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 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 11:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Ion drive for aircraft imminent. |
| Message-ID | <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. 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/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 08:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ltdh1cphakctqug6bflnuduf4gqg7lk809@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58636 |
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:09:13 -0400, "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous to >the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: > >Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". >Clark R* >Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA >Review Article >Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date: >October 20, 2016 >Abstract >Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying cars, >and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make possible the >long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion method though than >propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by electric fields known as >electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works by ionizing air then using >electric fields to propel the charged air molecules rearward, thus producing >thrust. It's quite analogous to the famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD has >been known at least since the sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, >the thrust is so low. So far the EHD craft have not been able to lift both >themselves and their power supplies. The ones made so far leave the power >supply on the ground and connect to the craft through power cables. But the >equations of EHD suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for >thinner ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then this >important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for the >craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and the >power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics suggests. Note >that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven craft become obsolete. >Also, intermediate range automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD >craft, so a large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated, >replaced by this zero-emission travel method. In regards to space >propulsion, since EHD is so similar to ion drive, using components at the >nanoscale may also work to improve the thrust of ion drive. This would be >important to shortening the flight times of spacecraft using such drives. >This is important not just for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that >use such ion drives to reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, the >ion drives used have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites to >reach GEO, resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the satellite >companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would reduce >the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue. >Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires; Ionic >wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive >https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63 > >Bob Clark > Post again when Chevy dealerships are selling flying cars. Carbon nanotubes are the idiotic craze of the day, and are pretty much useless so far. As electron or ion emitters, they quickly destroy themselves. And they still don't violate conservation of energy. Where is all the zero-pollution power going to come from? >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >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/ >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's hilarious, tying tiny nanotubes together with fancy knots. The nanotech bubble popped roughly 10 years ago. I was involved with academics and inventors and slimy VCs all hoping to cash in on the upside of the Next Big Thing. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 14:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <I85Sz.13148$dF2.8802@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #58637 |
On 11/01/2016 11:51 AM, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:09:13 -0400, "Robert Clark" > <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: > >> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous to >> the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: >> >> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". >> Clark R* >> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA >> Review Article >> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date: >> October 20, 2016 >> Abstract >> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying cars, >> and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make possible the >> long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion method though than >> propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by electric fields known as >> electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works by ionizing air then using >> electric fields to propel the charged air molecules rearward, thus producing >> thrust. It's quite analogous to the famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD has >> been known at least since the sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, >> the thrust is so low. So far the EHD craft have not been able to lift both >> themselves and their power supplies. The ones made so far leave the power >> supply on the ground and connect to the craft through power cables. But the >> equations of EHD suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for >> thinner ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then this >> important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for the >> craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and the >> power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics suggests. Note >> that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven craft become obsolete. >> Also, intermediate range automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD >> craft, so a large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated, >> replaced by this zero-emission travel method. In regards to space >> propulsion, since EHD is so similar to ion drive, using components at the >> nanoscale may also work to improve the thrust of ion drive. This would be >> important to shortening the flight times of spacecraft using such drives. >> This is important not just for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that >> use such ion drives to reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, the >> ion drives used have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites to >> reach GEO, resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the satellite >> companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would reduce >> the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue. >> Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires; Ionic >> wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive >> https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63 >> >> Bob Clark >> > > Post again when Chevy dealerships are selling flying cars. > > Carbon nanotubes are the idiotic craze of the day, and are pretty much > useless so far. As electron or ion emitters, they quickly destroy > themselves. > > And they still don't violate conservation of energy. Where is all the > zero-pollution power going to come from? There will be several plug-in prime movers available, initially you'll have your choice of H2O hydrogen booster, Hendershot generator, or zero-point reactor at product launch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 22:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <44ii1chtc8rv78585ppc8ornikc33ahv0g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58638 |
