Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #433303 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-01 11:09 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-11-08 18:48 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 145 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-01 11:09 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-01 08:51 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-01 14:27 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-01 22:01 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 09:16 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-03 08:33 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 07:29 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 07:35 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 12:20 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-06 12:23 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-06 16:28 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 19:13 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2016-11-01 10:06 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-01 10:20 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2016-11-01 11:24 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Phil Hobbs <pcdhobbs@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 14:41 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2016-11-01 14:53 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2016-11-01 15:09 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2016-11-02 08:14 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2016-11-02 10:29 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2016-11-01 15:14 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-11-02 12:10 +1100
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-01 18:03 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 10:00 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2016-11-03 09:24 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:51 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-06 16:37 -0600
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2016-11-07 02:28 +0100
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:03 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-08 11:17 -0600
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 17:53 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-13 12:09 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-13 12:04 -0600
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-13 20:34 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 17:50 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-13 20:12 -0600
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 17:37 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2016-11-08 15:07 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-08 18:43 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-11-08 16:19 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-08 19:43 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-13 10:53 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-13 12:09 -0600
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2016-11-03 05:58 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-03 08:35 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-03 17:26 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2016-11-03 11:01 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 09:48 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-03 08:41 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-03 12:22 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2016-11-03 10:45 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 16:09 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-04 21:09 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Phil Hobbs <pcdhobbs@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 14:28 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-07 07:29 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-07 18:37 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-11-07 15:31 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-07 21:46 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2016-11-07 14:40 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-11-07 18:18 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 03:39 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-11-07 20:51 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 07:13 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-08 12:28 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-11-08 13:33 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 22:05 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-08 18:45 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-09 00:13 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-08 19:46 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-09 01:05 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-11-09 18:26 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-09 20:03 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 19:21 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 08:40 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 02:55 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-14 06:02 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 11:31 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 05:54 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 13:47 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 12:35 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-15 00:04 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-14 13:37 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 18:52 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-14 14:56 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 13:17 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-14 12:53 -0600
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 19:19 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 18:57 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 11:27 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 05:52 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 13:56 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 12:47 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 23:58 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 22:07 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-14 22:09 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-11-15 20:34 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-15 18:01 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2016-11-15 18:59 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-11-16 04:33 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-16 02:52 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 21:42 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-16 09:05 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 02:13 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-16 03:02 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-16 20:32 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-16 02:46 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-14 17:30 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-14 04:08 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:49 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2016-11-03 11:18 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Bill Beaty <billb@eskimo.com> - 2016-11-06 22:19 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2016-11-01 10:36 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 09:28 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-01 18:19 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-01 14:13 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-02 00:00 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-01 22:05 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-02 02:54 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-02 20:20 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2016-11-03 02:24 +0100
