MadManMike Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 Even more awesome when you hit the ground nose first at 300 mph because the whole back end of the aircraft is on fire.Crash in any large aircraft and you're f**ked, let's be honest.With todays technology I'm sure they could build the Concorde better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pashley26 Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 The Concorde wasn't built badly at all ? It was built much better than an A380 airbus is ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMike Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 The Concorde wasn't built badly at all ? It was built much better than an A380 airbus is !I supply parts for the Airbus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hendrix Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 Don't Airbus build the largest plane in the world or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deonn h Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Don't Airbus build the largest plane in the world or something?Thats the A380 isnt it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arw_86 Posted September 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Thats the A380 isnt it...ye thats it, landed and took off from birmingham airport for the first time yesterday. was hoping to see it from the ground but didnt unfortunately.anyone have any opinions on hydrogen fuel cells? only emission is water. i know the technology is being tested in a few cars and has also been made into a boiler. i believe once they have a safe way of using them (as they are very volatile and like to blow up at the moment) it will be one of the main sources of power in the future. also....i was thinking though, if everything was run on hydrogen fuel cells would the atmosphere be able to cope? as in would everything just get covered in condensation? or a much more humid/sticky/damp atmosphere? just thoughts, im probably wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Manual Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 I supply parts for the Airbus My brother works for the place that assembles the wings for the A380, just outside Mansfield I think. He says that some of the stuff that goes on there would change your mind about getting on one, however I suppose that's probably true about a lot of places.anyone have any opinions on hydrogen fuel cells? only emission is water. i know the technology is being tested in a few cars and has also been made into a boiler. i believe once they have a safe way of using them (as they are very volatile and like to blow up at the moment) it will be one of the main sources of power in the future. also....i was thinking though, if everything was run on hydrogen fuel cells would the atmosphere be able to cope? as in would everything just get covered in condensation? or a much more humid/sticky/damp atmosphere? just thoughts, im probably wrongDoesn't the electrolysis required (or heat, or whatever other process you use) to prepare the hydrogen sort of undo all the good the cell itself does? You'd need to burn oil or use some form of unsustainable energy source before the cell is even created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamus Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 same situation as the toyota prius?the material sourcing, extraction, processing, transportation and manufacturing uses so much energy you'd have to do an obscene amount of miles for the rest of eternity before it became benificial againbeing environmentally friendly needs to be from start to finish of a products life, inc disposal.making cars from organic materials (like the merc's sound proofing or the volk's cabin materials) may not be actually reduce your carbon footprint due to the impact of sourcing and preparing the materials Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Samsam~ Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Doesn't the electrolysis required (or heat, or whatever other process you use) to prepare the hydrogen sort of undo all the good the cell itself does? You'd need to burn oil or use some form of unsustainable energy source before the cell is even created.YesBut... In some places (Iceland for example) They can use geothermal energy to produce mass amounts of hydrogen, (The currently export a lot of deuterium I think) Would benifit places like that substantially Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pashley26 Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) It sounds very much like a pub tale to me, especially seeing as to start it you'd need a sizeable ground crew and several thousand euros worth of fuel each time.This "pub tale" has come from my dads nextdoor neighbor who is a head technician for ASI... Edited September 10, 2009 by Pashley26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish-Finger-er Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 same situation as the toyota prius?the material sourcing, extraction, processing, transportation and manufacturing uses so much energy you'd have to do an obscene amount of miles for the rest of eternity before it became benificial againnot to mention the toyota prius that got everyone hybrid raving mad, isnt actually greener than a lot of big quick modern cars. ignoring the top gear m3 test, as it wasnt realistic of normal driving, I drive a big dirty diesel saloon car, with 150 bhp, making it quick enough to be fair(when you factor in the metric sh*t load of torque it has). however the prius we have at work, last time I checked, averaged 44.8 mpg on the on board computer, which is normally optimistic, but still, take it as 45mpg, my car gets around 51-52 to the gallon,and im willing to bet my car gets a lot more of the loud pedal than this prius, so its less economical as every 45 miles it does, it burns 4.5 litres of fuel, so 100ml per mile, whereas my car only burns 86ml of fuel per mile) and thats before you start suggesting 10% of my fuel could quite safely be vegetable oil and i wouldnt notice the difference. and theres a lot quicker cars out there, that do over 55 to the gallon now (bmw 123d anyone). and thats before you discuss the whole toxicity of the creating of the battery cells used in them, or the huge issues theyll be disposing of these cells once they're knackered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arw_86 