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 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 02:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <keiqed-4ba.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #433550 |
In sci.physics krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 02:54:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:00:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>>>BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >>>>>>with propulsion methods. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable >>>>> way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. >>>> >>>>You do know helicopters spend a fair amount of time not traveling, don't >>>>you, but that has nothing to do with flying cars. >>> >>> Cars spend a fair amount of time not driving, too. So? >> >>Not at close to full output power. > > Helicopters don't have a throttle or an "off" button? Of course they do but your response shows you know absolutely nothing about helicopters. When a helicopter is hovering, the engine(s) are at close to full power output without going anywhere. When a car is not moving, the engine is at idle. Get it now? And it still has nothing to do with flying cars. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 07:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nvf7ou$npi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #433550 |
On 11/2/16 8:20 PM, krw wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 02:54:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:00:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do
>>>>>> with propulsion methods.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable
>>>>> way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage.
>>>>
>>>> You do know helicopters spend a fair amount of time not traveling, don't
>>>> you, but that has nothing to do with flying cars.
>>>
>>> Cars spend a fair amount of time not driving, too. So?
>>
>> Not at close to full output power.
>
> Helicopters don't have a throttle or an "off" button?
>
I think he refers to the fact that a rotorcraft uses ~70% of its
available power just to hover -- i.e., before it's even moving forward,
or carrying any cargo beyond its own weight, it's starting to approach
max output. In addition, current torque monitoring systems for
rotorcraft are only accurate to about +/- 5%, which means that in
practice the pilot is going to have to be real cautious about exceeding
95% output. A heavily loaded rotorcraft will be limited to a VERY small
percentage of its power output for actually moving anywhere.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 19:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvbau2$1bgd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #433367 |
On 11/1/2016 4:13 PM, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous to >>> the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: >> >> BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >> with propulsion methods. >> > > But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable > way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. > how many pounds of thrust does it take to keep 4000 pounds up in the air, stationary, and then gliding ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 22:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qfii1cpuj85lnvadot6qacj5kmibssn44q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #433388 |
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:10:39 -0500, Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> wrote: >On 11/1/2016 4:13 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>> In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous to >>>> the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: > >>> >>> BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >>> with propulsion methods. >>> >> >> But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable >> way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. >> > > >how many pounds of thrust does it take to keep 4000 pounds up in the >air, stationary, and then gliding ? Sounds like 4000lbs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 19:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hkhi1c1ksv8ei8m6m667t2hosfflc1icta@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #433388 |
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:10:39 -0500, Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> wrote: >how many pounds of thrust does it take to keep 4000 pounds up in the >air, stationary, and then gliding ? Zero using baloons: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy5qUexdMVI> <http://mavericklsa.com> If you don't like the baloons: "4 Real Flying Cars That Actually Fly" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXuypU5lDsM> "10 Amazing Flying Cars You Won't Believe" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-uq1Uqp_8g> Sorry. I couldn't find any numbers on gas mileage. <http://www.cessna150152.com/faqs/performance.htm> A Cessna 150 gets 15 to 22 miles/gallon. My 2001 Subaru Forester gets about 21 miles/gallon. The difference is wasted fuel while idling, stop-n-go traffic, and an engine that's not optimized for operating in a narrow rpm range. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 02:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <091oed-n02.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #433388 |
In sci.physics Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 11/1/2016 4:13 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>> In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous to >>>> the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: > >>> >>> BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >>> with propulsion methods. >>> >> >> But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable >> way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. >> > > > how many pounds of thrust does it take to keep 4000 pounds up in the > air, stationary, and then gliding ? Depends on what is generating the lift. 0 for a balloon, something more for other types of machines. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 20:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1636a69d-c960-4c09-b495-ade9f7aeae97@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #433388 |