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 02:02 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-11-03 07:41 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-01 19:10 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-01 22:06 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-11-01 19:12 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-02 02:57 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-01 20:38 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2016-11-01 20:40 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Phil Hobbs <pcdhobbs@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 18:03 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Ingvald44 <noone@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-04 12:33 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 14:24 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 10:35 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:39 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-06 13:12 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-06 19:54 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 11:37 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-01 19:08 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2016-11-02 00:33 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-11-03 01:05 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:43 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 15:38 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Bill Martin <wwm@wwmartin.net> - 2016-11-02 11:47 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jack4747@gmail.com - 2016-11-08 06:17 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Ralph Barone <ralph@invalid.com> - 2016-11-08 15:21 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-08 18:48 -0500
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | mrdarrett@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 15:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40ff6205-5e62-4e17-aec2-73138fcc9ecc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #433373 |
On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote: > >Oh I dunno, I thought this 18-rotor electric copter-thingie was kind of cute. > > >http://newatlas.com/volocopter-manned-flight/42704/ > > Yikes. You won't catch me in one of those things. There's no way that's ever going to autorotate--if the power fails, it's Wile E. Coyote time. > > Cheers > > Phil Hobbs As long as you stay no more than 5 ft above the ground or tree line, you should be OK :) Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 12:10 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <58193d25$0$1527$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #433378 |
On 02/11/16 09:14, mrdarrett@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>> Oh I dunno, I thought this 18-rotor electric copter-thingie was kind of cute. >>> http://newatlas.com/volocopter-manned-flight/42704/ >> Yikes. You won't catch me in one of those things. There's no way that's ever going to autorotate--if the power fails, it's Wile E. Coyote time. >> Cheers >> Phil Hobbs > > As long as you stay no more than 5 ft above the ground or tree line, you should be OK :) Until a propeller shatters and a piece chops your legs off. Clifford Heath
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 18:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vqei1c1ru878501ahuprcapbmc70mb1bh1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #433373 |
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:41:22 -0700 (PDT), Phil Hobbs <pcdhobbs@gmail.com> wrote: >>Oh I dunno, I thought this 18-rotor electric copter-thingie was kind of cute. > >>http://newatlas.com/volocopter-manned-flight/42704/ > >Yikes. You won't catch me in one of those things. There's no way that's ever going to autorotate--if the power fails, it's Wile E. Coyote time. > >Cheers > >Phil Hobbs They would look great in my garage. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 10:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nvfftc$l09$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #433335 |
Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and helicopters already exist. However, the key point is according to the mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters achieve. Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- wrote in message news:babc343b-129f-4411-aa7a-b3e56c4ba756@googlegroups.com... On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 10:20:43 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote: > ... > Why do people invent (and press release) crazy sci-fi dreams that > ignore basic physics? There is a reason why helicopters have gas > turbine engines and giant fan blades... and horrendous fuel > consumption rates. Why don't they just use their jet engines to lift > the vehicle? > -- > John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc > picosecond timing precision measurement Oh I dunno, I thought this 18-rotor electric copter-thingie was kind of cute. http://newatlas.com/volocopter-manned-flight/42704/ Michael ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mrdarrett@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 09:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bbb4117c-12a8-4f5b-b603-42cd521136bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #433624 |
On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 7:00:43 AM UTC-7, Robert Clark wrote: > Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and > helicopters already exist. However, the key point is according to the > mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic > propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters achieve. > > Bob Clark What voltage do you need to guarantee specified operation in humid and rainy environments? Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 17:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <62ased-svf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #433624 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and > helicopters already exist. As toys and research projects, but not as practical machines. <snip> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 16:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nvobak$14l7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #433624 |
On 11/3/2016 9:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: > Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and > helicopters already exist. Toys. > However, the key point is according to the > mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic > propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters achieve. what math ? got a url ? > > Bob Clark >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 02:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <581fd8bc$0$1775$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl> |
