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

#603910

In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
> In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
>>> As mentioned previously, battery-powered airplanes and helicopters do 
>>> exist.
>>
>>As research toys; there are not as yet any electric airplanes or 
>>helicopters
>>that could be called practical in any sense of the word.
>>
>>> The ionic propulsion will likewise be battery-powered but at a more
>>> efficient power usage, if the ionizing wires are at the nanoscale.
>>>
>>> The greater efficiency for ionic propulsion with nanoscale wires can be
>>> confirmed with any wires at the nanoscale, not just carbon nanotubes. For
>>> example, the intense fields created by nanoscale wires in microcircuitry
>>> boards is well-known to those in the field. So anyone who has familiarity
>>> working with microcircuitry boards with nanoscale wiring could confirm 
>>> this.
>>
>>An intense field does not automatically means motive power.
>>
>>Are you saying microcircuitry boards have to be lashed down to keep
>>them from flying away?
>>
>>> And that's all that's required. That in itself would be the game changer.
>>> Even if it's only done on a model the size of a model airplane, once it's
>>> shown that nanoscale wiring for ionic propulsion produced better
>>> power-to-thrust ratio than helicopters, that would be sufficient for this 
>>> to
>>> supplant helicopters as a hovering transport method.
>>
>>Yeah, sure.
>>
>>You do know the tips of such ion generators burn away and the smaller the
>>tip the faster they burn?
>>
>>>  Bob Clark
>>
>>
> 
> In regards to the mode of operation, the lifters don't operate via electron 
> emission. The air molecule ion production is due to the intense electric 
> fields around the high voltage wires, a known phenomenon among electrical 
> engineers called corona discharge or electrical breakdown. The wires are 
> usually horizontal for most lifters and the corona field is generated around 
> the length of the horizontal wires, not at the tips of the wires. There 
> versions of the lifters that use the ionization around the end tips or 
> wires, but this is also due to the intense field strength there, not 
> electron emission.

Also the end tips of sewing needles as they have a tiny tip and being
steel more resistant to end erosion and are cheap.

> The corona in small diameter wires in electronic devices is limited by the 
> coatings placed on the wires. In the lifters, the wires used are uncoated.

If you have corona you have electron emmision by definition and with
electron emmision you get tip erosion.

> A recent paper showed for nanowires at diameters in the range of 100 nm, the 
> corona discharge in air arises at voltages of only about 100 V/m. This is 
> compared to the 3,000,000 V/m normally found in air for macroscale wires:

Hardly a surprise.

Why do you think Van de Graaff generators are topped by a big, round,
smooth ball?

Did you ever do the high school experiment where you scotch tape a 
thumbtack to a Van de Graaff generator?

> Nanoscale Res Lett. 2016; 11: 90.
> Published online 2016 Feb 16. doi:  10.1186/s11671-015-1217-4
> ZnO Nanowire-Based Corona Discharge Devices Operated Under Hundreds of 
> Volts.
> Wenming Yang, Rong Zhu,corresponding author and Xianli Zong
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4754239/   [free full text]
> 
> This doesnt show you can get thrust at these lower voltages, but the 
> results on the air ionization are in accordance to what the mathematics 
> predicts. And the air ionization is what generates the thrust.
> New ideas should be subjected to critical review. But that critical review 
> should include testing to see if they actually work.
> 
> Bob Clark

Again, tip erosion, RFI, and total power required.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#603651

"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote in
news:nvfhtn$stq$1@dont-email.me: 

