Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- From: Willie.Mookie@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:33:43 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 23, 11:08 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 22, 4:38 pm, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 23, 6:58 am,BradGuth<bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 22, 12:49 am, William Mook <william.m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Since liquid nitrogen and liquid oxygen have different densities and
different boiling points, it is theoretically possible that the
nitrogen may be removed and oxygen passed through the engine while the
nitrogen is passed around the engine and heated to a lower
temperature.
Oxygen: -297F 71.2 lbs/ft3
Nitrogen: -321F 50.5 lbs/ft3
As you know, at the -297F of LOx the element of N2 is still a gas, and
as such easily excluded, on the fly(sort of speak). In which case
you'll have yourself a full blown H2/O2 scramjet that'll fly
suborbital for as long or as far as your onboard cache of LH2 holds
out.
- Brad Guth
Surprisingly - CORRECT!
You are "Surprisingly - CORRECT" on any number of facts that'll make
it possible to utilize those clean hydrogen products as obtained from
all of those nifty Mook arrays of PV cells.
Mook's "Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement" is actually
technically doable, though somewhat technologically spendy and without
all that much passenger or freight hauling capacity of its fast but
limited cruising range, unless that new and improved form of fast air
transport so happens to use a pair of those fully reusable LRBs
that'll get flown back to their original tarmac.
Getting that fully loaded tarmac tonnage up to the scramjet velocity
and of that suborbital altitude of as great as 100,000' is going to
demand 2/3s if not 3/4s of the stored energy as parked on the tarmac.
At least without all that much passenger or freight hauling capacity,
nor those takeoff LRBs and with such a volume of empty LH2 fuel
tankage containing H2 vapor, as such your mostly composite craft
should make for a darn good blimp like buoyancy compensated glide path
ratio of perhaps as great as 32:1, though even a 16:1 ratio would be
impressive.
- Brad Guth
You state a lot of numbers, could you carry out the calculations? You
know using something like the Breguet range equation and so forth?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breguet_equation
Of course not - because all you do is engage in black propaganda by
throwing out numbers that intend only to confuse and confound in a way
that marginalizes the reality beneath.
Fact is, long range aircraft today carry around 47% of its total mass
as fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_fraction
With hydrogen this is reduced to 15% - which means 22% of the total
weight of the aircraft is available for something else - more payload,
more fuel, more structure, all three - WITH THE SAME TAKE OFF WEIGHT
So, your comments don't make any sense in light of these facts.
Aircraft using fuel that is 3.2 times more energetic per kg than jet
fuel cannot help but have improved performance in ALL dimensions,
RANGE, SPEED, CLIMB RATE, PAYLOAD - despite larger fuel volumes and
tank masses required by hydrogen when compared to jet fuel.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- From: BradGuth
- Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- References:
- Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- From: William Mook
- Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- From: BradGuth
- Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- From: Willie . Mookie
- Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- From: BradGuth
- Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- Prev by Date: Re: Also I tried to be open-minded, I tried splitting H2O tonight with 12V 120 amps,
- Next by Date: Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- Previous by thread: Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- Next by thread: Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|