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 11:10:48 AM UTC+11, Yuri Kreaton wrote: > On 11/1/2016 4:13 PM, John Larkin wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > >> In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > >>> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous to > >>> the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: > > >> > >> BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do > >> with propulsion methods. > >> > > > > But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable > > way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. > > > how many pounds of thrust does it take to keep 4000 pounds up in the > air, stationary, and then gliding ? High performance gliders can have glide ratio's of up to 70:1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(sailplane) so the answer might be 57. The example glider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eta_(glider) only weights 1875 lbs, and might not scale up. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 20:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f0254b49-eb26-4544-9b42-3e31144eb8ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #433367 |
On Tuesday, 1 November 2016 21:13:47 UTC, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > >In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > >Yeah, sure, nanotubes are going to revolutionize the world any day now, > >just like fusion, a cure for the common cold, and peace in the Middle East. > > > >BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do > >with propulsion methods. > > > > But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable > way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. All propulsion systems are necessarily overly expensive when flying compared to on-ground travel. There's no getting round that. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhobbs@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 18:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf8075a3-1580-453b-bfc7-202891556131@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #433436 |
>All propulsion systems are necessarily overly expensive when >flying compared to on-ground travel. There's no getting round that. Depends how you calculate. I've shipped furniture coast-to-coast by air freight for less than it would have cost by truck. Salaries, equipment utilization, fuel, etc. Cheers Phil Hobbs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ingvald44 <noone@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 12:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <62ep1c1l8v1t7tdmkm4rjghvopvk3a0fj5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #433367 |
On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 14:13:37 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Yeah, sure, nanotubes are going to revolutionize the world any day now, >>just like fusion, a cure for the common cold, and peace in the Middle East. >> >>BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >>with propulsion methods. >> > >But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable >way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. Wonder how it works in the rain...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 14:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA6B3928AD49C6taustingmail@69.16.179.42> |
| In reply to | #433303 |
"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote in
news:nvab5b$is1$1@dont-email.me:
> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles
> analogous to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes:
>
> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft".
> Clark R*
> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA
> Review Article
> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published
> Date: October 20, 2016
> Abstract
> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted
> flying cars, and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now
> does make possible the long desired flying cars.
The reason we don't have flying cars has nothing to do with the
method of propulsion. We've *had* flying cars for decades. And this
will do nothing to make them a) cheaper, b) easier to fly, or c)
safer when there are tens of millions of them in the air at once.
> Note that if it works then all propeller
> and rotor driven craft become obsolete.
Just like all propeller and rotor drive craft became obsolete when
jet engeins were invented. Sure.
> Also, intermediate range
> automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD craft,
Effectively, jet powered cars? Because it sounds like there will be
a high speed exhaust of _some_ kind behind the vehicle. Which makes
it . . . unlikely.
Plus, two orders of magnitude increase in thrust to weight from
current ion engines isn't even close to what a car needs.
> so a
> large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated,
> replaced by this zero-emission travel method.
The electricity has to come from _somewhere_.
As is usual, nearly universal, with all announcement of
revolutionary new technologies, this reads more like a prospectus
for investors than anything else. Which is to say, he wants to
invest a whole lof of other people's money into finding out if it
works.
If he really believed it would work, he'd invest his own money, and
keep _all_ the profits himself.
--
Terry Austin
Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 10:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nvfhtn$stq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #433368 |
