Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.space.policy > #58636 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-01 11:09 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-12-09 15:24 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 126 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.space.policy
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. 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. 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. 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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 11:52 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 21:32 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-19 17:25 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 08:22 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 15:51 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 18:55 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 14:13 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 00:42 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 18:07 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 00:58 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 13:33 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 18:08 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-24 07:36 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:49 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 15:50 -0800
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. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:03 -0500
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. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-13 12:09 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-13 20:34 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 14:18 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 13:47 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 20:41 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 22:51 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-12-05 06:11 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 16:07 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 00:26 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 01:32 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 01:33 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 16:30 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-12-06 09:15 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> - 2016-12-06 12:45 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 17:31 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> - 2016-12-07 11:27 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 16:04 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 16:03 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 01:37 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 17:31 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 18:47 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 15:24 -0800
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 16:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nviprd$s9p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58664 |
On 11/3/2016 10:41 AM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:48:31 -0400, "Robert Clark" >> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >> >>> The commonly used name for these EHD devices made by amateurs is >>> "lifters". The problem with their not being able to fly >>> independently is the power supplies are so heavy. Look for example >>> at the lifter here: >>> >>> How to: "Lifter" Power Supply. >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfdsEVjBpBU >>> >>> Quite commonly the lifters weigh, and the thrust they can produce, >>> is in the range of grams but the power supplies weigh in the range >>> of kilograms. So how do you solve that problem? > > > > >>> Now, back to the EHD propulsion method. The power supplies are too >>> heavy, so what can we do about that? Well, you can make them out of >>> lightweight materials. That's a possible route to follow, but most >>> amateur and even professional experimenters have used ready made >>> power supplies or used ready made parts to build them. The result >>> is they are all pretty standard weight for the power they put out. >>> >>> But let's analyze this further, *why* are the power supplies so >>> heavy? It turns out the reason they are so heavy is the voltage >>> needed for the ion propulsion method is in the range of tens of >>> thousands of volts, frequently as high as 50,000 volts. This then >>> requires heavy transformers to produce voltage this high. Alright >>> then, can we find a way to reduce the required voltage? >> >> High-voltage power supplies don't need heavy transformers. But they >> do need a source of power. I doubt that an ion thruster could lift >> its own batteries for five minutes even if the power converter >> weighs zero. >> > >>> >>> Yes! It turns out if you reduce the diameter of the wires doing the >>> ionization of the air then the required voltage is reduced. In >>> fact, according to the math if the wires are at the nanoscale then >>> the required voltage might be reduced to only tens of volts instead >>> of tens of thousands of volts. For the small-scale lifters, if you >>> used now wires at the nanoscale, it may be they could be powered by >>> a couple of 9-volt batteries connected in series. > >> Again, you won't get enough lift to support those two batteries, and >> they would be dead in minutes anyhow. >> >> The tiny tips would erode rapidly, too. > >> Don't top post on usenet. >> >> An ion thruster is a form of electric propulsion used for spacecraft >> propulsion. It creates thrust by accelerating ions with electricity. >> The term refers strictly to gridded electrostatic ion thrusters, but >> may more loosely be applied to all electric propulsion systems that >> accelerate plasma, since plasma consists of ions. > > >wiki (note the last line) >Ion thrusters are categorized by how they accelerate the ions, using >either electrostatic or electromagnetic force. Electrostatic thrusters >use the Coulomb force and accelerate the ions in the direction of the >electric field. Electromagnetic thrusters use the Lorentz force. In >either case, when an ion passes through an electrostatic grid engine, >the potential difference of the electric field converts to the ion's >kinetic energy. > >Ion thrusters have an input power spanning 1–7 kW, exhaust velocity >20–50 km/s, thrust 25–250 millinewtons and efficiency 65–80%.