deicer

New tech usually isn't 'economical', but it's part of the baby steps towards change and efficiency. The Swiss were trying it: https://newatlas.com/renewable-energy-heat-storage-empa/47334/ The British as well: https://www.icax.co.uk/thermalbank.html The Austrians: https://www.naratek.com/en/2022/heat-store-summer-use-winter It's science that is ever evolving.....

Yes, barriers slow rates of adoption. It's the people who put tariffs on goods and the reasons for it that are the greatest barrier. And much like corporations raising profits which causes inflation, which leads to increased interest rates which hurt consumers, tariffs don't hurt manufacturers directly because it is the consumer that pays them.

You are both correct, and wrong. Yes, that system was expensive, but it was the first of it's kind. It was a bold step to take. It doesn't state in the story what maintenance requirements it had, just that it had come to end of life. Like anything, mechanical or human. Yet like all ground breaking technology, refinements and improvements come fast and furious. What would be the cost today? Nowadays solar panels, and ground source heat pumps are within the financial reach of a lot of homeowners. Just look at the improvements on heatpumps. Cars in the 70's got 15mpg, yet cars today that are twice the size get 40mpg. Only if you maintain them though, and they too will eventually wear out. You can post all the negatives you want, but the only constant is change. Systems will change, systems will get more efficient, and I will throw in a big 'however'.... Corporations are addicted to profit so they don't want to make products that last forever. Just like the freezer in my basement that was built in the mid 70's and is still going strong. Compare that to appliances and cars built today. The ability is there, it's just that big money is making too much money off not changing to instigate change.

Not comparable. The reason I say that is that after reading that the Drake Landing system is failing, you have to realize that it was at end of life for the system, not because the system didn't work. They did get 25 years of good service out of it. Maintenance and replacement is the key to any working object. How well do airplanes work if not maintained?

What makes it even more interesting and humourous is that it's in Alberta. Oh the irony.....

Tariff's are another discussion altogether. Like all products, early adopters pay the premium for bragging rights.

A good analogy of where we are with regards to EV's is to look back at the price and availability of OLED TV's. The original Sony OLED was an 11" model that sold for $2500. Compare that to what you get for the same price today. It's only gonna take time....

Might make a cool in-law suite in the backyard!

How to cross an ocean...

https://avgeekery.com/german-eurofighters-intercept-non-responsive-boeing-777-and-it-was-caught-on-camera/

Don't worry Kip, just put a few granola bars in your pocket, carry a water bottle, and they'll get you out eventually

My concern isn't with the performance improvement, but from Seekers article, use may lead to lung damage and how would that go in a pressurized environment and/or life longevity?

Taken from a social media post... Each flight was equipped with 16 shots of TEB. It was the TEB triethylborane that caused the fuel to temporarily Flair up. The NTSB lists Triethylborane [TEB] as the most dangerous material, one step below fissionable nuclear material,’ Former SR-71 Blackbird pilot David Peters. Taken by Stuart Freer at RAF Mildenhall in 1986, the impressive photo in this post features an SR-71 Blackbird Mach 3 spy plane creating spectacular fireballs while performing at the Air Fete Air Show. Former Blackbird RSO, Lt. Col. Doug Soifer, recalls in Richard H. Graham’s book SR-71 Revealed The Inside Story. ‘During that pass, we [Soifer and Mike Smith, the pilot] had “13 fireballs” come out of the plane’s exhaust. It looked beautiful, and people wanted to know if it could be done again. They used the picture of us with the flames coming out for the next year’s Air Fete poster. Mike and I became known as the “Fireball Twins.” The maintenance people figured it was the TEB [triethylborane] shooting out of its container and igniting the JP-7. With that start, we had an exciting six weeks in England.’ The SR-71 burned JP-7 fuel. A one-of-a-kind fuel that used an additive to raise its flash point so the fuel would not break down at extreme temperatures The high flashpoint brings up another problem. Most jet engines use igniter plugs, nothing more than a hot spark plug. Using these igniter plugs they used with the JP-7 and drowns it out, it won’t ignite. Kelly [Johnson] put his engineers to work, and he said, ‘OK, gentlemen, how are we going to start this?’ They came up with a very unique way. Triethylborane – TEB for short. Each engine has a one-and-a-quarter pint. If I had it in a squirt gun and squirted it into the atmosphere, it would go Kaboom! – it explodes with contact with the atmosphere. And that’s how we started the engines. As the engines rotate, at the right time, it spray this amount of TEB into the turbine section, which goes kaboom, which in turn lights the engine. When you take the throttles up into the afterburner, it puts this metered amount of TEB in that lights up the JP-7. You get 16 shots for each engine.’ As far as I know, no pilot ran out of TEB on a flight, but during a long flight (12 hours ), they came close; if anyone knows of a story of when they ran out of TEB, please let me know.  Also, there was a way that my experts told me to ignite the fuel by using something other than TB in the SR 71. Can anyone fill me in on what that was?

Thanks for the update!

Here is a clearer video from the same perspective. Further to above, it is interesting that most news outlets have removed the extended clip and only show the moment of impact.

Is it just me, or does the video appear to show the ship accelerate and turn into the pier?

Much like most innovations, North America is way behind on the tech curve. When you talk about paying for the facilities, don't forget, gas stations, et al that you fill up with have been established for a long long time. Compare it to filling a car in the 1910's. That's where we're at with regards to recharging technology. Give it a while.... Edited to add... When it comes to different battery types, over time gasoline was standardized also.

Concerns over charging time are becoming a thing of the past. Seems the reality of battery swapping is happening, and it takes less than 2 minutes. Like any new tech, there will be glitches, but improvements are happening.