8 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Hmm, this sounds to be highly unplausible to me...

 

Yeah, me too.  Who on earth would type such nonsense 

 

I've no idea in relation to the question you'd asked, so typed some spurious foolishness.  It was an attempt at humour, clearly very poorly executed 

 

Gaz

There was a car for sale on  Chasing Classic Cars with Wayne Carini.

 

I think it was the California Air Quality Agency or the likes that had it built to be fast enough in the 1970,s for chasing planes down the runway to measure the emissions.

 

EDIT.

 

Edited 29 July, 20241 yr by Ootohere

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

Just how do the measure the levels of pollution coming from a jet engine, I doubt that they can shove a probe into the exhaust of the engine, the heat and pure thrust I suspect would destroy it in the blink of an eye?

I thought you were an engineer?

 

You have a fuel burn by measuring how fast the tank(s) empty, and how much carbon dioxide and water vapour comes out of the engine is basic chemistry.

52 minutes ago, Paws4Thot said:

I thought you were an engineer?

 

You have a fuel burn by measuring how fast the tank(s) empty, and how much carbon dioxide and water vapour comes out of the engine is basic chemistry.

All true, but adding a turbo changes the results as fuel burns more efficiently, so a jet engine has the biggest amount of high pressure air forced into the combustion chamber, and once flying, especially at high altitude where the air is thinner, what happens then. Completely different to a normal engine at ground level surely? 

No.

Basically, all the carbon atoms in the hydrocarbon fuels become carbon dioxide, and all the hydrogens become water.

The efficiency is irrelevant to what the reaction products are, just affects how far you get per litre burnt.

 

3 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

All true, but adding a turbo changes the results as fuel burns more efficiently, so a jet engine has the biggest amount of high pressure air forced into the combustion chamber, and once flying, especially at high altitude where the air is thinner, what happens then. Completely different to a normal engine at ground level surely? 

Other point here; jet engines are not turbocharged!

I thought a jet engine was basically one big turbo (turbine)  ?? 

 

(In the general usage of the words 'jet engine' ie strapped to a passenger plane etc)

Edited 29 July, 20241 yr by Lady Elanore

2 hours ago, Paws4Thot said:

Other point here; jet engines are not turbocharged!

Jet engines and turbocharged engines all work and rely on having increased amounts of air being forced into them. In a automotive engine, the high pressure air is forced into the cylinder where it is mixed with the fuel before being ignited and the increased amount of oxygen present gives a far greater energy from the ignition and combustion of the fuel. Much the same in a jet engine and both engines use the exhaust gases to drive the impeller faster and thus compressing more air and forcing it into the engines combustion chambers. 

 

 

 

 

 

The sooner they get on with getting on with fully developing and producing those Electric Planes the better.

 

Obviously those that are not buying a traditional plane and will never buy one who will get all worked up about how they are not practical as they can not go far enough or are a fire risk 

& how there is an alternative and more advanced technology just down the line. 

6 hours ago, Ootohere said:

The sooner they get on with getting on with fully developing and producing those Electric Planes the better.

 

Obviously those that are not buying a traditional plane and will never buy one who will get all worked up about how they are not practical as they can not go far enough or are a fire risk 

& how there is an alternative and more advanced technology just down the line. 

Jeeez imagine the turn around times at airports if they have to recharge after each flight.

Now electric oil tankers with solar assistance, that makes a bit more sense

Yes very true, but this is as with anything. Imagine.  You are not getting one and you are not part of any ground crew or airport business are you, or a pilot.   So it will be others making decisions on if they use them.       There is a zero emissions all electric tanker.  But a 100 Km at 10 knots is not changing shipping.         But then if you are using tankers just to store stuff at sea then maybe a start.      As are electric flights between island in the North of the UK or anyplace around the UK.  Maybe especially where there is so much electricity generated and no National Grid / inter connectors to take it off the islands and the hydrogen production from it is not happening. 

Edited 30 July, 20241 yr by Ootohere

Real World.

 

Not to worry, nobody seems to have told them what someone posted on Briskoda about it just being up in the air and that must mean no adverse affect at the ground. 

 

Re Old Bombers. & their emissions.

Well they had a purpose, to go bomb places, maybe causing fires, & also to reduce the population....

