NickTheGreat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,289
- Reaction score
- 529
Cattle are supposed to eat grass, not corn or it’s remnants.
Corn is a grass, botanically speaking . . .
Cattle are supposed to eat grass, not corn or it’s remnants.
Yes, but they don’t feed the grassy part to cows, only the seeds. As soon as I posted I knew someone was likely to bring that up.Corn is a grass, botanically speaking . . .
Yes, but they don’t feed the grassy part to cows, only the seeds.
That RV-EV is just about the coolest thing I've seen in some time, as well as something I've wanted to have for almost as long. SWMBO'd and I are on our third Class B+ sized motorhome and are looking for #4. The first three have been upbuilds from Mercedes Sprinter diesels cutaway chassis and have served us exceedingly well for nearly a quarter of 1,000,000 miles, through all 48 of the contiguous States and 5 Canadian Provinces. At 16 mpg, I could have saved 15,625 gallons of diesel x $3.30/gal = $51,562.50 over the 9 years we've been RVing. Three hundred miles is the maximum we usually target for a day's worth of driving, and virtually everywhere we stop has 50 amp/240V electrical hookup included in the camping fee.
The only thing EVs do is reduce local air pollution. Vehicles are made from so much more than a gasoline tank or a battery. The 'debate' is fundamentally flawed. Private car ownership for all isn't sustainable. If you live in the city you don't need to own a car. Rent one when you do. Private car ownership is all about redundant economics that translate into very little for the vast majority of us.
Yep, that's all they do. Reduce fossil-fuel based air pollution in urban environments. 'EV' is a scam to prop up private car ownership - to profiteer and stuff shareholders silly mainly.They don't just reduce local air pollution. But the big thing I took from this is that we should be improving mass transportation. I can get behind that.
Not all of the energy in the grid comes from fossil fuels. A small but growing segment comes from clean renewables.
So totally obvious, and yet I never thought of it quite that way. Every milliwatt of power I get from solar arrays can be thought of as derived from nuclear fusion. Now THAT is COOL!Cool huh.
My car is mostly powered by fusion (solar) with a little fission from the grid thrown in for good measure.
Unless the wings are removable, moving it on the ground isn't an option.I know you fly, but I came across that article in my news feed today and actually wondered why it was taking so long to progress from low speed taxi-ing. I'd be tempted to take that thing out to some dry CA lake bed and try some brief lift-offs
Cheers!
I'm surprised they are located in Arlington, WA, as a lot of this type of work goes on in Mojave, CA (where the weather is more dependable.)
Wings are always removable. Planes aren't born with full size wings attached
Well...maybe not practically removable, I'll give you that...
Cheers!
Mine come off and go back on easily, but they are specifically designed to do that. I doubt the same is the case for the Alice.Airplane wings are quite easy to remove. It's getting them back on that's the difficult part.
Well, that is pretty cool. As an avid flyfisher I've often been conveyed on Beavers and Otters to far flung locations in Canada and have to say DeHavilland airframes are about as rugged as they come. Moving one of those with batteries is impressive - they ain't ultralights
The downside of an electric floatplane is obvious... Not only do you need to handle the weight of the batteries while in flight, but you also have to have enough buoyancy to float them!
The downside of an electric floatplane is obvious... Not only do you need to handle the weight of the batteries while in flight, but you also have to have enough buoyancy to float them!
Seaplanes have one major advantage: they can land with or without landing gear, assuming there is both water and land present.
I had an engineer tell me an interesting story a few weeks ago. He was asked by a local seaplane owner to design retractable landing gear for his sea plane. Hardware and firmware design. They went up on the maiden voyage and sadly the ONE thing that could foul the test happened: only one of the wheels descended. For a frantic 10 minutes, the experimental pilot and engineer assessed how much fuel they had, tried to find a way to remove the gear altogether, etc. Anyway, the engineer pulled out his laptop, found his code bug (!!!), fixed bug, plugged his laptop into the motor control board, and reprogrammed. They then landed safely. Surreal. I design mostly medical and military stuff, but also some aircraft electronics, and this was just a mind-blowing story. Engineer even took the stick at one point while the pilot tried to disengage the gear with a makeshift tool.
With propeller airplanes, a large fraction, sometimes most, of the noise comes from the propeller, not the engine. Modern propeller designs can reduce the prop noise, but I don't know how much.But for this airline the upside is obvious. Mostly shorthaul flights between their seabases in the Vancouver area. Once certified they will save a metric boatload of money on fuel and maintenance. Not to mention all the good will from ecstatic residents living near those bases who no longer have to listen to the drone of engines.
Clearly, that saga should never have happened.
Whatever happened to ground testing?
Sheesh...
LOL... As an electrical engineer myself, I can imagine! I've had to help customers through issues where millions of dollars of equipment might be on the line, but never anything where "fix it or we crash and die" are the stakes lol!
True, but electric motors are capable of incredible amounts of torque. With enough torque, you can spin those props at a much slower RPM. These days some of the most advanced big turbo props are spinning those huge 6 bladed composite props at less than 1000 rpm at max T/O power.With propeller airplanes, a large fraction, sometimes most, of the noise comes from the propeller, not the engine. Modern propeller designs can reduce the prop noise, but I don't know how much.
Brew on
With propeller airplanes, a large fraction, sometimes most, of the noise comes from the propeller, not the engine. Modern propeller designs can reduce the prop noise, but I don't know how much.
Brew on
It's going to be an interesting future. Maybe not "The Jetsons" level interesting, but still...
True, but electric motors are capable of incredible amounts of torque. With enough torque, you can spin those props at a much slower RPM. These days some of the most advanced big turbo props are spinning those huge 6 bladed composite props at less than 1000 rpm at max T/O power.
Ok, I'll admit to over generalizing. Propeller noise depends heavily on the tip speed of the prop. A multi-blade prop, for the same RPM, has a lower tip velocity because it has a smaller diameter (for similar power.) I live under one of the common departure paths used by Q400 turboprops out of Seattle-Tacoma airport. When they are coming my way, what I hear are the props.I'd have to politely disagree since turboprops are much quieter in the air than a similar piston powered plane. Compare for instance a Navajo to a Cheyenne or a Cessna 421 to a 441. My hangar neighbor had a P210 turbine conversion and you could not hear that guy coming and going. Whereas my plane with the IO540K1A5 you could hear that noisy bastard from miles away.
Cool huh.
My car is mostly powered by fusion (solar) with a little fission from the grid thrown in for good measure.
Perhaps one day it'll actually be fusion - if the limeys can just make this donut small enough for the bed of my truck. Their experiment produced about 10MJ/s, which is 13,000 horse power. That'll do it
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/09/uk/nuclear-fusion-climate-energy-scn-intl/index.html
If yur lookin' to load up yer pickup with 13,000 hp, I'd say y'all been livin' in the South too long. Them Good Ol' Boys been takin' you to see NASCAR ur somethin'?