| In reply to | #434096 |
On 06.11.16 23:37, Yuri Kreaton wrote: > On 11/3/2016 9:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: >> Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and >> helicopters already exist. > > Toys. > > >> However, the key point is according to the >> mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic >> propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters achieve. > > what math ? got a url ? > >> >> Bob Clark >> > The silly bugger produces ions with a corona wire, then he forgets to bring them up to speed with a high voltage. he thinks the corona wire itself will make a drive.......... Maybe he should go to nasa website to see how they did it. Or google for ion drive design.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 11:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvsstv$fqp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #434096 |
On 11/3/2016 9:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: >> Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and >> helicopters already exist. > >Toys. > > >> However, the key point is according to the >> mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic >> propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters >> achieve. > >what math ? got a url ? > As important as is the fact that you would no longer need heavy transformers to produce tens of thousands of volts, even more important is the high thrust-to-power ratio you can get by only using low voltages. This page describes the operation of the "lifters": Ionocraft. 3. Mechanism. "A generalized one-dimensional treatment gives the equation: F = I*d/k, where F is the resulting force, measured in dimension ML/T^2 I is the current flow of electric current, measured in dimension I. d is the air gap distance, measured in dimension L. k is the ion mobility coefficient of air, measured in dimension T^2 I/M (Nominal value 2·10^−4 m^2/ Vs). "In its basic form, the ionocraft is able to produce forces great enough to lift about a gram of payload per watt,[6] so its use is restricted to a tethered model. Ionocraft capable of payloads in the order of a few grams usually need to be powered by power sources and high voltage converters weighing a few kilograms, so although its simplistic design makes it an excellent way to experiment with this technology, it is unlikely that a fully autonomous ionocraft will be made with the present construction methods. Further study in electrohydrodynamics, however, show that different classes and construction methods of EHD thrusters and hybrid technology (mixture with lighter-than-air techniques), can achieve much higher payload or thrust-to-power ratios than those achieved with the simple lifter design. Practical limits can be worked out using well defined theory and calculations.[7] Thus, a fully autonomous EHD thruster is theoretically possible." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft#Mechanism Since the power is P = I*V, amperage times voltage, the key thrust to power ratio is F/P = d/kV. So if the air gap distance d remains the same, reducing the voltage increases the thrust-power ratio. Then theoretically IF the lifter is able to operate at hundreds of volts instead tens of thousands of volts you could increase the thrust/power ratio hundred(s) of times. Note that you can't just arbitrarily use a low voltage. You need sufficient voltage to initiate air ionization. Experiments have confirmed that for wires at the nanoscale you do get the important corona inception (air ionization) for voltages in the only 100's of volts range. However, it is very important to note that when you reduce the voltage and wire diameter the thrust is also reduced. Indeed to get thrust sufficient for large scale objects you would then need to use millions to billions of the nanowires. Since the wires are only nanometers wide there is no problem in regards to their fitting beneath a transport craft. But the large number of wires required would be a consideration in regards to the wires corona regions. You can't pack the wires too close together and maintain maximum thrust since interaction between the separate corona's reduces thrust. Among amateur experimenters that have built them, a lot of experimentation has gone into the best geometry to maximize thrust. A common arrangement is the triangular shape, with larger lifters constructed using this basic shape as cells to build up to larger devices. The reason you don't have just have a bunch of parallel wires bunched close together with the lifters is because of the corona region interaction at small distance. Then there would have to be a significant degree of experimentation to determine how close the nanowires could be packed while maintaining maximum thrust. In regards to the comparison of the thrust/power ratio of the lifters compared to helicopters. This is a parameter known as power loading for hovering transports. For helicopters it's commonly in the range of 6 to 10 lb/hp: Helicopter Aerodynamics and Performance. http://images.slideplayer.com/12/3493118/slides/slide_51.jpg This is about 3.6 to 6 grams-thrust/watt. The lifters currently made using macroscale wires get about 1 gram-thrust per watt in thrust/power ratio. So if the nanowire lifters really were able to manage a hundred times better thrust/power ratio than current lifters, that would be a major advance for hovering transport craft. Even if the nanowire lifters only improve the thrust/power ratio over current lifters by a factor of 10, that would still be an improvement over current helicopters. Bob Clark -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 11:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nvt1b3$1n8l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #434240 |
On 11/8/2016 10:03 AM, Robert Clark wrote: > On 11/3/2016 9:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: >>> Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and >>> helicopters already exist. >> >> Toys. >> >> >>> However, the key point is according to the >>> mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic >>> propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters >>> achieve. >> >> what math ? got a url ? >> > > As important as is the fact that you would no longer need heavy > transformers to produce tens of thousands of volts, even more important > is the high thrust-to-power ratio you can get by only using low voltages. > > This page describes the operation of the "lifters": > > Ionocraft. > 3. Mechanism. > "A generalized one-dimensional treatment gives the equation: > > F = I*d/k, > where > F is the resulting force, measured in dimension ML/T^2 > I is the current flow of electric current, measured in dimension I. > d is the air gap distance, measured in dimension L. > k is the ion mobility coefficient of air, measured in dimension T^2 I/M > (Nominal value 2·10^−4 m^2/ Vs). > > "In its basic form, the ionocraft is able to produce forces great enough > to lift about a gram of payload per watt,[6] so its use is restricted to > a tethered model. Ionocraft capable of payloads in the order of a few > grams usually need to be powered by power sources and high voltage > converters weighing a few kilograms, so although its simplistic design > makes it an excellent way to experiment with this technology, it is > unlikely that a fully autonomous ionocraft will be made with the present > construction methods. Further study in electrohydrodynamics, however, > show that different classes and construction methods of EHD thrusters > and hybrid technology (mixture with lighter-than-air techniques), can > achieve much higher payload or thrust-to-power ratios than those > achieved with the simple lifter design. Practical limits can be worked > out using well defined theory and calculations.