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 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | krw <krw@somewhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 19:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v9s42c98qksq32ph336u64970mjqecsbuc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #434318 |
On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 16:19:30 -0800, mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote: >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]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 10:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o0a27u$i6j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #434253 |
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. > ... > >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. > > Camera flash units work by using electrical capacitors. So while they are able to provide a large amount of power for their weight, they do this by discharging all their stored energy in only a fraction of a second. This is why despite intense research into "supercapacitors" they still have not been able to replace chemical batteries for sustained, continuous power production. In regards, to the current carried by the nanowires, you would likely need millions to billions of them to get the required thrust for a large craft. This is because the thrust is lower for lower voltage. Having such a large number of nanowires is a very well-known phenomenon in production VLSI electronic devices though. About the RFI, it may be because the voltage now required is only in the hundreds of volts range rather than tens of thousands of volts, the RFI is also significantly reduced. This is also something that needs to be tested 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 12:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0aa8q$1eul$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #435345 |
On 11/13/2016 9:53 AM, Robert Clark wrote: > 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. >> >> >> 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. >> >> > Camera flash units work by using electrical capacitors. So while they > are able to provide a large amount of power for their weight, they do > this by discharging all their stored energy in only a fraction of a > second. This is why despite intense research into "supercapacitors" they > still have not been able to replace chemical batteries for sustained, > continuous power production. off topic, try googling "switching power supplies" > > In regards, to the current carried by the nanowires, you would likely > need millions to billions of them to get the required thrust for a large > craft. This is because the thrust is lower for lower voltage. Having > such a large number of nanowires is a very well-known phenomenon in > production VLSI electronic devices though. just use copper cables, much cheaper > > About the RFI, it may be because the voltage now required is only in the > hundreds of volts range rather than tens of thousands of volts, the RFI > is also significantly reduced. This is also something that needs to be > tested > no, easy to calculate, but you have to get the math right, and you seem to be missing a couple zeros in your required power. > > Bob Clark
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 05:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvf57k$9up$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #433325 |
On 11/1/2016 12:20 PM, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:06:41 -0700 (PDT), mrdarrett@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 8:09:00 AM UTC-7, 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 >>> >> >> >> >> Do they work when it's raining / in humid environments? >> >> Michael > > No. And under even ideal conditions, they don't work for long. > > 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? They do. It's called a Harrier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 08:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <l6mm1cdbi24grsadccfjpf39qqa64kpi9m@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #433605 |
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 05:58:23 -0500, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote: >On 11/1/2016 12:20 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:06:41 -0700 (PDT), mrdarrett@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 8:09:00 AM UTC-7, 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Do they work when it's raining / in humid environments? >>> >>> Michael >> >> No. And under even ideal conditions, they don't work for long. >> >> 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? > >They do. It's called a Harrier. And it won't hover for long before it's out of fuel. There's a good reason for that. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 17:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvfs0n$1iks$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #433632 |
On 03/11/2016 15:35, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 05:58:23 -0500, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote: > >> On 11/1/2016 12:20 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>> No. And under even ideal conditions, they don't work for long. >>> >>> 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? >> >> They do. It's called a Harrier. > > And it won't hover for long before it's out of fuel. There's a good > reason for that. But VTOL is a potential game changer in the event of hostile action. An aircraft that doesn't require a runway to take off or land has a natural advantage. They are impressively noisy when hovering though. Also the vectored thrust made them very effective in dog fights. Shame we (UK) don't have any left in service or even an aircraft carrier to put them on. As for the ion drive - I can't see it ever being used other than in interplanetary space where atmospheric friction isn't an issue. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 11:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <119564ed-b2c1-43d5-b560-17e25ce5fa02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #433632 |
