The Next Generation of Jet Engines.... Is Electric?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 сер 2024
- Check out the Anker Nano Pro, the ultimate charging adapter for all your devices! Thank you Anker for Sponsoring! ankerfast.club...
Plasma Jet Engines have been under development for some time now, but recently there have been some breakthroughs that should give all proponents of this technology some hope! Why are Plasma Jets such a big deal? Are they really pure electric with zero emissions? How close are we to one day flying on a jetliner with a Plasma Engine? That's what we thought we'd talk about today on Two Bit da Vinci!
》》》SUPPORT THE SHOW!《《《
Become a Patron! twobit.link/Pa...
Become a UA-cam Member! geni.us/TwoBit...
One Time Donation: geni.us/PaypalMe
Use Our Tesla Products Link: twobit.link/Tesla
Going Solar? ⟫ twobit.link/En...
Two Bit da Vinci Merchandise ⟫ geni.us/TwoBitMerch
Join OHM Connect & SAVE: geni.us/ohmCon...
ALL of our Affiliate Links ⟫ www.twobitdavi...
》》》COMPANY OUTREACH 《《《
Sponsor A Video! sponsors@twobit.media
》》》CONNECT WITH US 《《《
Twitter 》 / twobitdavinci
Facebook 》 / twobitdavinci
Instagram 》 / twobitdavinci
Check out the Anker Nano Pro, the ultimate charging adapter for all your devices! Thank you Anker for Sponsoring! ankerfast.club/3AX6eXX
If the rocket is going 30miles a second and there is little to no resistance since its a vacuum, How does it slow down? Does the solar wind pressure cause disturbances?
Plasma jet engines are NOT zero emissions, they are zero CARBON emissions. The high temperatures produce nitrogen oxides which are pollutants in the volume and concentration produced by jet engines. Better does not equal perfect.
@@brettmoore3194 You answered your own question. Since there is almost no resistance in a vacuum it essentially does not slow down. Not during a human lifespan.
You should make a video on why reactors are bad
At least for aviation
Be very, very careful when comparing spacecraft hall-effect thrusters or ion thrusters to air-breathing plasma jets. The principles are somewhat similar, but it is a completely different ball game. As you said, the principle of an air-breathing plasma jet is to ionize the air itself. This is different from ion thrusters, which ionizes low amounts of reaction mass of purely xenon or argon gas inside vacuum to high velocities, that have very low ionization energies. This is what makes space ion propulsion technology viable. But the catch in aerospace propulsion that has been tormenting engineers for pretty much almost a century at this point is that you can only choose either high thrust or high fuel efficiencies. You can't have both. You can only either shoot a large amount of reaction mass out the back of your vehicle at low exhaust velocities, or small amounts of reaction mass at high exhaust velocities. Plasma propulsion based on ionizing gases is usually in the realm of exceptionally low thrust, but respectable fuel efficiencies. It's just how our universe works when speaking of conventional methods of propulsion.
Air has almost triple the required ionization energy. As a result, you will be looking at needing exceptional amounts of energy and batteries to run this technology every second. Not to mention the fact the lithium-ion batteries are one of our only options, because of their relatively light weight, but still, exceptionally poor energy density and our resources to produce such things will be dwindling by the time air-breathing plasma jets become even remotely viable. Discharging and recharging these batteries would also lead to very low lifetimes with the constant use that airplanes get nowadays. That's the great thing about convention turbine or piston propulsion, such vehicles can theoretically continue operating longer than a human lifetime. It is still the problem of electric planes and why you never see electric planes carrying payloads either. Modern batteries just don't have the same energy density when comparing to hydrocarbon fuels at the same weight or volume.
Regardless, great video. A thought-provoking technology, but arguably controversial in the industry as to its viability.
"It's just how our universe works when speaking of conventional methods of propulsion"
I don't know what "conventional" for you means, in any case that's not how it works.
To get twice the thrust you can either double the exhaust velocity or double the mass flow rate.
For double the speed of the exhaust velocity you need 4 times more energy. With 4 times more energy you could get 4 times the thrust instead of 2 if you use that energy to eject more matter.
Obviously for better fuel efficiency it is better to increase the exhaust velocity, but the biggest problem here is that you would need exponentially more energy (to the square) instead of linearly more energy if you just throw in more mass.
Conclusion: we need to have a power dense energy source for better fuel efficiency.
*THIS* is how the universe works.