[7] Thus, a fully > autonomous EHD thruster is theoretically possible." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft#Mechanism > > Since the power is P = I*V, amperage times voltage, the key thrust to > power ratio is F/P = d/kV. So if the air gap distance d remains the > same, reducing the voltage increases the thrust-power ratio. Then > theoretically IF the lifter is able to operate at hundreds of volts > instead tens of thousands of volts you could increase the thrust/power > ratio hundred(s) of times. > > Note that you can't just arbitrarily use a low voltage. You need > sufficient voltage to initiate air ionization. Experiments have > confirmed that for wires at the nanoscale you do get the important > corona inception (air ionization) for voltages in the only 100's of > volts range. However, it is very important to note that when you reduce > the voltage and wire diameter the thrust is also reduced. Indeed to get > thrust sufficient for large scale objects you would then need to use > millions to billions of the nanowires. > > Since the wires are only nanometers wide there is no problem in regards > to their fitting beneath a transport craft. But the large number of > wires required would be a consideration in regards to the wires corona > regions. You can't pack the wires too close together and maintain > maximum thrust since interaction between the separate corona's reduces > thrust. Among amateur experimenters that have built them, a lot of > experimentation has gone into the best geometry to maximize thrust. A > common arrangement is the triangular shape, with larger lifters > constructed using this basic shape as cells to build up to larger devices. > > The reason you don't have just have a bunch of parallel wires bunched > close together with the lifters is because of the corona region > interaction at small distance. Then there would have to be a significant > degree of experimentation to determine how close the nanowires could be > packed while maintaining maximum thrust. > > In regards to the comparison of the thrust/power ratio of the lifters > compared to helicopters. This is a parameter known as power loading for > hovering transports. For helicopters it's commonly in the range of 6 to > 10 lb/hp: > > Helicopter Aerodynamics and Performance. > http://images.slideplayer.com/12/3493118/slides/slide_51.jpg > > This is about 3.6 to 6 grams-thrust/watt. The lifters currently made > using macroscale wires get about 1 gram-thrust per watt in thrust/power > ratio. So if the nanowire lifters really were able to manage a hundred > times better thrust/power ratio than current lifters, that would be a > major advance for hovering transport craft. Even if the nanowire lifters > only improve the thrust/power ratio over current lifters by a factor of > 10, that would still be an improvement over current helicopters. > > Bob Clark > A helicopter...a real one that is....can weigh as little as 1300 to 1600 pounds for a 2 place piston, like a Robinson R22 ( guessing the weight) to a BK 117 like I fly which grosses out at 3200 Kgs to the huge Russian machines that are up to over 100,000Kgs. The Mil V-12 is the largest I believe. Whatever their weight they are sure to consume huge amounts of fuel whatever they do. 1300 lb = 589,670 grams or about 589,670 watts required using your conversion ratio, assume you are using a max of 1 micro amp through your nano wires, then the voltage needs to be W = V * I or 589,670 = V * 10^-6 or 58,967,000,000 Volts unfortunatly, this amount of voltage breaks down air insulation for several thousand feet, so the explosion and arc over will wipe out the wires.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 17:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a1g9fd-5e.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #434248 |
In sci.physics Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 11/8/2016 10:03 AM, Robert Clark wrote: >> On 11/3/2016 9:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: >>>> Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and >>>> helicopters already exist. >>> >>> Toys. >>> >>> >>>> However, the key point is according to the >>>> mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic >>>> propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters >>>> achieve. >>> >>> what math ? got a url ? >>> >> >> As important as is the fact that you would no longer need heavy >> transformers to produce tens of thousands of volts, even more important >> is the high thrust-to-power ratio you can get by only using low voltages. >> >> This page describes the operation of the "lifters": >> >> Ionocraft. >> 3. Mechanism. >> "A generalized one-dimensional treatment gives the equation: >> >> F = I*d/k, >> where >> F is the resulting force, measured in dimension ML/T^2 >> I is the current flow of electric current, measured in dimension I. >> d is the air gap distance, measured in dimension L. >> k is the ion mobility coefficient of air, measured in dimension T^2 I/M >> (Nominal value 2·10^−4 m^2/ Vs). >> >> "In its basic form, the ionocraft is able to produce forces great enough >> to lift about a gram of payload per watt,[6] so its use is restricted to >> a tethered model. Ionocraft capable of payloads in the order of a few >> grams usually need to be powered by power sources and high voltage >> converters weighing a few kilograms, so although its simplistic design >> makes it an excellent way to experiment with this technology, it is >> unlikely that a fully autonomous ionocraft will be made with the present >> construction methods. Further study in electrohydrodynamics, however, >> show that different classes and construction methods of EHD thrusters >> and hybrid technology (mixture with lighter-than-air techniques), can >> achieve much higher payload or thrust-to-power ratios than those >> achieved with the simple lifter design. Practical limits can be worked >> out using well defined theory and calculations.[7] Thus, a fully >> autonomous EHD thruster is theoretically possible." >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft#Mechanism >> >> Since the power is P = I*V, amperage times voltage, the key thrust to >> power ratio is F/P = d/kV. So if the air gap distance d remains the >> same, reducing the voltage increases the thrust-power ratio. Then >> theoretically IF the lifter is able to operate at hundreds of volts >> instead tens of thousands of volts you could increase the thrust/power >> ratio hundred(s) of times. >> >> Note that you can't just arbitrarily use a low voltage. You need >> sufficient voltage to initiate air ionization. Experiments have >> confirmed that for wires at the nanoscale you do get the important >> corona inception (air ionization) for voltages in the only 100's of >> volts range. However, it is very important to note that when you reduce >> the voltage and wire diameter the thrust is also reduced. Indeed to get >> thrust sufficient for large scale objects you would then need to use >> millions to billions of the nanowires. >> >> Since the wires are only nanometers wide there is no problem in regards >> to their fitting beneath a transport craft. But