I was precisely looking for that, after having almost consumed all relevant videos related to Nuclear Thermal Propulsion.
5 ปีที่แล้ว +1
It's a decent talk, I don't why all the hate. I just think it went technical without starting with the basics first - like where we are right now with the battery energy-weight ratio.
*Short explanation: Propel = move.* Propulsion is simply what propels something in a given direction. For instance: you use your muscles to propel (move) you forward, backward, or to either side, usually walking, running, jogging, rolling, and or up and down by jumping, flipping or climbing etc. Another example is: a sailboat uses wind to propel it forward. A snake winds it's body back and forth to propel itself. Propulsion is the thing that makes that happen.
*Good TED lecture:* How do I squeeze all I have to say in 15 minutes? *This one:* I'll ask you to raise hands, please raise hands if you agree with something obvious, thank you.
His whole approach is dishonest. Freeze frame at any point in this video, look at the dude and ask yourself “does this look like an honest presentation”. He’s also taking about specific technologies to integrate aircraft, which is different from what he’s claiming the talk is about. You get the impression you’re being sold something. You can see in the mannerisms and the eyes it’s all about the money. Microsoft and Adobe.
Tesla has purchased Maxwell their next gen batteries have the potential to get past 400 Wh/Kg which is the threshold for use in aircraft. To start out an economic aircraft size of 100 people will do 1500km. There is no reason to seat more than 100 at present as the economic case can be made. Airports could be down sized and city local, tilt fan aircraft taking off in short distance/low noise. It will happen.
Specific Energy density is one metric. Aerospace batteries will need power, discharge cycle, specific density, volumetric density, physical integrity, safety, charge speed, temperature tolerance, ease of manufacture. We need to solve all of these. This is not an easy problem.
Two questions: (1) how much CO2 is going to be emitted to charge the batteries of e-planes (2) how will the drained (actually, SEMI-drained - due to the severe restrictions resulting from the nature of the aviation industry) batteries are going to be disposed of? And they are really pollution-capable, at least in their current state. If we add to the formulas relatively (at least for the Western upper middle class) affordable e-flying cars (certainly requiring far more energy than non-flying ones) we might end up with MORE emissions than we would have had without electric propulsion engines. One could add a question of the CO2 emitted during the construction phase but I guess producing modern fuel engines is not an environment-friendly process either so here we may, roughly, have parity... if the life-span of the batteries becomes x-times longer than it is now.
The wireless transmission of electricity to military aerospacecraft is a done deal. I've been watching it in use for over ten years. This removes the battery issue. The military-industrial complex has fleets of tricked-out "hybrid" jet/field propulsion craft using conventional military and commercial airframes retrofitted with field propulsion which permits them to fly much faster, or slower, than untweaked versions. These are also fitted with electronic visual stealth, "cloaking." They can stop in mid-air and disappear into thin air. When in pure field propulsion mode, these vehicles are silent, and often move forward in a rapid series of diagonal jumps. They appear and sound like they are using large amounts of electrical energy to power them. There are a vast number of purely field propulsion craft, both drone and piloted. The drones are generally spherical, while the piloted craft are triangular, "V"-shaped, "boomerang" shaped or disc shaped. I've seen these systems deployed on U-2s, F-35s, F-15s, C-130s, C-5s, 757s, Hueys, Chinooks, Apaches and even an old F-106. Both the field propulsion system and the visual stealth system appear to be using aspects of plasma physics. These craft can be seen at times in the Grand Staircase (Utah) and the Vermilion Cliffs (AZ) National Monuments, and on the north side of the Navajo Res.
I wish they wouldn’t call them “flying cars” because they aren’t cars flying. It’s a whole new thing that should have it’s own name. A better name than flying car.
What the world needs is more expensive plane flights not cheaper ones. Shocking but true. In the 1920/30s when they added lanes to NYC bridges to reduce traffic, it just lead to more cars and more traffic. Cheaper plane tickets will lead to more planes and the same amount of pollution. Increase ticket prices and subsidize other tech so people travel less!
"51% working on flying cars" should be reduced to 0% and the funds used to support maintaining/improving trains, buses, roads. The idea of the richest 0.01% getting flying cars/helicopters stinks; the idea of Joe Sixpack getting one is horrifying since the roads are already scenes of carnage thanks to rampant, irreducible stupidity.
90% of accidents are human error. We are talking about driverless cars, flying cars and a billion people have dirt floors , no washing machine, no birth control... Priorities? We laugh at priorities.
Wow really buses are subsidised transport for poor people the reason money is invested is due to profit potential in those new ideas because of there efficiency gains
He described a fuel cell, an idea that has been around for decades. He then described why it won’t work for aircraft (battery density). Why is this a Ted Talk? I’m starting to think these Ted Talk videos are just clever advertising. In his case it appears he is creating investor interest, in my opinion.
That's not how jet engine works. The fan in front is not a propeller. The plane goes forward by thrust, burning fuel. The fan provides compressed air for the combustion.
The problem is that the major portion of the propulsion comes from the high pressure, hot gas creates thrust. The fan is an efficiency move. I just stopped watching this!
Fossil fuel trade off in costs would cause some cost in infrastructure to handle the increased volume of passengers if indeed flight becomes more cost accessible. We can however think zero takeoff centered localized airports and of course air traffic control measures.