@@yomiyama You've mostly restated what I've already said, but incorrectly. I'm not sure why you're bringing up energy since it's not really something we talk about when expelling matter out the back of an engine. There's many different ways to acheive that whether it be chemically or electrically and it doesn't help that energy is a wide definition. Need to be more more specific. 4 times the energy of what? I'm struggling to make any sense out of this statement "For double the speed of the exhaust velocity you need 4 times more energy. With 4 times more energy you could get 4 times the thrust instead of 2 if you use that energy to eject more matter." Energy does not form reconcile with thrust and exhaust velocity. The two usually have an "inverse" relationship, it's not how it works. Anyways, when I say conventional, I mean any engine that generates thrust through expelling reaction mass. Although, you clearly know a lot more about how the universe works than me, but you should brush up on your Google-Fu, you're forming relationships between things that don't exist.
@Joshua Vance I couldn't answer that to be honest. Materials science isn't something I study. But I don't believe the problem with something like an airbreathing plasma jet would be materials, but rather the power required to upscale it into something useful. I'd imagine materials like you mentioned would be better suited for applications like radiators or thermal protection, but again, materials science isn't really something I have alot of knowledge in.
@Joshua Vance Fusion has been 20 years away for at least 70 years. There is absolutely no way of knowing if the outstanding issues will be solved next week or next century.
It would probably be a good idea to start developing the engines now with the assumption that batteries will reach much higher energy densities in a few decades
Dr. Franklin Chang-Díaz is basically a Costa Rican celebrity. He is an inspiration for every Costa Rican engineer and scientist.
I hope the vasimr finally reaches real world implementation. It's been decades of warming up now
one sentence of information packed into 12 minutes
_"there's still no way to store enough energy to make plasma thrust useful for airborne flight"_
Ta.
Yeah, I didn't have high hopes for the video and watched it at 2x speed, and even now I feel I've had my time cheated out of me.
True, but his presentation was good. I didn’t know that ball was 1kg. I thought it was like a small ball bearing.
I look at it like this, new tech is always worse than it’s replacing. Steam was worse than a horse, gas engines were worse than steam, LCDs were way shittier than CRT screens, etc. it was a good video on the subject at hand. I kinda wish he mentioned that though
@@mikesmith1290 that demonstration is awesome. no two ways about it. this is a technology that's just begging for a leap forward in energy storage. I am optimistic that when Tesla delivers the Roadster II with "thrusters" (compressed gas, not plasma) they will be showing some technology in energy storage and thruster design that they've invented somewhere in Spacex. When Musk talks about adding thrusters to the Roadster, I think he sounds like he's already seen the device that can do what he's describing (somehow taking a lot of electrical energy, storing it as compressed gas at an insanely high pressure, the releasing that energy as a gas thruster with some invention that multiplies the effective force with something like a combination of entrained and induced gas dynamics … not that I pretend to know in detail what I'm talking about … : )
@@brightymcbrightface maybe combining hydrogen fuel, battery, and electric motor can make it work...
Scaled up you would need a huge amount of power to run this thing. If we look at a empty un-fueled 747 it weighs about 190,000kg, too make it easy we will say 200,000kg, assuming the thrust scales up Linearly we need 200,000kg x 400 = 8,000,000W which is 80 MW. a coal plant powers about 650 homes per MW so 650 x 80 = 52,000 homes with of power. But planes can’t actually lift their own mass, the 747 only has about 550kn of thrust, which comes out to us only needing 22MW or 14,300 homes worth of power. Still Need a SMR or something, but it’s definitely more doable.
That's the thing. RC cars work great with small batteries but scaled up to an automobile you have a 2t monster.
Despite it's size the ICE is still good at converting fuel and fuel is one of the best energy storage. With the help of an electric motor the efficiency can be increased a lot.
@@levi4979 The problem is planes crash. Which is why we don't have nuclear powered planes. Besides crashing consider how poorly maintained planes are today. Would you put nuclear powered planes in the hands of this industry when they can barely keep the current planes flying? Many planes have crashed because of neglect.
@@Enforcer_WJDE tesla
@@Eli9A What of it?
@@Enforcer_WJDE they also have a terrible conversion loss from fuel source (power plant) to power use... aka moving the car. not to mention the amount of energy put into producing the car... and eventual waste generated from the tons of batteries and the mining costs of the tons of lithium and cobalt.... which many people seem to ignore since its not done here. when we add up energy used for energy extraction all the way to energy used to produce the vehicle to how much is used to move the vehicle ... EVs are dead last... the most efficient green use of "power" is actually a horse pulling a cart made from bamboo...
there is no getting around the laws of physics. energy in minus energy out always has inefficiencies in between.