Den torsdag den 3. november 2016 kl. 16.35.10 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin: > On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 05:58:23 -0500, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote: > > >On 11/1/2016 12:20 PM, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:06:41 -0700 (PDT), mrdarrett@gmail.com wrote: > >> > >>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 8:09:00 AM UTC-7, 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 > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Do they work when it's raining / in humid environments? > >>> > >>> Michael > >> > >> No. And under even ideal conditions, they don't work for long. > >> > >> 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? > > > >They do. It's called a Harrier. > > And it won't hover for long before it's out of fuel. There's a good > reason for that. > and afaiu when they stopped letting only the very best pilots fly them they tended to crash ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 09:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nvff61$i6q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #433325 |
The commonly used name for these EHD devices made by amateurs is "lifters". The problem with their not being able to fly independently is the power supplies are so heavy. Look for example at the lifter here: How to: "Lifter" Power Supply. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfdsEVjBpBU Quite commonly the lifters weigh, and the thrust they can produce, is in the range of grams but the power supplies weigh in the range of kilograms. So how do you solve that problem? Let me give an analogy. Many people are aware of the technical innovations the Wright brothers made to be able to develop a successful flying machine. They made their own wind tunnel. They tested various air foils to find efficient ones of high lift. They developed a warping wing technique for steering. However, not as well known is the one key innovation they made for which all those other innovations would have been worthless. When many scientists of the time after doing a mathematical analysis asserted that no heavier-than air flying machine could work, oddly enough they were *right*. But the problem was, they were basing this on the power sources widely known at the time, steam engines. But the steam engines were so inefficient they could not supply sufficient power for their weight. They were too heavy. Around the time of the Wright brothers though the internal combustion gasoline engine was coming into use for automobiles, but they were still too heavy for the Wright brothers use. So the one *key* innovation the Wright brothers made was that they designed and built their OWN lightweight internal combustion engine. Now, back to the EHD propulsion method. The power supplies are too heavy, so what can we do about that? Well, you can make them out of lightweight materials. That's a possible route to follow, but most amateur and even professional experimenters have used ready made power supplies or used ready made parts to build them. The result is they are all pretty standard weight for the power they put out. But let's analyze this further, *why* are the power supplies so heavy? It turns out the reason they are so heavy is the voltage needed for the ion propulsion method is in the range of tens of thousands of volts, frequently as high as 50,000 volts. This then requires heavy transformers to produce voltage this high. Alright then, can we find a way to reduce the required voltage? Yes! It turns out if you reduce the diameter of the wires doing the ionization of the air then the required voltage is reduced. In fact, according to the math if the wires are at the nanoscale then the required voltage might be reduced to only tens of volts instead of tens of thousands of volts. For the small-scale lifters, if you used now wires at the nanoscale, it may be they could be powered by a couple of 9-volt batteries connected in series. So that's the key point, for nanowires the voltage required for ionization is severely reduced. This is the content of Peek's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peek%27s_law 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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "John Larkin" wrote in message news:adjh1c5npmcbodbs2ojif5vhfrgjm33dbb@4ax.com... On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:06:41 -0700 (PDT), mrdarrett@gmail.com wrote: >On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 8:09:00 AM UTC-7, 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 >> > > > >Do they work when it's raining / in humid environments? > >Michael No. And under even ideal conditions, they don't work for long. 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 jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 08:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hbmm1c13l3j7tiepf8ls2teoqpqfoq36op@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #433621 |