the large number of >> wires required would be a consideration in regards to the wires corona >> regions. You can't pack the wires too close together and maintain >> maximum thrust since interaction between the separate corona's reduces >> thrust. Among amateur experimenters that have built them, a lot of >> experimentation has gone into the best geometry to maximize thrust. A >> common arrangement is the triangular shape, with larger lifters >> constructed using this basic shape as cells to build up to larger devices. >> >> The reason you don't have just have a bunch of parallel wires bunched >> close together with the lifters is because of the corona region >> interaction at small distance. Then there would have to be a significant >> degree of experimentation to determine how close the nanowires could be >> packed while maintaining maximum thrust. >> >> In regards to the comparison of the thrust/power ratio of the lifters >> compared to helicopters. This is a parameter known as power loading for >> hovering transports. For helicopters it's commonly in the range of 6 to >> 10 lb/hp: >> >> Helicopter Aerodynamics and Performance. >> http://images.slideplayer.com/12/3493118/slides/slide_51.jpg >> >> This is about 3.6 to 6 grams-thrust/watt. The lifters currently made >> using macroscale wires get about 1 gram-thrust per watt in thrust/power >> ratio. So if the nanowire lifters really were able to manage a hundred >> times better thrust/power ratio than current lifters, that would be a >> major advance for hovering transport craft. Even if the nanowire lifters >> only improve the thrust/power ratio over current lifters by a factor of >> 10, that would still be an improvement over current helicopters. >> >> Bob Clark >> > > A helicopter...a real one that is....can weigh as little as 1300 to 1600 > pounds for a 2 place piston, like a Robinson R22 ( guessing the weight) > to a BK 117 like I fly which grosses out at 3200 Kgs to the huge Russian > machines that are up to over 100,000Kgs. The Mil V-12 is the largest I > believe. Whatever their weight they are sure to consume huge amounts of > fuel whatever they do. > > 1300 lb = 589,670 grams or about 589,670 watts required using your > conversion ratio, > > assume you are using a max of 1 micro amp through your nano wires, then > the voltage needs to be W = V * I or 589,670 = V * 10^-6 or > 58,967,000,000 Volts > > unfortunatly, this amount of voltage breaks down air insulation for > several thousand feet, so the explosion and arc over will wipe out the > wires. Or if you can make it work on a reduced voltage to each wire then you need billions of wires in parallel and a huge supply current. And it is current in a power supply that necessities big heavy wires, not voltage because of I^2*R. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 12:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o0a6lq$2si$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #434248 |
>> On 11/3/2016 9:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: >>>> Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and >>>> helicopters already exist. >>> >>> Toys. >>> >>> >>>> However, the key point is according to the >>>> mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic >>>> propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters >>>> achieve. >>> >>> what math ? got a url ? >>> >> >> As important as is the fact that you would no longer need heavy >> transformers to produce tens of thousands of volts, even more important >> is the high thrust-to-power ratio you can get by only using low voltages. >> >> This page describes the operation of the "lifters": >> >> Ionocraft. >> 3. Mechanism. >> "A generalized one-dimensional treatment gives the equation: >> >> F = I*d/k, >> where >> F is the resulting force, measured in dimension ML/T^2 >> I is the current flow of electric current, measured in dimension I. >> d is the air gap distance, measured in dimension L. >> k is the ion mobility coefficient of air, measured in dimension T^2 I/M >> (Nominal value 2·10^−4 m^2/ Vs). >> >> "In its basic form, the ionocraft is able to produce forces great enough >> to lift about a gram of payload per watt,[6] so its use is restricted to >> a tethered model. Ionocraft capable of payloads in the order of a few >> grams usually need to be powered by power sources and high voltage >> converters weighing a few kilograms, so although its simplistic design >> makes it an excellent way to experiment with this technology, it is >> unlikely that a fully autonomous ionocraft will be made with the present >> construction methods. Further study in electrohydrodynamics, however, >> show that different classes and construction methods of EHD thrusters >> and hybrid technology (mixture with lighter-than-air techniques), can >> achieve much higher payload or thrust-to-power ratios than those >> achieved with the simple lifter design. Practical limits can be worked >> out using well defined theory and calculations.[7] Thus, a fully >> autonomous EHD thruster is theoretically possible." >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft#Mechanism >> >> Since the power is P = I*V, amperage times voltage, the key thrust to >> power ratio is F/P = d/kV. So if the air gap distance d remains the >> same, reducing the voltage increases the thrust-power ratio. Then >> theoretically IF the lifter is able to operate at hundreds of volts >> instead tens of thousands of volts you could increase the thrust/power >> ratio hundred(s) of times. >> >> Note that you can't just arbitrarily use a low voltage. You need >> sufficient voltage to initiate air ionization. Experiments have >> confirmed that for wires at the nanoscale you do get the important >> corona inception (air ionization) for voltages in the only 100's of >> volts range. However, it is very important to note that when you reduce >> the voltage and wire diameter the thrust is also reduced. Indeed to get >> thrust sufficient for large scale objects you would then need to use >> millions to billions of the nanowires. >> >> Since the wires are only nanometers wide there is no problem in regards >> to their fitting beneath a transport craft. But the large number of >> wires required would be a consideration in regards to the wires corona >> regions. You can't pack the wires too close together and maintain >> maximum thrust since interaction between the separate corona's reduces >> thrust. Among amateur experimenters that have built them, a lot of >> experimentation has gone into the best geometry to maximize thrust. A >> common arrangement is the triangular shape, with larger lifters >> constructed using this basic shape as cells to build up to larger >> devices. >> >> The reason you don't have just have a bunch of parallel wires bunched >> close together with the lifters is because of the corona region >> interaction at small distance. Then there would have to be a significant >> degree of experimentation to determine how close the nanowires could be >> packed while maintaining maximum thrust. >> >> In regards to the comparison of the thrust/power ratio of the lifters >> compared to helicopters. This is a parameter known as power loading for >> hovering transports. For helicopters it's commonly in the range of 6 to >> 10 lb/hp: >> >> Helicopter Aerodynamics and Performance. >> http://images.slideplayer.com/12/3493118/slides/slide_51.jpg >> >> This is about 3.6 to 6 grams-thrust/watt. The lifters currently made >> using macroscale