Clearly the elephant in the room is there is no available airspace for flying cars a realisation which killed the idea from inception. The world is interested in commercial aviation,general aviation,light aircraft and helicopters.
The one thing that they should concentrate on are batteries... graphene is the key to making super capacitor batteries that charge within a short period of time... with this technology plus solar, wind, and recovery technologies you could stay in the air 10x longer than you can with jet fuel... a small craft could turn into a long range aircraft.
Material science and battery science is not close yet, plus just take the chaos on the streets/highways and now put that several thousand feet in the air. Finally, weather and traffic control already impact air travel to the point where you spend as much time either circling or slowing down to get a landing slot at over burdened airports. Trying to shoehorn a tech into a complex situation as the single solution is not view the entire problem.
@@niftyrosa1958 My point is that you cannot substantially increase the air traffic without a new control system costing billions, plus moving the ground traffic to the air only means more things will fall from the sky. Aircraft limits are based on material science and cost.
Dan Sullivan - shut up! You’re one of those people who probably said: “ if man was meant to fly he’d have wings like a bird”. You don’t know what cutting edge science and technology is ready to be introduced tomorrow. The consciousness of the universe is changing, and in the infinite eternal depth of universal consciousness, you don’t know the possibilities, probabilities, or potential of its wonders! So please just shut up!
As much as I like flying cars I don't think that's something humans deserve to have. Anyone can just take a car and flight into a school or anywhere it's too damn easy to do a 9/11 everyday and that's real talk
Thank you for your efforts to improve aircraft propulsion. however when I read the title I guessed an ion accelerator propulsion perhaps applying the graphene 1.1 degrees shift with superconductivity properties in the accelerator reaching yelds close to 90% Shall I see the engine with no entropy within my lifespan? I am Doctor Magistrale in electrical engineering at Pisa University since many decades and at the course of Machinery we dealth with particles accelerator
This topic is actually pretty important. But it got sidetracked by one serious mistake he kept making. He showed 1000 million tonnes of co2 emission on the screen which is 1 billion tonnes, but he kept calling it 1 trillion tonnes! I actually had to Google which was right - answer is 1 billion tonnes of co2 emission by the aviation industry, not 1 trillion
Here I am thinking we are talking about plasma wing tech. Plasma wings will decrease fuel costs and increase speed without sonic boom, coming to an Airport near you soon.
He seems to misunderstand how jet engines work- the thrust comes from high pressure exhaust gases, not from the fan at the front! The hybrid model may work but needs a lot more development, pure electric unlikely to replace the jet engine due to energy density requirements, would have to be as good as kerosine.
It is neither impossible nor a bad idea, but it is not cost effective. Collecting and transforming CO2 into something useful is harder than just switching to electric vehicles in the first place.
How much lithium is taken out of the land to build electric batteries? will it ever run out? what's the cost of processing they lithium? what cost to the environment producing batteries? don't get me wrong I like the idea of less pollution on your journey but we are not being told at what cost and there has to be a cost? dead batteries is a massive waste also, we never get given this truth? a scratch across a country is the power line ruining environment? and now wind turbines we are happy with though there towers ruining the view, ask your self can you see any birds flying around on that field the tower is placed? what cost if there are not if there are no birds, I do not know these answers but I look to see if I can see a bird, and not very often I remember always seeing a bird in every field, we blind our selves to these things as the sale job is improving life? why can't we have both why lose one for the other?
Theres oceans of lithium, literally. Everything has an environmental cost it's just going for the one with the least. Batteries can be recycled. Until recently I lived in an area with many wind turbines they didn't ruin the view at all. The death rates on wind turbines of birds is greatly exaggerated.
@@turningpoint4238 wind turbines are a waste of time. death rates they do on birds, I don't care. But a single nuclear powerplant can replace many more turbines. Thing is, we're using uranium, and thorium would be MUCH better.
@@swisstraeng As someone that used to work in the nuclear industry I'm not against nuclear. As long as it's done well (which it is not today) and economic which it is not at all. As for thorium, commercial reactors are probably a couple of decades if investments are made away, everything in the nuclear industry takes an age (the internet makes things look easy).
It's about 860 million tones per year. 2% of total emmisions. No idea what time period he was taling about. Since the onset of commercial aviation perhaps.
@@shahuni repeatedly, so either the slides are wrong, or he's using the wrong word. Either way, it's a lot of fuel that is being used, and being able to save up to half of it would be a great improvement.
@@theharper1 The slides have 1000 mn on them so there is no problem with the slides. I think his tongue slipped from b to t. Anyway, you're absolutely right that the fuel is huge and anything to curb that would be extremely helpful to humanity! No doubt about that...
You cannot use explosive battery technologies on aircraft... Lithium isn't going to cut it... I've seen fairly large explosions from small cell phone batteries... imagine the same effect on full sized aircraft?
risk of electric propulsion is higher,once electric motor stop working ,nothing .can compress...conventional lighting up air fuel combine with increased thrust ,like afterburner....But electric propulsion cant do that
I thought this was about “Electrostatic/Ionocraft” propulsion. Klaatu’s spaceship from the original “Day the Earth Stood Still” kinda thing. Sorry I guess I was hoping for a true Twenty First Century topic.