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:27:51 -0400, bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >On 11/01/2016 11:51 AM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:09:13 -0400, "Robert Clark" >> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >> >>> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous to >>> the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: >>> >>> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". >>> Clark R* >>> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA >>> Review Article >>> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date: >>> October 20, 2016 >>> Abstract >>> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying cars, >>> and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make possible the >>> long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion method though than >>> propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by electric fields known as >>> electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works by ionizing air then using >>> electric fields to propel the charged air molecules rearward, thus producing >>> thrust. It's quite analogous to the famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD has >>> been known at least since the sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, >>> the thrust is so low. So far the EHD craft have not been able to lift both >>> themselves and their power supplies. The ones made so far leave the power >>> supply on the ground and connect to the craft through power cables. But the >>> equations of EHD suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for >>> thinner ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then this >>> important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for the >>> craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and the >>> power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics suggests. Note >>> that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven craft become obsolete. >>> Also, intermediate range automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD >>> craft, so a large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated, >>> replaced by this zero-emission travel method. In regards to space >>> propulsion, since EHD is so similar to ion drive, using components at the >>> nanoscale may also work to improve the thrust of ion drive. This would be >>> important to shortening the flight times of spacecraft using such drives. >>> This is important not just for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that >>> use such ion drives to reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, the >>> ion drives used have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites to >>> reach GEO, resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the satellite >>> companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would reduce >>> the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue. >>> Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires; Ionic >>> wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive >>> https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63 >>> >>> Bob Clark >>> >> >> Post again when Chevy dealerships are selling flying cars. >> >> Carbon nanotubes are the idiotic craze of the day, and are pretty much >> useless so far. As electron or ion emitters, they quickly destroy >> themselves. >> >> And they still don't violate conservation of energy. Where is all the >> zero-pollution power going to come from? > >There will be several plug-in prime movers available, initially you'll >have your choice of H2O hydrogen booster, Hendershot generator, or >zero-point reactor at product launch. I've been waiting for someone to start selling nano-technology Hendershot generators. Sounds like a good business.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 09:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nvfdao$bcj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58637 |
The nanotubes may become longer lasting by using bundles of nanotubes: Arrays of Bundles of Carbon Nanotubes as Field Emitters. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California Thursday, 01 February 2007 Area-averaged current densities exceed those of arrays of single nanotubes. "Experiments have shown that with suitable choices of critical dimensions, planar arrays of bundles of carbon nanotubes (see figure) can serve as high-current-density field emitter (cold-cathode) electron sources. Whereas some hot-cathode electron sources must be operated at supply potentials of thousands of volts, these cold-cathode sources generate comparable current densities when operated at tens of volts. Consequently, arrays of bundles of carbon nanotubes might prove useful as cold-cathode sources in miniature, lightweight electron-beam devices (e.g., nanoklystrons) soon to be developed." http://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/ntb/tech-briefs/physical-sciences/1206 And in any case you don't need to use the nanowires as electron emitters to get the ionization effect. You get it as well from the intense electric fields generated by wires at the nanoscale in accordance with Peek's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peek%27s_law Note it may be the nanoscale wires might not even need to be carbon nanotubes. According to Peek's Law simply being at nanoscale diameters is sufficient to generate the intense fields. Since there is much research ongoing with metallic nanowires they as well could be used to confirm the better efficiency of ionic propulsion with wires at the nanoscale. In regards to getting longer nanotubes by tying them together, that has already been confirmed experimentally by a team at Rice University, the leading center for nanotechnology in the U.S. That research was published in Nature Materials, the associated journal in materials science to Nature, the leading science journal in the world. The Rice team was able to show simply tying nanotubes together produced longer nanotubes of greater current capacity than the copper or aluminum wires now in use and at lighter weight. About the power requirements, the ionic propulsion with ionizing wires, called corona wires, at the nanoscale has improved power-to-thrust ratio. Then the needed power can be supplied by onboard batteries. 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:ltdh1cphakctqug6bflnuduf4gqg7lk809@4ax.com... On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:09:13 -0400, "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous to >the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: > >Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". >Clark R* >Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA >Review Article >Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date: >October 20, 2016 >Abstract >Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying >cars, >and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make possible the >long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion method though than >propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by electric fields known as >electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works by ionizing air then using >electric fields to propel the charged air molecules rearward, thus >producing >thrust. It's quite analogous to the famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD has >been known at least since the sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, >the thrust is so low. So far the EHD craft have not been able to lift both >themselves and their power supplies. The ones made so far leave the power >supply on the ground and connect to the