We monitor air data quite closely at work.

CO2 rises really fast with people in even a large space.

I wouldn’t put too much effort into vents above a door as we’ve seen that CO2 will leak through doors and even floors/ceilings very quickly.

> I wouldn’t put too much effort into vents above a door as we’ve seen that CO2 will leak through doors and even floors/ceilings very quickly.

I'd like it to vent out into the hallway and the rest of the apartment though, so not sure what you mean by it leaking through doors? It's obviously not leaking enough, hence the addition of a vent. It's either that or keeping my door open all night which isn't feasible due to noise by other family members waking up etc.

Got briefly excited thinking they’d actually 3D printed the real thing

Yeah I skimmed it and it all read like when I ask ChatGPT to go wild and be “fun”.

We usually drive to work. That means that when the sun’s shining, the car isn’t home.

Conversely, if we didn’t drive to work, we probably wouldn’t have a car.

On the other hand, we have a big solar array at work so if we had on-site parking (we don’t) we could drive our power home.

It’s probably impractical in reality though, the tax treatment would be chaos and we use the power we generate at work during the day on-site.

Nobody said that you have to use your home or work solar. If you fill up part of your car using some fast charger network (which would still be solar powered), it would still work.

Moreover, even if we take the top 25% percent of commute distances (which is >40km per day), that still leaves you with 10 days until you have to recharge. If you recharge every weekend, you still have plenty of battery capacity for your needs outside of sun hours (you likely will need only 1-2 kWh per day anyway).

Pilot here, I don’t think this is right.

Aircraft typically operate at 80-100% power output. It’s not the average 20% power output of your car.

Weight is pretty much everything, the savings from regenerative braking in an aircraft are almost 0% but the cost of enabling it is some tons.

This tech makes loads of sense in a car but I’ve never flown an aeroplane in stop-start traffic because that’s not how the sky works.

Indeed and an aircraft never really 'brakes' like a car does, except for 20 second on the ground (including thrust reversers). Even in a descent you would have significant forward thrust. The drag does all the braking. And you can't regenerate that.

PS I'm a hobby pilot so please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think even an airliner would idle their engines during descent.

I don't see how that can possibly be correct, at least for commercial airliners.

An airliner will use maximum power at takeoff, somewhat less for climbing, and much less during cruise. The figure I see is takeoff fuel consumption/hour is like 3x cruise fuel consumption/hour. Power needed will also decline as fuel is burned off, since the required lift goes down.

Thinner air. Engine is not capable of burning as much fuel, or generating as much thrust, with full performance at cruising altitude.

Ah, that explains it. Thank you.

Couldn't this just be related to relative engine efficiency? You could easily be running the engines effectively full power the entire time, but obviously high-altitude cruise is where you spend most of your time and presumably the engine's are optimized for that operating regime.

It’s because they’re next to Kaliningrad, that weird Russian exclave

It’s ok, it’s now a million dollars/year cheaper when your renewal comes up!

Jokes aside though, some good performance sleuthing there.

Are you sure you’re not just flying more now you’re not drinking?

Single pilot IFR being fun or scary mostly comes down to currency!

Mostly mountain wave presumably?

Went to Steiner school, can confirm I’m capable of knitting a chicken.

It worked out well for me in terms of education but that’s a small data point.