[1][2] > >The Deep Space 1 spacecraft, powered by an ion thruster, changed >velocity by 4300 m/s while consuming less than 74 kilograms of xenon. >The Dawn spacecraft broke the record, reaching 10,000 m/s.[1][2] > >Applications include control of the orientation and position of orbiting >satellites (some satellites have dozens of low-power ion thrusters) and >use as a main propulsion engine for low-mass robotic space vehicles (for >example Deep Space 1 and Dawn).[1][2] > >The ion thruster is not the most promising type of electrically powered >spacecraft propulsion (although the most successful in practice).[2] An >ion drive would require two days to accelerate a car to highway speed. >The technical characteristics, especially thrust, are considerably >inferior to the prototypes described in literature,[1][2] technical >capabilities are limited by the space charge created by ions. This >limits the thrust density (force per cross-sectional area of the >engine).[2] Ion thrusters create small thrust levels (the thrust of Deep >Space 1 is approximately equal to the weight of one sheet of paper[2]) >compared to conventional chemical rockets, but achieve high specific >impulse, or propellant mass efficiency, by accelerating the exhaust to >high speed. The power imparted to the exhaust increases with the square >of exhaust velocity while thrust increase is linear. Conversely, >chemical rockets provide high thrust, but are limited in total impulse >by the small amount of energy that can be stored chemically in the >propellants.[3] Given the practical weight of suitable power sources, >the acceleration from an ion thruster is frequently less than one >thousandth of standard gravity. However, since they operate as electric >(or electrostatic) motors, they convert a greater fraction of input >power into kinetic exhaust power. Chemical rockets operate as heat >engines, and Carnot's theorem limits the exhaust velocity. > >Ion thrust engines are practical only in the vacuum of space and cannot >take vehicles through the atmosphere because ion engines do not work in >the presence of ions outside the engine. Spacecraft rely on conventional >chemical rockets to initially reach orbit. > > It's analogous to ion drive in that it ionizes a gas then uses electric fields to direct the charged gas molecules backwards to provide thrust. For ion space drives you want the propellant to accelerate to high speed to achieve high exhaust velocity. This means you can achieve high speed for the spacecraft with a small amount of propellant according to the rocket equation. This requires though a high amount of power to generate those high exhaust speeds. For the corresponding air vehicle propulsion you don't want the air accelerated speeds to be high because you would be going at slow speed for the vehicle or just hovering. This can generate higher thrust with a reduced exhaust velocity. This video explains their operation: How Ion Propulsion, Lifters and Ionocrafts Work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01F8V5IhB5k I like this one because the experimenter attached the ion drive device to a model of the Enterprise(!) Bob Clark -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 21:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l0aved-aup.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58676 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: <snip> > It's analogous to ion drive in that it ionizes a gas then uses electric > fields to direct the charged gas molecules backwards to provide thrust. > > For ion space drives you want the propellant to accelerate to high speed to > achieve high exhaust velocity. This means you can achieve high speed for the > spacecraft with a small amount of propellant according to the rocket > equation. This requires though a high amount of power to generate those high > exhaust speeds. > > For the corresponding air vehicle propulsion you don't want the air > accelerated speeds to be high because you would be going at slow speed for > the vehicle or just hovering. This can generate higher thrust with a reduced > exhaust velocity. The power required to fly by aircraft is the same no matter the motive source. A small 4 place aircraft typically has about a 140 kW engine, a small 2 place helicopter double that. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 07:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvps1g$s89$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58663 |
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:48:31 -0400, "Robert Clark" ><rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: > >>The commonly used name for these EHD devices made by amateurs is >>"lifters". >>The problem with their not being able to fly independently is the power >>supplies are so heavy. Look for example at the lifter here: >> >>How to: "Lifter" Power Supply. >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfdsEVjBpBU >> >>Quite commonly the lifters weigh, and the thrust they can produce, is in >>the >>range of grams but the power supplies weigh in the range of kilograms. So >>how do you solve that problem? >> >>Let me give an analogy. Many people are aware of the technical innovations >>the Wright brothers made to be able to develop a successful flying >>machine. >>They made their own wind tunnel. They tested various air foils to find >>efficient ones of high lift. They developed a warping wing technique for >>steering. >> >>However, not as well known is the one key innovation they made for which >>all >>those other innovations would have been worthless. When many scientists of >>the time after doing a mathematical analysis asserted that no heavier-than >>air flying machine could work, oddly enough they were *right*. But the >>problem was, they were basing this on the power sources widely known at >>the >>time, steam engines. But the steam engines were so inefficient they could >>not supply sufficient power for their weight. They were too heavy. >> >>Around the time of the Wright brothers though the internal combustion >>gasoline engine was coming into use for automobiles, but they were still >>too >>heavy for the Wright brothers use. So the one *key* innovation the Wright >>brothers made was that they designed and built their OWN lightweight >>internal combustion engine. >> >>Now, back to the EHD propulsion method. The power supplies are too heavy, >>so >>what can we do about that? Well, you can make them out of lightweight >>materials. That's a possible route to follow, but most amateur and even >>professional experimenters