craft through power cables. But the >equations of EHD suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for >thinner ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then this >important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for the >craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and the >power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics suggests. Note >that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven craft become obsolete. >Also, intermediate range automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD >craft, so a large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated, >replaced by this zero-emission travel method. In regards to space >propulsion, since EHD is so similar to ion drive, using components at the >nanoscale may also work to improve the thrust of ion drive. This would be >important to shortening the flight times of spacecraft using such drives. >This is important not just for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that >use such ion drives to reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, >the >ion drives used have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites to >reach GEO, resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the >satellite >companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would reduce >the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue. >Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires; >Ionic >wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive >https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63 > >Bob Clark > Post again when Chevy dealerships are selling flying cars. Carbon nanotubes are the idiotic craze of the day, and are pretty much useless so far. As electron or ion emitters, they quickly destroy themselves. And they still don't violate conservation of energy. Where is all the zero-pollution power going to come from? >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >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/ >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's hilarious, tying tiny nanotubes together with fancy knots. The nanotech bubble popped roughly 10 years ago. I was involved with academics and inventors and slimy VCs all hoping to cash in on the upside of the Next Big Thing. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 08:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <73mm1clck13ff5v5occ4ghoqb5hjdqbt0o@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58657 |
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:16:52 -0400, "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >The nanotubes may become longer lasting by using bundles of nanotubes: > >Arrays of Bundles of Carbon Nanotubes as Field Emitters. >NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California >Thursday, 01 February 2007 >Area-averaged current densities exceed those of arrays of single nanotubes. >"Experiments have shown that with suitable choices of critical dimensions, >planar arrays of bundles of carbon nanotubes (see figure) can serve as >high-current-density field emitter (cold-cathode) electron sources. Whereas >some hot-cathode electron sources must be operated at supply potentials of >thousands of volts, these cold-cathode sources generate comparable current >densities when operated at tens of volts. Consequently, arrays of bundles of >carbon nanotubes might prove useful as cold-cathode sources in miniature, >lightweight electron-beam devices (e.g., nanoklystrons) soon to be >developed." >http://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/ntb/tech-briefs/physical-sciences/1206 > >And in any case you don't need to use the nanowires as electron emitters to >get the ionization effect. You get it as well from the intense electric >fields generated by wires at the nanoscale in accordance with Peek's Law: > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peek%27s_law > >Note it may be the nanoscale wires might not even need to be carbon >nanotubes. According to Peek's Law simply being at nanoscale diameters is >sufficient to generate the intense fields. Since there is much research >ongoing with metallic nanowires they as well could be used to confirm the >better efficiency of ionic propulsion with wires at the nanoscale. > >In regards to getting longer nanotubes by tying them together, that has >already been confirmed experimentally by a team at Rice University, the >leading center for nanotechnology in the U.S. That research was published in >Nature Materials, the associated journal in materials science to Nature, the >leading science journal in the world. The Rice team was able to show simply >tying nanotubes together produced longer nanotubes of greater current >capacity than the copper or aluminum wires now in use and at lighter weight. > >About the power requirements, the ionic propulsion with ionizing wires, >called corona wires, at the nanoscale has improved power-to-thrust ratio. >Then the needed power can be supplied by onboard batteries. > > Bob Clark Get back to us when Honda is selling flying cars. And note that top-posting is an email thing, discouraged on usenet. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 07:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nvhre3$b64$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58662 |
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:16:52 -0400, "Robert Clark" ><rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: > ... > >Get back to us when Honda is selling flying cars. > >And note that top-posting is an email thing, discouraged on usenet. > > > -- * Windows Live Mail just can't quote! Luckily, I have found this: * http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/ I was using, lamentably, Windows Live Mail, for my newsreader. This unfortunately does not allow you to put a '>' symbol before quoted responses. This makes it harder to understand which part in the message is your response and which is the previous post. So I was top-posting because my signature line made it easier to distinguish the two. However, after doing a web search and finding many people having the same complaint about Windows Live Mail, I found a work-around at the site http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/. Bob Clark
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 07:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nvhrns$c5k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58671 |
>I was using, lamentably, Windows Live Mail, for my newsreader. This >unfortunately does not allow you to put >a '>' symbol before quoted responses. This makes it harder to understand >which part in the message is your response >and which is the previous post. So I was top-posting because my signature >line made it easier to distinguish the two. > >However, after doing a web search and finding many people having the same >complaint about Windows Live Mail, I >found a work-around at the site http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/. > > Bob Clark > >--- Unfortunately I just realized the default version of this script does not include your signature file. So I'll have to customize it. More work. Bob Clark -- * Windows Live Mail just can't quote! Luckily, I have found this: * http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 12:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cqnp1ct8h2fkfbn48q2h1oburrr0aji111@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58672 |
"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:
>
>>I was using, lamentably, Windows Live Mail, for my newsreader. This
>>unfortunately does not allow you to put
>>a '>' symbol before quoted responses. This makes it harder to understand
>>which part in the message is your response
>>and which is the previous post. So I was top-posting because my signature
>>line made it easier to distinguish the two.