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:48:31 -0400, "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >The commonly used name for these EHD devices made by amateurs is "lifters". >The problem with their not being able to fly independently is the power >supplies are so heavy. Look for example at the lifter here: > >How to: "Lifter" Power Supply. >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfdsEVjBpBU > >Quite commonly the lifters weigh, and the thrust they can produce, is in the >range of grams but the power supplies weigh in the range of kilograms. So >how do you solve that problem? > >Let me give an analogy. Many people are aware of the technical innovations >the Wright brothers made to be able to develop a successful flying machine. >They made their own wind tunnel. They tested various air foils to find >efficient ones of high lift. They developed a warping wing technique for >steering. > >However, not as well known is the one key innovation they made for which all >those other innovations would have been worthless. When many scientists of >the time after doing a mathematical analysis asserted that no heavier-than >air flying machine could work, oddly enough they were *right*. But the >problem was, they were basing this on the power sources widely known at the >time, steam engines. But the steam engines were so inefficient they could >not supply sufficient power for their weight. They were too heavy. > >Around the time of the Wright brothers though the internal combustion >gasoline engine was coming into use for automobiles, but they were still too >heavy for the Wright brothers use. So the one *key* innovation the Wright >brothers made was that they designed and built their OWN lightweight >internal combustion engine. > >Now, back to the EHD propulsion method. The power supplies are too heavy, so >what can we do about that? Well, you can make them out of lightweight >materials. That's a possible route to follow, but most amateur and even >professional experimenters have used ready made power supplies or used ready >made parts to build them. The result is they are all pretty standard weight >for the power they put out. > >But let's analyze this further, *why* are the power supplies so heavy? It >turns out the reason they are so heavy is the voltage needed for the ion >propulsion method is in the range of tens of thousands of volts, frequently >as high as 50,000 volts. This then requires heavy transformers to produce >voltage this high. Alright then, can we find a way to reduce the required >voltage? High-voltage power supplies don't need heavy transformers. But they do need a source of power. I doubt that an ion thruster could lift its own batteries for five minutes even if the power converter weighs zero. > >Yes! It turns out if you reduce the diameter of the wires doing the >ionization of the air then the required voltage is reduced. In fact, >according to the math if the wires are at the nanoscale then the required >voltage might be reduced to only tens of volts instead of tens of thousands >of volts. For the small-scale lifters, if you used now wires at the >nanoscale, it may be they could be powered by a couple of 9-volt batteries >connected in series. Again, you won't get enough lift to support those two batteries, and they would be dead in minutes anyhow. The tiny tips would erode rapidly, too. Don't top post on usenet. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 12:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvfrpu$1i6c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #433636 |
On 11/3/2016 10:41 AM, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:48:31 -0400, "Robert Clark" > <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: > >> The commonly used name for these EHD devices made by amateurs is >> "lifters". The problem with their not being able to fly >> independently is the power supplies are so heavy. Look for example >> at the lifter here: >> >> How to: "Lifter" Power Supply. >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfdsEVjBpBU >> >> Quite commonly the lifters weigh, and the thrust they can produce, >> is in the range of grams but the power supplies weigh in the range >> of kilograms. So how do you solve that problem? >> Now, back to the EHD propulsion method. The power supplies are too >> heavy, so what can we do about that? Well, you can make them out of >> lightweight materials. That's a possible route to follow, but most >> amateur and even professional experimenters have used ready made >> power supplies or used ready made parts to build them. The result >> is they are all pretty standard weight for the power they put out. >> >> But let's analyze this further, *why* are the power supplies so >> heavy? It turns out the reason they are so heavy is the voltage >> needed for the ion propulsion method is in the range of tens of >> thousands of volts, frequently as high as 50,000 volts. This then >> requires heavy transformers to produce voltage this high. Alright >> then, can we find a way to reduce the required voltage? > > High-voltage power supplies don't need heavy transformers. But they > do need a source of power. I doubt that an ion thruster could lift > its own batteries for five minutes even if the power converter > weighs zero. > >> >> Yes! It turns out if you reduce the diameter of the wires doing the >> ionization of the air then the required voltage is reduced. In >> fact, according to the math if the wires are at the nanoscale then >> the required voltage might be reduced to only tens of volts instead >> of tens of thousands of volts. For the small-scale lifters, if you >> used now wires at the nanoscale, it may be they could be powered by >> a couple of 9-volt batteries connected in series. > Again, you won't get enough lift to support those two batteries, and > they would be dead in minutes anyhow. > > The tiny tips would erode