The Moler SkyCar is a limp *** dog. The design is wrong. Given that equal amounts of electricity in terms of thermal watts can be stored in devices proportional to Avgas then the sky-car should have four omni-directional jets powered by steam from sea-water excited by high-powered microwave lasers.
The Molar sky-car design is of the track and the technology will be obsolete by the time it becomes mass produced. 4 Counter rotating props, It runs on 2 wanker engines inflamed by alcohol lol - yes hangovers do come true. It should be redesigned with microwave-laser pumped steam turbine-jets with the equivalent of the potential energy contained in the Ethanol stored electronically in superconductive capacitive devices and discharged slowly to the microwave-laser that vaporises sea-water into high-temperature steam and mixes with the Air-Intake from the turbines to produce thrust. By using steam when the steam jets turn around from vertical take-off to horizontal propulsion, it doesn't mater if the front two jets aim hot steam in the direction of the rear two microwave-laser steam-jets because there is no combustion occurring in the propulsion system and O2 is irrelevant to the Sky-Cars
flight.http://inventorspot.com/imgs/flying_carmoler_skycar_6897
flight.http://inventorspot.com/imgs/flying_carmoler_skycar_6897
QUOTE (maxwords+Jun 1 2008, 11:46 PM)
The Molar sky-car design is of the track and the technology will be obsolete by the time it becomes mass produced. 4 Counter rotating props, It runs on 2 wanker engines inflamed by alcohol lol - yes hangovers do come true. It should be redesigned with microwave-laser pumped steam turbine-jets with the equivalent of the potential energy contained in the Ethanol stored electronically in superconductive capacitive devices and discharged slowly to the microwave-laser that vaporises sea-water into high-temperature steam and mixes with the Air-Intake from the turbines to produce thrust. By using steam when the steam jets turn around from vertical take-off to horizontal propulsion, it doesn't mater if the front two jets aim hot steam in the direction of the rear two microwave-laser steam-jets because there is no combustion occurring in the propulsion system and O2 is irrelevant to the Sky-Cars
flight.http://inventorspot.com/imgs/flying_carmoler_skycar_6897
You do realize that ethanol is alcohol?
And that your proposed "personal" aircraft would be about the size of a small city.
flight.http://inventorspot.com/imgs/flying_carmoler_skycar_6897
You do realize that ethanol is alcohol?
And that your proposed "personal" aircraft would be about the size of a small city.
Yes Ethanol is C2H5OH and is the regular alcohol that Is in beer, and spirits like Vodka and Southern Comfort. I remember my chemistry quite well. However why don't you do some stoichiometric calculations of how many kilojoules are produced from the combustion of 100 litre of Ethanol Alcohol, that would be contained in the fuel tank of a `Sky-Car'? To give a realistic comparison of how much Energy is contained in chemicals. Here is an example a .308 military rifle cartridge that fires a 180 grain bullet at 2,800fps could be duplicated with electricity. However it would mean that the equivalent a heavy 12Volt car battery would have to discharge all its energy in less than one second to give 2,800fps. Obviously batteries are not the way to go however nitrogen cooled superconductive capacitative coils could store the volume of energy that 100 litres of Ethanol would produce during combustion with oxygen. With regards to your assertion that the vehicle would be the size of a small city?, I honestly don't know what your talking about. If you run a home generator on 100 litres of Ethanol Alcohol, How much electricity do you think you would produce? barely enough to run the household appliances and you certainly wouldn't need and apparatus the size of a small city to contain it.
Tera-joules of Energy could be stored in large Liquid Nitrogen cooled Superconductive Capacitative Coils. However like with regular capacitors the discharge very quickly. It might be possible to build an intermediatory device between the Energy storage device and the microwave laser steam jet turbine. Specially designed thermionic valves arranged in series may allow to gently tap into the capacitativly stored electricity reserve with an acceptable current and voltage to allow the laser to function a long and with variable power levels. The specially designed series of thermionic valves would prevent the Energy Storage Unit from discharging with a Million Amperes at a Billion volts like a thunderbolt that would blow up the engines.
Or....being a form of aircraft they could use JP4. It's superior to JP8 although not the more commonly used types. JP8 is because it's cheap.
Or they could use the technology found in the water powered car. Hydrogen releases more energy when burned then gas, diesel, any JP series, alcohol, etc.
Or they could use the technology found in the water powered car. Hydrogen releases more energy when burned then gas, diesel, any JP series, alcohol, etc.