As mentioned previously, battery-powered airplanes and helicopters do exist. The ionic propulsion will likewise be battery-powered but at a more efficient power usage, if the ionizing wires are at the nanoscale. The greater efficiency for ionic propulsion with nanoscale wires can be confirmed with any wires at the nanoscale, not just carbon nanotubes. For example, the intense fields created by nanoscale wires in microcircuitry boards is well-known to those in the field. So anyone who has familiarity working with microcircuitry boards with nanoscale wiring could confirm this. And that's all that's required. That in itself would be the game changer. Even if it's only done on a model the size of a model airplane, once it's shown that nanoscale wiring for ionic propulsion produced better power-to-thrust ratio than helicopters, that would be sufficient for this to supplant helicopters as a hovering transport method. Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" wrote in message news:XnsA6B3928AD49C6taustingmail@69.16.179.42... "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote in news:nvab5b$is1$1@dont-email.me: > Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles > analogous to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: > > Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". > Clark R* > Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA > Review Article > Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published > Date: October 20, 2016 > Abstract > Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted > flying cars, and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now > does make possible the long desired flying cars. The reason we don't have flying cars has nothing to do with the method of propulsion. We've *had* flying cars for decades. And this will do nothing to make them a) cheaper, b) easier to fly, or c) safer when there are tens of millions of them in the air at once. > Note that if it works then all propeller > and rotor driven craft become obsolete. Just like all propeller and rotor drive craft became obsolete when jet engeins were invented. Sure. > Also, intermediate range > automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD craft, Effectively, jet powered cars? Because it sounds like there will be a high speed exhaust of _some_ kind behind the vehicle. Which makes it . . . unlikely. Plus, two orders of magnitude increase in thrust to weight from current ion engines isn't even close to what a car needs. > so a > large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated, > replaced by this zero-emission travel method. The electricity has to come from _somewhere_. As is usual, nearly universal, with all announcement of revolutionary new technologies, this reads more like a prospectus for investors than anything else. Which is to say, he wants to invest a whole lof of other people's money into finding out if it works. If he really believed it would work, he'd invest his own money, and keep _all_ the profits himself. -- Terry Austin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 17:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7c9sed-svf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #433627 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > As mentioned previously, battery-powered airplanes and helicopters do exist. As research toys; there are not as yet any electric airplanes or helicopters that could be called practical in any sense of the word. > The ionic propulsion will likewise be battery-powered but at a more > efficient power usage, if the ionizing wires are at the nanoscale. > > The greater efficiency for ionic propulsion with nanoscale wires can be > confirmed with any wires at the nanoscale, not just carbon nanotubes. For > example, the intense fields created by nanoscale wires in microcircuitry > boards is well-known to those in the field. So anyone who has familiarity > working with microcircuitry boards with nanoscale wiring could confirm this. An intense field does not automatically means motive power. Are you saying microcircuitry boards have to be lashed down to keep them from flying away? > And that's all that's required. That in itself would be the game changer. > Even if it's only done on a model the size of a model airplane, once it's > shown that nanoscale wiring for ionic propulsion produced better > power-to-thrust ratio than helicopters, that would be sufficient for this to > supplant helicopters as a hovering transport method. Yeah, sure. You do know the tips of such ion generators burn away and the smaller the tip the faster they burn? > Bob Clark <snip> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 13:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvnrob$423$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #433678 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >> As mentioned previously, battery-powered airplanes and helicopters do >> exist. > >As research toys; there are not as yet any electric airplanes or >helicopters >that could be called practical in any sense of the word. > >> The ionic propulsion will likewise be battery-powered but at a more >> efficient power usage, if the ionizing wires are at the nanoscale. >> >> The greater efficiency for ionic propulsion with nanoscale wires can be >> confirmed with any wires at the nanoscale, not just carbon nanotubes. For >> example, the intense fields created by nanoscale wires in microcircuitry >> boards is well-known to those in the field. So anyone who has familiarity >> working with microcircuitry boards with nanoscale wiring could confirm >> this. > >An intense field does not automatically means motive power. > >Are you saying microcircuitry boards have to be lashed down to keep >them from flying away? > >> And that's all that's required. That in itself would be the game changer. >> Even if it's only done on a model the size of a model airplane, once it's >> shown that nanoscale wiring for ionic propulsion produced better >> power-to-thrust ratio than helicopters, that would be sufficient for this >> to >> supplant helicopters as a hovering transport method. > >Yeah, sure. > >You do know the tips of such ion generators burn away and the smaller the >tip the faster they burn? > >> Bob Clark > > In regards to the mode of operation, the lifters don't operate via electron emission. The air molecule ion production is due to the intense electric fields around the high voltage wires, a known phenomenon among electrical engineers called corona