Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fuel-less Flight.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 11:44 AM
Original message
Fuel-less Flight.
Does the plan proposed at this website sound reasonable?

http://www.fuellessflight.com

To me, it sounds an awful lot like something for nothing. If it does store the needed energy during the descent, then it sounds like a closed cycle without any external energy input. They try to explain this in the article Flight Can Be Sustained Using The Forces Of Gravity but I'm skeptical. I think the name of the article is misleading since it seems to imply that buoyancy and gravity alone are enough for sustained flight. Buried in the article are hints that this isn't the case.

In case you are thinking -- perpetual motion device. Here is the explanation of why that thought is an incorrect assumption. Any qualified scientist knows that the use of heat as a power source in a closed thermodynamic cycle results in entropy – the loss of a portion of the heat energy due to friction, heat conduction, etc. The result is that each time a cycle is completed there is less energy returned as an output than went into the process; therefore, perpetual motion is correctly deemed to be impossible.

A scientist also knows that the world in which we live is not a closed system. There are forces provided by our natural environment, such as sunlight that produces heat energy and can produce electricity via photovoltaic modules, wind that may be harnessed by a wind turbine to produce mechanical drive that can be used to generate electrical power, used to compress air, or used to drive a hydraulic pump, and there is geothermal heat energy can produce electrical power, and yes the forces of gravity that may be used to our benefit. Just because scientists in the past failed to create practical devices that employ gravity does not mean that gravity cannot be used. Hunt has discovered how to harness gravity by the combined use of gravity’s dual properties – buoyancy to create an upward motion and gravity acceleration to create a downward motion – in an alternating cycle. However, other environmental energy sources will be harnessed by the gravityplane and used in conjunction with the dual properties of gravity, such as solar power, thermoelectric power generation, temperature differentials, current differentials, and pressure differentials, etc.

Note the phrase "thermoelectric power generation" which could simply mean using heat to create steam and turn a generator. In other words, plug it into the grid on the ground and get the power from whatever method is being used to generate electricity for the grid. Doesn't it seem like they're being a little coy about this? They don't highlight this fact and instead seem to be trying to give the impression that it will be fully charged by the onboard turbines during descent.

It still may be a good idea even if it does require external recharging, I'm not really qualified to judge, but the apparently misplaced emphases raises my skeptical alarms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. Sounds bogus to me
"It can rise into the sky via aerostatic lift, using a lifting gas such as helium." Obviously pure BS right there.

They also claim they can maintain altitude with the lift produced via the plane falling due to gravity pulling it downward. BS again, gliders get most of their lift from thermals, not from the airfoil. If there are no thermals, there's no way for an unpowered glider to gain or maintain altitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Why is gaining aerostatic lift via helium not reasonable?
Blimps do it all the time. What am I missing here?

The one thing I wonder about is whether you could actually lift all of the passengers and needed equipment with helium. Would the equipment and storage tanks needed to compress a given amount of helium be more than that helium could lift? Is that what you're talking about? Blimps apparently do something similar to this. From http://travel.howstuffworks.com/blimp1.htm:
Ballonets
Ballonets are air-filled bags that are located inside the envelope. The blimp has two ballonets, one fore and one aft. The ballonets are similar to the ballast tanks of a submarine. Because air is heavier than helium, the ballonets are deflated or inflated with air to make the blimp ascend or descend, respectively. They are also used to control the trim, or levelness, of the blimp.

So apparently helium can lift it's own weight plus pumps etc.

Why can't it glide down from the attained height? Doesn't the space shuttle glide un-powered from orbit? Where do they claim to maintain altitude via gravity? I didn't see that, if they're literally claiming that then yea, it sounds like BS. But are you sure they're not just saying that they can generate enough lift with the wings to keep the thing from plummeting like a rock? That's what the shuttle does.

I think it's conceivable that the thing could lift via helium and then glide back down, I just don't think that it can operate continuously without external energy input.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Kinda right.
They get their lift from airfoils. However, as you say, they are constantly moving downward. They just glide well enough that they are going down at a comparably slow rate. (People fall at around 120mpg. Gliders "glide down" at maybe 50-100 feet per minute.)

However, they can rise, within upward moving columns of air called thermals, because a good thermal can be rising at several hundred feet per minute. A glider is still going down, relative to the air that surrounds it, but since that air is going up faster than the glider is going down, it takes the glider up with it.

Interesting thought. Thermals rise do to heated ground. The ground is usually heated by the sun. Thus, gliders are solar powered aircraft. (Once they are up in the air, that is.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. Sounds like a plan put out by the pharmaceutical co. who makes dramamine!
Edited on Sun Jun-11-06 12:00 PM by applegrove
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. I read through part of this bullshit, and...
his thermal generator is old news-- at least 20 years ago there were experimental ammonia-based generators using ocean themrmal differentials. They worked, but not well enough to justify the cost. Using atmospheric differentials would just be so much less efficient.

His "aerostatic glider" is just a balloon with wings-- fill the thing with helium to get it up in the air, then displace the helium with something heavier to get it to glide. Didn't they try something like this back when Zeppelins were big? Anyway. the energy to displace the helium has to come from somewhere, just like it does when ballasting submarines (which this sounds a lot like).

Somewhere in there I bet he's looking for investors. Be better off buying Delta stock.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. "Didn't they try something like this back when Zeppelins were big?"
Sure, but they didn't have the strong light-weight materials we have today. I've often wondered why we don't use blimps for something more than advertising and aerial photography.

He probably is looking for investors and the whole thing may be bogus. But I wonder if there's the germ of a good idea here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. And they used hydrogen, which was...
cheap but killed more than one big blimp-- it killed off the whole idea.

Every so often I hear from legitmate researchers about lighter-than-air craft and how they could be useful in these days of huge fuel costs, but the development costs are brutal, with little chance of real payback anytime soon. I think NASA was involved somewhere along the line, too.

But, conventional aircraft are established, and it would take something extraordinary, like lack of fuel or a major technical breakthrough, to change even a small part of aviation to blimpy things.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
7. Use of a vawt is fishy, too.

VAWTs are great when the wind is shifting direction... HAWTs are superior otherwise. And on a plane...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
8. The ascent is the first obvious problem. Not enough lighter than air
storage capacity to provide lift for a heavy craft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I think I agree.
I'd have to see the numbers before I'd buy into the concept. I could maybe see a demo vehicle working on this concept, but I can't see it carrying a significant, cost effective load.

This thing would be more than just a blimp with wings. It needs compressors, either for removing gas from the envelope, or for pumping enough ambient air in to displace the lifting gas. Those pumps need fuel, and it all needs weight capacity, which decreases your "paying" load.

The wings are needed to glide, but their weight hinders your gas/lift. Less payload.

A blimp relies on gas pressure to maintain shape. If it gets floppy it creates extra drag and adversely effects vehicle control. Pumps to maintian that pressure through gas/lift changes are even heavier.

A derigible would maintain its shape, but via a skeleton, that adds weight. Less payload.

Both blimps and derigibles are relatively slow craft. Low enough that headwinds are a highly significant factor in their travels. To avoid that, the envelopes need be stronger to withstand aerodynamic forces, and you need more powerful engines. More weight. Less payload.

A glider is much the same. The faster it goes, the sturdier, and heavier, it must be.

Contrary to popular opinion, sailplanes can be VERY heavy. Add more balloon, more gas, more weight, less payload.

It's a complex problem. Maybe, somewhere in the middle, is a happy zone in which such a vehicle can operate. But it's not going to carry much cargo, in relation to it's own mass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC