[removed]

Rule of thumb: If you can't see their mirrors, then they probably can't see you either.

Yeah, but semis always seem to destroy my windshield with rocks, and not being able to see over or around them makes me uncomfortable.

His platform doesn't seem to be supporting or defending him in any manner so unless your point is that party affiliation makes other individuals complicit...somehow.

You seem to miss the point. If a guy who works with you, whom you go out for beer and wings with, turns out to be a pedophile, that shouldn't reflect on you at all should it?

There are alt least two major problems with hydrogen:

1. Converting from electrical energy to chemical (making hydrogen) and back again is hugely inefficient. As in losses in the 60% range. By comparison, storing the energy in a battery and extracting it again carries about 10% loss.
2. Hydrogen isn't very dense. It will take up a lot of space. To make a 373-size plane that can cross the Atlantic, there wouldn't be any space left for passengers.

The most religious Jews are Orthodox Jews, and they segregate the sexes during worship (and, as I mentioned earlier, insist on it when using public transportation as well), and have dress codes for women as well as for men. The secular world has none of that.

[removed]

You're good to draft a fair distance as the air is already disturbed.

Its what makes giant brick shaped trucks so great, they disturb the air so much that you can save gas.

I found that for turbine aircraft you want to get to altitude faster for the same reason. A max thrust climb will burn at a higher rate but you get to altitude so much faster and the burn rate four every thousand feet you climb drops significantly. That's not just to enter cruise but also the efficiency at altitude.

Most everyone is missing the point of UH2. They are creating a proof-of-concept for an application of their primary mission, which is hydrogen logistics. Even if every plane had one of these cells for each engine, there's no infrastructure to supply it.

​

Now that they've proved this out, it's gonna be a pivot towards HOW TO SUPPLY THE H2 in a manner to support the GIGANTIC number of retrofits that OEM's/operators are going to make. But no OEM/operator is going to make that retrofit until there's a reliable supply that supports their ops, so the comments worrying about the efficiency comparison are missing the forest for the trees.

[removed]

For anyone who didn't read article: this was an electric motor being tested on one side of the aircraft, with the other being a conventional turbine engine aka turboprop. The electric motor was fed by electricity generated in a fuel cell that used hydrogen as the fuel source. In other words, they didn't "burn" the hydrogen in a turbine engine, This is why the pilot reported it was so much smoother. It was an electric motor. The hydrogen was sourced from water, not from natural gas so was in some sense truly "green"

*speaker of the House of Representatives

pure hydrogen, not methanol in this test

in an aircraft I'm guessing explosive decompression is the bigger problem, seeing as visualizing a fire on your wing really isn't changing your plan in the short term lol

would clarify that while slowly ramping can be inefficient, flooring the accelerator, depending on the vehicle can also be inefficient .The principle being an engine under load is more efficient , but only up to a point again depending on design. but in this case, the motor was electric so no reason not to goose it :)

I love smart, low tech solutions like this.

You sure your numbers for prop planes are for 15 minutes and not an hour? This looks similar to the size of a Saab 340 which burns about 119 gallons/hr.

Gotta love the name, Lightning McClean. This is great news!

[removed]

There's a fairly wide margin between using hydrogen as your lift material, and using it as a fuel source.

Fucking Australia

[removed]

[removed]