rapidly, too. > Don't top post on usenet. > > An ion thruster is a form of electric propulsion used for spacecraft > propulsion. It creates thrust by accelerating ions with electricity. > The term refers strictly to gridded electrostatic ion thrusters, but > may more loosely be applied to all electric propulsion systems that > accelerate plasma, since plasma consists of ions. wiki (note the last line) Ion thrusters are categorized by how they accelerate the ions, using either electrostatic or electromagnetic force. Electrostatic thrusters use the Coulomb force and accelerate the ions in the direction of the electric field. Electromagnetic thrusters use the Lorentz force. In either case, when an ion passes through an electrostatic grid engine, the potential difference of the electric field converts to the ion's kinetic energy. Ion thrusters have an input power spanning 1–7 kW, exhaust velocity 20–50 km/s, thrust 25–250 millinewtons and efficiency 65–80%.[1][2] The Deep Space 1 spacecraft, powered by an ion thruster, changed velocity by 4300 m/s while consuming less than 74 kilograms of xenon. The Dawn spacecraft broke the record, reaching 10,000 m/s.[1][2] Applications include control of the orientation and position of orbiting satellites (some satellites have dozens of low-power ion thrusters) and use as a main propulsion engine for low-mass robotic space vehicles (for example Deep Space 1 and Dawn).[1][2] The ion thruster is not the most promising type of electrically powered spacecraft propulsion (although the most successful in practice).[2] An ion drive would require two days to accelerate a car to highway speed. The technical characteristics, especially thrust, are considerably inferior to the prototypes described in literature,[1][2] technical capabilities are limited by the space charge created by ions. This limits the thrust density (force per cross-sectional area of the engine).[2] Ion thrusters create small thrust levels (the thrust of Deep Space 1 is approximately equal to the weight of one sheet of paper[2]) compared to conventional chemical rockets, but achieve high specific impulse, or propellant mass efficiency, by accelerating the exhaust to high speed. The power imparted to the exhaust increases with the square of exhaust velocity while thrust increase is linear. Conversely, chemical rockets provide high thrust, but are limited in total impulse by the small amount of energy that can be stored chemically in the propellants.[3] Given the practical weight of suitable power sources, the acceleration from an ion thruster is frequently less than one thousandth of standard gravity. However, since they operate as electric (or electrostatic) motors, they convert a greater fraction of input power into kinetic exhaust power. Chemical rockets operate as heat engines, and Carnot's theorem limits the exhaust velocity. Ion thrust engines are practical only in the vacuum of space and cannot take vehicles through the atmosphere because ion engines do not work in the presence of ions outside the engine. Spacecraft rely on conventional chemical rockets to initially reach orbit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mrdarrett@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a28d1e86-9e0b-4d0d-bf6c-3a8b3609a8c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #433665 |
On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 10:23:16 AM UTC-7, Yuri Kreaton wrote: > An > ion drive would require two days to accelerate a car to highway speed. Wow, that's pretty good! Much better than two months! :D Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 16:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nviprd$s9p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #433665 |
On 11/3/2016 10:41 AM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:48:31 -0400, "Robert Clark" >> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >> >>> The commonly used name for these EHD devices made by amateurs is >>> "lifters". The problem with their not being able to fly >>> independently is the power supplies are so heavy. Look for example >>> at the lifter here: >>> >>> How to: "Lifter" Power Supply. >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfdsEVjBpBU >>> >>> Quite commonly the lifters weigh, and the thrust they can produce, >>> is in the range of grams but the power supplies weigh in the range >>> of kilograms. So how do you solve that problem? > > > > >>> Now, back to the EHD propulsion method. The power supplies are too >>> heavy, so what can we do about that? Well, you can make them out of >>> lightweight materials. That's a possible route to follow, but most >>> amateur and even professional experimenters have used ready made >>> power supplies or used ready made parts to build them. The result >>> is they are all pretty standard weight for the power they put out. >>> >>> But let's analyze this further, *why* are the power supplies so >>> heavy? It turns out the reason they are so heavy is the voltage >>> needed for the ion propulsion method is in the range of tens of >>> thousands of volts, frequently as high as 50,000 volts. This then >>> requires heavy transformers to produce voltage this high. Alright >>> then, can we find a way to reduce the required voltage? >> >> High-voltage power supplies don't need heavy transformers. But they >> do need a source of power. I doubt that an ion thruster could lift >> its own batteries for five minutes even if the power converter >> weighs zero. >> > >>> >>> Yes! It turns out if you reduce the diameter of the wires doing the >>> ionization of the air then the required voltage is reduced. In >>> fact, according to the math if the wires are at the nanoscale then >>> the