Combustion engine peak efficiency of 30%, electric motor peak efficiency of 99% am I right on that figure? Yes I am. This is why electric cars don't only have 20% the range of diesel cars. In all seriousness though, I'd say hydrogen cars are the almost perfect solution since you combine a highly power dense zero emission fuel with the 99% efficiency of electric motors.
@@loukask.9111 Yes, but that electricity needs to be made somewhere. Yes electric cars don't have 20% the range of diesel cars, however, significantly more space is taken by the battery, and so is the weight. When you're driving on the ground, weight is not an issue. But for aircrafts, weight is everything.
Yes.. Close enough for arguements sake.. Keep in mind that the lions share of that power potential is lost in the form of heat. The energy density of fuel is always going to be higher then a battery.. And that fuel will also have a high power potential because the fuel can be consumed instantly (or nearly instantly). When we talk about efficiency of fuels we need to include the waisted power potential lost in the form of heat. Look under your cars hood. The actual part of the engine containing the detonation of fuel is proportionately small to the total area under the hood. Half of your car is made to deal with the heat created.. On the flip side it makes electrical motors easier to manage because heat is the only thing you need to look for.. Elecfrical motors gain efficiency the faster they spin. And there power output is throughout the curve so theres no nedd for a gearbox etc.. But theres not going to be any planes flying folks with our idea of lith-ion batteries.. With graphene ultra capacitors maybe? But batteries are still heavy..
I don't think this guy is an engineer. He is an accountant. And he is lecturing on the physics of aerodynamics. I don't think so. He does not know what he is talking about.
Exactly. While fuel systems might generally run as low as 20% and as high as 34% conversion of energy to thrust, this has been calculated into the system. Sure, electric Motors are very efficient, running from anywhere as low as 90% to as high as 99% conversion of energy to movement. But they've been this efficient for a few decades now, so the technology is nothing new. He's not talking about an Electrical Plane, but a hybrid. There's a fuel tank, fuel system to generate electricity, a battery to store that electricity, and an Electric Motor to proper the craft. What this Accountant is thinking of, but not taking into consideration, is the battery. Larger batteries are more dangerous. And to store enough electricity from the generator to power the electrical motors requires a large battery. The battery size/capacity isn't really the issue. Because there is low Energy-Density with current Lithium-Ion battery technology, it means the battery itself becomes too heavy. This has constraints on the rest of the aircraft. And you guessed it, fuel consumption and fuel weight. Now since the early 2000 year to now 2020, in that rough 20 years, we have seen about a x10 increase from the rudimentary Lithium Polymer cells to current day Lithium Ion cells. That's enough improvement to have some aircraft designs based around Solar Powered Aircraft, Full-Electric Aircraft, and Hybrid Fuel-Electrical Aircraft. However, it isn't that great actually. So its going to take a further x10 increase in Battery Density for the designs this man is proposing for them to become realistic (so that the battery doesn't become too heavy/cumbersome). So maybe with 50 years and Graphite Battery, this Ted vision may be feasible. And just for reference the best battery density for energy is about x100 less than the best fuel energy density, this is partly because fuels are energy rich, and they do not carry the oxidation agent (oxygen) since its freely available in the atmosphere. To completely replace fuel aircraft with an electrical counterpart you would need to increase the density by x30. This is actually theoretically possible if you use a "battery pack" which also uses Oxygen to chemically react to Lithium. You're looking at upto x100 theoretical increase, but practically you would hit a limit at around x30 due to Lifespan issues. You could hot-swap the batteries in the airport/hanger. Whilst the used up pack can be converted back into reusable Lithium-Air "battery" using electrolysis, essentially recharging them. Although at this point, you might instead consider Renewable Fuels instead. And manufacturing them efficiently by building factories that use Water and Electricity to convert CO2 into Oxygen and Renewable Fuel. And the electricity can come from a renewable source like Solar and Wind. And so using this Renewable Fuel from that factory, essentially means your plane is using Solar power/renewable energy. Or an even more realistic solution would be to plant more trees, monitor the planet, and continue using fossil fuels.
@@ekinteko Altough I don't think solar and wind are the way to go, especially due to storing their energy. Only option for me right now, would be nuclear energy. and if we can make it happen, fusion.
Batteries still weigh a lot for the energy they contain, he ignores this pertinent fact. Hybrids of any kind suffer the penalty of carrying around stuff which isn't used all the time. Hybrids are actually a waste of time. Design purely electric and exclude hydrocarbons.
I think he based himself on the futur, let's say batteries will get more efficient, then what he says will make sense. but for sure, we cannot do much change now, or maybe improve things by 20%.
@@swisstraeng Indeed. He was imagining a future far advanced. How quickly technology will advance is impossible to predict. It's like the weather, the near future is more accurately predictable, the further ahead in time the less accurate predictions become. Thank you for your comment.
Wrong! They are already in use. Pipistrel have sold many of their electric trainers to flight schools, as have others. The Eviation Alice 12 seat electric aircraft with 1000 kilometre range is about to have its test flight this year.
Technology grows. Aside from freight...explain why humans will need travel 30 years from now? Singularity coming. VR becoming so real as to be indistinguishable from reality. Holographic interaction so real...why leave your house?
too much aviation, too much pollution of planes. No taxes on kerozène which is unfair to cars and trucks. First start with clean electricity than with clean cars and trucks, during that time put taxes on kerhozène until we develop electric planes like solarinpulse. Then we will live in a cleaner world.