> As mentioned previously, battery-powered airplanes and
> helicopters do exist. The ionic propulsion will likewise be
> battery-powered but at a more efficient power usage, if the
> ionizing wires are at the nanoscale. 
> 
> The greater efficiency for ionic propulsion with nanoscale wires
> can be confirmed with any wires at the nanoscale, not just
> carbon nanotubes. For example, the intense fields created by
> nanoscale wires in microcircuitry boards is well-known to those
> in the field. So anyone who has familiarity working with
> microcircuitry boards with nanoscale wiring could confirm this. 
> 
> And that's all that's required. That in itself would be the game
> changer. Even if it's only done on a model the size of a model
> airplane, once it's shown that nanoscale wiring for ionic
> propulsion produced better power-to-thrust ratio than
> helicopters, that would be sufficient for this to supplant
> helicopters as a hovering transport method. 
> 
>   Bob Clark
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to
> revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator,
> to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'.
> This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
> 
> Nanotech: from air to space.
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/1
> 3319568/ 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy"  wrote in message 
> news:XnsA6B3928AD49C6taustingmail@69.16.179.42...
> 
> "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote in
> news:nvab5b$is1$1@dont-email.me:
> 
>> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles
>> analogous to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes:
>>
>> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft".
>> Clark R*
>> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA
>> Review Article
>> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 /
>> Published Date: October 20, 2016
>> Abstract
>> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted
>> flying cars, and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now
>> does make possible the long desired flying cars.
> 
> The reason we don't have flying cars has nothing to do with the
> method of propulsion. We've *had* flying cars for decades. And
> this will do nothing to make them a) cheaper, b) easier to fly,
> or c) safer when there are tens of millions of them in the air
> at once. 
> 
>> Note that if it works then all propeller
>> and rotor driven craft become obsolete.
> 
> Just like all propeller and rotor drive craft became obsolete
> when jet engeins were invented. Sure.
> 
>> Also, intermediate range
>> automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD craft,
> 
> Effectively, jet powered cars? Because it sounds like there will
> be a high speed exhaust of _some_ kind behind the vehicle. Which
> makes it . . . unlikely.
> 
> Plus, two orders of magnitude increase in thrust to weight from
> current ion engines isn't even close to what a car needs.
> 
>> so a
>> large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated,
>> replaced by this zero-emission travel method.
> 
> The electricity has to come from _somewhere_.
> 
> As is usual, nearly universal, with all announcement of
> revolutionary new technologies, this reads more like a
> prospectus for investors than anything else. Which is to say, he
> wants to invest a whole lof of other people's money into finding
> out if it works.
> 
> If he really believed it would work, he'd invest his own money,
> and keep _all_ the profits himself.

None of that adds up to flying cars. Again, the reason we don't 
have flying cars has nothing to do with propulsion systems. We've 
*had* flying cars for nearly a century.

-- 
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland: 
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

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

#603395

On 11/1/2016 10:09 AM, Robert Clark wrote:
> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous
> to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes:
>
> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft".
> Clark R*
> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA
> Review Article
> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date:
> October 20, 2016
> Abstract
> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying
> cars, and we got 140 characters.

he is an idiot.  flying cars are sub optimal airplanes, and he saw it in 
a James Bond Movie,

the 140 character field on all cellphone calls, was set by the telcom 
companies about 40 years ago

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

#603444

Robert Clark wrote:
> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous
> to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes:
>
> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft".
> Clark R*
> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA
> Review Article
> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date:
> October 20, 2016
> Abstract
> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying
> cars, and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make
> possible the long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion
> method though than propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by
> electric fields known as electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works
> by ionizing air then using electric fields to propel the charged air
> molecules rearward, thus producing thrust. It's quite analogous to the
> famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD has been known at least since the
> sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, the thrust is so low. So far
> the EHD craft have not been able to lift both themselves and their power
> supplies. The ones made so far leave the power supply on the ground and
> connect to the craft through power cables. But the equations of EHD
> suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for thinner
> ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then this
> important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for
> the craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and
> the power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics
> suggests. Note that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven
> craft become obsolete. Also, intermediate range automobile travel would
> be taken over by the EHD craft, so a large proportion of
> carbon-emissions would be eliminated, replaced by this zero-emission
> travel method. In regards to space propulsion, since EHD is so similar
> to ion drive, using components at the nanoscale may also work to improve
> the thrust of ion drive. This would be important to shortening the
> flight times of spacecraft using such drives. This is important not just
> for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that use such ion drives to
> reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, the ion drives used
> have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites to reach GEO,
> resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the satellite
> companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would
> reduce the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue.
> Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires;
> Ionic wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive
> https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63
>
> Bob Clark
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
> 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
> launchers, to 'flying cars'.
> This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
>
> Nanotech: from air to space.
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
    What is the Isp?

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

#603582

On 11/2/2016 1:33 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
> Robert Clark wrote:
>> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous
>> to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes:
>>
>> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft".
>> Clark R*
>> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA
>> Review Article
>> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date:
>> October 20, 2016
>> Abstract
>> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying
>> cars, and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make
>> possible the long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion
>> method though than propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by
>> electric fields known as electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works
>> by ionizing air then using electric fields to propel the charged air
>> molecules rearward, thus producing thrust. It's quite analogous to the
>> famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD has been known at least since the
>> sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, the thrust is so low. So far
>> the EHD craft have not been able to lift both themselves and their power
>> supplies. The ones made so far leave the power supply on the ground and
>> connect to the craft through power cables. But the equations of EHD
>> suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for thinner
>> ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then this
>> important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for
>> the craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and
>> the power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics
>> suggests. Note that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven
>> craft become obsolete. Also, intermediate range automobile travel would
>> be taken over by the EHD craft, so a large proportion of
>> carbon-emissions would be eliminated, replaced by this zero-emission
>> travel method. In regards to space propulsion, since EHD is so similar
>> to ion drive, using components at the nanoscale may also work to improve
>> the thrust of ion drive. This would be important to shortening the
>> flight times of spacecraft using such drives. This is important not just
>> for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that use such ion drives to
>> reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, the ion drives used
>> have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites to reach GEO,
>> resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the satellite
>> companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would
>> reduce the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue.
>> Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires;
>> Ionic wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive
>> https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63
>>
>> Bob Clark
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
>> 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
>> launchers, to 'flying cars'.
>> This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
>>
>> Nanotech: from air to space.
>> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>     What is the Isp?
>
What good is ion drive?
If you want to get from here to there, you need an energy source
sufficient to accelerate/maintain/decelerate some mass.
Doesn't matter how you do it, you can't get there on less energy,
given current physics.