Sady ion/plasma engines could never work in the atmosphere without producing masses of NOx and ozone, and that is a showstopper.
That’s interesting - is that in a similar way to how its created by lightning, with the high temperature acting as a catalyst? Not sure I like the term no emissions either as momentum propulsion is the very definition of emissions surely - just because it is taken from the air around it doesn’t mean it is the same when it exits as a plasma.
@@davidshipp623 that is correct. NOx is produced by high temperatures and is why fossil fuel power plants can't run at higher temperatures
@@davidshipp623 Yes, exactly. High energies and temperatures by spark or combustion force O₂ and N₂ to break apart and recombine as various other molecules, and high voltages make more O₃ - this is useful in the stratosphere to block UV, but is is extremely dangerous at ground level - you will recognize it as the smell that laser printers, photocopiers and ionizers produce.
The lethal dose for humans is just 50 ppm over 30 minutes, so these must be well ventilated.
I was surprised this wasn’t mentioned at all. Anything with air plasma is going to make a lot of nox and ozone.
I came here to say this, so glad I'm not the only one to see this problem. If we could tolerate the NOx emissions generated by a plasma engine we could also have much more efficient jet engines just by maximizing combustion temperatures.
Extremely misleading: issue is that a jet using plasma engines would need an electric power source of about 25 MW per engine. The reason why Jet fuel is used is to supply the power needed to generate the thrust.
Plasma engines in space are extremely feeble and cannot provide enough thrust to support a single sheet of paper against gravity. The VASMIR engine would use a nuclear reaction since it needs about 200 KW, and produces enough lift to hold up a coffee mug, an empty coffee mug (about 1.6 Ounces).
Thanks for doing the maths.
So, plasma jets is a pipe dream until we have a factor shift in the capabilities of batteries, which will be unlikely to happen in our lifetime.
It looks like artificial fuel using carbon capture will probably be the best eco way for jet liners to go.
@@marc0523 Yes,that seems more feasible.
Exactly, even with breaktrought it's not very efficient in atmosphere. And how do you solve the exhaust problem ? nitrogen oxides is not really environement friendly ;)
That and people forget that the energy density of Jet A is MASSIVELY more than any battery, plasma or alternative "fuel" we have.
Kills me when people completely ignore energy density when talking about electric or other propulsion tech.
@@shirothehero0609 Plasma is not a fuel it's a "propellant" created by ionizing the air (oxygen and nitrogen mainly).
But you right, the energy density of the best battery is laughable compare to hydrocarbure. less than a groundbreaking revolution on electricity storage, this is not gonna flight.
I'll never forget being a teenager and seeing that video of a aircraft worker get sucked into a jet fan engine and his helmet saved him because he came out the other side of the engine. It was unbelievable
Yeah it will...and I'm still waiting on a flying car in my garage.
@@ouss helicopter = clunky death trap
Flying car = standing wave electro magnetic levitation
There are flying cars or drivable planes already, just not affordable for most or produced at scale yet
Structural batteries are needed for e-planes.
Even that won't make them the universal solution that environmentalists want, though at least it'll increase their usable range.
You don't necessarily need plasma jets to reach higher speeds in electric aircraft, you just need ducted fans. It's like a turbofan engine, but the core is replaced by an electric motor.
That's how it's going to be! The actual turbojet portion of a turbofan doesn't produce much thrust, it's basically just there to power the fan. Replace that with an electric motor and you're off to the races. As for energy storage, planes are one of the cases where fuel cells actually make sense, although you'd probably need cryogenic hydrogen storage to fit enough on board...
Currently the vast majority of coast to coast flights in the USA are done at less than half the speed of non-stop flights anyhow. Taking a full day in many cases. That is because of hub and spoke routing. Only major coastal destinations even get non-stop services.
So electric flight can be quite useful in feeder routes even at half speed, by merely doubling the frequency of service. After all a non-stop flight may indeed be only 5-6 hours long, but at a scheduled time that makes one wait to board it 3 to 6 hours beyond what might be the most convenient. I remember fondly the era where a non-stop, business flight Boston to LA in mid afternoon allowed my weary bones from the red-eye I had taken the night before to get there, to stretch out across the 5 center seats of the half full DC-10 and sleep my way back to LA. A full aircraft is an absolute economic necessity today, so that is near impossible to do today.