discharge or electrical breakdown. The wires are usually horizontal for most lifters and the corona field is generated around the length of the horizontal wires, not at the tips of the wires. There versions of the lifters that use the ionization around the end tips or wires, but this is also due to the intense field strength there, not electron emission. The corona in small diameter wires in electronic devices is limited by the coatings placed on the wires. In the lifters, the wires used are uncoated. A recent paper showed for nanowires at diameters in the range of 100 nm, the corona discharge in air arises at voltages of only about 100 V/m. This is compared to the 3,000,000 V/m normally found in air for macroscale wires: Nanoscale Res Lett. 2016; 11: 90. Published online 2016 Feb 16. doi: 10.1186/s11671-015-1217-4 ZnO Nanowire-Based Corona Discharge Devices Operated Under Hundreds of Volts. Wenming Yang, Rong Zhu,corresponding author and Xianli Zong https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4754239/ [free full text] This doesn’t show you can get thrust at these lower voltages, but the results on the air ionization are in accordance to what the mathematics predicts. And the air ionization is what generates the thrust. New ideas should be subjected to critical review. But that critical review should include testing to see if they actually work. 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 | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 19:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nce4fd-39d.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #434082 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>> As mentioned previously, battery-powered airplanes and helicopters do >>> exist. >> >>As research toys; there are not as yet any electric airplanes or >>helicopters >>that could be called practical in any sense of the word. >> >>> The ionic propulsion will likewise be battery-powered but at a more >>> efficient power usage, if the ionizing wires are at the nanoscale. >>> >>> The greater efficiency for ionic propulsion with nanoscale wires can be >>> confirmed with any wires at the nanoscale, not just carbon nanotubes. For >>> example, the intense fields created by nanoscale wires in microcircuitry >>> boards is well-known to those in the field. So anyone who has familiarity >>> working with microcircuitry boards with nanoscale wiring could confirm >>> this. >> >>An intense field does not automatically means motive power. >> >>Are you saying microcircuitry boards have to be lashed down to keep >>them from flying away? >> >>> And that's all that's required. That in itself would be the game changer. >>> Even if it's only done on a model the size of a model airplane, once it's >>> shown that nanoscale wiring for ionic propulsion produced better >>> power-to-thrust ratio than helicopters, that would be sufficient for this >>> to >>> supplant helicopters as a hovering transport method. >> >>Yeah, sure. >> >>You do know the tips of such ion generators burn away and the smaller the >>tip the faster they burn? >> >>> Bob Clark >> >> > > In regards to the mode of operation, the lifters don't operate via electron > emission. The air molecule ion production is due to the intense electric > fields around the high voltage wires, a known phenomenon among electrical > engineers called corona discharge or electrical breakdown. The wires are > usually horizontal for most lifters and the corona field is generated around > the length of the horizontal wires, not at the tips of the wires. There > versions of the lifters that use the ionization around the end tips or > wires, but this is also due to the intense field strength there, not > electron emission. Also the end tips of sewing needles as they have a tiny tip and being steel more resistant to end erosion and are cheap. > The corona in small diameter wires in electronic devices is limited by the > coatings placed on the wires. In the lifters, the wires used are uncoated. If you have corona you have electron emmision by definition and with electron emmision you get tip erosion. > A recent paper showed for nanowires at diameters in the range of 100 nm, the > corona discharge in air arises at voltages of only about 100 V/m. This is > compared to the 3,000,000 V/m normally found in air for macroscale wires: Hardly a surprise. Why do you think Van de Graaff generators are topped by a big, round, smooth ball? Did you ever do the high school experiment where you scotch tape a thumbtack to a Van de Graaff generator? > Nanoscale Res Lett. 2016; 11: 90. > Published online 2016 Feb 16. doi: 10.1186/s11671-015-1217-4 > ZnO Nanowire-Based Corona Discharge Devices Operated Under Hundreds of > Volts. > Wenming Yang, Rong Zhu,corresponding author and Xianli Zong > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4754239/ [free full text] > > This doesnt show you can get thrust at these lower voltages, but the > results on the air ionization are in accordance to what the mathematics > predicts. And the air ionization is what generates the thrust. > New ideas should be subjected to critical review. But that critical review > should include testing to see if they actually work. > > Bob Clark Again, tip erosion, RFI, and total power required. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 11:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA6B5764F6C329taustingmail@69.16.179.43> |
| In reply to | #433627 |
"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote in
news:nvfhtn$stq$1@dont-email.me:
> As mentioned previously, battery-powered airplanes and
> helicopters do exist. The ionic propulsion will likewise be
> battery-powered but at a more efficient power usage, if the
> ionizing wires are at the nanoscale.
>
> The greater efficiency for ionic propulsion with nanoscale wires
> can be confirmed with any wires at the nanoscale, not just
> carbon nanotubes. For example, the intense fields created by
> nanoscale wires in microcircuitry boards is well-known to those
> in the field. So anyone who has familiarity working with
> microcircuitry boards with nanoscale wiring could confirm this.
