threadmark said:
This is an open thread for any contribution of relevant information. I posted this because I had a spare minute and was interested in some feedback on the posted topic. I am not interested in feeding your curiosity in my progress or estimations. Do you have anything useful and relevant to say on the topic? Because its easy to say what could go wrong or why it won't work. This thread is for a thinking session to get the idea off the ground. TM
You want feedback, but nothing negative?
I can blow smoke up your a** all day long but the fact is, the numbers you
have given don't stand up to much and don't show any real advantages of using your system over the national grid. Negative feedback is important, perhaps use it to alter your ideas to make them more efficient.
You proposed a device which at first appearances is expensive and not producing a feasible amount of power to justify the costs.
However, as per previous requests, why don't you do some calculations. You want feedback, but you haven't given us any real numbers to work with. We can't just throw calculations your way because they won't mean anything.
Without your "estimations" we can't do anything for you.
Cutting down your posts so far we come to this:
"I want to fly a 2000kg airship at an altitude of 1km, tethered with 4 cables attached to motors and it has to produce 15,000kW of power."
Why not do some calcs and show us you're attempting it. So far all you've said is here's my specification, do the maths for me.
threadmark said:
FYI
hydrogen is not the only buoyant substance.
Don't be sarcastic and try to be clever. People here will help you and encourage you. But you have to show some effort, not just post a concept and expect everyone else to do the leg work.
Helium would be far safer, however, it isn't cheap.