When I was in college I would fly to and from home, and it took an average of 12 hours to make the journey (the same amount of time it takes to drive the distance, but plane tickets are cheaper than owning a car)
Love anything about future energy sources and aviation. Thanks
No need to be limited by propellers, turbo fans work at 500mph+. So 'just' drive those with electric motors. (Those quotes around the 'just' is the tricky bit :) )
Yes, there's nothing fundamentally different between a turbo prop and a turbo fan engine. They are essentially the same thing optimised for different flight speeds.
"Tricky" is an understatement. Even accounting for the greater efficiency of electric motors and neglecting how much combustion engines can still improve through higher temperature materials, the theoretical limit of batteries is still only about 1/3 the capacity of hydrocarbon fuels. Electric air travel simply isn't feasible without air portable nuclear power (either fission or fusion) or something even more exotic.
They're called EDFs (electric ducted fans) in the RC community.
what is mph?
@@TheMntnG miles per hour. [Multiply by 1.6 to get kph (kilometers per hour)]
I am not sure that the ejected "air turned into plasma" will not react to form nitrous oxides while it cools down to ambient temperatures. I am in favour of the development of all possible alternatives that reduce our impact on the environment.
I am totally sure that it WILL form various oxides of nitrogen. My uncettainty is how far those are greenhouse gases and are they worse or significantly better than the CO2 and other greenhouse oxides coming out of a jet engine
So then, it's probably more efficient to focus more of our resources on the shorter term fixes to our GHS reduction goals--without abandoning hope of a future breakthrough technology. Fusion maybe?
That was my thought as well, that extreme temperatures in atmosphere would generate ions by disassociating molecules.
Worth a study to find out I came up with this idea in 2015
Plasma aviation will become common the second Tuesday after fusion reactors power the world.
So in another 60 years?
@@Enforcer_WJDE Sadly I think 60 years is about right.
In 60 years, it will only be 30 years away!
@@dustinmcdermont699 Made me laugh!
@linkzable China lies about many things.
Okay ... so this is a small nitpick, but ... Doc Brown's Mr. Fusion wasn't the engine, it was the power source. You got it confused with the repulsorlift units in the wheelhubs.
I respect your knowing that aircraft doesn't need conjunction to denote pluralism.
Looks like it will need lots of electrical power.
Is Li-ion good enough?
That’s what I’ve been thinking. Energy storage density has always been the party pooper.
The Photo you’re showing for the Technical University of Berlin is not a Building from the TUB
Another option that I’ve not checked has been carried out is to carry a fuel cell of say argon and not have air pass through the combustion chamber, bypass sure, reason being is to control the magnitude of the ionisation process since our air is loaded with efficiency changing materials, but it’s right up there with making a blimp utilising a vacuum as it’s lifting force.
you have air to push with, use heat transfer (heat-sink) partitioned heat thrusters, up-to, nuclear-heat thrusters
on earth in atmosphere, you dont have to go nuts with plasma, ions, but you can, if you can
Thanks for doing an aviation topic.
I love it when someone says, there are a few small issues to overcome. As he said, everything is always 10 years out. We are up to our armpits in grant grabbing magical thinking.
I thought Space-X's Star Link satellites too use Plasma Jet for the course corrections.
Pretty sure that this is where Hydrogen Fuel Cells would fit instead of Batteries. It wouldn't be difficult to build up the infrastructure and you could probably make it on site at the Airports.
For heavy vehicles like trucks and aircraft, liquid fuels will remain king until serious breakthroughs in battery technology. They probably will need to becomes 2-3x as energy dense to be viable since weight becomes such an issue.
@@lich5655 pretty much, the good thing is hydrogen is a potentially low emmision liquid fuel capable of filling that role.
@@garethbaus5471 that depends upon how the hydrogen is produced. Blue hydrogen is hydrogen made using fossil fuels, which puts out lots of emmitions. Green hydrogen is hydrogen made using renewable sourced electricity, and in that case you would be right about the low emissions. There is also the fact that it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than using hydrogen produces.
@@justinweatherford8129 slight correction blue hydrogen is made from fossil fuels with carbon capture to make it less bad. No system is 100% effective at capturing emmisions so it isn't quite as clean as green hydrogen. Gray hydrogen is the high emmision option that is made from fossil fuels without carbon capture.