Are you suggesting a microwave-laser steam jet turbine plane be filled up with liquid hydrogen as fuel in place of seawater, then the hydrogen combusted in the compressor with air from the turbine intake to produce large volumes of steam, and then heating up the steam in the in the jet with the high-powered microwave laser to increase the the thrust velocity ten fold?
That would greatly increase the speed of the Aircraft and the jet engine would have to be designed like Like F-16's F-18Hornets, and F-23 Rafters otherwise you would have mechanical problems with the turbine compressor if designed like a Boeing 747-400. With the Boeing 747-400 on Flight Simulator X, the Air-Speed hold switch has to be set at 369 Knots because when the plane exceeds 370 Knots the cockpit start clicking like a bomb with a red warning signal OVERSPEED
That would greatly increase the speed of the Aircraft and the jet engine would have to be designed like Like F-16's F-18Hornets, and F-23 Rafters otherwise you would have mechanical problems with the turbine compressor if designed like a Boeing 747-400. With the Boeing 747-400 on Flight Simulator X, the Air-Speed hold switch has to be set at 369 Knots because when the plane exceeds 370 Knots the cockpit start clicking like a bomb with a red warning signal OVERSPEED
No, I was suggesting that they use an electrolysis setup that produces the hydrogen needed on demand. Then feed the hydrogen gas into the engine as per normal.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 6 2008, 11:01 AM)
No, I was suggesting that they use an electrolysis setup that produces the hydrogen needed on demand. Then feed the hydrogen gas into the engine as per normal.
Is that not inherently wasteful? If you have power to power the electrolysis setup, why not just use it to power the engine? Using it to convert water to hydrogen and oxygen just so you can burn the hydrogen, releasing the same energy you just put in, to make the engine work.
Water isn't a fuel source so there aren't any water powered cars. There's hydrogen powered cars but again, hydrogen isn't a fuel source, it's an energy storage medium. A fuel source is one which is naturally occuring or easy to make and so we don't have to put in the energy to make it. Oil? Energy source. Batteries? Energy storage. Hydrogen is fuel storage. It's more efficient and powerful than batteries so preferable to electric cars but it has to be made.
Currently it's made on-mass by steam reduction of methane. So ultimately all hydrogen powered cars still burn fossil fuels, it's just they don't burn them in cities, they burn them out in the countryside where the 'hydrogen refinery' is.
Is that not inherently wasteful? If you have power to power the electrolysis setup, why not just use it to power the engine? Using it to convert water to hydrogen and oxygen just so you can burn the hydrogen, releasing the same energy you just put in, to make the engine work.
Water isn't a fuel source so there aren't any water powered cars. There's hydrogen powered cars but again, hydrogen isn't a fuel source, it's an energy storage medium. A fuel source is one which is naturally occuring or easy to make and so we don't have to put in the energy to make it. Oil? Energy source. Batteries? Energy storage. Hydrogen is fuel storage. It's more efficient and powerful than batteries so preferable to electric cars but it has to be made.
Currently it's made on-mass by steam reduction of methane. So ultimately all hydrogen powered cars still burn fossil fuels, it's just they don't burn them in cities, they burn them out in the countryside where the 'hydrogen refinery' is.
Hydrogen possible to produce with electrolize, and electricity with Sun, wind power, or any over power which don't require oil if oil will over... But I guess electrolize is much more inefiecent than electric cars. I think that to produce hydrogen with electrolize it effiecency can be somthing 1%, so if you producing oil and driving with it car then say need 100% oil, if you burning oil and producing electricity then need about 100% oil, but long charge and expensive batteries very unractical... If you burning oil and producing electricity and then producing hydrogen for car then for comparition need 10000% oil, I think, or at least 1000% oil. So hydrogen very unefiecient. Biofules, I read, than need also about 100% oil (or oil->electricty) for they producing. So I think even more effiecent to produce biofuels than hydrogen, if you have electricity powered agriculture machines-tractors. But biofules but for food deficite.
So I would say, that energy will never be deficite for general purpose (not nessasary for 1/10 or 1/100 humans have a car, which are about 100 times less effient than bus. Crysis of fuel is not dengerous.
So I would say, that energy will never be deficite for general purpose (not nessasary for 1/10 or 1/100 humans have a car, which are about 100 times less effient than bus. Crysis of fuel is not dengerous.
