All you niggers laughed at me when I said flying cars and hoverboards were happening soon well I've been following the lithium-polymer market and the power density has been steadily increasing by 3% every 6 months. And whenever they release a new range the previous range halves in price. You'll cowards are too pussy to be on the frontiers of technology like me. Kill yourselves.
> autistic popsci sperglord
> only 1/10 things he said have almost came true
> LOK GUISE I WAS RITE xDD
get the fug out >>>/x/
>>7949017
1/10? Everything I said came through. /sci/ said battery tech would never improve, it improves every 6 months. Price has been dropping like crazy as well.
>>7949082
Let me know when we have battery powered passenger aircraft.
>>7949099
The good thing about being a contrarian is that it's a lazy way to look smart due to the burden of proof being on the claimant not the skeptic. However the bad thing is that as time progresses your past statements start to become very embarrassing. Remember Lord Kelvin and his claims that heavier-than-air aircraft would never fly?
http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/innovation-citizenship/airbus-e-fan-the-future-of-electric-aircraft.html
>>7949110
>Airbus Group's E-Fan demonstrator sets the stage for subsequent production versions: first, the two-seat E-Fan 2.0 version for basic pilot training, then the E-Fan 4.0, a four-seat airplane for full pilot licensing and the general aviation market.
It's not there yet, clearly. Also we are talking about passenger airliners. I am skeptical of claims that it is possible to achieve energy densities of chemical fuels without severe cost restriction.
Only time will tell as they say.
>>7949118
Just admit you got BTFO, you I quote said "let me know when they have battery powered passenger aircraft", I posted a battery powered passenger aircraft and now you are moving the goalposts across the galaxy by claiming "b-but I meant electric jumbo jets!"
>>7949122
You've posted something that is not typical of passenger jets. I don't know how to cure your autism, sorry.
>>7949125
You asked for a passenger plane
I posted a passenger plane
Who is the autistic crybaby here?
/sci/ contrarians nowhere to be found, thoroughly BTFO
>>7949082
> /sci/ said battery tech would never improve
you are bullshitting out of your filthy mouth
>>7949288
It's true. I posted about hoverboards and every single poster howled at me that they will never fly for more than a minute because battery tech has peaked. /sci/s problem is that it projects it's own failures on the rest of the scientific community. "I've failed to come up with anything new, therefore no one else will!"
>>7949009
So you are so autistic that you expect people to remember stuff you posted on an anonymous image board
>>7949588
>hoverboards
>>7949118
>cost restriction
I dunno, a battery would be a one-time purchase (for a couple of years) while fuel is needed to refill for every flight. Would the cost really be that much?
power density would be the first thing to get out of the way, but you'd still need to figure out weight. that's going to increase with density for various reasons, which will mean more power, and so on.
i think we need a multi research oriented project that encompasses various areas like mulijunction photovoltaics and superconducting electromagnets for motors. cooling the superconductors could be done with magnetic refrigeration. all three areas could be studied extensively but they need to be on one project as a whole.
>>7950157
Fuel burns and the aeroplane decreases in weight, batteries lose charge and don't lose much weight. Moreover it depends on how much it costs to manufacture and how many cycles it can hold before being replaced. There is also time wasted in servicing your fleet every year/few years because the batteries are not doing so good.
I do not mean to be a defeatist here but batteries are not there yet.
>>7950193
Yeah I think the biggest problems with them is losing charge. I don't even trust my phone battery to be honest.
Is it physically possible for batteries to reach that point one day, or do you think the problem is inherent to battery design itself?
>>7950201
Solid state batteries would probably be sufgicient in terms of power density and reliability, but they are early prototypes.
>>7949009
>You'll cowards
Is that English?
>>7951470
>being this new
Would /sci/ buy my hoverboard? 15 minute fly time, £15,000
>>7951492
>being this jew
>>7951628
how about 15,000$. Then I would buy.
>>7951646
the price for the parts is pretty much the same for both countries. There will probably be a slight reduction due to buying parts wholesale that figure is a quote for a one-off build.
>>7951628
how fast is it and how durable is it (because you know that shit will be slamming into the ground repeatedly)
>I guessed that battery technology would improve in a market saturated with handheld devices
Wow, you're like a psychic or something OP.
>>7949009
Even if you wait 100 years, you'd still wouldn't have enough energy to power a flying car for more than a few minutes.
>>7951699
>How fast is it?
I can't tell you that without drag data but I can say what the acceleration will be 0-60 mph in 13 seconds.
>How durable is it?
Very durable, I am testing the suspension systems on a drone right now and I am also working on an autorotation system for extra safety in the event of total power loss.
>>7951722
Yet /sci/ is still saying things like this >>7951730
Even if your contrarianism turns out to be correct a 15 minute flying car flight could still take you halfway across London at 60 mph. This currently takes an hour on the tube, even more by car. It's also worth it for short hops over difficult terrain if you can't afford a helicopter which costs 10x as much and isn't autonomous. Besides utility I'm pretty sure there's a market for people who just want to hover around for fun.
>>7951646
I also offer ducted fan afterburners and gold trimmings for an extra £3,000
>>7949099
not op, who is clearly insane
but check
lilium-aviation.com