@@lich5655 : Proper batteries will probably never be capable of powering long-haul airplanes, because there is literally no possible battery chemistry that comes close to any important metric of hydrogen _or_ petroleum fuels.
the word "plasma" is usually attached to hot stuff, like a flame (3:30 state of matter), so it "feels" strange, when ion thrusters are mentioned instead of VASIMR
Wow, I was thinking about such concept 20 years ago, glad to see I was in a right derection.
Your videos are so well put together. The productions value is extremely high.
Turbofans generate around 70% of thrust from the bypass air and not from the core
That is an incredibly inefficient way to generate thrust in air. Using electricity to generate microwaves (inefficient in itself) to power a heat engine?? That’s inconceivably inefficient!! If you want to replace a turbofan engine with electrically powered propulsion, simply replace the turbine engine with an electric motor!! I’d bet the thrust generated per kWhr would be literally 100 times greater.
I honestly don't get how an electric motor is incapable of turning a turbine setup but can turn a standard propeller. I mean they need electrical power to get turning in the first place surely a bigger motor can do the whole thing?
Its always going to be making up for the energy density of the jet fuel by other means. We really need to stop being so scared of hydrogen. It's been nearly 90 years since the hindenburg surely technology has improved enough since then.
The reason why this wouldn't work is the same reason that forced the move from fan to jet. As the fan turns faster and faster, the air drag and fluidity of the air limits the maximum revolution of the fan. This in turn limits the thrust. Historically, the plan was to keep the fan, but ignite the air so as to raise the temperature and reduce the density of air allowing the fan to turn faster. But the solution to the problem led to am unexpected result: the jet engine.
Great show as usual Ricky! Yes I think that plasma engines will be a source of power for aircraft in the future, but I'm 74yo so I don't expect to see it happening in my lifetime unless I get lucky or some group of engineers does.
No worries man. I'm 28 and I don't expect to see it either. Commercial jet aircraft are almost identical to what they were 60 years ago. I've been hearing about delta wings, hydrogen or electrical jet engines, supersonic/hypersonic airliners, comeback of the airships... since the 1990s and I don't believe the hype is real anymore :(
No, he says a lot of really silly stuff. These jets are used in space because there ain't no air and, more importantly, there ain't no oxygen with which you oxidize fuel. SO you would have to take both the fuel and the oxygen and there still ain't no air.
Hello, I am the inventor Munther from Saudi Arabia. I am very happy to follow you, but I want you to put an Arabic translation because my English is not bad, but I understand the topic in general, but when I follow the videos you make, I want to go deeper. I wish you good luck and put subtitles for all languages and you will have more followers because there are so many thirsty for the knowledge you provide. With great gratitude and appreciation.
Plasma can also be cool to the touch, it is used in the medical industry as a way to safely disinfect wounds without chemicals. The plasma doesn't burn the tissue, but still kills bacteria and germs.
We need a Frank Whittle moment to happen again in history
It's not going to happen when we spend most of our money on 100 year old, expensive, unreliable, inefficient, "green" energy tech.
For New York to LA, why not high speed trains? I think our focus on aircraft has to change as well. Automated electric prop plains powered from the ground if made spacious enough would be like staying at home. You could even use lighter than air dirigibles with a plasma jet maybe.
yeah 'high speed trains' such as hyperloop technology will be much faster + greener...but you still have problem of building such massive infastructure.
A suggestion. A piece on the grid when we hit over 50 percent ev on the grid. Peakers vs batteries to even out the spikes.
The future will be even more amazing than we can conceive, we will see even more incredible things we don't even dream of I am sure!
How about NOx emissions? That will be even harder problem for electric plasma jets compared to combustion engine, i guess. With higher amount of air heated and heated to higher temperature, more NOx is created. NOx is a thing that created Dieselgate.
NOx isn't great fertilizer?
@@widodoakrom3938 not when it stays in the air. At first, it damages people's lungs from beeing breathed in.
@@volodumurkalunyak4651 yeah that's true
I think you are missing an idea. The vertical force to lift something is different than the lateral force to move something. The engine doesn't produce lift, the wings do. There for you shouldn't need as much force from the engine.
It emits molecules of the gas that are repelled to generate thrust, so therefore NOT "zero emissions". The emission may not be a greenhouse gas or harmful (I don't know if xenon is it is not either) but it's still an emission.