wires get about 1 gram-thrust per watt in thrust/power >> ratio. So if the nanowire lifters really were able to manage a hundred >> times better thrust/power ratio than current lifters, that would be a >> major advance for hovering transport craft. Even if the nanowire lifters >> only improve the thrust/power ratio over current lifters by a factor of >> 10, that would still be an improvement over current helicopters. >> >> Bob Clark >> > >A helicopter...a real one that is....can weigh as little as 1300 to 1600 >pounds for a 2 place piston, like a Robinson R22 ( guessing the weight) to >a BK 117 like I fly which grosses out at 3200 Kgs to the huge Russian >machines that are up to over 100,000Kgs. The Mil V-12 is the largest I >believe. Whatever their weight they are sure to consume huge amounts of >fuel whatever they do. > >1300 lb = 589,670 grams or about 589,670 watts required using your >conversion ratio, > >assume you are using a max of 1 micro amp through your nano wires, then the >voltage needs to be W = V * I or 589,670 = V * 10^-6 or 58,967,000,000 >Volts > >unfortunatly, this amount of voltage breaks down air insulation for several >thousand feet, so the explosion and arc over will wipe out the wires. > I looked up the BK 117 helicopter: MBB/Kawasaki BK 117. 4 Specifications (BK117 B-2). "Max takeoff weight: 3,350 kg (7,385 lb) Fuel capacity: 697 L (183 US Gallons, 153 Imp Gallons) internal fuel Powerplant: 2 × Textron Lycoming LTS 101-750B-1 turboshaft, 442 kW (593 hp) each" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB/Kawasaki_BK_117#Specifications_.28BK117_B-2.29 This is a thrust-to-power ratio of 7,385 lb/1,186 hp = 6.2 lb/hp, which is in the range common for helicopters. About the current needed to be carried by the nanowires, for a 1,300 lb, or 590 kg, helicopter, then IF the nanowires really do allow a 100 times better thrust-to-power ratio than the lifters now, this will be a thrust/power ratio of 100 grams-force/watt, 100 kg-force/kw. Then this helicopter would need about 6 kw of power. If the voltage required is only say 100 V because we are using nanowires, then 60 amps of current would need to be carried. But remember we would distribute this over millions to billions of the nanowires. Also, note for this supposed 1,300 lb lifter, 6 kw of power is less than only 8 hp, quite low for an air vehicle able to carry people. Bob Clark -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 12:04 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0a9uo$1e38$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #435363 |
On 11/13/2016 11:09 AM, Robert Clark wrote: > >>> On 11/3/2016 9:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: >>>>> Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and >>>>> helicopters already exist. >>>> >>>> Toys. >>>> >>>> >>>>> However, the key point is according to the >>>>> mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic >>>>> propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters >>>>> achieve. >>>> >>>> what math ? got a url ? >>>> >>> >>> As important as is the fact that you would no longer need heavy >>> transformers to produce tens of thousands of volts, even more important >>> is the high thrust-to-power ratio you can get by only using low >>> voltages. >>> >> >> A helicopter...a real one that is....can weigh as little as 1300 to >> 1600 pounds for a 2 place piston, like a Robinson R22 ( guessing the >> weight) to a BK 117 like I fly which grosses out at 3200 Kgs to the >> huge Russian machines that are up to over 100,000Kgs. The Mil V-12 is >> the largest I believe. Whatever their weight they are sure to consume >> huge amounts of fuel whatever they do. >> 1300 lb = 589,670 grams or about 589,670 watts required using your >> conversion ratio, >> assume you are using a max of 1 micro amp through your nano wires, >> then the voltage needs to be W = V * I or 589,670 = V * 10^-6 or >> 58,967,000,000 Volts >> >> unfortunatly, this amount of voltage breaks down air insulation for >> several thousand feet, so the explosion and arc over will wipe out the >> wires. >> > I looked up the BK 117 helicopter: > > MBB/Kawasaki BK 117. > 4 Specifications (BK117 B-2). > "Max takeoff weight: 3,350 kg (7,385 lb) > Fuel capacity: 697 L (183 US Gallons, 153 Imp Gallons) internal fuel > Powerplant: 2 × Textron Lycoming LTS 101-750B-1 turboshaft, 442 kW (593 > hp) each" > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB/Kawasaki_BK_117#Specifications_.28BK117_B-2.29 > > This is a thrust-to-power ratio of 7,385 lb/1,186 hp = 6.2 lb/hp, which > is in the range common for helicopters. > About the current needed to be carried by the nanowires, for a 1,300 lb, > or 590 kg, helicopter, then IF the nanowires really do allow a 100 times > better thrust-to-power ratio than the lifters now, this will be a > thrust/power ratio of 100 grams-force/watt, 100 kg-force/kw. > > Then this helicopter would need about 6 kw of power. you are too low by a factor of 100, you make mistake it is not 100 gm/watt, but only 1gm per watt. try again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 20:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o0b49b$2op$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #435374 |
On 11/13/2016 11:09 AM, Robert Clark wrote: >> >>>> On 11/3/2016 9:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: >>>>>> Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and >>>>>> helicopters already exist. >>>>> >>>>> Toys. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> However, the key point is according to the >>>>>> mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic >>>>>> propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters >>>>>> achieve. >>>>> >>>>> what math ? got a url ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> As important as is the fact that you would no longer need heavy >>>> transformers to produce tens of thousands of volts, even more important >>>> is the high thrust-to-power ratio you can get by only using low >>>> voltages. >>>> > >>> >>> A helicopter...a real one that is....can weigh as little as 1300 to >>> 1600 pounds for a 2 place piston, like a Robinson R22 ( guessing the >>> weight) to a BK 117 like I fly which grosses out at 3200 Kgs to the >>> huge Russian machines that are up to over 100,000Kgs. The Mil V-12 is >>> the largest I believe. Whatever their weight they are sure to consume >>> huge amounts of fuel whatever they do. > >>> 1300 lb = 589,670 grams or about 589,670 watts required using your >>> conversion ratio, > >>> assume you are using a max of 1 micro amp through your nano wires, >>> then the voltage needs to be W = V * I or 589,670 = V * 10^-6 or >>> 58,967,000,000 Volts >>> >>> unfortunatly, this amount of voltage breaks down air insulation for >>> several thousand feet, so the explosion and arc over will wipe out the >>> wires. >>> > >> I looked up the BK 117 helicopter: >> >> MBB/Kawasaki BK 117. >> 4 Specifications (BK117 B-2). >> "Max takeoff weight: 3,350 kg (7,385 lb) >> Fuel capacity: 697 L (183 US Gallons, 153 Imp Gallons) internal fuel >> Powerplant: 2 × Textron Lycoming LTS 101-750B-1 turboshaft, 442 kW (593 >> hp) each" >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB/Kawasaki_BK_117#Specifications_.28BK117_B-2.29 >> > >> This is a thrust-to-power ratio of 7,385 lb/1,186 hp = 6.2 lb/hp, which >> is in the range common for helicopters. > >> About the current needed to be carried by the nanowires, for a 1,300 lb, >> or 