Cryoprop: New Superconductor propeller Technology by Airbus
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 тра 2024
- In this video we look at an entirely novel approach by Airbus, that is using superconducting technology to power its propellers. The project is called Cryoprop.
Airbus makes use of the cold of liquid hydrogen to cool down current carriers to superconducting state. Thus allowing for lighter electrical components including the motor. - Наука та технологія
My apologies for saying "Cyropop" as "Cyropop" and "Cryogenic" as "Cyrogenic". Thank you to all those who pointed it out.
I will try not to make this mistake again.
This has all of the promise of powering aircraft by direct geothermal technology.
Love these videos
Great video, Also Toyota Hydrogen cars have twice as many parts compared to Tesla so twice as many things can break and need repairs
Great point!
Not all parts can be breaking
Well, the Tesla cars keep on breaking, more than other brands.
@@WolfeSaber9933 wrong most reliable car. check your facts and cut the fud
@@martinwoollett8468 Have you seen the latest batch from Tesla? They've got quality control problems, whereas the other brands are going strong and are more reliable, like doing longer than Teslas in cold conditions. And the Cybertruck is a mess.
You are not dealing or stating the most difficult issue the embitterment of the metal storage and the tubing of the gas.
Yes. I learned that H2 powered systems are nowhere near ready for general use...maybe in my next life.
13 - 30% to cool it and make it liquid does seem a lot, but then again, if the gains are higher, it's worth it.
Same with too much wind or solar, they could just produce H2 and cool it down as well.
Thank you 👍💪✌
Great point!
I'm almost sure electric propulsion for big airplanes doesn't even make any sense, but the hydrogen or any other fuel could be used in a regular turbine or any engine.
I really hope to see a world of Hydrogen/ Fuel Cell vehicles existing in parallel with EVs.
Fuel cells use precious metals like platinum. That's why they are so expensive.
❤❤❤❤
4:00 the subject starts
Thanks for an interesting video from a pilot.
Electric?
Per hard science, it takes about 68 kilos/150 pounds of battery
.... to equal the energy in about 3 kilos/7 pounds of jet fuel.
Real life example for the CRJ I flew, a 50 passenger jet:
To equal the energy in the CRJ's 14,000 pounds of fuel, would require about 294,000 pounds of battery.
Putting the aircraft just a tad over its max operating weight of 53,000 pounds :)
Did you watch the video? Electric motors doesn't imply batteries. Moreover, not all aircraft need to be able to fly for thousands of kilometers without refueling/recharging.
@@alterego3734 why would he watch the video when he could just comment aimlessly like a dumbass. this is the internet after all. Marc might as well be cocky and and clueless; something tells me the smile at the end of the comment means he's right at home with the other terminally overconfident. His gf/wife/partner must be rather disappointed though that 5 minutes is too long for him to put time into.
@@alterego3734
Point was, and is, battery power as an energy source for electric motors isn't a real option in aviation due to weight.
Hydrogen is a possible source, for aircraft and cars.
We've got 700 years of coal to generate the power to make hydrogen via electrolysis, and 100 years or so of natural gas to make it via Steam-methane reforming (SMR).
Of course, once nuclear over regulation is reduced, nuclear power a safe option.
@@MarcPagan ELECTRIC isnt viable for aircraft.
how does a jet engine operate, and what makes it different to an electric ducted fan? hint... its about exhaust velocity and TEMPERATURE.
why do we no longer have airliners with propellors?
how does an EDF or propellor operate at 52,000ft or whatever cruising altitude happens to be?
why do we have "altitude ceilings"?
if you want to fly below the clouds, at low speeds, then great... go buy your electric plane, good for a quick hop to the closest airfield... then wait a day so you can hop back home again...
would love to make an emergency, no gear landing with a full battery pack. would love to overshoot the runway or have no power and wind up sinking into a river with lots of little water-sensitive bombs...
@@MarcPagan Some commercial aircraft can fly 18,000 km without refueling. Batteries are about 50 times less energy dense than fuel. That means an electric aircraft could fly for over 300 km quite easily. That is sufficient for many flights connecting minor airports to major hubs.
I hope they use wind or solar or hydro power to chill and distill the H2.
well at least the electric motors stay super cool. lol. LH or liquid hydrogen, like in the space rockets. yep a plane is a rocket at mach 6-12.
When are people going to build an hydrogen generation unit by using h2o and electrolysis on board a vehicle ?ie running on tap water .
The electrolysis of water requires energy. The energy to carry out the electrolysis (e.g. fuel or batteries) would have to be carried by the vehicle as well. Collectively, a battery (or fuel) + electrolysis system is likely to be much heavier than a battery (or fuel)-only approach. As a result, the answer to your question is probably 'never' - unless a highly energy dense source (such as nuclear) is used and electrolysing water turns out to be the most effective way to convert that energy to something that can be used for propulsion.
All AirBus need to so is isolate heat from cold parts.
Enjoy the tire wear, the risk of fire, the cost of the battery, the questionable FSD, the insane repair costs, the massive depreciation.
It isn’t one or the other you know. Get ev diesel and petrol one of each for complement
Great video.
You’re pronouncing one word incorrectly, it’s not “cyrogenic” it’s cryogenic.
Thanks. I knew I was doing something wrong
It's Cryoprop, not cyroprop.