If you're in space with low friction losses, you can use an electric field
to accelerate a small mass to high velocity to generate thrust.
But you still have to have the energy source to drive it.
If you're not in a hurry and are close to a star, no problem.

A terrestrial vehicle like a flying car does not sound well
suited to ion drive.  Just lifting it off the ground with
anything resembling thrust is a deal breaker in so many ways.

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

#603639

In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
> On 11/2/2016 1:33 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
>> Robert Clark wrote:
>>> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous
>>> to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes:
>>>
>>> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft".
>>> Clark R*
>>> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA
>>> Review Article
>>> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date:
>>> October 20, 2016
>>> Abstract
>>> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying
>>> cars, and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make
>>> possible the long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion
>>> method though than propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by
>>> electric fields known as electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works
>>> by ionizing air then using electric fields to propel the charged air
>>> molecules rearward, thus producing thrust. It's quite analogous to the
>>> famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD has been known at least since the
>>> sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, the thrust is so low. So far
>>> the EHD craft have not been able to lift both themselves and their power
>>> supplies. The ones made so far leave the power supply on the ground and
>>> connect to the craft through power cables. But the equations of EHD
>>> suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for thinner
>>> ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then this
>>> important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for
>>> the craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and
>>> the power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics
>>> suggests. Note that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven
>>> craft become obsolete. Also, intermediate range automobile travel would
>>> be taken over by the EHD craft, so a large proportion of
>>> carbon-emissions would be eliminated, replaced by this zero-emission
>>> travel method. In regards to space propulsion, since EHD is so similar
>>> to ion drive, using components at the nanoscale may also work to improve
>>> the thrust of ion drive. This would be important to shortening the
>>> flight times of spacecraft using such drives. This is important not just
>>> for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that use such ion drives to
>>> reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, the ion drives used
>>> have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites to reach GEO,
>>> resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the satellite
>>> companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would
>>> reduce the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue.
>>> Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires;
>>> Ionic wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive
>>> https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63
>>>
>>> Bob Clark
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
>>> 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
>>> launchers, to 'flying cars'.
>>> This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
>>>
>>> Nanotech: from air to space.
>>> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>     What is the Isp?
>>
> What good is ion drive?
> If you want to get from here to there, you need an energy source
> sufficient to accelerate/maintain/decelerate some mass.
> Doesn't matter how you do it, you can't get there on less energy,
> given current physics.
> 
> If you're in space with low friction losses, you can use an electric field
> to accelerate a small mass to high velocity to generate thrust.
> But you still have to have the energy source to drive it.
> If you're not in a hurry and are close to a star, no problem.
> 
> A terrestrial vehicle like a flying car does not sound well
> suited to ion drive.  Just lifting it off the ground with
> anything resembling thrust is a deal breaker in so many ways.

Being near an ion drive would literally be a hair raising experience
and likely to generate RFI far in excess of FCC standards. 
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#603752

...

>    What is the Isp?
>
>---

Quite slow if you're thinking in comparison to ion space drives. it's in the 
range of a few tens of meters per second, recalling from memory for the 
"lifters" that have been made by amateur experimenters.

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]

#603501

On 11/01/2016 08:09 AM, Robert Clark wrote:
> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous
> to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes:
>
> <SNIP>
I'll see your ion drive and raise you one baloney drive. It's very 
efficient, just plug it into the internet and it recharges.
-----------------------------------------------------------
>

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

#603602

Good question. You can make one of these EHD devices yourself, commonly 
called "lifters", to test this. Do a web search on: "lifters" and "power 
supply" for the many explanations online for how to make them. My guess is 
since it's the intense electric fields that is creating the ionization they 
will still work in high humidity or rain. Note also the EHD effect also 
works with liquids.

  Bob Clark

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital 
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wrote in message 
news:5ec5d120-948f-4013-a835-cd5ae4e4dd19@googlegroups.com...

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

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus 

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

#603611

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]

#603618

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]

#603633

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]

#603764

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]

#603772

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]

#603969

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]

#603994

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]

#604019

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]

#604039

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]

#604062

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]

#604067

In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
> 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.

Are you trying to say airplanes aren't going to make it in the commercial
world?
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web