Posted April 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 (edited) major bumpage lol, but i wanted to show you a video i find interesting but at the same time skeptical about it. I was going to put it in boti or something but i remembered this thread. anyway, if this is real then why is not a huge product world wide now?! the use of water instead of gases and fossil fuels etc would be a great step wouldnt it? im just confused as to why this seems so awesome, but its not widely used? thoughts? p.s- i know i have seen this vid ages ago so it might of been on tf but i couldnt find anything. Edited April 28, 2010 by arw_86 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun H Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 major bumpage lol, but i wanted to show you a video i find interesting but at the same time skeptical about it. I was going to put it in boti or something but i remembered this thread. anyway, if this is real then why is not a huge product world wide now?! the use of water instead of gases and fossil fuels etc would be a great step wouldnt it? im just confused as to why this seems so awesome, but its not widely used? thoughts? p.s- i know i have seen this vid ages ago so it might of been on tf but i couldnt find anything. The guy states water and electricity is the fuel for starters. Then goes on to say the process uses electrolysis to "break the water down". It's basically a hydrogen powered torch/car that processes the water on board rather than in a plant. If there's any innovation there it will be in the electrolysis process, there's nothing new about burning hydrogen (just ask the Hindenburg ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 just ask the Hindenburg If only we could... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 How much electricity is the real question (compared to a normal electric car). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun H Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 I know these are quite old but I got too interested not to reply ha a plane engine has been tested for commercial use (back in 2001 i might add) that can reach speeds of up to 5000mph, meaning london to new york in less than an hour and london to sydney in two!! have a read, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1358702/British-engine-test-heralds-5000mph-flight.html" target="_blank">scramjet</a> i know jet fighters are quick, but this quick? and commercial with hundreds on board? more than 3 times faster than concord. would def make me want to go to australia!! lol Scramjets will never be used for anything other than missiles, possibly on spacecraft, but certainly never on commercial planes. Firstly they must use a rocket motor to reach a high enough speed to begin supersonic combustion, once started all the ones flown so far have run for a very short amount of time. Aside from this, the main issue is payload weight. They simply can not be designed to efficiently carry weight particularly to travel any distance because the amount of fuel required becomes hugely prohibitive. With regards to planes, i don't think we'll see much 1000mph + travel for a long long time. The idea of getting from the uk to the usa in just over an hour would be my dream come true but i'll be surprised if I see it in my lifetime. I'd be extremely surprised if you didn't see it again at some point. All it needs is the correct economic situation and state support (i.e. a pan-European project) and SST can become economically viable. <!--quoteo(post=1976133:date=Sep 8 2009, 08:59 AM:name=Dr. Nick Riviera)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dr. Nick Riviera @ Sep 8 2009, 08:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1976133"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Concorde's cruise speed was just over mach 2... That's well over 1000mph.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Worded that wrong, I mean I don't think we'll see anything like that again for a long time. 680mph I think is all we're going to see for at least the next quarter of a decade. There seems too many safety regulations holding everything back. It's not a bad thing though. No one will design a commercial plane that cruises at transonic speeds. The drag between Mach 0.8-1.2 is significantly larger than above and below those speeds. You design a plane to cruise at subsonic or supersonic speeds not in the middle. Airliners as you know them now will not go much faster than they do currently, they will only do it more efficiently. scram jet is miles away look into the issues the SR-17 blackbirds experienced pushing the envelope just that lilttle bit further. - the thermal expansion of the materials meant the nose cone had to be 'ironed' flat with blowtorches after each flight - the fuel tanks and oil resivoirs leak when stationary as they have expanded and contracted so much, making them extremely dangerous to work around - the power plant was so voiltile and highly strung that if the one engine has a tiny, tiny misfire, the plane <b>would</b> cream in at mach 3. - oh and that only had to carry a few highly skilled and experienced proffesionals making the engine is fine, concorde was fine in the engine department. its the plane which is overstressed The SR-71s weren't pushing the envelope "just that little bit further". They were rewriting the book on super....supersonic aviation! Since then high temperature materials have come along a huge amount too, not to mention the Russians would be much more willing to sell their finest Ti when they know it's not going to be used to peek over their fence! The first of your points is fair enough for a plane flying THAT fast, plus the skin was actually rather thin in a lot of places. The markings around the cockpit etc are there to warn ground crew not to lean on them in case it's bent! The third about the misfiring, that's a problem they actually solved after it was discovered. They developed flight control hardware that could detect a inlet unstart before it happened and compensate accordingly. I am aware of Concorde's safety record, which is almost unmarked. lets not forget one of the first scram jets was launched from a tried and tested SR-17, it promptly exploded when it hit the shockwave from the nose of the 'mothership' and destroyed both the planes, killing all the crew