The main reason why people would oppose longer flights would be the discomfort. If they made flight just slightly more comfortable. For example a bit of privacy, and a comfortable chair that can recline to allow comfortable sleep, then the whole equation changes. Then it becomes more of a scheduling change, than anything else. Most people do not actually need, as such, to get somewhere overnight. However far you go, after two hours you start wishing the discomfort away. People are stuffed in more like livestock than anything else.
If we can power planes electrically, then the fuel costs will reduce. And if this allows a bit more comfort...
As things stand there are aluminium air batteries which already have pretty good energy density, and economy. Even with having to replace them after every flight.
Great Vid Ricky!!! Can I interest you in covering Plasma Kinetics and how this technology can be applied to hydrogen fuel cells on cars and trucks? Thanks
Still? 🙄
Thrust overcomes DRAG, it does not generate lift, WINGS generate lift.
I prefer standing wave electric propulsion, but this looks fun too!
Ricky, how about doing a vid on this? I'd like a primer on it, like how it differs from plasma jet.
Very promising technology indeed, if the power generation & storage can keep up.
In the meantime, there are projects to include such air-breathing plasma engines in very low altitude satelites to compensate for atmospheric drag. 👍
And unlike heavier-than-air aircraft, they actually make sense in that use-case.
Every jet airliner has an unit at the end in the tail section called an Auxiliary Power Unit which is a gas turbine designed to generate electricity. If the issue is power, then why not have an Auxiliary Power Unit running at full power to generate electricity to power these engines in flight. It would still create emissions but it would create much less and power the engines.
i think that rubber bands are the future myself. We have a rubber band powered model plane, its brillianr fun..imagine that on a large scale!!
🤯
Two Bit da Vinci
: Great presentation, as usual, thank you for sharing. The possibility of gravity drive systems for spacecraft would make an interesting topic.
Edit: To those kind enough to reply to this post, remember that every rocket that leaves the planet, every satellite placed in orbit, and every craft sent to the outer planets and beyond make use of gravity for acceleration assist and orbital maneuvering to place the vessels in proper alignment and trajectory. Even SpaceX is considering sending Starship sunward for a gravitational thrust and acceleration around Venus in order to reach Mars faster. Also, it is my firm belief that "gravity in a bottle," so to speak, in the near future will be a real thing.
We need a practical way to influence gravity first.
It is just not possible to manipulate gravity in the real world in a sense that could be used for propulsion. Not just difficult to do.
Cool stuff! I’m an aerospace engineer too. I’m really looking forward to see these plasma jets develop into real flight engines!
/doubt
Add magnets and stator coil to conventional jet engine to create electricity for plasma jet engines, run both types of engines for better fuel efficiency.
We need to think in a different way. Plasma thrusters can be used as a smaller atmosphere to space vehicle. As limited fuel is required and battery size would reduced. Start small as we did with airplanes originally. One man vehicles first. Larger vehicles could combine technologies to switch over once off the ground. Quite often we make things harder than they are using our tunnel vision.
Imagine multiple enclosed sequential props for electricity regeneration.......great video, amazing concept
Zero emissions is a blunt lie. The emissions are just removed to a different location. In the case of electric cars , it's a power plant , electric cables , transformers and so on. I would like to see a complete comparison between electric cars , and internal combustion cars in terms of co2 cost production. In my mind I still believe that smaller , more efficient would save a lot more co2 output then a bigger better faster , heavier anything. Just my 2 cents.
regarding the bypass air are modern engines not getting bigger bypass fans improving fuel, as you said, but also trust.
Maybe a compact thorium fission reactor would work.
Hey! Cool video but I would have loved links to any public papers on this stuff you mentioned
This is actually what i want to work on
This needs way better batteries than what we have right now to be viable for aircrafts.
How about hydrogen fuel cell?
my brain is insisting on making a plasma jet airship
What current battery innovations are the Plasma jet scientists eyeing for possible real world application of scaling up? Or do they find them all kind of lacking?
Hydrogen fuel cell are better for that job
You have one of the best channels on youtube...always great content and you do such a brilliant job explaining the subject matter.
Energy generation is also another need but energy storage is very important
I've got a design I think is perpetual energy but I need peer review
put me in the "hopeful" camp! When all air traffic was terminated after the 9-11 attacks, surface temperatures cooled by 4 degrees. So yes, a non-fossil fuel method of flying and just travelling or even living in general will be better than nothing at all. Now, how about those Tshirts and nano chargers?