required voltage might be reduced to only tens of volts instead >>> of tens of thousands of volts. For the small-scale lifters, if you >>> used now wires at the nanoscale, it may be they could be powered by >>> a couple of 9-volt batteries connected in series. > >> Again, you won't get enough lift to support those two batteries, and >> they would be dead in minutes anyhow. >> >> The tiny tips would erode rapidly, too. > >> Don't top post on usenet. >> >> An ion thruster is a form of electric propulsion used for spacecraft >> propulsion. It creates thrust by accelerating ions with electricity. >> The term refers strictly to gridded electrostatic ion thrusters, but >> may more loosely be applied to all electric propulsion systems that >> accelerate plasma, since plasma consists of ions. > > >wiki (note the last line) >Ion thrusters are categorized by how they accelerate the ions, using >either electrostatic or electromagnetic force. Electrostatic thrusters >use the Coulomb force and accelerate the ions in the direction of the >electric field. Electromagnetic thrusters use the Lorentz force. In >either case, when an ion passes through an electrostatic grid engine, >the potential difference of the electric field converts to the ion's >kinetic energy. > >Ion thrusters have an input power spanning 1–7 kW, exhaust velocity >20–50 km/s, thrust 25–250 millinewtons and efficiency 65–80%.[1][2] > >The Deep Space 1 spacecraft, powered by an ion thruster, changed >velocity by 4300 m/s while consuming less than 74 kilograms of xenon. >The Dawn spacecraft broke the record, reaching 10,000 m/s.[1][2] > >Applications include control of the orientation and position of orbiting >satellites (some satellites have dozens of low-power ion thrusters) and >use as a main propulsion engine for low-mass robotic space vehicles (for >example Deep Space 1 and Dawn).[1][2] > >The ion thruster is not the most promising type of electrically powered >spacecraft propulsion (although the most successful in practice).[2] An >ion drive would require two days to accelerate a car to highway speed. >The technical characteristics, especially thrust, are considerably >inferior to the prototypes described in literature,[1][2] technical >capabilities are limited by the space charge created by ions. This >limits the thrust density (force per cross-sectional area of the >engine).[2] Ion thrusters create small thrust levels (the thrust of Deep >Space 1 is approximately equal to the weight of one sheet of paper[2]) >compared to conventional chemical rockets, but achieve high specific >impulse, or propellant mass efficiency, by accelerating the exhaust to >high speed. The power imparted to the exhaust increases with the square >of exhaust velocity while thrust increase is linear. Conversely, >chemical rockets provide high thrust, but are limited in total impulse >by the small amount of energy that can be stored chemically in the >propellants.[3] Given the practical weight of suitable power sources, >the acceleration from an ion thruster is frequently less than one >thousandth of standard gravity. However, since they operate as electric >(or electrostatic) motors, they convert a greater fraction of input >power into kinetic exhaust power. Chemical rockets operate as heat >engines, and Carnot's theorem limits the exhaust velocity. > >Ion thrust engines are practical only in the vacuum of space and cannot >take vehicles through the atmosphere because ion engines do not work in >the presence of ions outside the engine. Spacecraft rely on conventional >chemical rockets to initially reach orbit. > > It's analogous to ion drive in that it ionizes a gas then uses electric fields to direct the charged gas molecules backwards to provide thrust. For ion space drives you want the propellant to accelerate to high speed to achieve high exhaust velocity. This means you can achieve high speed for the spacecraft with a small amount of propellant according to the rocket equation. This requires though a high amount of power to generate those high exhaust speeds. For the corresponding air vehicle propulsion you don't want the air accelerated speeds to be high because you would be going at slow speed for the vehicle or just hovering. This can generate higher thrust with a reduced exhaust velocity. This video explains their operation: How Ion Propulsion, Lifters and Ionocrafts Work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01F8V5IhB5k I like this one because the experimenter attached the ion drive device to a model of the Enterprise(!) 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 | 2016-11-04 21:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l0aved-aup.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #433899 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: <snip> > It's analogous to ion drive in that it ionizes a gas then uses electric > fields to direct the charged gas molecules backwards to provide thrust. > > For ion space drives you want the propellant to accelerate to high speed to > achieve high exhaust velocity. This means you can achieve high speed for the > spacecraft with a small amount of propellant according to the rocket > equation. This requires though a high amount of power to generate those high > exhaust speeds. > > For the corresponding air vehicle propulsion you don't want the air > accelerated speeds to be high because you would be going at slow speed for > the vehicle or just hovering. This can generate higher thrust with a reduced > exhaust velocity. The power required to fly by aircraft is the same no matter the motive source. A small 4 place aircraft typically has about a 140 kW engine, a small 2 place helicopter double that. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhobbs@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 14:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20e8a393-c480-4769-9f2d-931a2b77fd24@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #433905 |
