No Subject

[Mpicco]

Yeah the principleis that the cool air that enters the turbine is then heated, and when done so it expands drastically... this expansion is
what's harnessed and used to power the turbine (and the plane attached to it) forward. But the source of the heat to expand the air this
way, currently burning kerosene, could be whatever. It's justa a problem for engineers to devise something that can replace this.
Burning kerosene does seem like a stone age kind of technology already, since we now know how much air travel could be affecting the
temperatures around the globe. I think I read somewhere that in the days following 911, when all airplanes on the states were grounded
for 3 days, the average temperature all over dropped by 2 or 3 degrees. And this isnt only because of the emissions we normally
associate with burning oil, which is CO2 and CO, but also by a sometimes overlooked byproduct of combustion, water.
Water has a very high greenhouse effect that sometimes is overlooked because "water" sounds harmless... but alternate, namely electric,
forms of heat could do away with this "lesser" problem too.

It's going to be an interesting era for aviation the when all of this comes to major play...
I myself hope many ideas get thrown on the table, the best one picked up, and then I'd like to see all aerospatial companies pulling
together. But the realistic part of me thinks that there could be a "engine war" in which lets say Rolls Royce pushes forward a hydrogen
driven turbine, GE pushes plasma, P&W comes up with an ion-drive... and then everyone starts lobbying with companies like the HD-DVD
vs BluRay kinda thing...