QUOTE
Is that not inherently wasteful? If you have power to power the electrolysis setup, why not just use it to power the engine? Using it to convert water to hydrogen and oxygen just so you can burn the hydrogen, releasing the same energy you just put in, to make the engine work.
That's where the controversy comes in. Supposedly with the system used by the water powered car that a small current is used to produce large quantities of hydrogen. If this is true (works as claimed) then using the hydrogen in a turboprop engine would be more efficient than simply using an electric motor to turn a propeller.
It's a matter of electric motor efficiency vs. electrolysis efficiency.
Actually I would like to hear your what you would have to say on it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stApCmxYEM&feature=related
The molar skycar does not fit within the brackets of redesigning an engine, if aviation is becoming too expensive to use.
A better axiom, would be, what is the proposed engine design manifold, of utilizing other fuels and or other means of ignition or power transference, to translate this action into useful mechanical advantage?
Notes, It is funny that in the military vehicle the XT-22 Osprey, that there is no engine out emergency according to the asking of FAA auto-gyrate and or engine out to glide parameters rations.This is also the main problem with the Moler craft, as there is nether a para-sail parachute indicated, nor emergency folding out wings, that gives rough or emergency fields squawk indents, to "pan pan pan"!
A better axiom, would be, what is the proposed engine design manifold, of utilizing other fuels and or other means of ignition or power transference, to translate this action into useful mechanical advantage?
Notes, It is funny that in the military vehicle the XT-22 Osprey, that there is no engine out emergency according to the asking of FAA auto-gyrate and or engine out to glide parameters rations.This is also the main problem with the Moler craft, as there is nether a para-sail parachute indicated, nor emergency folding out wings, that gives rough or emergency fields squawk indents, to "pan pan pan"!
Hello maxwords, et al.
A simple equation to keep in mind is F=ma. The "a" requires an energy input (as in a fuel) and the "m" is simple reaction mass.
The Molar skycar is designed with eight engines. Two per pod for redundancy/safety. Air is used for the reaction mass while a fuel is used to power the engine/fan system.
An engine that heats (via some means) water and uses that for thrust would work in the water (lake, ocean, etc.) because it uses water as the reaction mass. Using this type of engine in the air would be inefficient because you would have to carry the reaction mass as well as a fuel source. This is how a rocket engine works as the fuel/oxidizer is both the reaction mass and the energy source.
A simple equation to keep in mind is F=ma. The "a" requires an energy input (as in a fuel) and the "m" is simple reaction mass.
The Molar skycar is designed with eight engines. Two per pod for redundancy/safety. Air is used for the reaction mass while a fuel is used to power the engine/fan system.
An engine that heats (via some means) water and uses that for thrust would work in the water (lake, ocean, etc.) because it uses water as the reaction mass. Using this type of engine in the air would be inefficient because you would have to carry the reaction mass as well as a fuel source. This is how a rocket engine works as the fuel/oxidizer is both the reaction mass and the energy source.
I think the water referred to is that already found in the air. I don't believe it to be very efficient regardless.
QUOTE (maxwords+Jun 6 2008, 01:56 AM)
Are you suggesting a microwave-laser steam jet turbine plane be filled up with liquid hydrogen as fuel in place of seawater, then the hydrogen combusted in the compressor with air from the turbine intake to produce large volumes of steam, and then heating up the steam in the in the jet with the high-powered microwave laser to increase the the thrust velocity ten fold?
That would greatly increase the speed of the Aircraft and the jet engine would have to be designed like Like F-16's F-18Hornets, and F-23 Rafters otherwise you would have mechanical problems with the turbine compressor if designed like a Boeing 747-400. With the Boeing 747-400 on Flight Simulator X, the Air-Speed hold switch has to be set at 369 Knots because when the plane exceeds 370 Knots the cockpit start clicking like a bomb with a red warning signal OVERSPEED
I'm Happy flying the Space Shuttle at 7285 Knots around the world on Flight Simulator X with Just Flight Space Shuttle Expansion Add On.
