You can e.g. stack two half bridges, connect their switching nodes with a flying capacitor, and declare the connection of the stack the new switching node. If you use a series induction from the switching node to the load, that's a "3L FC buck". The inductor is not needed for halving.
Yeah 120W is table stakes.
Also Anker wall adapters are insulated that's worse for efficiency.
Integer ratios can be done with GaN and class 1 ceramics and stray inductance to charge the GaN drain, so they only experience ZVS (they don't need ZCS).
Use a resonant gate drive.
Efficiencies around 99.8% are feasible for a doubler/halver based on the "3L FC buck" topology, in the 10~30 MHz range.
ZVS (not ZCS) topologies that use planned stray inductance and WBG transistors and class 1 ceramics can operate at 10s of MHz with less than 1% of loss per voltage halving.
They have insane power density and lack of wound inductors means there's nothing that causes problems as you push into the kilovolts.
But really they're just more efficient (integer ratios, where `n-1` not prime) than classical Buck/boost topologies.
The thing we do technically know how to do just haven't yet because there are no economic incentives to even tackle the finer engineering aspects let alone the regulatory approval ones, is to put a large vacuum-insulated (like a thermos/dewar) liquid hydrogen tank in the middle of a jet or a more-spherical shape front and back of the wing; and then just adjusting the plumbing and combustion chambers and nozzles to work for hydrogen instead of regular diesel-like jet fuel.
We have gas turbines running on hydrogen. They just work. We have tanks like it, just none tuned for the needs and wants of an airplane specifically.
They are more range than a normal jet fuel tank, because hydrogen is just so much lighter per energy.
The only issue is that the insulation needs and the sheer volume make it impractical to keep in regular jetliner wings.
Thus the need for putting a more-spherical tank in the tube shaped fuselage body of the plane.
I think such a plane would be around 5x as expensive today to operate due to fuel costs, and have otherwise pretty comparable performance specs.
There would probably be a separate front and rear cabin, though.
If you tax the CO2 enough you'd trigger such or similar to be put into production.
And the breaks notably may melt besides the landing gear suffering irreparable damage (to where you need to replace the landing gear).
That's planned for and to be handled by the required fire fighting truck coming out and hosing them down if they start any signs of starting a fire, even though that will shatter the brake discs that were still good.
The certified landing weight is about what weight they can be and still take off with no maintenance needed and just a regular refueling and perhaps crew change due to shift limits. But nothing done to the plane besides refueling. And yeah, it's because the extra capacity is just for extra fuel for extra range, so it's not worth the spendings on landing it more than just safely once.
Ehhh, it's surprisingly practical to pack a bit of a ship with batteries to get 3~5 days of range, at least for ships as efficient per unit mass an an Emma Maersk and above.
What's less practical is the grid to support the fast charger that can recharge it in the ~10 hours it takes to unload and reload it.
Trans-atlantic battery container ship is technically feasible.
It won't be economic until you charge the oil burners loads for the CO2, and even then it might be that some kind of non-carbon burner of fuel cell beats it. Looking at ammonia concepts, for example.
Modern trucks don't use cobalt batteries. LFP are better for that workload as they can be cycled much deeper (making up almost all the weight difference when just looking at nominal capacity) and are substantially safer and actually somewhat cheaper than the NMC chemistry that uses the cobalt.
reply