of the SR-17 Unless I'm getting confused between something else you're talking about the D-21 which was launched off a still experimental A-12. That was a ramjet and it didn't explode when it hit the shockwave, it seperated badly and hit the mothership causing both to crash. The crew ejected and survived but unfortunately the navigators pressure suit leaked and he drowned. Thing is, the scramjet is capable of 5000mph, but it doesn't mean you have to use it at 5000mph. If it was used at 2000mph, that would be fast enough for the time being. I would've thought the Gs at 5000mph would be significant? Scramjets don't work at less than 3,500mph The "G" at 5000mph would be irrelevant. It's the acceleration that causes that stuff, and since you need a rocket to accelerate to the appropriate operating speed, yes there would be significant acceleration on your body! Possibly beyond Space Shuttle levels! As an example <a href="http://www.afors.com/index.php?page=adview&adid=8940&imid=0" target="_blank">link</a>, does mach 1.3, at a guess would use about £500-1000 of fuel an hour. Not exactly comfortable or luxurious, but if you wanted to get somewhere very fast... There's also a few supersonic light transport planes knocking around for under a million iirc. Not exactly cheap, but compared to other aircraft prices it's not bad at all. The cost in fuel per hour would be nothing, literally nothing, in comparison to the maintenance costs. Although it would be cool to have your own fighter jet haha. I don't know of any supersonic light transport planes though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arw_86 Posted April 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 (edited) either you're the inventor of the scramjet or....... you is a terrorist!! Edited April 28, 2010 by arw_86 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Deere Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 (edited) There's a lot of talk about transport in this thread. In the future we will be going everywhere. And nowhere. Edited April 29, 2010 by Mike Deere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDHT0hBgVOw&NR=1 The could have been using hydrogen fuel cells since 1985. (Although not alone, the hydrogen is mixed with petrol I think). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusevelt Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 (edited) Well you've got to admire Microsoft's little 'Enemy of the State' style hack when informing all window users about the new browser choice when they could have just emailed. Communication to foreign languages in real-time without the use of translators (sorry Ben Swales) would be cool piece of kit. And the development of spider silk technology sounds really impressive because of its strength-to-weight ratio is even greater than carbon fibre. Edited April 29, 2010 by Rusevelt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigjames Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 Well you've got to admire Microsoft's little 'Enemy of the State' style hack when informing all window users about the new browser choice when they could have just emailed. Communication to foreign languages in real-time without the use of translators (sorry Ben Swales) would be cool piece of kit. And the development of spider silk technology sounds really impressive because of its strength-to-weight ratio is even greater than carbon fibre. Pretty sure multi-wall carbon nano tubes have a higher tensile strength and strength to weight ratio compared to spiders silk, its certainly an easier material to manufacture. Some pretty interesting developments in graphene and graphane recently, building processors pretty close the current high speed non-commercial processors that are being used. Could be a viable replacement for the silicon chip. There has also been a development in composite materials, where they have produced a composite that can store an eletrical charge as well as having the required properties to make it suitable to be used for car body work. Hybrid cars that a lighter due to having a composite body and for not needing to have to use heavy batteries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaRtZ Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 (edited) its certainly an easier material to manufacture. what? lol Getting a spider the shit itself or creating elongated bucky balls? You're right about the strength of CNT's though, its pretty insance... they're just damn expensive and hard to make! EDIT: Also the water thing... yeah its great, but electrolysis is pretty energy consuming. If it can replace an already 'high energy, dangerous emissions' process though, it NEEDS to be done Edited April 29, 2010 by PaRtZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 "back" to the moon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigjames Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 what? lol Getting a spider the shit itself or creating elongated bucky balls? Hahaha, if ony it was that simple, i think they're currently using genetically modified goats or sheep, so that a silk of the same structure can be extracted from the milk that they produce. Bit more indepth than tickling a load of spiders til they spew it out. You're right about the strength of CNT's though, its pretty insane... they're just damn expensive and hard to make! I think, some recent developments have been made in the production of CNTs allowing them to produce them on a much larger scale at a much lower cost. I know they've been developing CNT fabric as an alternative to kevlar stab and ballistic protection vests. A hell of a lot more effective from initial tests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konstant Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 (edited) This more tech news than future tech, but Adobe's RC2 for Flash 10.1 on OS 10.6.3 features proper hardware acceleration for the first time. Macbook owners can now watch h264 encoded flash video without setting their laps on fire. Even the basic 9400M equipped Macbooks, Minis and iMacs can now run flawless 1080p Youtube etc without breaking a sweat. http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html Apologies if you don't give a flying **** about anything I just said and wasted your life reading it Edited April 29, 2010 by konstant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.