophants. Peer review is just another form of rent-seeking. Admittedly, I never had much regard for the whole orthodoxy of having to quote some else in order to make MY point. Ancestor worship run amok. And don't get me started on the perverse incentives of "funding" within that rotten place.

hindsight,
who left the Ph.D for the S.G.O.T.I

 

[azblackbird]

Scientists love gathering data to test theories.

My problem is when they state theory as fact. The global warming BS is a prime example.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

3x huh? What happened to the 5x-6x density? I still call BS. They haven't perfected the solid state design. It's still all conjecture at this point. Scientists love theory until it applies to real world conditions. Remember what I said about "chemical modifications"? So now they're playing around with Mg, S, Na, or Cl to see what offers the best return. If I was a scientist I'd be researching betavoltaic/tritium and how to bring that technology to the masses in a safe and unobtrusive manner. It's an old standby that's been proven over the years.

You still aren't explaining how the other lithium batteries under development are more likely to catch fire. Or how "the combination of H and O whether bonded as water vapor or inert equals approx. 25% of the atmosphere."

Actually, the solid state design is working now. The researchers are claiming 1200 recharge cycles and recharge time in minutes. The batteries with 5-6x density are another variant of lithium chemistry. As for other ionic materials, people have been working on those for years and time will see which technology will play out. If you really understood "betavoltaic", and aren't just pulling buzzwords from your butt, you'd know it is used for low power applications,usually nono-watts to micro-watts. The only way to increase the current on those is to increase the amount of beta emitter, the source of the electrons and power. Go do the calculations and let us know how much tritium is needed to power an iPhone at, say, one watt. You may use the theoretical 100% efficiency that you decried earlier for calculations, but show your calculations.

 

[nauga]

Your "peer" review, my "collusion/cabal/echo chamber".

"My" peer review?
Peer review is not a substitute for due diligence nor a requirement when conducting research.

Nauga,
learning from others' mistakes...and successes

 

[azblackbird]

Actually, the solid state design is working now. The researchers are claiming 1200 recharge cycles and recharge time in minutes.

Claiming eh?

Where's the real world apps? How come if it's so proven we're not seeing it already? Oh snap... there's that scalability thing again. Kinda like the algae based bio-fuel (that our beloved .gov spent billions on) that a well known company kept touting, but couldn't ever scale to commercial viability. Everything always looks good in a lab until it isn't.

Regarding betavoltaic... as I stated... "research". I'm not a scientist, so I'm not doing the research. Could it be a viable alternative to the Li products in the future? I'm betting yes.

You need to give up dogging me on the H and O statement. I already clarified the intent which you already admitted to understanding and getting the gist of.

My question for you is how come you and your ilk continue to push the CO2 "theory" when it's nothing but a trace gas in the atmosphere and has very poor radiative qualities to boot. I mean come'on man... I wasn't born yesterday. You guys need another angle.

 

[deonb]

My problem is when they state theory as fact. The global warming BS is a prime example.

No scientists claim global warming as a fact any more than they claim gravity as a fact.

The media may report it that way but scientists are quite happy living in ‘theory’ world.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

You need to give up dogging me on the H and O statement. I already clarified the intent which you already admitted to understanding and getting the gist of.

Well, actually, I should continue. You post beyond your knowledge. I never admitted understanding the comment about H and O, and I even asked for clarification. As you wrote it, it reads like molecular oxygen can be treated the same as water vapor. As I stated, that is the same as stating that chlorine gas can be treated the same as table salt. I still don't understand how 21% oxygen and the water vapor add up to this statement:

So which is going to warm the atmosphere more... the 25% of H2O ...

You've never explained how molecular oxygen acts as water vapor.

Claiming eh?

Where's the real world apps? How come if it's so proven we're not seeing it already? Oh snap... there's that scalability thing again. Kinda like the algae based bio-fuel (that our beloved .gov spent billions on) that a well known company kept touting, but couldn't ever scale to commercial viability. Everything always looks good in a lab until it isn't.