There are taxes on jet-a1, and this will not stop people from taking the plane. All you have to change is us, educate people not to take the plane for a 2 days trip.
I hate to be a cynic or a negative person but this guy did not tell us anything new. And he lightly skipped over the major obstacle to electric power flight, that is the weight penalty of current battery technology. If batteries could magically be made with 2 to 4 times the energy density of current batteries of course they would be used as an energy source for aircraft. It doesn't take an MBA to figure that out. Perhaps instead of telling engineers how they will solve this problem he should use his business acumen to raise funds for the research and discovery needed to achieve an increase in battery energy density.
Maybe I'm just confused, but does he really think that the impeller fan at the front of a jet turbine engine is a propeller? He's talking about moving backwards and relating two totally different things. He's reducing commercial travel back to old school propeller planes and trying to act like it is the same thing as jet engine travel. He sounded like a sales person that throws out ideas instead of facts. Very disappointing TED talk.
These kinds of talks totally ignore the reality of climate change. Humanity doesn't have another 30 years of business-as-usual, so any extrapolations to 2050 are fanciful. Climate change is going to trip up all such long-term business plans. Our agriculture will start failing on a massive scale.. leading to famine, social chaos, disruption of economies and financial markets. This talk just rambles on as if none of these futures are on the horizon.
what hes talking about is absolutely impratical. He is assuming his crowd is full of morons. You dont need to be an engineer to know that generators generate friction, reducing efficiency. the only reason it helps in automobiles, is because you use the friction produced by the generator to help slow or stop the vehicle, and generate electrical energy at the same time. It's a win-win. But Airplanes only brake on the runway while landing.....
Am I the only one who thought that I was going to get a TED on Ion propulsion drive or something?
Maybe. Ion propulsion wasnt even a consideration of mine. I probably dont have the imagination you have.
Same! Then it took a left turn at Global warming. I remember when the whole scam was created.
I was soooo excited man. :/
I was precisely looking for that, after having almost consumed all relevant videos related to Nuclear Thermal Propulsion.
It's a decent talk, I don't why all the hate. I just think it went technical without starting with the basics first - like where we are right now with the battery energy-weight ratio.
I just watched this to find out what propulsion was, I still don't know but it seems like to be important...thank you man 😊
*Short explanation: Propel = move.* Propulsion is simply what propels something in a given direction. For instance: you use your muscles to propel (move) you forward, backward, or to either side, usually walking, running, jogging, rolling, and or up and down by jumping, flipping or climbing etc. Another example is: a sailboat uses wind to propel it forward. A snake winds it's body back and forth to propel itself. Propulsion is the thing that makes that happen.
*Good TED lecture:* How do I squeeze all I have to say in 15 minutes?
*This one:* I'll ask you to raise hands, please raise hands if you agree with something obvious, thank you.
Yep these questions were so ridiculous haha
His whole approach is dishonest. Freeze frame at any point in this video, look at the dude and ask yourself “does this look like an honest presentation”. He’s also taking about specific technologies to integrate aircraft, which is different from what he’s claiming the talk is about. You get the impression you’re being sold something. You can see in the mannerisms and the eyes it’s all about the money. Microsoft and Adobe.
Lol.: awesome
A silent Ted talk intro, what a wonderful thing.
internally, big aerospace companies are pouring money into this. This is a revolution talking place in the background.
Tesla has purchased Maxwell their next gen batteries have the potential to get past 400 Wh/Kg which is the threshold for use in aircraft. To start out an economic aircraft size of 100 people will do 1500km. There is no reason to seat more than 100 at present as the economic case can be made. Airports could be down sized and city local, tilt fan aircraft taking off in short distance/low noise. It will happen.
Specific Energy density is one metric. Aerospace batteries will need power, discharge cycle, specific density, volumetric density, physical integrity, safety, charge speed, temperature tolerance, ease of manufacture.
We need to solve all of these. This is not an easy problem.
Two questions:
(1) how much CO2 is going to be emitted to charge the batteries of e-planes
(2) how will the drained (actually, SEMI-drained - due to the severe restrictions resulting from the nature of the aviation industry) batteries are going to be disposed of? And they are really pollution-capable, at least in their current state.
If we add to the formulas relatively (at least for the Western upper middle class) affordable e-flying cars (certainly requiring far more energy than non-flying ones) we might end up with MORE emissions than we would have had without electric propulsion engines.
One could add a question of the CO2 emitted during the construction phase but I guess producing modern fuel engines is not an environment-friendly process either so here we may, roughly, have parity... if the life-span of the batteries becomes x-times longer than it is now.
