Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #603266 > unrolled thread

Ion drive for aircraft imminent.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 11:52 -0700
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 10:16 -0700
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-01 18:16 +0000
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-01 18:44 -0400
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-02 22:31 -0500
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-03 07:27 -0500
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-11-03 09:26 -0400
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-03 12:04 -0500
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 18:03 -0700
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 15:28 -0400
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-04 21:03 +0000
    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. 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. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 09:28 -0400
    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. "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. "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. 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. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-11-15 20:34 -0500
                                            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. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-16 20:32 -0500
                      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 16:37 -0800
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:49 +0000
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 10:00 -0400
      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. 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. "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

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#603706

I'm going to assume 'Yuri Kreaton' is a cute anonymous handle. Nice!

On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 11:31:28 PM UTC-4, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
> On 11/1/2016 12:16 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 8:08:56 AM UTC-7, Robert Clark
> > wrote:
> >> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles
> >> analogous to
> 
> >> Nanotech: from air to space.
> >> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
> >>
> >>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Cars going through a 3,000 mile pipe Boston to LA will go at 500mph
> > That will be reality in 60 years.In a 100 years 1,000 mph  No need to
> > leave the ground.A pipe tunnel coast to coast does it all.Cheap and
> > safe is the way to travel O ya   TreBert

There are many other better ways to travel. Read on...

For more often than not, it's the journey, not the destination, that matters.

> why send an entire car?  you could just grease the guy up, stick him in 
> a smaller pipe, and blow his fat ass butt to Boston.  3 hrs to go 3,000 
> miles, he could sleep.
> 
> I dont think LA wants many people from Boston, so the pipe should be one 
> way.

That's really funny! Btw, can we do this for the R|I|D politicos too? 
Where one walks into a human scanning machine, is tagged and flagged
to be one of R|I|D and is immediately gotten rid==RID of to|by correct gate?

> Extra Credit:
> what is the pressure differential required to get a 300# man up to 
> 200mph in a pipe?  assume coef of friction of 0.05, and an air tight seal.

What if the drive is electromagnetic? Or of nanotube pulley ropes? What if...

Speaking of locomotion, traveling to anywhere somewhere or nowhere,
did I already mention I love trains, and songs about trains, while on
trains and by the invisible extremely well talented, cute too, DanSingh...

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=chal+chaiya is one way to travel.
When I someday finally grow up, I'm going to find that dancing girl,
marry her, and ...youKnow. Then lightening will strike the locomotive,
no relation to kookmotive, both the front and rear of her train
simultaneously. O wait... where was I going with this train of thought?!

Great lyrics really too! I only understand about 76.38% of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZFrOp5rL_I is a funny visual parody. 
Really neat. Lots of experimental physics videos, all mashed up.

Thinking Is The Best Way To Travel... O wait... that's The Moody Blues!

Since we're discussing travel, I prefer the non-parody version with Her.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603750

>
>Cars going through a 3,000 mile pipe Boston to LA will go at 500mph That 
>will be reality in 60 years.In a 100 years 1,000 mph  No need to leave the 
>ground.A pipe tunnel coast to coast does it all.Cheap and safe is the way 
>to travel O ya   TreBert
>
>---

500 mph will still be a 6 hour trip. A real advance will be hypersonic 
flight.

   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]

#603771

Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>>Cars going through a 3,000 mile pipe Boston to LA will go at 500mph That 
>>will be reality in 60 years.In a 100 years 1,000 mph  No need to leave the 
>>ground.A pipe tunnel coast to coast does it all.Cheap and safe is the way 
>>to travel O ya   TreBert
>>
>>---
> 
> 500 mph will still be a 6 hour trip. A real advance will be hypersonic 
> flight.
> 
>   Bob Clark

Never going to happen commercially over the continental US or any
other country.
 
Does Concord ring any bells?


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603295

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:
> 
> 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/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

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.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603341

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:
>> 
>> 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/
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>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.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603391

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.

The cost of the engine is a tiny fraction of the cost of developing,
certifying, manufacturing and marketing a flying car, or a flying 
anything for that matter. 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603418

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?
>
>The cost of the engine is a tiny fraction of the cost of developing,
>certifying, manufacturing and marketing a flying car, or a flying 
>anything for that matter. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603428

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.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603544

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603559

On 03.11.16 1:20, 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?
>
Yes, but only to be used at the right altitude.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603562

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]

#603595

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]

#603396

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]

#603420

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]

#603422

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]

#603429

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]

#603343

"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]

#603613

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]

#603638

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]

#603901

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]

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web