advanced CO2 scrubber/ fuel generator/life support/power source?https://news.uic.edu/breakthrough-solar-cell-captures-co2-and-sunlight-produces-burnable-fuel
Quote from: Stormbringer on 07/31/2016 11:58 pmadvanced CO2 scrubber/ fuel generator/life support/power source?https://news.uic.edu/breakthrough-solar-cell-captures-co2-and-sunlight-produces-burnable-fuelMeh, at 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere, you need to move one ton of air (or more than 800 m3) for 400 grams of CO2. So you are unlikely to get any relevant amount of fuel out of this unless you move tonnes of air around. Seems to me like there could be much better ways to use that solar energy than for that.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 08/01/2016 12:24 amQuote from: Stormbringer on 07/31/2016 11:58 pmadvanced CO2 scrubber/ fuel generator/life support/power source?https://news.uic.edu/breakthrough-solar-cell-captures-co2-and-sunlight-produces-burnable-fuelMeh, at 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere, you need to move one ton of air (or more than 800 m3) for 400 grams of CO2. So you are unlikely to get any relevant amount of fuel out of this unless you move tonnes of air around. Seems to me like there could be much better ways to use that solar energy than for that.A motor vehicle that uses burnable fuel can be refuelled much faster than a battery powered vehicle can be recharged. Energy can be stored for longer as well.In the case of Mars rockets have to be used to flights to and from orbit since propellers do not work in a vacuum.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 08/01/2016 05:55 amQuote from: Elmar Moelzer on 08/01/2016 12:24 amQuote from: Stormbringer on 07/31/2016 11:58 pmadvanced CO2 scrubber/ fuel generator/life support/power source?https://news.uic.edu/breakthrough-solar-cell-captures-co2-and-sunlight-produces-burnable-fuelMeh, at 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere, you need to move one ton of air (or more than 800 m3) for 400 grams of CO2. So you are unlikely to get any relevant amount of fuel out of this unless you move tonnes of air around. Seems to me like there could be much better ways to use that solar energy than for that.A motor vehicle that uses burnable fuel can be refuelled much faster than a battery powered vehicle can be recharged. Energy can be stored for longer as well.In the case of Mars rockets have to be used to flights to and from orbit since propellers do not work in a vacuum.It still does not make sense. Just moving the huge volume of air towards those things would take a lot of energy for what little you get out of it in fuel. Maybe for ISRU on mars, if there are no better options. But totally pointless on earth.
Meh, at 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere, you need to move one ton of air (or more than 800 m3) for 400 grams of CO2. So you are unlikely to get any relevant amount of fuel out of this unless you move tonnes of air around. Seems to me like there could be much better ways to use that solar energy than for that.
See if you agree with the space related entries chosen by Aviation Week in this round up.http://m.aviationweek.com/technology/technologies-will-shape-future#slide-0-field_images-1491461
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 08/01/2016 12:24 amMeh, at 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere, you need to move one ton of air (or more than 800 m3) for 400 grams of CO2. So you are unlikely to get any relevant amount of fuel out of this unless you move tonnes of air around. Seems to me like there could be much better ways to use that solar energy than for that.All Horticulture relies on making money off this principle though. ...
All Horticulture relies on making money off this principle though.
I assume to be interesting it is claiming to outperform biofuels etc, which seem a lot less fiddly to do the same thing.
You are probably right about energy but there are also plastics and other things that use hydrocarbons.
New Shapes: Well the whole reason for developing 'podded' aircraft engines rather than ones buried in the wings was to facilitate maintenance and accessibility, but I suppose this will vindicate the designers of the V-Bombers
....That'll save a lot of money and people won't get caught out on the surface during solar storms and cosmic ray bursts.
Quote from: RanulfC on 08/01/2016 02:22 pmNew Shapes: Well the whole reason for developing 'podded' aircraft engines rather than ones buried in the wings was to facilitate maintenance and accessibility, but I suppose this will vindicate the designers of the V-Bombers Maintenance was not the initial reason as pods cause drag and currently restrict the bypass ratio in larger aircraft--a main driver in fuel burn reduction.
The de Havilland DH 106 Comet was the world's first production commercial jetliner. It featured buried engines in the wings and the aircraft would change aviation. The Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8, would differ by employing podded engines held on pylons beneath the wings.
Boeing stated that podded engines were selected for their passenger airliners because buried engines carried a higher risk of catastrophic wing failure in the event of engine fire.
Circumstances and the situation has changed and the concept is making a comeback.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 08/01/2016 02:01 pmAll Horticulture relies on making money off this principle though. Does not change a thing.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 08/01/2016 02:01 pmI assume to be interesting it is claiming to outperform biofuels etc, which seem a lot less fiddly to do the same thing. Biofuels are not exactly efficient either.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 08/01/2016 02:01 pmYou are probably right about energy but there are also plastics and other things that use hydrocarbons.Makes even less sense for plastics. Less than 1% of the oil is used for plastic. The rest is transportation.I stay with my original statement, would be better to just use regular solar panels and use those to directly power all those things that burned the fossil fuels to produce the CO2 in the first place.
A side note on historical podded engine choices.Bill Gunston in one of his books said De Havilland went with the buried approach because someone in the British aircraft industry (either they or RAE Farmborough as it was at the time) mis-calculated the drag levels of podded versus buried engines. A mis-calculation which had major repercussions for the British industry and the V bomber designs, although I have to admit the Vulcan and Victor looked good.
I'll note that things like accessability and maintainability is all in the details. The ability to alter them when a problem is found (before mfg) is where modern CAD based mfg really shines. So a modern design of buried engine could have it's own structural framework which locks into the aircraft structure (precisely aligning with the inlet and exhaust systems) with all connectors brought out on a few (ideally one) panels. At this point the engine is either lifted or dropped out. In the case of the B2 lifted would give a smoth undersurface with no openings to preserve stealth. Commercial aircraft would probably drop them out.