What if instead of trying to scale up the jets you simply lined the bottom of the wing with them? Or possibly even incorporated it into the skin of the whole plane? I wanna know more about the nano-discharge propulsion system, that's fascinating. Imagine a 3D printed plane covered in circuits that efficiently ionizes and propels air.
Then watch it be hopelessly ineffective in the rain XD
I'm hopeful, but don't know enough if it's at all possible in the near future.
YES PLEASE!!! Please do way more videos on alternative aircraft propulsion technologies, in fact the most interesting videos are based upon the exploitation of scientific phenomena
Speed of a propeller driven aircraft is the tip speed of the propeller. A turbofan engine is a fancy propeller. The shroud controlls the problems associated with supersonic tip speed. A better solution is an electric motor turning the turbo fan. Speeds of 500 mph or more is realistic.
Thanks!
I came across your video by accident. I am an old mechanic who wrote a book called "A Tinker's Dream". I like your ideas. I an wondering if plasma technology could be used to drive a piston in an engine? A small engine could drive a hydraulic pump to be used to release the brakes and then drive a car with a torque converter. Three torque converters at each wheel would be ideal.
Super light battery technology is needed.
I immediately thought of the ion thrusters Xenon for everyone else and Krypton for Starlink, and was wondering how that'd work in atmosphere
Laser or microwave beaming?
And.... You just mentioned lasers as I typed that
Considering that the best ion thruster designs in use today only generate half a newton, not that well, their strength lies in the fact that they can continuously provide thrust over long periods of time which can allow for potentially top speeds or very presise course corrections at a low cost of "fuel".
ever seen a lightning hit the ground just to dig a tiny hole ? that's the power of plasma.
but then again, there's always the hamster powered turbine with an afterburner.
@Two Bit da Vinci please do more e-aerospace related videos !! I think that in the near future electric aircraft will be powered by more efficient LH2 fuel cells, "massless" structural energy storage composites and next gen batteries, could you make a video about those developing technologies ?
Very interesting topic. Maybe Quantum Scape battery could be the answer..?
Thank you as always Ricky, another in-a-league-of-its-own video. Yes please on more aviation technology, both current and in the pipeline. Also, has anyone considered beaming down the energy for plasma flight? There would be less need for infrastructure and the sun is a great source of energy, especially when captured outside of atmospheric interference. 🙃🤔🧐
Yes, people have considered it. To summarize: just use electrically powered fans instead of anything plasma, the plasma only helps with supersonic travel.
Love your content, but wanna tell you that in my opinion, you should have an audio engineer look into your setup.
Especially in comparison with Matt, you can clearly hear problems.
I'm no sound engineer, but i think the fact that your voice is darker makes it a bit harder to eliminate resonance or something that makes your voice a two bits harder to understand clearly.
Nothing horrible, but now that you made this channel your business, it could be worth lookning into - might add a bit more quality.
Bypass ratios have been increasing recently in newer designs which have been increasing efficiency and thrust production.
Plasma thrusters are neat especially at high speed in the vacuum of space, but you cannot achieve better than 100% efficiency. Good electric motors are close. Propellers and fans are also pretty good. If you do not want to go supersonic an electric fan jet could work. They work better at high altitude than a conventional jet which is running out of oxygen for combustion. No matter which, you still need a huge electric power source. Maybe some day a novel fusion direct to electric reactor will be possible.
If an F22 Raptor’s engines were replaced with plasma engines, that would make it a TIE fighter.
The wings of a large craft would offer a collector for orbital microwaves beamed to them.
thank you
Also check out Jetoptera
Ion engines produce a tiny thrust, but for a long time. Good for long distance travel. (One annoying thing: Halfway to your destination, you have to reverse thrust, to slow down) Rockets produce a high thrust, but only for a short time. Great for launching into space.
How about running a tiny rocket motor, using a minimum amount of fuel. Small thrust, like an ion motor, but can run continuously?
This is some good thing honnestly. I don't know if this will be used, but the sci-fi fan in me is happy for that. However, Somewhere in my head, I'm thinking than blaming aviation for polluting when they contribute to "only" 2% of emissions is... stupid. Of course, yeah, everything help, and this is good, but when you have some things like coal plants, gaz plants for electricity, which are like 15-20% of global emissions, I think that would make more sense to reduce emissions in this sector because a 10% improvement in emissions for a coal/gaz plant would lead to a 1.5-2% global decrease wheras you have to get rid of 100% of aviation emissions to get the same global decrease.
And you know what ? Improving things by 10% is always easier than 100%. You'd not even have to build new techs : just replace the fucking coal/gaz plants !