Since when was powertrain weight the problem? The weight of the ridiculously thick tank to hold a 700 bar (10,000psi) pressure is the main problem. Hydrogen is a half-measure between liquid hydrocarbons and full electric. It is purported to be "green" but when produced renewably it is 3x more wasteful than electric. They should just either stick with hydrocarbons (which can be made renewably) or go full electric. Airbus will waste whatever free money from the government grants to build whatever nonsense the govt tells them to build.
lets not talk about how jet engines manage to achieve higher than supersonic speeds... something NO "electric ducted fan" can pull off...
if you wanna go back to flitting around in piper cubs with props at low altitudes... then great, electric is ideal... as long as you dont mind landing every few minutes for a charge.
explain how an electric motor of any type can produce thrust, especially at the low pressures where the standard airliner operates...
Yes you are right sir, I have pretty much the same comment on this video.
vaporware
100% correct.
this sort of BS hype over vaporware requires that no-one appears to know the difference between an EDF, propellor, and a jet engine, and how a jet engine can NEVER be replaced with something electrical...
cough cough, ahem...supersonic speeds dont happen in plain old air pushed through pipes... it needs something... EXTRA.
like 2400C combustion temperatures and hot gas that wants to release all that heat somehow...
back when gustaf delaval was playing with early turbines, this was common knowledge. boyle? pascal? charles? theres a lot of history on work performed with gas... lot of maths...
no longer important, its all about "feelings" and "being green"... ha ha.
The mixing of metric units and imperial units is distracting. For any YT video about technology, the audience will be comfortable with metric (yes, even us Americans).
I tried to show the centigrade values visually. But you are right, shouldnt mix units.
You are clearly not a pilot…
Metric and imperial shouldn’t be an issue … when you are a pilot …
@@frederikkruger I used to write avionics software for wide-body commercial jets and I've completed the ground portion of flight school, but that's irrelevant. I know more about planes than you, but again that's irrelevant.
*This video is clearly not for pilots.*
WTF?!! Superconductivity? Electric motors already have the efficiency and low weight, why are they solving problems that don't exist? 2MW of power, come on teslas have 700hp which is 0.5MW already, what innovation are they talking about?! The only problem with electric aircraft is energy storage, and only that. Hydrogen is a dead end, if you have to use a gas => use methane. It's like fractally wrong, wrong at every level. Airbus is wasting time pretending they are doing something, when they don't.
Good point
Electric motors are indeed already efficient and light compared to the equivalent combustion engiine, but the Tesla 700 hp rating is a peak rating that can only be maintained for a limited time before the motor would overheat. In an aircraft application, you need that sort of power continuously, Moreover, the larger the motor is, the more difficult it is to keep it cool (the surface area to volume ratio reduces with increased size) so it becomes more worthwhile to add the cryogenic equipment to minimise losses and waste heat in higher powered systems.
@johnwale2886 good response!
I agree the motor should be designed for the application, but cryogenics?
It seems like more cooling channels should do the job?
Your peak rating argument -- sure, that's correct too, but teslas go around a race track without overheating, which is essentially 100% power interleaved with 100% regen, pretty torturous regime as well, right. Or just going 200 mph or whatever the max speed number is, that's quite intense too. BTW, an aircraft needs full power at takeoff, not all the time.
@@olegklimov3717 Thanks for your answer. Agreed about take-off being the peak power requirement. What I was trying to say was that even a small regional airliner is going to need powers of at least 0.5 MW continuously (e.g. ATR-72 has about 1.6 MW of installed power). In relation to cryogenics, the point at which it becomes worthwhile depends on the size and power levels involved. A car (even a high performance one) will be fine with ordinary liquid cooling, but an aircraft might be large and powerful enough to justify cryogenic cooling.
@@johnwale2886 I would LOVE to see aircraft of a smaller size, smaller than ATR-72, more aerodynamic and efficient, the current air travel sucks!
Especially what needs to go is this huge airports, I'd like to use a regional one (for example Reus where I live), or a VTOL pad. A smaller aircraft can go point-to-point, not hub and spokes model which sucks too.
For that to happen, an aircraft designer doesn't have to throw everything into the mix, including cryogenics (does that include cooling down for half a day or not?), we need batteries 500 kwh/kg that already exist (CATL condensed battery?), aerodynamics and a feasible way for certification.
Airbus can do all that, and instead it researches hydrogen. That's what I find so laughable.
I'm sure there's a place for cryogenics somewhere, but not in a small simple certifiable aircraft I think would be a game changer.
how does a jet engine differ to a propellor or electric ducted fan?
they produce SUPERSONIC exhaust efflux. to "cruise" at 600kmh requires your exhaust eject at at least 1200KMh...
something that can NEVER be achieved with plain old propellers, or ducted fans.
its called plain old aerodynamics. obviously airbus hires an advertising etam with no idea how planes work. but sure know all the modern "game changing" keywords to spice up their tripe...
not cool bro , we aint dumb people and dont assume us to be so , get technical as you usually do , whats your USP otherwise ?
I am just reporting what Airbus are doing
It’s not “cirogenic”. The word is “cryogenic”. Basic errors reduce your credibility.
This doesn't make any sense if you can cool down an electric motor to spin very fast the rotor should be small and an electric jet should result not a large dangerous spinning prop that be very worrisome for passenger aircraft
Hybrid. Use existing avgas to run an onboard generator and power the electric motors. Don’t reinvent the wing.