The wireless transmission of electricity to military aerospacecraft is a done deal. I've been watching it in use for over ten years. This removes the battery issue. The military-industrial complex has fleets of tricked-out "hybrid" jet/field propulsion craft using conventional military and commercial airframes retrofitted with field propulsion which permits them to fly much faster, or slower, than untweaked versions. These are also fitted with electronic visual stealth, "cloaking." They can stop in mid-air and disappear into thin air. When in pure field propulsion mode, these vehicles are silent, and often move forward in a rapid series of diagonal jumps. They appear and sound like they are using large amounts of electrical energy to power them. There are a vast number of purely field propulsion craft, both drone and piloted. The drones are generally spherical, while the piloted craft are triangular, "V"-shaped, "boomerang" shaped or disc shaped. I've seen these systems deployed on U-2s, F-35s, F-15s, C-130s, C-5s, 757s, Hueys, Chinooks, Apaches and even an old F-106. Both the field propulsion system and the visual stealth system appear to be using aspects of plasma physics. These craft can be seen at times in the Grand Staircase (Utah) and the Vermilion Cliffs (AZ) National Monuments, and on the north side of the Navajo Res.
I wish they wouldn’t call them “flying cars” because they aren’t cars flying. It’s a whole new thing that should have it’s own name. A better name than flying car.
This is so weird. I was just thinking of this yesterday. I was wondering why no one was speaking about airplane contributions to global warming.
Excellent! I’m so excited for the future. I love science💕💪🏿🔥
What the world needs is more expensive plane flights not cheaper ones. Shocking but true. In the 1920/30s when they added lanes to NYC bridges to reduce traffic, it just lead to more cars and more traffic. Cheaper plane tickets will lead to more planes and the same amount of pollution. Increase ticket prices and subsidize other tech so people travel less!
Yes, the point is to reduce fuel usage to 0%. The tech is out there, it's just a matter of time.
"The Whole World" You Need to Watch, Learn and Listen.
"51% working on flying cars" should be reduced to 0% and the funds used to support maintaining/improving trains, buses, roads. The idea of the richest 0.01% getting flying cars/helicopters stinks; the idea of Joe Sixpack getting one is horrifying since the roads are already scenes of carnage thanks to rampant, irreducible stupidity.
90% of accidents are human error. We are talking about driverless cars, flying cars and a billion people have dirt floors , no washing machine, no birth control... Priorities? We laugh at priorities.
Wow really buses are subsidised transport for poor people the reason money is invested is due to profit potential in those new ideas because of there efficiency gains
He described a fuel cell, an idea that has been around for decades. He then described why it won’t work for aircraft (battery density). Why is this a Ted Talk? I’m starting to think these Ted Talk videos are just clever advertising. In his case it appears he is creating investor interest, in my opinion.
TEDx (as opposed to TED) can get a bit out there.
That's not how jet engine works. The fan in front is not a propeller. The plane goes forward by thrust, burning fuel. The fan provides compressed air for the combustion.
The problem is that the major portion of the propulsion comes from the high pressure, hot gas creates thrust. The fan is an efficiency move. I just stopped watching this!
Absolutely. You just can't decouple the turbofan and the jet engine.
No. The fan of a modern high bypass turbofan provides an overwhelming majority of the total thrust-on the order of 75%
The GeniUS Channel.
Crazy I watch this at 1.25 speed and it seems normal
That is true hhhh
thanku...
Ryt
Doing the math, an EM drive would take a staggering amount of energy--- far more than all other means of propulsion.
Very impressive
Respect to you All.
Fossil fuel trade off in costs would cause some cost in infrastructure to handle the increased volume of passengers if indeed flight becomes more cost accessible. We can however think zero takeoff centered localized airports and of course air traffic control measures.
Clearly the elephant in the room is there is no available airspace for flying cars a realisation which killed the idea from inception. The world is interested in commercial aviation,general aviation,light aircraft and helicopters.
There is a very real and practical limit to the capacity of li-ion batteries. A chemical limit to the raw electron capacity of lithium.
This spent the whole talk ignoring and omitting pretty real engineering limitations. Most of the talk is a load of manure.
The one thing that they should concentrate on are batteries... graphene is the key to making super capacitor batteries that charge within a short period of time... with this technology plus solar, wind, and recovery technologies you could stay in the air 10x longer than you can with jet fuel... a small craft could turn into a long range aircraft.
Especially the ONE about Your Electronic Devices Microphone Settings.
Material science and battery science is not close yet, plus just take the chaos on the streets/highways and now put that several thousand feet in the air. Finally, weather and traffic control already impact air travel to the point where you spend as much time either circling or slowing down to get a landing slot at over burdened airports. Trying to shoehorn a tech into a complex situation as the single solution is not view the entire problem.
Dan Sullivan Is there a limit on how high a plane can reach?
@@niftyrosa1958 My point is that you cannot substantially increase the air traffic without a new control system costing billions, plus moving the ground traffic to the air only means more things will fall from the sky. Aircraft limits are based on material science and cost.
Dan Sullivan ok so you do agree that it can be achieved but at what cost? Got it.
Dan Sullivan - shut up! You’re one of those people who probably said: “ if man was meant to fly he’d have wings like a bird”. You don’t know what cutting edge science and technology is ready to be introduced tomorrow. The consciousness of the universe is changing, and in the infinite eternal depth of universal consciousness, you don’t know the possibilities, probabilities, or potential of its wonders! So please just shut up!
Adolph Dooley I agree, but I have said that if man was meant to fly, we'd have wings. Meaning flying without the help of aviation.
Nice job Nikhil.
If it gets rid of persistent contrails I'm all for it!