Regarding betavoltaic... as I stated... "research". I'm not a scientist, so I'm not doing the research. Could it be a viable alternative to the Li products in the future? I'm betting yes.

You're not stupid, although you often certainly act so; you'd properly would have cause to question a 1200 cycle recharge cycle from a press release. You also know it takes time to move stuff onto the market. Will it survive engineering tests? I don't know- I don't pull stuff from my butt and claim it as fact. It is a recent invention and let's see what happens in a few years. I find it interesting that you'd believe research about betavoltaic, but not about lithium chemistry batteries. As you noted, everything looks good in a lab until it isn't.

 

[azblackbird]

You've never explained how molecular oxygen acts as water vapor.

It doesn't until it bonds with H. Then we have something that's way more potent and way more abundant than CO2 regarding radiative and absorption qualities. Like I said... you guys need to make something else the bad guy. CO2 isn't the bad guy here!

I find it interesting that you'd believe research about betavoltaic, but not about lithium chemistry batteries. As you noted, everything looks good in a lab until it isn't.

Who said I don't believe in the Li technologies? I just think we're close to reaching the limits of what that technology can produce and should be exploring other alternatives. Betavoltaics I feel is something worth going back to and exploring a little more. That's all...

 

[azblackbird]

You post beyond your knowledge.

It's not that I post beyond my knowledge. It's that I post beyond my conveyance of that knowledge as it relates to the meanings and intentions (as my mind interprets things) to somebody such as yourself who's more use to the scientific (which I presume is your background) terminology and aspect of things. I guess you could say I approach things more from a common sense layman's viewpoint, rather than from an in-depth analytical and more formal scientific point of view that you're more use too. Don't worry... I understand you, although you may not understand me.

 

[Dav8or]

My question for you is how come you and your ilk continue to push the CO2 "theory" when it's nothing but a trace gas in the atmosphere and has very poor radiative qualities to boot. I mean come'on man... I wasn't born yesterday. You guys need another angle.

Like you said, you're not a scientist, so...

 

[Palmpilot]

People in academia always go there, but "peer review" is specious to me. Your "peer" review, my "collusion/cabal/echo chamber". tomato tomáto. Much like multi-level marketing, if it was legitimate, it would sell itself. No need for a down-line of sycophants. Peer review is just another form of rent-seeking. Admittedly, I never had much regard for the whole orthodoxy of having to quote some else in order to make MY point. Ancestor worship run amok. And don't get me started on the perverse incentives of "funding" within that rotten place.

hindsight,
who left the Ph.D for the S.G.O.T.I

If you don't like peer review, what alternative do you see for separating the wheat from the chaff? If scientific journals published everything that was submitted to them, finding scientific papers that were worth the time to read them would get to be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Regarding "ancestor worship," as Issac Newton wrote, "if I have seen further, it is by standing on [the] shoulders of giants." Please don't try to tell me that the hundreds of years of scientific and technological progress that his work made possible were all the result of "ancestor worship." As for the alleged "echo chamber" effect, I think you're overlooking the most important tool of science, which is testing theories through observation and experiment. That is what has allowed scientists to overcome scientific orthodoxy when warranted, and what has caused science to be such a robust and powerful force in our society for centuries.

In the age of the Internet, it's not like the peer review process is capable of keeping anything from being published.

As for claims about perverse funding incentives, I've seen lots of claims, but nothing remotely resembling proof.

 

[Palmpilot]

My problem is when they state theory as fact. The global warming BS is a prime example.

I don't care about how theories are stated. I only care about whether they are supported by reproducible measurements, observations, and/or experiments.

 

[GRG55]

Starting to think it's more than just GA that may be doomed...

 

[azblackbird]

Like you said, you're not a scientist, so...

So does that preclude me from understanding science?

Just an FYI... I do dabble in a few "scientific" things. I do refine my own gold through the aqua regia method. I've made a batch or two of nitro, and even have my own anti-aging skin cream that costs me about .25¢ an ounce to produce, which ironically just so happens to be a byproduct of the nitro. But I'm still not a scientist!