have used ready made power supplies or used >>ready >>made parts to build them. The result is they are all pretty standard >>weight >>for the power they put out. >> >>But let's analyze this further, *why* are the power supplies so heavy? It >>turns out the reason they are so heavy is the voltage needed for the ion >>propulsion method is in the range of tens of thousands of volts, >>frequently >>as high as 50,000 volts. This then requires heavy transformers to produce >>voltage this high. Alright then, can we find a way to reduce the required >>voltage? > >High-voltage power supplies don't need heavy transformers. But they do >need a source of power. I doubt that an ion thruster could lift its >own batteries for five minutes even if the power converter weighs >zero. > > >> >>Yes! It turns out if you reduce the diameter of the wires doing the >>ionization of the air then the required voltage is reduced. In fact, >>according to the math if the wires are at the nanoscale then the required >>voltage might be reduced to only tens of volts instead of tens of >>thousands >>of volts. For the small-scale lifters, if you used now wires at the >>nanoscale, it may be they could be powered by a couple of 9-volt batteries >>connected in series. > >Again, you won't get enough lift to support those two batteries, and >they would be dead in minutes anyhow. > >The tiny tips would erode rapidly, too. > >Don't top post on usenet. > > If you know of a means to provide 50,000 V at *lightweight* then you will have solved the problem of an independently flying lifter, using the macrosized wires currently used. You would need about a power to weight ratio for the power source of better than 1 watt per gram, while being able to provide these ca. 50,000 V voltages. Bob Clark -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 18:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t7u6fd-0hl.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58686 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: <snip> > If you know of a means to provide 50,000 V at *lightweight* then you will > have solved the problem of an independently flying lifter, using the > macrosized wires currently used. You would need about a power to weight > ratio for the power source of better than 1 watt per gram, while being able > to provide these ca. 50,000 V voltages. > > Bob Clark Trivial; look at any camera flash unit built in the last several decades. However you have totally missed the point; voltage and the weight of the converter is irrelevant as it is the total power that determines the weight of it all. BTW, here are some real world power to weight ratios: Boeing 777 engine 10 kW/kg 1985 Chevy Celebrity 300 W/kg Lithium-ion battery 85 W/kg nickel-metal battery 116 W/kg zinc air fuel cell 500 W/kg -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 15:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vMGdndBNvJ8Ieb3FnZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #58689 |
On 11/07/2016 01:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > >> If you know of a means to provide 50,000 V at *lightweight* then you will >> have solved the problem of an independently flying lifter, using the >> macrosized wires currently used. You would need about a power to weight >> ratio for the power source of better than 1 watt per gram, while being able >> to provide these ca. 50,000 V voltages. >> >> Bob Clark > > Trivial; look at any camera flash unit built in the last several decades. > > However you have totally missed the point; voltage and the weight of the > converter is irrelevant as it is the total power that determines the > weight of it all. > > BTW, here are some real world power to weight ratios: > > Boeing 777 engine 10 kW/kg 1985 Chevy Celebrity 300 W/kg <-- So for a 1000 kg car, that's 402 horsepower? Sign me up! ;) Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 21:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ea97fd-okm.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58690 |
In sci.physics Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > On 11/07/2016 01:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> If you know of a means to provide 50,000 V at *lightweight* then you will >>> have solved the problem of an independently flying lifter, using the >>> macrosized wires currently used. You would need about a power to weight >>> ratio for the power source of better than 1 watt per gram, while being able >>> to provide these ca. 50,000 V voltages. >>> >>> Bob Clark >> >> Trivial; look at any camera flash unit built in the last several decades. >> >> However you have totally missed the point; voltage and the weight of the >> converter is irrelevant as it is the total power that determines the >> weight of it all. >> >> BTW, here are some real world power to weight ratios: >> >> Boeing 777 engine 10 kW/kg > 1985 Chevy Celebrity 300 W/kg <-- So for a 1000 kg car, that's 402 > horsepower? Sign me up! ;) > > Cheers > > Phil Hobbs No, that is the power to weight ratio of the engine, not the power to weight ratio of the car. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mike <ham789@netzero.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 18:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvrcni$vrt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58691 |
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]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 03:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <svt7fd-klo.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58694 |
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]
| From | mike <ham789@netzero.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 20:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvrlmf$lc2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58695 |