Yeah that pesky water, lets ban it.
plasma physics is the future
Yesss
As much as I like flying cars I don't think that's something humans deserve to have. Anyone can just take a car and flight into a school or anywhere it's too damn easy to do a 9/11 everyday and that's real talk
How about flying pilotless electric aircraft to deliver mass amounts of packages, deliveries and maybe passengers at some point?
Sounds great but the cost of energy for electric battery power per pound of thrust is extremely high compared to current fossil fuel.
The cost of electricity per unit of energy is cheaper.
Thank you for your efforts to improve aircraft propulsion.
however when I read the title I guessed an ion accelerator propulsion perhaps applying the graphene 1.1 degrees shift with superconductivity properties in the accelerator
reaching yelds close to 90%
Shall I see the engine with no entropy within my lifespan?
I am Doctor Magistrale in electrical engineering at Pisa University since many decades and at the course of Machinery we dealth with particles accelerator
It would be awesome to take a 727 and replace the outer engines with electric ducted fans and the internal engine with a special generator
Graphene super capacitor 'batteries' in electric aircraft chasing thunderstorms to charge the capacitors...
Range anxiety gets a new meaning...
No not really, because there's a gas engine that's supplying power to the batteries.
This topic is actually pretty important. But it got sidetracked by one serious mistake he kept making. He showed 1000 million tonnes of co2 emission on the screen which is 1 billion tonnes, but he kept calling it 1 trillion tonnes!
I actually had to Google which was right - answer is 1 billion tonnes of co2 emission by the aviation industry, not 1 trillion
It's all KW... That doesn't change.
All of Tedx You Tube Videos are Your Explanations to Our Future.
Here I am thinking we are talking about plasma wing tech. Plasma wings will decrease fuel costs and increase speed without sonic boom, coming to an Airport near you soon.
He seems to misunderstand how jet engines work- the thrust comes from high pressure exhaust gases, not from the fan at the front! The hybrid model may work but needs a lot more development, pure electric unlikely to replace the jet engine due to energy density requirements, would have to be as good as kerosine.
Wrong. Less than 10% of thrust comes from the hot gases. So if we replace the turbo with an electric engine we still have 90% thrust...
GunnarLof I stand corrected! Looking it up, up to 75% can come from the fan...
As do I. 90% was for turbo-props. 75% is more correct for turbofans.
Kerosine mixed with drying agents -
Interested!. 1,000 mn Tonnes = 1bn Tonnes. Did you mean 1 trillion kilo?
Why not find ways of extraction of CO2 from the air and finding a use for it?
It is neither impossible nor a bad idea, but it is not cost effective. Collecting and transforming CO2 into something useful is harder than just switching to electric vehicles in the first place.
What about Recycling the Battery Components ,when there ware out?
Thats not a problem.
@@turningpoint4238 I don't think that's not a problem. It's not one today, but if the whole world runs on batteries?
@@swisstraeng It actually gets more efficient and cheaper the larger the scale.
Sounds like the gas/electric hybrid tech taken from auto industry discoveries
Will be cool !
How much lithium is taken out of the land to build electric batteries?
will it ever run out? what's the cost of processing they lithium?
what cost to the environment producing batteries?
don't get me wrong I like the idea of less pollution on your journey but we are not being told at what cost and there has to be a cost? dead batteries is a massive waste also, we never get given this truth?
a scratch across a country is the power line ruining environment? and now wind turbines we are happy with though there towers ruining the view, ask your self can you see any birds flying around on that field the tower is placed?
what cost if there are not if there are no birds, I do not know these answers but I look to see if I can see a bird, and not very often I remember always seeing a bird in every field, we blind our selves to these things as the sale job is improving life? why can't we have both why lose one for the other?
Theres oceans of lithium, literally. Everything has an environmental cost it's just going for the one with the least. Batteries can be recycled. Until recently I lived in an area with many wind turbines they didn't ruin the view at all. The death rates on wind turbines of birds is greatly exaggerated.
@@turningpoint4238 Ok did not know this my friend
@@turningpoint4238 wind turbines are a waste of time. death rates they do on birds, I don't care.
But a single nuclear powerplant can replace many more turbines.
Thing is, we're using uranium, and thorium would be MUCH better.
@@swisstraeng As someone that used to work in the nuclear industry I'm not against nuclear. As long as it's done well (which it is not today) and economic which it is not at all. As for thorium, commercial reactors are probably a couple of decades if investments are made away, everything in the nuclear industry takes an age (the internet makes things look easy).
It will be great for keeping coal-fired electrical production facilities running. Y'know... since nuclear is no longer an option.
Coal's on the way out, solar and onshore wind are cheaper.
1000 mn = 1 trillion, since when?
It's about 860 million tones per year. 2% of total emmisions. No idea what time period he was taling about. Since the onset of commercial aviation perhaps.
A billion perhaps.
@@theharper1 Exactly, he says trillion!
@@shahuni repeatedly, so either the slides are wrong, or he's using the wrong word. Either way, it's a lot of fuel that is being used, and being able to save up to half of it would be a great improvement.
@@theharper1 The slides have 1000 mn on them so there is no problem with the slides. I think his tongue slipped from b to t. Anyway, you're absolutely right that the fuel is huge and anything to curb that would be extremely helpful to humanity! No doubt about that...