I don't care about how theories are stated. I only care about whether they are supported by reproducible measurements, observations, and/or experiments.

Ditto!

 

[Palmpilot]

It doesn't until it bonds with H. Then we have something that's way more potent and way more abundant than CO2 regarding radiative and absorption qualities. Like I said... you guys need to make something else the bad guy. CO2 isn't the bad guy here!

If abundance were the only thing that mattered, that argument would have merit, but it isn't. According to climatologists, when water vapor or CO2 are added to the atmosphere, there is a huge difference between the two in how long the effects last, i.e., a few weeks or months vs. a few decades or centuries. Water precipitates out of the gaseous phase at normal atmospheric temperatures and pressures, and CO2 doesn't, and that alone would argue against changes in water vapor quantity being the driving force in climate change. Instead, it acts to amplify the effects of temperature changes caused by other forces, including CO2.

 

[Skyrys62]

PoA, one of the greatest elements (for research), does seem to have a high volatility index, and when mixed with EgO sometimes causes the same effect as NO2.

 

[denverpilot]

Haven't read the whole thread...but, I just spoke with a local FBO owner about renting his planes.
He said they have picked up 32 students this past year, 7 just last week. He's begging for CFI's and even asked me if I would consider becoming one.
Earlier this year I couldn't get into training in my town because they were overbooked, with a waiting list.
Went 45 minutes away to get enrolled...then they got so busy in the summer I could barely get a lesson in sometimes.
I don't have any information about how many of them are headed for ATP vs. GA, but it's hoppin around here on an overall scale.

Definitely sounds dooooooooomed. LOL

 

[azblackbird]

Instead, it acts to amplify the effects of temperature changes caused by other forces, including CO2.

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

 

[Palmpilot]

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

I'm afraid your line of reasoning escapes me there.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

It doesn't until it bonds with H. Then we have something that's way more potent and way more abundant than CO2 regarding radiative and absorption qualities. Like I said... you guys need to make something else the bad guy. CO2 isn't the bad guy here!

How is the oxygen going to bond with the hydrogen? Where is this hydrogen? There's only about 0.00006% hydrogen floating around in the air. Most of it is either reacted with other compounds or ejected from the atmosphere- the earth's gravity isn't strong enough to keep it (or helium) here except as part of larger molecules. Basic chemistry says to make water, one needs both oxygen and hydrogen. We have the oxygen....where's enough hydrogen to make convert all the oxygen to water?

Who said I don't believe in the Li technologies? I just think we're close to reaching the limits of what that technology can produce and should be exploring other alternatives. Betavoltaics I feel is something worth going back to and exploring a little more. That's all...

And I showed that we can reach 3 to 6 times our current batteries and you made stupid comments. I also asked how much tritium you'd need, allowing 100% efficiency, to give us a watt of power in a betavoltaic system. That would show whether betavoltaic is useful for small things such as cell phones.

 

[azblackbird]

I'm afraid your line of reasoning escapes me there.

Reverse the roles. 4-6% CO2 vs. .04% water vapor. Where would we be then?

 

[Palmpilot]

Reverse the roles. 4-6% CO2 vs. .04% water vapor. Where would we be then?

In order to reverse the roles, you would have to get CO2 to precipitate out of the gaseous state at terrestrial temperatures and pressures, and you would have to prevent H2O from doing so. How are you going to do that?

 

[azblackbird]

Where is this hydrogen?

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.

And I showed that we can reach 3 to 6 times our current batteries and you made stupid comments.

No you didn't. You showed me a "pie in the sky" prediction.

I also asked how much tritium you'd need, allowing 100% efficiency, to give us a watt of power in a betavoltaic system. That would show whether betavoltaic is useful for small things such as cell phones.

Dude... use some common sense will ya. All I said is betavoltaic systems are worth another look. Right now it's the disposal of the waste that's holding it back. That's why you mostly find that type of technology in space vehicles, and in pacemakers and other low voltage/wattage devices. Figure out a safe way to dispose of the waste, and that technology could have some merit in many more applications whether as battery packs or as full blown mini-reactors powering cars, airplanes, etc. That's all I'm saying.