However another futuristic Expansion Game could be based on the 1964 Captain Kirk USS Enterprise allowing pilots in virtual reality to fly to the Andromeda Galaxy, Antares in Sagittarius, Alpha Centuri at warp speed. The Enterprise on it's data base would have a time-scan 3Dimensional snap-shot of the Earth and be able with `enough energy' to materialize pristine Earths around Suns in the Cosmos of various vintages. 1 million year old Earth, 70 million old Earth, 500 million old Earth in pristine condition with flora and fauna. Allowing the household pilot in virtual reality to fly the Universe beyond Space-Shuttle scope restrictions
That would greatly increase the speed of the Aircraft and the jet engine would have to be designed like Like F-16's F-18Hornets, and F-23 Rafters otherwise you would have mechanical problems with the turbine compressor if designed like a Boeing 747-400. With the Boeing 747-400 on Flight Simulator X, the Air-Speed hold switch has to be set at 369 Knots because when the plane exceeds 370 Knots the cockpit start clicking like a bomb with a red warning signal OVERSPEED
I'm Happy flying the Space Shuttle at 7285 Knots around the world on Flight Simulator X with Just Flight Space Shuttle Expansion Add On.
However another futuristic Expansion Game could be based on the 1964 Captain Kirk USS Enterprise allowing pilots in virtual reality to fly to the Andromeda Galaxy, Antares in Sagittarius, Alpha Centuri at warp speed. The Enterprise on it's data base would have a time-scan 3Dimensional snap-shot of the Earth and be able with `enough energy' to materialize pristine Earths around Suns in the Cosmos of various vintages. 1 million year old Earth, 70 million old Earth, 500 million old Earth in pristine condition with flora and fauna. Allowing the household pilot in virtual reality to fly the Universe beyond Space-Shuttle scope restrictions
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 7 2008, 07:41 PM)
That's where the controversy comes in. Supposedly with the system used by the water powered car that a small current is used to produce large quantities of hydrogen. If this is true (works as claimed) then using the hydrogen in a turboprop engine would be more efficient than simply using an electric motor to turn a propeller.
It's a matter of electric motor efficiency vs. electrolysis efficiency.
Actually I would like to hear your what you would have to say on it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stApCmxYEM&feature=related
here http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html
Run your car on water! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5mZu9i0Z8s
http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/
Why whose inventors don't making cars directly on water?
Imposible with electrolizes produce more energy than in.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 7 2008, 05:49 PM)
Hydrogen possible to produce with electrolyze, and electricity with Sun, wind power, or any over power which don't require oil if oil will over... But I guess electrolyze is much more inefficient than electric cars. I think that to produce hydrogen with electrolyze it efficiency can be something 1%, so if you producing oil and driving with it car then say need 100% oil, if you burning oil and producing electricity then need about 100% oil, but long charge and expensive batteries very unpractical... If you burning oil and producing electricity and then producing hydrogen for car then for comparition need 10000% oil, I think, or at least 1000% oil. So hydrogen very unefiecient. Biofules, I read, than need also about 100% oil (or oil->electricity) for they producing. So I think even more efficient to produce bio-fuels than hydrogen, if you have electricity powered agriculture machines-tractors. But biofules but for food deficite.
So I would say, that energy will never be deficite for general purpose (not necessary for 1/10 or 1/100 humans have a car, which are about 100 times less effient than bus. Crysis of fuel is not dangerous.
Using a Nuclear Reactor specifically devoted as a power source to extract H/D from sea water could be cost effective. It would produce massive amounts of Hydrogen whilst the Deuterium extracted would be used to produce power with Fusion Reactors.
The regular Hydrogen would be liquefied as would the Oxygen and can be used to build large fuels cells to produce the electricity.
Power from the Nuclear Reactor would have been wasted moving around Na and Cl ions during electrolysis. Precisely how much power is wasted during the electrolysis depends, on the chemical cocktail of the sea water. There are plenty of other ionic salts in sea-water besides Sodium Chloride.
Sea Water is the biggest source of D(Heavy Hydrogen: PN)
So I would say, that energy will never be deficite for general purpose (not necessary for 1/10 or 1/100 humans have a car, which are about 100 times less effient than bus. Crysis of fuel is not dangerous.
Using a Nuclear Reactor specifically devoted as a power source to extract H/D from sea water could be cost effective. It would produce massive amounts of Hydrogen whilst the Deuterium extracted would be used to produce power with Fusion Reactors.
The regular Hydrogen would be liquefied as would the Oxygen and can be used to build large fuels cells to produce the electricity.
Power from the Nuclear Reactor would have been wasted moving around Na and Cl ions during electrolysis. Precisely how much power is wasted during the electrolysis depends, on the chemical cocktail of the sea water. There are plenty of other ionic salts in sea-water besides Sodium Chloride.
Sea Water is the biggest source of D(Heavy Hydrogen: PN)
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.