590 kg, helicopter, then IF the nanowires really do allow a 100 times >> better thrust-to-power ratio than the lifters now, this will be a >> thrust/power ratio of 100 grams-force/watt, 100 kg-force/kw. >> >> Then this helicopter would need about 6 kw of power. > > >you are too low by a factor of 100, > >you make mistake it is not 100 gm/watt, but only 1gm per watt. > >try again. > > The *current* lifters get about 1 gm-force of thrust per watt of supplied power, or 1 kg-force per kw. But the mathematics suggest using nanowires can improve this by a factor of 100 to 100 kg-force per kw. By the way, IF it is confirmed nanowires can result in the orders of magnitude improvement, then a 1,300 lb hovering transport craft could be powered by an engine the size of that on a push lawn mower. This though would be a scenario where you're using a gasoline engine to provide the power that is then converted to electricity to operate the lifter drive. Bob Clark -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 17:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4a53ebdd-62e6-4927-a648-6adfb5ae9e8b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #435487 |
On Monday, 14 November 2016 01:34:05 UTC, Robert Clark wrote: > On 11/13/2016 11:09 AM, Robert Clark wrote: > >>>> On 11/3/2016 9:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: > >>>>>> Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and > >>>>>> helicopters already exist. > >>>>> > >>>>> Toys. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> However, the key point is according to the > >>>>>> mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic > >>>>>> propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters > >>>>>> achieve. > >>>>> > >>>>> what math ? got a url ? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> As important as is the fact that you would no longer need heavy > >>>> transformers to produce tens of thousands of volts, even more important > >>>> is the high thrust-to-power ratio you can get by only using low > >>>> voltages. > >>>> > > > >>> > >>> A helicopter...a real one that is....can weigh as little as 1300 to > >>> 1600 pounds for a 2 place piston, like a Robinson R22 ( guessing the > >>> weight) to a BK 117 like I fly which grosses out at 3200 Kgs to the > >>> huge Russian machines that are up to over 100,000Kgs. The Mil V-12 is > >>> the largest I believe. Whatever their weight they are sure to consume > >>> huge amounts of fuel whatever they do. > > > >>> 1300 lb = 589,670 grams or about 589,670 watts required using your > >>> conversion ratio, > > > >>> assume you are using a max of 1 micro amp through your nano wires, > >>> then the voltage needs to be W = V * I or 589,670 = V * 10^-6 or > >>> 58,967,000,000 Volts > >>> > >>> unfortunatly, this amount of voltage breaks down air insulation for > >>> several thousand feet, so the explosion and arc over will wipe out the > >>> wires. > >>> > > > >> I looked up the BK 117 helicopter: > >> > >> MBB/Kawasaki BK 117. > >> 4 Specifications (BK117 B-2). > >> "Max takeoff weight: 3,350 kg (7,385 lb) > >> Fuel capacity: 697 L (183 US Gallons, 153 Imp Gallons) internal fuel > >> Powerplant: 2 × Textron Lycoming LTS 101-750B-1 turboshaft, 442 kW (593 > >> hp) each" > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB/Kawasaki_BK_117#Specifications_.28BK117_B-2.29 > >> > > > >> This is a thrust-to-power ratio of 7,385 lb/1,186 hp = 6.2 lb/hp, which > >> is in the range common for helicopters. > > > >> About the current needed to be carried by the nanowires, for a 1,300 lb, > >> or 590 kg, helicopter, then IF the nanowires really do allow a 100 times > >> better thrust-to-power ratio than the lifters now, this will be a > >> thrust/power ratio of 100 grams-force/watt, 100 kg-force/kw. > >> > >> Then this helicopter would need about 6 kw of power. > > > > > >you are too low by a factor of 100, > > > >you make mistake it is not 100 gm/watt, but only 1gm per watt. > > > >try again. > > > > > > The *current* lifters get about 1 gm-force of thrust per watt of supplied > power, or 1 kg-force per kw. But the mathematics suggest using nanowires can > improve this by a factor of 100 to 100 kg-force per kw. > > By the way, IF it is confirmed nanowires can result in the orders of > magnitude improvement, then a 1,300 lb hovering transport craft could be > powered by an engine the size of that on a push lawn mower. > > This though would be a scenario where you're using a gasoline engine to > provide the power that is then converted to electricity to operate the > lifter drive. > > Bob Clark No-one has so far stated the elephant in the room. Surely if you pack 1000 nanowires into the space a standard wire occupies, the result will behave very like one regular wire. Ie for the nanos to work their magic you'd need a gargantuan wingspan. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 20:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0b6il$qh6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #435487 |
On 11/13/2016 7:34 PM, Robert Clark wrote: > On 11/13/2016 11:09 AM, Robert Clark wrote: >>> >>>>> On 11/3/2016 9:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: >>>>>>> Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and >>>>>>> helicopters already exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> Toys. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> However, the key point is according to the >>>>>>> mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic >>>>>>> propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters >>>>>>> achieve. >>>>>> >>>>>> what math ? got a url ? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As important as is the fact that you would no longer need heavy >>>>> transformers to produce tens of thousands of volts, even more >>>>> important >>>>> is the high thrust-to-power ratio you can get by only using low >>>>> voltages. >>>>> >> >>>> >>>> A helicopter...a real one that is....can weigh as little as 1300 to >>>> 1600 pounds for a 2 place piston, like a Robinson R22 ( guessing the >>>> weight) to a BK 117 like I fly which grosses out at 3200 Kgs to the >>>> huge Russian machines that are up to over 100,000Kgs. The Mil V-12 is >>>> the largest I believe. Whatever their weight they are sure to consume >>>> huge amounts of fuel whatever they do. >> >>>> 1300 lb = 589,670 grams or about 589,670 watts required using your >>>> conversion ratio, >> >>>> assume you are using a max of 1 micro amp through your nano wires, >>>> then the voltage needs to be W = V * I or 589,670 = V * 10^-6 or >>>> 58,967,000,000 Volts >>>> >>>> unfortunatly, this amount of voltage breaks down air insulation for >>>> several thousand feet, so the explosion and arc over will wipe out the >>>> wires. >>>> >> >>> I looked up the BK 117 helicopter: >>> >>> MBB/Kawasaki BK 117. >>> 4 Specifications (BK117 B-2). >>> "Max takeoff weight: 3,350 kg (7,385 lb) >>> Fuel capacity: 697 L (183 US Gallons, 153 Imp Gallons) internal fuel >>> Powerplant: 2 × Textron Lycoming LTS 101-750B-1 turboshaft, 442 kW (593 >>> hp) each" >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB/Kawasaki_BK_117#Specifications_.28BK117_B-2.29 >>> >>> >> >>> This is a thrust-to-power ratio of 7,385 lb/1,186 hp = 6.2 lb/hp, which >>> is in the range common for helicopters. >> >>> About the current needed to be carried by the nanowires, for a 1,300 lb, >>> or 590 kg, helicopter, then IF the nanowires really do allow a 100 times >>> better