In order to reverse the roles, you would have to get CO2 to precipitate out of the gaseous state at terrestrial temperatures and pressures, and you would have to prevent H2O from doing so. How are you going to do that?

Hypothetically dude... hypothetically!

Think for a minute if we had 4-6% CO2 saturation (forget about precipitation) vs. .04% water vapor saturation in the atmosphere. Where would we be then?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

It's not that I post beyond my knowledge. It's that I post beyond my conveyance of that knowledge as it relates to the meanings and intentions (as my mind interprets things) to somebody such as yourself who's more use to the scientific (which I presume is your background) terminology and aspect of things. I guess you could say I approach things more from a common sense layman's viewpoint, rather than from an in-depth analytical and more formal scientific point of view that you're more use too. Don't worry... I understand you, although you may not understand me.

Actually, you do post beyond your knowledge. Here's your response about the instruments used to measure carbon dioxide:

Uh huh... and who makes the calibration equipment and defines the standards those analyzers must be certified under.

Those instruments are actually easily calibrated and checked. The comments about "the atmosphere being 25% water vapor" is another example. I really can't say it's "common sense" to scoff at a calculation that provides the theoretical maximum yield since any number above that suggests either BS, a malfunctioning instrument, poorly designed or executed experiment, or the underlying theory is wrong.

 

[azblackbird]

Those instruments are actually easily calibrated and checked.

Oh really? You might want to let NASA in on your little secret then.

"Current long-term climate data records are based mainly on the observations of the operational satellite systems. These satellites are designed primarily to provide measurements for short-term weather and environmental prediction. Instrument calibrations lack traceability to International Standards (SI) units, sensors and onboard calibration sources degrade in orbit, long term data sets must be stitched together from a series of overlapping satellite observations, orbital drift—leading to a changing time of satellite observing time during the satellite’s lifetime—introduces artifacts into long term time series, and, most importantly, insufficient attention is paid to pre- and post-launch instrument characterization and calibration. It is no wonder that this system fails to meet the observing challenge of long term climate change."

 

[Cap'n Jack]

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.

Hydrogen makes up 4-6 percent of the atmosphere? Please cite a reference as I told you earlier that hydrogen is 0.00006% of the atmosphere.

No you didn't. You showed me a "pie in the sky" prediction.

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

Dude... use some common sense will ya. All I said is betavoltaic systems are worth another look. Right now it's the disposal of the waste that's holding it back. That's why you mostly find that type of technology in space vehicles, and in pacemakers and other low voltage/wattage devices. Figure out a safe way to dispose of the waste, and that technology could have some merit in many more applications whether as battery packs or as full blown mini-reactors powering cars, airplanes, etc. That's all I'm saying.

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

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Oh really? You might want to let NASA in on your little secret then.

"Current long-term climate data records are based mainly on the observations of the operational satellite systems. These satellites are designed primarily to provide measurements for short-term weather and environmental prediction. Instrument calibrations lack traceability to International Standards (SI) units, sensors and onboard calibration sources degrade in orbit, long term data sets must be stitched together from a series of overlapping satellite observations, orbital drift—leading to a changing time of satellite observing time during the satellite’s lifetime—introduces artifacts into long term time series, and, most importantly, insufficient attention is paid to pre- and post-launch instrument characterization and calibration. It is no wonder that this system fails to meet the observing challenge of long term climate change."

I should have added my statement that you were responding to when you said the instruments didn't have a calibration standard- I was referring to the earth-based instruments, such as these:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

 

[Palmpilot]

Think for a minute if we had 4-6% CO2 saturation (forget about precipitation) vs. .04% water vapor saturation in the atmosphere. Where would we be then?

My answer is that in that scenario, the climate effect of added CO2 would be reduced, because the amplifying effect of the water vapor would be reduced. What's your answer?

And by the way, if you forget about precipitation, you will get the wrong answer.