(Should that be celebrated by those that have a love of wars and the equipment?(

 

Edited 30 July, 20241 yr by Ootohere

the reality is it will take at least 10-20 years of technical approval and legislation to produce an Electric version of a passenger carrying commercial airliner such  as  the  Airbus A380 even once they have the technology to even make it happen (which is not going to be any time soon).

6-10 seater light aircraft may be a different matter

There we go then.  

There are a lot of light aircraft flying daily...

 

There are a lot of passenger cars or mini busses, or full sized busses moving around not full of passengers.

Lots of Electric Busses doing city to city and shorter routes these days.

It is amazing how the future eventually gets to being now. 

 

 

 

You can not keep all the people happy all of the time or even some of the people some of the time.

Just as well it is often not their money being spent as they might not even be putting enough into the treasury to cover what they use as far as services.

 

^^^

If only people would bother to gen up on stuff.

 

Edited 30 July, 20241 yr by Ootohere

they're not carrying 4-600 passengers though ;o)

Actually that's another consideration even if technical & legislative requirments are met .

Who would be the first carrier to take the leap. Ok it may transpire that Electric Airliners are cheaper to run (which carriers will like) but they may also worry about public perception of how safe/reliable they are.

Dude,

Mony a mickle maks a muckle.    Horses for course. 

18 minutes ago, Ootohere said:

Horses for course. 

And an electric bus is not the right horse for an intercontinental course,

 

So while the development and deployment of electric buses is great for UK travel it's not relevant for most aircraft journeys which involve travel over water to a holiday destination (Tenerife, Corfu, Bahamas, Australia, etc.)

 

The testing and approval process for large passenger aircraft is rightly arduous since there are so many lives at stake.

the ideal  eco friendly transport system (matter transporters) is yet to be invented ;o)

I'm guessing the point is don't do domestic (short haul) flights, take the electric bus or coach/train:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49349566

 

Also, don't drive ICE car by yourself. 😛 

 

(why is Eurostar so low?)

1 minute ago, wyx087 said:

 

(why is Eurostar so low?)

Possibly because of creative accounting?

Eurostar runs from overhead power lines exclusivly unlike any of the other options.

(Would be interesting to see Domestic Rail split between external electric & other) 

59 minutes ago, Ootohere said:

Real World.

 

Not to worry, nobody seems to have told them what someone posted on Briskoda about it just being up in the air and that must mean no adverse affect at the ground. 

 

Re Old Bombers. & their emissions.

Well they had a purpose, to go bomb places, maybe causing fires, & also to reduce the population....

(Should that be celebrated by those that have a love of wars and the equipment?(

 

Clearly my video demonstration of huge black diesel fumes etc clearly moving through the crowds, which was so thick it was impossible to see through it. And also that planes don't emit that kind of fumes and also their fumes are at a height far above the people and is dispersed by winds over a far greater area and there at a far weaker concentration by the time any reaches ground level has been totally ignored and my comments have been taken completely out of context🙄 Jeez why not ignore the obvious facts then. 

1 hour ago, Winston_Woof said:

passenger carrying commercial airliner such  as  the  Airbus A380

6-10 seater light aircraft may be a different matter

 

3 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

I'm guessing the point is don't do domestic (short haul) flights, take the electric bus or coach/train:

Which is what @Winston_Woof has already said, but for long haul flights to expect electric aircraft of the passenger capacity needed by commercial airlines in the short term is unrealistic, certainly not going to happen by 2030.

7 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

I'm guessing the point is don't do domestic (short haul) flights, take the electric bus or coach/train:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49349566

 

Also, don't drive ICE car by yourself. 😛 

 

(why is Eurostar so low?)

Now that makes more sense apart from not driving ice with just the driver. No EV and no suitable or convenient public transport is available. 

Is it just me that has noticed that since sales of EVs are beginning to fade out, that those with them have been doubling down on their virtues and why we should be driving them. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti EV at all, I believe they have a role to play and they should available for those who want them, a free choice. 

What I do believe is that we should be banning all large high performance engines and limiting the sizes available for passenger cars, it is impossible to use their power and speed anyway

I also expect that in a few years time, we will be told that EVs are not the future, just as we are being told diesels are wrong and bad for the environment, even worse than petrol. 

The future is going to be  very interesting time for those fortunate enough to be around to see the fall from grace of EVs. 

22 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti EV at all, I believe they have a role to play

 

22 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

The future is going to be  very interesting time for those fortunate enough to be around to see the fall from grace of EVs. 

 

Error, contradiction detected.