And if that's way too hard, what about reducing packaging waste ? Why the fuck do you package vegetables ? Instead of putting the whole vegetable in plastic (with holes), what about just using a rubber band ?
Why the fuck is the responsibility of packaging on customer hands when you have almost never another "environmentally friendly" packaged product ? Why do you have to modify ALL your habits, when companies just have to fucking change their packaging habits ?
If you start looking at how much packaging is producing in emissions, I'm pretty sure that's the almost big polluters out right here. And possibly even polluting more than transportation.
Honnestly the whole shifting responsibility on customer is the biggest problem right here. We need better politics, because that's the only ones able to put some laws. And yes, I'm aware that using paper/cardboard instead of plastic is not always an option. And that shifting from plastic to paper/cardboard may lead to deforestation. But I'm not talking about replacing everything at once. But you know, for example, when I bougth a brush, the whole brush was in plastic, and fixed to the rack by the plastic whereas the handle had a hole, to be attached to the wall. Why just not put a sticker with the price, and use the handle hole instead of a full plastic which will straight go to trash ?
This is bothering me. Not aviation pollution.
I agree with you thoughts about aviation percentages. Not trying to be prudish, but would appreciate it if you cleaned up your language in a public forum.
@@timgurr1876 Yeah sorry, I get usually triggered when talking about some subjects that I really care about especially when I think there are easy answers not being made for any reasons (usually the following two : greed from big corporations + corruptions of politicians usually). Thanks for the feedback I'd try to be more cautious next time.
Its always nice to see new ideas that defy the norm.
Solution is plasma engin fueled with compact fusion reactor
Is there an underwater version ?
This sounds a little like the space craft equivalent of the silent magneto hydrodynamic drive from the Hunt for Red October. I wonder if there is research going on in real life for this kind of propeller-less marine propulsion. At least you wouldn't have to rely on batteries for power since we have plentiful nuclear plants on naval vessels.
They have done MHD boat experiments, but they've never gotten very high speeds.
Remember, with commercial aircraft that after take off thrust is reduced to 70 to 80% and in cruise flight only about 60% thrust is used. This is the thruse the plasma jet needs to give off.
Hi mate just stumbled upon your channel great content!
Until high battery energy densities are available, hybrid aircraft may fill the role. Electrify the engines, use batteries to assist in getting to cruise altitude, use a power generator optimized to the power requirements for cruising. Today’s aircraft use a large part of their fuel in takeoff and reaching cruise altitude. Engines are sized accordingly. Electrifying aircraft allow designs with less drag. Ex flying wings. Electrification also allows engines the do the role of control surfaces, reducing the weight associated with control surface manipulation. Flying wings also save weight because the structure is more compact and rigid naturally. Adding plasma engines will allow higher altitude cruising with higher speeds.
What other industries could benefit from friendly eco overhaul?
How about railroads?
Love your videos. But that’s not what “begs the question” means. Otherwise great stuff - looking forward to seeing more.
Excellent topic!! Thank you
You are so welcome!
Instead of using combustion to expand the air, it may be possible to use lasering, to make the electrons jump to a higher energy shell, also maybe using the bond frequency of diatoms of Nitrogen to separate them into monoatoms, as well as negative ionisation.
In other words the question becomes, if we take a volume of air, what inputs combined expand that volume most effectively?
I thought about decades ago a giant balloon structure, an inverted drop shape with a flattened top , that has a central channel containing the rocket, as the balloon ascended the hydrogen gas would get colder, to be liquified, to contribute to the fuel reserves.
Göksel also has plasma based wing control surfaces, really interesting plasma-aircraft related topic.
💥💥💥
the solid state batteries are coming soon so that might be what they need as well as other types... i can only assume they will just keep improving them.
Mini fusion (not fission) reactor + plasma thrusters. That is the future.
8:24 instead of 1 large thruster, which will lose efficiency because the gas in the center will be less energetic, and a pod hanging off the bottom of the aircraft will induce drag, why not make a large lifting body aircraft, somewhat like the B2 spirit, with small thrusters placed along the entire rear of the wing.
The large upward facing surface area of the lifting body can also be used for solar cell real-estate, extending the range during the day, and allowing the aircraft to run with emergency power in the case of a battery failure
Yes, 100kW from solar isnt much compared to what is needed to maintain flight, but it would provide a noticeable range extension, especially on slower aircraft that dont waste as much energy cutting through the air