On 11/7/2016 7:39 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > 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? > > Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying: "Airplanes with ion drive are not going to make it in the commercial world." Whatever technology can make that work will be FAR less costly applied to something that rolls along the roadway. But that misses the point that it's ENERGY that's the concern. Doesn't matter how light or powerful the airplane engine is if it still can't lift enough fuel to reach the destination. It takes a given amount of energy to get from here to there. Changing the engine only affects the efficiency of the process that converts the available fuel source to whatever it takes to motivate the vehicle. Maybe we'll see terrestrial ion engines, but the efficiency improvement won't be huge. If we had an electric fuel source of sufficient energy/weight ratio, we'd already have electric airplanes. If you're gonna spend millions of dollars to fling an object into space at escape velocity, it makes sense to have a nuclear power source that applies tiny thrust for a long time using minimal reaction mass to continue the flight to places unknown. For a terrestrial flight to New York, not so much. So, what am I missing?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 07:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5ha8fd-5rp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58696 |
In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote: > On 11/7/2016 7:39 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> 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? >> >> > Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying: "Airplanes with ion drive are not > going to make it in the commercial world." Whatever technology can make > that work will be FAR less costly applied to something that rolls along > the roadway. I doubt there is any technology that could ever make it work in an atmosphere. > But that misses the point that it's ENERGY that's the concern. Doesn't > matter how light or powerful the airplane engine is if it still can't lift > enough fuel to reach the destination. It takes a given amount of energy > to get from here to there. Changing the engine only affects the efficiency > of the process that converts the available fuel source to whatever it takes > to motivate the vehicle. Maybe we'll see terrestrial ion engines, but > the efficiency > improvement won't be huge. Aircraft engines don't lift anything. > If we had an electric fuel source of sufficient energy/weight ratio, > we'd already have electric airplanes. > > If you're gonna spend millions of dollars to fling an object into > space at escape velocity, it makes sense to have a nuclear power > source that applies tiny thrust for a long time using minimal reaction > mass to continue the flight to places unknown. > For a terrestrial flight to New York, not so much. > > So, what am I missing? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 12:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <3n242cp3e4a6gnllrnjqos04oerlu3sd80@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58697 |
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 07:13:09 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote: >> On 11/7/2016 7:39 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> 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? >>> >>> >> Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying: "Airplanes with ion drive are not >> going to make it in the commercial world." Whatever technology can make >> that work will be FAR less costly applied to something that rolls along >> the roadway. > >I doubt there is any technology that could ever make it work in an >atmosphere. > >> But that misses the point that it's ENERGY that's the concern. Doesn't >> matter how light or powerful the airplane engine is if it still can't lift >> enough fuel to reach the destination. It takes a given amount of energy >> to get from here to there. Changing the engine only affects the efficiency >> of the process that converts the available fuel source to whatever it takes >> to motivate the vehicle. Maybe we'll see terrestrial ion engines, but >> the efficiency >> improvement won't be huge. > >Aircraft engines don't lift anything. Harriers aren't aircraft? Well, they do look a little like bricks. ;-) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mike <ham789@netzero.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 13:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvtgdk$uq5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58697 |
On 11/7/2016 11:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > Aircraft engines don't lift anything. > OK, how about, "Aircraft engines, when properly fixtured, can result in objects disengaging contact with the earth?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 22:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9qu9fd-6v1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58701 |
In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote: > On 11/7/2016 11:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >> Aircraft engines don't lift anything. >> > > OK, how about, "Aircraft engines, > when properly fixtured, > can result in objects disengaging contact with the earth?" How about the engine on fixed wing aircraft provides thrust to overcome total drag to accelerate the aircraft to an airspeed sufficient to provide enough lift from the wings to overcome the force of gravity? How about the engine of a helicopter provides power to spin rotating wings to a speed sufficient to develop enough lift to overcome the force of gravity? For the purpose of this discussion assume that the angle of attack of the rotor blades has been set appropriately. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@somewhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 18:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iqo42cltlmpirf8cq38ei132icnvpegh11@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58702 |
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 22:05:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote: >> On 11/7/2016 11:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>> >>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything. >>> >> >> OK, how about, "Aircraft engines, >> when properly fixtured, >> can result in objects disengaging contact with the earth?" > >How about the engine on fixed wing aircraft provides thrust to overcome >total drag to accelerate the aircraft to an airspeed sufficient to >provide enough lift from the wings to overcome the force of gravity? > >How about the engine of a helicopter provides power to spin rotating >wings to a speed sufficient to develop enough lift to overcome the >force of gravity? For the purpose of this discussion assume that the >angle of attack of the rotor blades has been set appropriately. > There is more than one aircraft with a thrust to weight ratio greater than unity, not to mention a rocket or two.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 00:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9a6afd-cr2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58703 |