Interesting! So when is Elon Musk going to build his first tesla airplane? ;P
PlanetSurfer 🤣 u dont watch news often boy
I do not believe in this for the next 10 years, simply that batteries are too heavy yet. He has got a lot of points right, still.
Batteries and draining batteries will not be a problem with plasma physics go ahead and look at the work of Keshe Battrries,
Hi
you must include a slide explaining how a turboreactor works
Anyway keep up the good work
Good
Great information
Very nic
You cannot use explosive battery technologies on aircraft... Lithium isn't going to cut it... I've seen fairly large explosions from small cell phone batteries... imagine the same effect on full sized aircraft?
16:02 wrong. You have about a 90% chance of surviving a car accident. An airplane you have less than .0001%
NidgeDFX apparently, you skipped the class on probability and statistics....
Love the electrical propulsion technologies .
Me, too. It's why I drive an electric bike almost everywhere I go. It's faster than cars during rushhour too.
risk of electric propulsion is higher,once electric motor stop working ,nothing .can compress...conventional lighting up air fuel combine with increased thrust ,like afterburner....But electric propulsion cant do that
If nickle in a battery could be replaced with titanium then a battery could be 75% lighter.
Completely lost me on flying cars. That’s not gonna happen chief
ShadowInTheSky2 Aren't flying cars already a reality.?
@@niftyrosa1958 nope, those are airplanes and helicopters.
@@niftyrosa1958 These can exist, we can make them. But safety? Nah, they can't be safe.
Either he dumbed down the topic for the audience , or he had idea what he is talking about besides a few slides from a business meeting.
Have they disabled comments, or am I the First?
Edit: I am the First!!!
Ok so hybrid not ion thruster
Does this gentleman realize that the power-loss between the generator and the battery is going to happen?
yes he does and it's taken into account.
But I love the smell of Jet A in the morning
I thought this was about “Electrostatic/Ionocraft” propulsion.
Klaatu’s spaceship from the original “Day the Earth Stood Still” kinda thing.
Sorry I guess I was hoping for a true Twenty First Century topic.
lipo 20 % of the power density of gasoline
am i right on that figure ?
Combustion engine peak efficiency of 30%, electric motor peak efficiency of 99% am I right on that figure? Yes I am. This is why electric cars don't only have 20% the range of diesel cars. In all seriousness though, I'd say hydrogen cars are the almost perfect solution since you combine a highly power dense zero emission fuel with the 99% efficiency of electric motors.
@@loukask.9111 Yes, but that electricity needs to be made somewhere. Yes electric cars don't have 20% the range of diesel cars, however, significantly more space is taken by the battery, and so is the weight. When you're driving on the ground, weight is not an issue. But for aircrafts, weight is everything.
Yes.. Close enough for arguements sake.. Keep in mind that the lions share of that power potential is lost in the form of heat. The energy density of fuel is always going to be higher then a battery.. And that fuel will also have a high power potential because the fuel can be consumed instantly (or nearly instantly). When we talk about efficiency of fuels we need to include the waisted power potential lost in the form of heat. Look under your cars hood. The actual part of the engine containing the detonation of fuel is proportionately small to the total area under the hood. Half of your car is made to deal with the heat created.. On the flip side it makes electrical motors easier to manage because heat is the only thing you need to look for.. Elecfrical motors gain efficiency the faster they spin. And there power output is throughout the curve so theres no nedd for a gearbox etc.. But theres not going to be any planes flying folks with our idea of lith-ion batteries.. With graphene ultra capacitors maybe? But batteries are still heavy..
I don't think this guy is an engineer. He is an accountant. And he is lecturing on the physics of aerodynamics.
I don't think so. He does not know what he is talking about.
Exactly.
While fuel systems might generally run as low as 20% and as high as 34% conversion of energy to thrust, this has been calculated into the system. Sure, electric Motors are very efficient, running from anywhere as low as 90% to as high as 99% conversion of energy to movement. But they've been this efficient for a few decades now, so the technology is nothing new.
He's not talking about an Electrical Plane, but a hybrid. There's a fuel tank, fuel system to generate electricity, a battery to store that electricity, and an Electric Motor to proper the craft. What this Accountant is thinking of, but not taking into consideration, is the battery.
Larger batteries are more dangerous. And to store enough electricity from the generator to power the electrical motors requires a large battery. The battery size/capacity isn't really the issue. Because there is low Energy-Density with current Lithium-Ion battery technology, it means the battery itself becomes too heavy. This has constraints on the rest of the aircraft. And you guessed it, fuel consumption and fuel weight.
Now since the early 2000 year to now 2020, in that rough 20 years, we have seen about a x10 increase from the rudimentary Lithium Polymer cells to current day Lithium Ion cells. That's enough improvement to have some aircraft designs based around Solar Powered Aircraft, Full-Electric Aircraft, and Hybrid Fuel-Electrical Aircraft. However, it isn't that great actually. So its going to take a further x10 increase in Battery Density for the designs this man is proposing for them to become realistic (so that the battery doesn't become too heavy/cumbersome). So maybe with 50 years and Graphite Battery, this Ted vision may be feasible.