>The power required to fly by aircraft is the same no matter the motive source. Nope. The _thrust_ required is the same, other things being equal. There are lots of ways of doing it less efficiently, i.e. requiring more power for the same thrust. Rockets, light pressure, air ions.... Cheers Phil Hobbs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 07:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvps1g$s89$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #433636 |
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:48:31 -0400, "Robert Clark" ><rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: > >>The commonly used name for these EHD devices made by amateurs is >>"lifters". >>The problem with their not being able to fly independently is the power >>supplies are so heavy. Look for example at the lifter here: >> >>How to: "Lifter" Power Supply. >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfdsEVjBpBU >> >>Quite commonly the lifters weigh, and the thrust they can produce, is in >>the >>range of grams but the power supplies weigh in the range of kilograms. So >>how do you solve that problem? >> >>Let me give an analogy. Many people are aware of the technical innovations >>the Wright brothers made to be able to develop a successful flying >>machine. >>They made their own wind tunnel. They tested various air foils to find >>efficient ones of high lift. They developed a warping wing technique for >>steering. >> >>However, not as well known is the one key innovation they made for which >>all >>those other innovations would have been worthless. When many scientists of >>the time after doing a mathematical analysis asserted that no heavier-than >>air flying machine could work, oddly enough they were *right*. But the >>problem was, they were basing this on the power sources widely known at >>the >>time, steam engines. But the steam engines were so inefficient they could >>not supply sufficient power for their weight. They were too heavy. >> >>Around the time of the Wright brothers though the internal combustion >>gasoline engine was coming into use for automobiles, but they were still >>too >>heavy for the Wright brothers use. So the one *key* innovation the Wright >>brothers made was that they designed and built their OWN lightweight >>internal combustion engine. >> >>Now, back to the EHD propulsion method. The power supplies are too heavy, >>so >>what can we do about that? Well, you can make them out of lightweight >>materials. That's a possible route to follow, but most amateur and even >>professional experimenters have used ready made power supplies or used >>ready >>made parts to build them. The result is they are all pretty standard >>weight >>for the power they put out. >> >>But let's analyze this further, *why* are the power supplies so heavy? It >>turns out the reason they are so heavy is the voltage needed for the ion >>propulsion method is in the range of tens of thousands of volts, >>frequently >>as high as 50,000 volts. This then requires heavy transformers to produce >>voltage this high. Alright then, can we find a way to reduce the required >>voltage? > >High-voltage power supplies don't need heavy transformers. But they do >need a source of power. I doubt that an ion thruster could lift its >own batteries for five minutes even if the power converter weighs >zero. > > >> >>Yes! It turns out if you reduce the diameter of the wires doing the >>ionization of the air then the required voltage is reduced. In fact, >>according to the math if the wires are at the nanoscale then the required >>voltage might be reduced to only tens of volts instead of tens of >>thousands >>of volts. For the small-scale lifters, if you used now wires at the >>nanoscale, it may be they could be powered by a couple of 9-volt batteries >>connected in series. > >Again, you won't get enough lift to support those two batteries, and >they would be dead in minutes anyhow. > >The tiny tips would erode rapidly, too. > >Don't top post on usenet. > > If you know of a means to provide 50,000 V at *lightweight* then you will have solved the problem of an independently flying lifter, using the macrosized wires currently used. You would need about a power to weight ratio for the power source of better than 1 watt per gram, while being able to provide these ca. 50,000 V voltages. 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 | 2016-11-07 18:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t7u6fd-0hl.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #434130 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: <snip> > If you know of a means to provide 50,000 V at *lightweight* then you will > have solved the problem of an independently flying lifter, using the > macrosized wires currently used. You would need about a power to weight > ratio for the power source of better than 1 watt per gram, while being able > to provide these ca. 50,000 V voltages. > > Bob Clark Trivial; look at any camera flash unit built in the last several decades. However you have totally missed the point; voltage and the weight of the converter is irrelevant as it is the total power that determines the weight of it all. BTW, here are some real world power to weight ratios: Boeing 777 engine 10 kW/kg 1985 Chevy Celebrity 300 W/kg Lithium-ion battery 85 W/kg nickel-metal battery 116 W/kg zinc air fuel cell 500 W/kg -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 15:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vMGdndBNvJ8Ieb3FnZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #434164 |
