Comments on: Fuel Cell Powered Military Surveillance Aircraft

By: Gary Kucharski

Gary Kucharski — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:33:07 +0000

James Richmond, Could you give me a call 248-840-1415 I would like to talk to you about Rentar.

By: Oscar Fleury

Oscar Fleury — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:37:10 +0000

@Helanati,

The army knows very well what paving a possible road to peace means.

That’s why they dismissed Sikorsky’s X-wing project, with the consequence that its successor, the X2, had to be financed entirely by Sykorsky — and as if this were not enough of a rebuttal, Sikorsky has been left out more recently from the bidding for the presidential helicopter project.

Hence, the very small X2 prototype looks almost to me as if Sikorsky wanted to take revenge by scaring the army with a concept that might well be eligible for becoming the PA (Personal Aircraft) of the future.

By: Helanati

Helanati — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:42:56 +0000

This is an amazing feat of man! The use of hydrogen will change global politics as we become less dependent on oil.

If only the army knew what they were doing… paving a possible road to peace… I’m sure they would stop, immediately.

By: Jos Conil

Jos Conil — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 05:57:27 +0000

Dear Mr.Oscar,

I was commenting on the technology only – not on its area of application. It is indeed ironic that man first learns to use the destructive aspect of any technology.

Nuclear energy is the best example.The first nuclear reactor was used for breeding plutonium which powered the first nuclear bombs showered on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Only later, in the fifties did we start using it to produce electricity.

I agree with you that the civil society should take posession of air space, but it should be done in a controlled manner, primarily for mass public transportation. If not, the same tragedy that happened to the personal car will happen for personal aviation also and a clogged skyway will defenitely be more energy consuming and dangerous than a clogged roadway

The UAV’s combination of efficient fuel cells with advanced navigation systems can be a great step in that direction. (defenitely only if it is made available for civil purposes).

The bottomline is that it is basically mindsets and priorities that should change first if a change towards a more humane and sustainable world should happen.

By: Oscar Fleury

Oscar Fleury — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:24:37 +0000

Dear Jos Conil,

It’s rather frightening news in fact, since these UCAV will enhance the USA’s already global air superiority used as a joker for global power enforcement.

The only antidote to this menace closing in on the planet is for the civil society to take possession of the global airspace with myriads of personal aircraft.

The transfer of road traffic into the airspace will require VERTOL-aircraft like Sikorsky’s X2 for swift collision avoidance and fast cruising — but by all means no clumsy balloons!

By: Steve Stowell

Steve Stowell — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:59:29 +0000

I want my military tax dollars to go toward making our military more effective( as was done in the case of the computer chip). I just don’t understand here what the the overlap is between the military’s needs and a pure hydrogen fueled drone, unless there are military needs being met that aren’t obvious (see above) The critical issue to address is the storage of the hydrogen, (unless you are using a conventional fuel in your fuel cell). In Apollo, we had a lot of hydrogen to burn, because we needed it as a fuel for the rockets.

I am not picky as to where tax funded research comes from, except if the research is politicized or outside the scope of the mission.

By: James Richmond

James Richmond — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:58:32 +0000

Until we all come to one mindset, wars have been and always will be part of human nature. We can disagree with war but we must realize that the concept of war will remain in the human thought process as long as we exist. There will always be conflict, even in the animal kingdom all the way down to the lowly ants. Battles are a daily event… humans are just more efficient at it. Now can we get back to the subject of alternative energy please?

By: Bem Favorito

Bem Favorito — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:57:30 +0000

While I do agree that research should be encouraged regardless of origins, I’d have to stand up to the military using alternative energy as an excuse to make more machines for war, and much more effective machines at that. It’s just wrong, imo.

By: Steve Stowell

Steve Stowell — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:56:42 +0000

Really strange. I can understand that a fuel cell, in and of itself, is quiet, noise-free, and of low volume and weight, and is thermodynamically efficient. The problem is the hydrogen fuel. Unless the fuel cell is powered by a hydrocarbon (conventional) fuel (which actually holds a lot more hydrogen per unit volume than any hydrogen trapped in a “getter” or in a tank) I do not see a military or cost advantage in using it. Perhaps there is a signature (makes drone harder to detect), or power impulse (They need a short-time big burst of power, same reason hydrogen was used for Apollo launches) reason to use it.

By: James Richmond

James Richmond — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:55:59 +0000

Lets encourage the research regardless where it originates.

By: Dale Denton

Dale Denton — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:55:32 +0000

Yep, energy consciousness is good. Less noise, carry heavier payloads and travel farther. This helps keep our troops out of harms way. Auto industry working on decreasing volume and DoD working on decreasing weight. Sounds like a win-win to me.

By: James Richmond

James Richmond — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:55:13 +0000

The military complex is Hugh and capable of gaining advancements in various components and technology’s that are then assimilated into our daily life’s. including the computer that you are vocally criticizing them on, many advancements and items that you do not give a second thought to are direct spin offs of government research or space program technology. The military has been involved with fuel savings for many decades. Look into a product named the Rentar fuel catalyst at http://www.rentar.com this product has many beneficial results. It was invented as a spin off from space program technology and then sold back to the military by the company who bought the rights from NASA and refined the product to its current concept. Research and development are critical to achieve our overall goals. These things don’t invent themselves, are very expensive, and the results too unsure for many companies to invest the time and money on unproven concepts and ideas.

By: Simon Vinberg Andersen

Simon Vinberg Andersen — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:52:44 +0000

That’s very nice… it’s so awesome that the American army is CO2 concerned.

By: David Higgins

David Higgins — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:52:16 +0000

Yeah I think it’s awesome we are being energy conscience in our military while we go blow shit up! Super! Why don’t we make solar powered nuclear missiles while we’re at it? That would save some fuel. Of course it won’t matter then. Will it?

By: Jos Conil

Jos Conil — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:48:34 +0000

This is defenitely great news!. I’m sure that one day we’ll all be flying in fuel cell powered airplanes.Combine that with the possibility of using lifting gases like helium for the take-off and landing, as demonstrated by Mr. Hunt (www.fuellessflight.com) and we have the aviation solution for the 21st century!