In sci.physics krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 22:05:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote: >>> On 11/7/2016 11:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything. >>>> >>> >>> OK, how about, "Aircraft engines, >>> when properly fixtured, >>> can result in objects disengaging contact with the earth?" >> >>How about the engine on fixed wing aircraft provides thrust to overcome >>total drag to accelerate the aircraft to an airspeed sufficient to >>provide enough lift from the wings to overcome the force of gravity? >> >>How about the engine of a helicopter provides power to spin rotating >>wings to a speed sufficient to develop enough lift to overcome the >>force of gravity? For the purpose of this discussion assume that the >>angle of attack of the rotor blades has been set appropriately. >> > There is more than one aircraft with a thrust to weight ratio greater > than unity, not to mention a rocket or two. Yes, there certainly are but they are niche aircraft in the overall scheme of things and an extremely small percentage of aircraft. Maybe you'd like to include ornithopters in the discussion of engines for flying machines. Rockets are rockets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@somewhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 19:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <rbs42c1b5ma6l9ue878576vm0jhjsukqdt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58704 |
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 00:13:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 22:05:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote: >>>> On 11/7/2016 11:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything. >>>>> >>>> >>>> OK, how about, "Aircraft engines, >>>> when properly fixtured, >>>> can result in objects disengaging contact with the earth?" >>> >>>How about the engine on fixed wing aircraft provides thrust to overcome >>>total drag to accelerate the aircraft to an airspeed sufficient to >>>provide enough lift from the wings to overcome the force of gravity? >>> >>>How about the engine of a helicopter provides power to spin rotating >>>wings to a speed sufficient to develop enough lift to overcome the >>>force of gravity? For the purpose of this discussion assume that the >>>angle of attack of the rotor blades has been set appropriately. >>> >> There is more than one aircraft with a thrust to weight ratio greater >> than unity, not to mention a rocket or two. > >Yes, there certainly are but they are niche aircraft in the overall >scheme of things and an extremely small percentage of aircraft. > >Maybe you'd like to include ornithopters in the discussion of engines >for flying machines. Why not? The whole thread is already pretty silly. > >Rockets are rockets. > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft Oh, Ion engines aren't be proposed for rockets, too? Never mind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 01:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pb9afd-673.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58705 |
In sci.physics krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 00:13:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 22:05:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote: >>>>> On 11/7/2016 11:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OK, how about, "Aircraft engines, >>>>> when properly fixtured, >>>>> can result in objects disengaging contact with the earth?" >>>> >>>>How about the engine on fixed wing aircraft provides thrust to overcome >>>>total drag to accelerate the aircraft to an airspeed sufficient to >>>>provide enough lift from the wings to overcome the force of gravity? >>>> >>>>How about the engine of a helicopter provides power to spin rotating >>>>wings to a speed sufficient to develop enough lift to overcome the >>>>force of gravity? For the purpose of this discussion assume that the >>>>angle of attack of the rotor blades has been set appropriately. >>>> >>> There is more than one aircraft with a thrust to weight ratio greater >>> than unity, not to mention a rocket or two. >> >>Yes, there certainly are but they are niche aircraft in the overall >>scheme of things and an extremely small percentage of aircraft. >> >>Maybe you'd like to include ornithopters in the discussion of engines >>for flying machines. > > Why not? The whole thread is already pretty silly. From start to end... >>Rockets are rockets. >> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft > > Oh, Ion engines aren't be proposed for rockets, too? Never mind. Where is the word "rocket" in the subject of this thread? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 18:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvvpoi$42m$1@news.hpeswlab.net> |
| In reply to | #58702 |
In sci.space.policy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> How about the engine on fixed wing aircraft provides thrust to
> overcome total drag to accelerate the aircraft to an airspeed
> sufficient to provide enough lift from the wings to overcome the
> force of gravity?
Where would you put the Harrier in that definition? Doesn't it have
the ability (albeit rather lightly loaded) to take-off vertically on
thrust from the engine alone?
rick jones
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 20:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k1ccfd-r3a.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58707 |
In sci.physics Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote: > In sci.space.policy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> How about the engine on fixed wing aircraft provides thrust to >> overcome total drag to accelerate the aircraft to an airspeed >> sufficient to provide enough lift from the wings to overcome the >> force of gravity? > > Where would you put the Harrier in that definition? Doesn't it have > the ability (albeit rather lightly loaded) to take-off vertically on > thrust from the engine alone? > > rick jones Yeah, it does, so now let's bring up all the other niche aircraft of which there are very few starting with ornithopters. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 19:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dp7i2c1cc3uo35kgorneot8sfn8s007m9d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58697 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>
Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the
engines and airplanes don't go up.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web