On 11/07/2016 01:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > >> If you know of a means to provide 50,000 V at *lightweight* then you will >> have solved the problem of an independently flying lifter, using the >> macrosized wires currently used. You would need about a power to weight >> ratio for the power source of better than 1 watt per gram, while being able >> to provide these ca. 50,000 V voltages. >> >> Bob Clark > > Trivial; look at any camera flash unit built in the last several decades. > > However you have totally missed the point; voltage and the weight of the > converter is irrelevant as it is the total power that determines the > weight of it all. > > BTW, here are some real world power to weight ratios: > > Boeing 777 engine 10 kW/kg 1985 Chevy Celebrity 300 W/kg <-- So for a 1000 kg car, that's 402 horsepower? Sign me up! ;) Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 21:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ea97fd-okm.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #434180 |
In sci.physics Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > On 11/07/2016 01:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> If you know of a means to provide 50,000 V at *lightweight* then you will >>> have solved the problem of an independently flying lifter, using the >>> macrosized wires currently used. You would need about a power to weight >>> ratio for the power source of better than 1 watt per gram, while being able >>> to provide these ca. 50,000 V voltages. >>> >>> Bob Clark >> >> Trivial; look at any camera flash unit built in the last several decades. >> >> However you have totally missed the point; voltage and the weight of the >> converter is irrelevant as it is the total power that determines the >> weight of it all. >> >> BTW, here are some real world power to weight ratios: >> >> Boeing 777 engine 10 kW/kg > 1985 Chevy Celebrity 300 W/kg <-- So for a 1000 kg car, that's 402 > horsepower? Sign me up! ;) > > Cheers > > Phil Hobbs No, that is the power to weight ratio of the engine, not the power to weight ratio of the car. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 14:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ea0a76f4-a38e-4828-be38-6f3b468376f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #434187 |
Den mandag den 7. november 2016 kl. 23.01.06 UTC+1 skrev ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com: > In sci.physics Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > > On 11/07/2016 01:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >>> If you know of a means to provide 50,000 V at *lightweight* then you will > >>> have solved the problem of an independently flying lifter, using the > >>> macrosized wires currently used. You would need about a power to weight > >>> ratio for the power source of better than 1 watt per gram, while being able > >>> to provide these ca. 50,000 V voltages. > >>> > >>> Bob Clark > >> > >> Trivial; look at any camera flash unit built in the last several decades. > >> > >> However you have totally missed the point; voltage and the weight of the > >> converter is irrelevant as it is the total power that determines the > >> weight of it all. > >> > >> BTW, here are some real world power to weight ratios: > >> > >> Boeing 777 engine 10 kW/kg > > 1985 Chevy Celebrity 300 W/kg <-- So for a 1000 kg car, that's 402 > > horsepower? Sign me up! ;) > > > > Cheers > > > > Phil Hobbs > > No, that is the power to weight ratio of the engine, not the power to > weight ratio of the car. a Boeing 777 with 3million horsepower would be "interesting" :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mike <ham789@netzero.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 18:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvrcni$vrt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #434187 |
On 11/7/2016 1:46 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >> On 11/07/2016 01:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> If you know of a means to provide 50,000 V at *lightweight* then you will >>>> have solved the problem of an independently flying lifter, using the >>>> macrosized wires currently used. You would need about a power to weight >>>> ratio for the power source of better than 1 watt per gram, while being able >>>> to provide these ca. 50,000 V voltages. >>>> >>>> Bob Clark >>> >>> Trivial; look at any camera flash unit built in the last several decades. >>> >>> However you have totally missed the point; voltage and the weight of the >>> converter is irrelevant as it is the total power that determines the >>> weight of it all. >>> >>> BTW, here are some real world power to weight ratios: >>> >>> Boeing 777 engine 10 kW/kg >> 1985 Chevy Celebrity 300 W/kg <-- So for a 1000 kg car, that's 402 >> horsepower? Sign me up! ;) >> >> Cheers >> >> Phil Hobbs > > No, that is the power to weight ratio of the engine, not the power to > weight ratio of the car. > > Power is a red herring. What's important is the total energy produced by the engine AND the fuel supply. It doesn't get the least bit interesting until the engine can lift itself and a FULL tank of whatever powers it AND the vehicle AND the payload to reach the destination. I can't imagine that ever happening 1000 feet off the ground on this ole earth at a cost anywhere near the cost of other forms of transportation. Stick it in space where you have solar or nuclear energy and you don't care how long it takes to get there or what it costs and you have something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web