XPost: sci.electronics.design, sci.physics, sci.space.policy
In sci.physics mike wrote:
> On 11/7/2016 1:46 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>> On 11/07/2016 01:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics Robert Clark wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you know of a means to provide 50,000 V at *lightweight* then you will
>>>>> have solved the problem of an independently flying lifter, using the
>>>>> macrosized wires currently used. You would need about a power to weight
>>>>> ratio for the power source of better than 1 watt per gram, while being
able
>>>>> to provide these ca. 50,000 V voltages.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Clark
>>>>
>>>> Trivial; look at any camera flash unit built in the last several decades.
>>>>
>>>> However you have totally missed the point; voltage and the weight of the
>>>> converter is irrelevant as it is the total power that determines the
>>>> weight of it all.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, here are some real world power to weight ratios:
>>>>
>>>> Boeing 777 engine 10 kW/kg
>>> 1985 Chevy Celebrity 300 W/kg <-- So for a 1000 kg car, that's 402
>>> horsepower? Sign me up! ;)
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Phil Hobbs
>>
>> No, that is the power to weight ratio of the engine, not the power to
>> weight ratio of the car.
>>
>>
> Power is a red herring. What's important is the total energy produced
> by the
> engine AND the fuel supply.
> It doesn't get the least bit interesting until the engine can lift
> itself and a FULL tank of whatever powers it AND the vehicle AND the
> payload to reach the destination.
> I can't imagine that ever happening 1000 feet off the ground on this ole
> earth at a cost anywhere near the cost of other forms of transportation.
Are you trying to say airplanes aren't going to make it in the commercial
world?
--
Jim Pennino
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