thrust-to-power ratio than the lifters now, this will be a >>> thrust/power ratio of 100 grams-force/watt, 100 kg-force/kw. >>> >>> Then this helicopter would need about 6 kw of power. >> >> >> you are too low by a factor of 100, >> >> you make mistake it is not 100 gm/watt, but only 1gm per watt. >> >> try again. >> >> > > The *current* lifters get about 1 gm-force of thrust per watt of > supplied power, or 1 kg-force per kw. > But the mathematics suggest using > nanowires can improve this by a factor of 100 to 100 kg-force per kw. nanowires have nothing to do with it, they just carry current to motor, and they are less effecient than copper, in fact new ones are coated with copper > By the way, IF it is confirmed nanowires can result in the orders of > magnitude improvement, then a 1,300 lb hovering transport craft could be > powered by an engine the size of that on a push lawn mower. there is no improvement. you still dont get it, the amount of power to keep something up doesnt change at all. you are saying your nanowire makes vast improvements, but it only supplies power to device, it replaces cables. what is the resistance of a #18 solid copper wire? what is the resistance of a #18 nanowire bundle ? > > This though would be a scenario where you're using a gasoline engine to > provide the power that is then converted to electricity to operate the > lifter drive. > > Bob Clark >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 17:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <h3f9fd-5e.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #434240 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > On 11/3/2016 9:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: >>> Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and >>> helicopters already exist. >> >>Toys. >> >> >>> However, the key point is according to the >>> mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic >>> propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters >>> achieve. >> >>what math ? got a url ? >> > > As important as is the fact that you would no longer need heavy transformers > to produce tens of thousands of volts, even more important is the high > thrust-to-power ratio you can get by only using low voltages. How many times must you be told you do NOT need heavy transformers to produce high voltages? Camera flash units produce tens of thousands of volts. > This page describes the operation of the "lifters": > > Ionocraft. > 3. Mechanism. > "A generalized one-dimensional treatment gives the equation: > > F = I*d/k, > where > F is the resulting force, measured in dimension ML/T^2 > I is the current flow of electric current, measured in dimension I. > d is the air gap distance, measured in dimension L. > k is the ion mobility coefficient of air, measured in dimension T^2 I/M > (Nominal value 2·10^−4 m^2/ Vs). And what is the magnitude of I? > "In its basic form, the ionocraft is able to produce forces great enough to > lift about a gram of payload per watt,[6] so its use is restricted to a > tethered model. Ionocraft capable of payloads in the order of a few grams > usually need to be powered by power sources and high voltage converters > weighing a few kilograms, so although its simplistic design makes it an > excellent way to experiment with this technology, it is unlikely that a > fully autonomous ionocraft will be made with the present construction > methods. Further study in electrohydrodynamics, however, show that different > classes and construction methods of EHD thrusters and hybrid technology > (mixture with lighter-than-air techniques), can achieve much higher payload > or thrust-to-power ratios than those achieved with the simple lifter design. > Practical limits can be worked out using well defined theory and > calculations.[7] Thus, a fully autonomous EHD thruster is theoretically > possible." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft#Mechanism > > Since the power is P = I*V, amperage times voltage, the key thrust to power > ratio is F/P = d/kV. So if the air gap distance d remains the same, reducing > the voltage increases the thrust-power ratio. Then theoretically IF the > lifter is able to operate at hundreds of volts instead tens of thousands of > volts you could increase the thrust/power ratio hundred(s) of times. A typical small aircraft engine produces about 140 kW, so at 500 V your current is a bit under 300 A. A typical small helicopter engine is about twice that size, so double the current for a helicopter. That means the conductors from the power supply must be huge and you have to have hundreds, if not thousands, of emmitters to get the individual currents down to levels that won't vaporize them. Even if you mangaged to pull all that off, you now have a huge RFI generator destroying all radio communication over a wide ares which the FCC would never allow to be operated. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 15:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a0a39476-9856-4b97-ae0c-ba08e24d02ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #434253 |
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 9:46:22 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: ... > How many times must you be told you do NOT need heavy transformers to > produce high voltages? > > Camera flash units produce tens of thousands of volts. ... > Jim Pennino Normal camera flash tubes run off about ~300V plus a trigger pulse of ~4kV. kevin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@somewhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 18:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bno42cl19c96et1sdang8jvs2qdb2oa21s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #434300 |
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:07:08 -0800 (PST), kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> wrote: >On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 9:46:22 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >... >> How many times must you be told you do NOT need heavy transformers to >> produce high voltages? >> >> Camera flash units produce tens of thousands of volts. >... >> Jim Pennino > >Normal camera flash tubes run off about ~300V plus a trigger pulse of ~4kV. OK, Tazers produce tens of thousands of volts and don't have heavy transformers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mike <ham789@netzero.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 16:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvtq4n$4rn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #434306 |
On 11/8/2016 3:43 PM, krw wrote: > On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:07:08 -0800 (PST), kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> > wrote: > >> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 9:46:22 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> ... >>> How many times must you be told you do NOT need heavy transformers to >>> produce high voltages? >>> >>> Camera flash units produce tens of thousands of volts. >> ... >>> Jim Pennino >> >> Normal camera flash tubes run off about ~300V plus a trigger pulse of ~4kV. > > OK, Tazers produce tens of thousands of volts and don't have heavy > transformers. > You sure about that? My stun gun has a heavy transformer...heavy relative to the energy it can supply. I don't think you could suspend it, and the energy source using the energy it could supply for very long.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web