>
> And that's all that's required. That in itself would be the game
> changer. Even if it's only done on a model the size of a model
> airplane, once it's shown that nanoscale wiring for ionic
> propulsion produced better power-to-thrust ratio than
> helicopters, that would be sufficient for this to supplant
> helicopters as a hovering transport method.
>
> Bob Clark
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to
> revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator,
> to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'.
> This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
>
> Nanotech: from air to space.
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/1
> 3319568/
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" wrote in message
> news:XnsA6B3928AD49C6taustingmail@69.16.179.42...
>
> "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote in
> news:nvab5b$is1$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles
>> analogous to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes:
>>
>> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft".
>> Clark R*
>> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA
>> Review Article
>> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 /
>> Published Date: October 20, 2016
>> Abstract
>> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted
>> flying cars, and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now
>> does make possible the long desired flying cars.
>
> The reason we don't have flying cars has nothing to do with the
> method of propulsion. We've *had* flying cars for decades. And
> this will do nothing to make them a) cheaper, b) easier to fly,
> or c) safer when there are tens of millions of them in the air
> at once.
>
>> Note that if it works then all propeller
>> and rotor driven craft become obsolete.
>
> Just like all propeller and rotor drive craft became obsolete
> when jet engeins were invented. Sure.
>
>> Also, intermediate range
>> automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD craft,
>
> Effectively, jet powered cars? Because it sounds like there will
> be a high speed exhaust of _some_ kind behind the vehicle. Which
> makes it . . . unlikely.
>
> Plus, two orders of magnitude increase in thrust to weight from
> current ion engines isn't even close to what a car needs.
>
>> so a
>> large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated,
>> replaced by this zero-emission travel method.
>
> The electricity has to come from _somewhere_.
>
> As is usual, nearly universal, with all announcement of
> revolutionary new technologies, this reads more like a
> prospectus for investors than anything else. Which is to say, he
> wants to invest a whole lof of other people's money into finding
> out if it works.
>
> If he really believed it would work, he'd invest his own money,
> and keep _all_ the profits himself.
None of that adds up to flying cars. Again, the reason we don't
have flying cars has nothing to do with propulsion systems. We've
*had* flying cars for nearly a century.
--
Terry Austin
Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 19:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvbapa$1bgd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #433303 |
On 11/1/2016 10:09 AM, Robert Clark wrote: > Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous > to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: > > Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". > Clark R* > Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA > Review Article > Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date: > October 20, 2016 > Abstract > Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying > cars, and we got 140 characters. he is an idiot. flying cars are sub optimal airplanes, and he saw it in a James Bond Movie, the 140 character field on all cellphone calls, was set by the telcom companies about 40 years ago
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 00:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9FgSz.7537$iI2.5772@fx07.iad> |
| In reply to | #433303 |
Robert Clark wrote:
> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous
> to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes:
>
> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft".
> Clark R*
> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA
> Review Article
> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date:
> October 20, 2016
> Abstract
> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying
> cars, and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make
> possible the long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion
> method though than propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by
> electric fields known as electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works
> by ionizing air then using electric fields to propel the charged air
> molecules rearward, thus producing thrust. It's quite analogous to the
> famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD has been known at least since the
> sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, the thrust is so low. So far
> the EHD craft have not been able to lift both themselves and their power
> supplies. The ones made so far leave the power supply on the ground and
> connect to the craft through power cables. But the equations of EHD
> suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for thinner
> ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then this
> important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for
> the craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and
> the power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics
> suggests. Note that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven
> craft become obsolete. Also, intermediate range automobile travel would
> be taken over by the EHD craft, so a large proportion of
> carbon-emissions would be eliminated, replaced by this zero-emission
> travel method. In regards to space propulsion, since EHD is so similar
> to ion drive, using components at the nanoscale may also work to improve
> the thrust of ion drive. This would be important to shortening the
> flight times of spacecraft using such drives. This is important not just
> for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that use such ion drives to
> reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, the ion drives used
> have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites to reach GEO,
> resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the satellite
> companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would
> reduce the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue.
> Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires;
> Ionic wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive
> https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63
>
> 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/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
What is the Isp?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mike <ham789@netzero.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 01:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nver60$e4l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #433446 |
On 11/2/2016 1:33 AM, Robert Baer wrote: > Robert Clark wrote: >> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous >> to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: >> >> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". >> Clark R* >> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA >> Review Article >> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date: >> October 20, 2016 >> Abstract >> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying >> cars, and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make >> possible the long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion >> method though than propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by >> electric fields known as electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works >> by ionizing air then using electric fields to propel the charged air >> molecules rearward, thus producing thrust. It's quite analogous to the >> famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD has been known at least since the >> sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, the thrust is so low. So far >> the EHD craft have not been able to lift both themselves and their power >> supplies. The ones made so far leave the power supply on the ground and >> connect to the craft through power cables. But the equations of EHD >> suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for thinner >> ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then this >> important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for >> the craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and >> the power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics >> suggests. Note that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven >> craft become obsolete. Also, intermediate range automobile travel would >> be taken over by the EHD craft, so a large proportion of >> carbon-emissions would be eliminated, replaced by this zero-emission >> travel method. In regards to space propulsion, since EHD is so similar >> to ion drive, using components at the nanoscale may also work to improve >> the thrust of ion drive. This would be important to shortening the >> flight times of spacecraft using such drives. This is important not just >> for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that use such ion drives to >> reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, the ion drives used >> have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites to reach GEO, >> resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the satellite >> companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would >> reduce the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue. >> Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires; >> Ionic wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive >> https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63 >> >> 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/ >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > What is the Isp? > What good is ion drive? If you want to get from here to there, you need an energy source sufficient to accelerate/maintain/decelerate some mass. Doesn't matter how you do it, you can't get there on less energy, given current physics. If you're in space with low friction losses, you can use an electric field to accelerate a small mass to high velocity to generate thrust. But you still have to have the energy source to drive it. If you're not in a hurry and are close to a star, no problem. A terrestrial vehicle like a flying car does not sound well suited to ion drive. Just lifting it off the ground with anything resembling thrust is a deal breaker in so many ways.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pj9sed-svf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #433596 |
In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote: > On 11/2/2016 1:33 AM, Robert Baer wrote: >> Robert Clark wrote: >>> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous >>> to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: >>> >>> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". >>> Clark R* >>> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA >>> Review Article >>> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date: >>> October 20, 2016 >>> Abstract >>> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying >>> cars, and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make >>> possible the long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion >>> method though than propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by >>> electric fields known as electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works >>> by ionizing air then using electric fields to propel the charged air >>> molecules rearward, thus producing thrust. It's quite analogous to the >>> famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD has been known at least since the >>> sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, the thrust is so low. So far >>> the EHD craft have not been able to lift both themselves and their power >>> supplies. The ones made so far leave the power supply on the ground and >>> connect to the craft through power cables. But the equations of EHD >>> suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for thinner >>> ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then this >>> important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for >>> the craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and >>> the power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics >>> suggests. Note that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven >>> craft become obsolete. Also, intermediate range automobile travel would >>> be taken over by the EHD craft, so a large proportion of >>> carbon-emissions would be eliminated, replaced by this zero-emission >>> travel method. In regards to space propulsion, since EHD is so similar >>> to ion drive, using components at the nanoscale may also work to improve >>> the thrust of ion drive. This would be important to shortening the >>> flight times of spacecraft using such drives. This is important not just >>> for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that use such ion drives to >>> reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, the ion drives used >>> have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites to reach GEO, >>> resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the satellite >>> companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would >>> reduce the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue. >>> Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires; >>> Ionic wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive >>> https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63 >>> >>> 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/ >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >> What is the Isp? >> > What good is ion drive? > If you want to get from here to there, you need an energy source > sufficient to accelerate/maintain/decelerate some mass. > Doesn't matter how you do it, you can't get there on less energy, > given current physics. > > If you're in space with low friction losses, you can use an electric field > to accelerate a small mass to high velocity to generate thrust. > But you still have to have the energy source to drive it. > If you're not in a hurry and are close to a star, no problem. > > A terrestrial vehicle like a flying car does not sound well > suited to ion drive. Just lifting it off the ground with > anything resembling thrust is a deal breaker in so many ways. Being near an ion drive would literally be a hair raising experience and likely to generate RFI far in excess of FCC standards. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web