And just for reference the best battery density for energy is about x100 less than the best fuel energy density, this is partly because fuels are energy rich, and they do not carry the oxidation agent (oxygen) since its freely available in the atmosphere. To completely replace fuel aircraft with an electrical counterpart you would need to increase the density by x30. This is actually theoretically possible if you use a "battery pack" which also uses Oxygen to chemically react to Lithium. You're looking at upto x100 theoretical increase, but practically you would hit a limit at around x30 due to Lifespan issues. You could hot-swap the batteries in the airport/hanger. Whilst the used up pack can be converted back into reusable Lithium-Air "battery" using electrolysis, essentially recharging them.
Although at this point, you might instead consider Renewable Fuels instead. And manufacturing them efficiently by building factories that use Water and Electricity to convert CO2 into Oxygen and Renewable Fuel. And the electricity can come from a renewable source like Solar and Wind. And so using this Renewable Fuel from that factory, essentially means your plane is using Solar power/renewable energy. Or an even more realistic solution would be to plant more trees, monitor the planet, and continue using fossil fuels.
@@ekinteko Altough I don't think solar and wind are the way to go, especially due to storing their energy.
Only option for me right now, would be nuclear energy. and if we can make it happen, fusion.
Batteries still weigh a lot for the energy they contain, he ignores this pertinent fact.
Hybrids of any kind suffer the penalty of carrying around stuff which isn't used all the time. Hybrids are actually a waste of time. Design purely electric and exclude hydrocarbons.
I think he based himself on the futur, let's say batteries will get more efficient, then what he says will make sense.
but for sure, we cannot do much change now, or maybe improve things by 20%.
@@swisstraeng Indeed. He was imagining a future far advanced. How quickly technology will advance is impossible to predict. It's like the weather, the near future is more accurately predictable, the further ahead in time the less accurate predictions become. Thank you for your comment.
❤️
So...you never heard of em drive?
Batteries today are too heavy to be placed into an aircraft
Wrong! They are already in use. Pipistrel have sold many of their electric trainers to flight schools, as have others. The Eviation Alice 12 seat electric aircraft with 1000 kilometre range is about to have its test flight this year.
Technology grows. Aside from freight...explain why humans will need travel 30 years from now? Singularity coming. VR becoming so real as to be indistinguishable from reality. Holographic interaction so real...why leave your house?
В 2016 году было выделен 1 триллион тонн углекислого газа из-за полетов воздушных судов.
I love tedx
I start learn english in August 2019.. I listen it but not understand... Help me
too much aviation, too much pollution of planes. No taxes on kerozène which is unfair to cars and trucks. First start with clean electricity than with clean cars and trucks, during that time put taxes on kerhozène until we develop electric planes like solarinpulse. Then we will live in a cleaner world.
There are taxes on jet-a1, and this will not stop people from taking the plane.
All you have to change is us, educate people not to take the plane for a 2 days trip.
Electric plane and electric flying cars in a short futur?
Weed can make you fly very high, too.
Only in your head 😉
what wd u expect after decades of global military manouvers and hydrogen explosions
One trillion tons of co-2 gas? What did the actual fuel weigh?
I overheard this in a CVS, 2 young men talking: "We haven't had this level of technology since Atlantis." :) omg, we are doomed.
Maybe they are Atlantians.
In a word ...not going to happen subs for the navy have that as a stand by
But we use nuclear power.
I hate to be a cynic or a negative person but this guy did not tell us anything new. And he lightly skipped over the major obstacle to electric power flight, that is the weight penalty of current battery technology. If batteries could magically be made with 2 to 4 times the energy density of current batteries of course they would be used as an energy source for aircraft. It doesn't take an MBA to figure that out. Perhaps instead of telling engineers how they will solve this problem he should use his business acumen to raise funds for the research and discovery needed to achieve an increase in battery energy density.
Maybe I'm just confused, but does he really think that the impeller fan at the front of a jet turbine engine is a propeller? He's talking about moving backwards and relating two totally different things. He's reducing commercial travel back to old school propeller planes and trying to act like it is the same thing as jet engine travel. He sounded like a sales person that throws out ideas instead of facts. Very disappointing TED talk.
These kinds of talks totally ignore the reality of climate change. Humanity doesn't have another 30 years of business-as-usual, so any extrapolations to 2050 are fanciful. Climate change is going to trip up all such long-term business plans. Our agriculture will start failing on a massive scale.. leading to famine, social chaos, disruption of economies and financial markets. This talk just rambles on as if none of these futures are on the horizon.
I try to watch educational videos... those CUBE videos tho!!
Gonna need a long extension cord...
Oh just about *tony stark tech*
Nice
Elon musk pitched this to Tony stark in Iron man 2
@@Tazman55x yaa yes
what hes talking about is absolutely impratical. He is assuming his crowd is full of morons. You dont need to be an engineer to know that generators generate friction, reducing efficiency. the only reason it helps in automobiles, is because you use the friction produced by the generator to help slow or stop the vehicle, and generate electrical energy at the same time. It's a win-win. But Airplanes only brake on the runway while landing.....
The electron rocket. space lab NZ.
No room for luggage, bring all of your AA batteries.
Motores eléctricos y cambio del diseño del avión.
TeslaAir
So a nuclear powered plane makes sense. Just need a tiny reactor for that.
we are dying cuz our oxygen is burning. the Amazon rain forest is on fire right now. all this won't happen by then.
Pewdiepie got married
Everyone knows
Lanson Mat I didn’t
😊😊😊😊