>>
>>However, after doing a web search and finding many people having the same
>>complaint about Windows Live Mail, I
>>found a work-around at the site http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/.
>>
>
>Unfortunately I just realized the default version of this script does not
>include your signature file.
>So I'll have to customize it. More work.
>
Wouldn't it be simpler to just get a real newsreader? It's not like
they're all that hard to find.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 12:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvnos9$p42$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58674 |
"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: > >> >>>I was using, lamentably, Windows Live Mail, for my newsreader. This >>>unfortunately does not allow you to put >>>a '>' symbol before quoted responses. This makes it harder to understand >>>which part in the message is your response >>>and which is the previous post. So I was top-posting because my signature >>>line made it easier to distinguish the two. >>> >>>However, after doing a web search and finding many people having the same >>>complaint about Windows Live Mail, I >>>found a work-around at the site >>>http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/. >>> >> >>Unfortunately I just realized the default version of this script does not >>include your signature file. >>So I'll have to customize it. More work. >> > >Wouldn't it be simpler to just get a real newsreader? It's not like >they're all that hard to find. > > Using the Windows newsreader mostly out of familiarity. What do you recommend for a newsreader? Bob Clark -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 16:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.32896a88a8c43b2398985f@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #58679 |
In article <nvnos9$p42$1@dont-email.me>, rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says... > > Using the Windows newsreader mostly out of familiarity. What do you > recommend for a newsreader? I'm using MicroPlanet Gravity as my newsreader. It is o.k. The "killfile" is called the "bozo bin", but that's pretty self explanatory. It displays messages in a threaded hierarchy, which is nice. Quotes properly for a newsreader. And was fairly easy to set up and get used to. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 19:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <s17i2c9t3n9blmq8kt0v1if578ad7d3s4m@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58679 |
"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:
>"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>I was using, lamentably, Windows Live Mail, for my newsreader. This
>>>>unfortunately does not allow you to put
>>>>a '>' symbol before quoted responses. This makes it harder to understand
>>>>which part in the message is your response
>>>>and which is the previous post. So I was top-posting because my signature
>>>>line made it easier to distinguish the two.
>>>>
>>>>However, after doing a web search and finding many people having the same
>>>>complaint about Windows Live Mail, I
>>>>found a work-around at the site
>>>>http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Unfortunately I just realized the default version of this script does not
>>>include your signature file.
>>>So I'll have to customize it. More work.
>>>
>>
>>Wouldn't it be simpler to just get a real newsreader? It's not like
>>they're all that hard to find.
>>
>
>Using the Windows newsreader mostly out of familiarity. What do you
>recommend for a newsreader?
>
Windows doesn't have a 'newsreader', Bob. That's the problem.
What I'd recommend kind of depends on your tech level. There are
Windows versions of a lot of Unix newsreaders. Personally, I use
Agent and have for years. In the past I've used pine, tin, gnus, and
Thunderbird. Almost anything is better than the various Microsoft
Mail products bent to be newsreaders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Usenet_newsreaders
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 18:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mt2ned-l6s.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58636 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous to > the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: > > Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". > Clark R* > Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA > Review Article > Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date: > October 20, 2016 > Abstract > Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying cars, > and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make possible the > long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion method though than > propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by electric fields known as > electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works by ionizing air then using > electric fields to propel the charged air molecules rearward, thus producing > thrust. It's quite analogous to the famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD has > been known at least since the sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, > the thrust is so low. So far the EHD craft have not been able to lift both > themselves and their power supplies. The ones made so far leave the power > supply on the ground and connect to the craft through power cables. But the > equations of EHD suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for > thinner ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then this > important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for the > craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and the > power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics suggests. Note > that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven craft become obsolete. > Also, intermediate range automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD > craft, so a large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated, > replaced by this zero-emission travel method. In regards to space > propulsion, since EHD is so similar to ion drive, using components at the > nanoscale may also work to improve the thrust of ion drive. This would be > important to shortening the flight times of spacecraft using such drives. > This is important not just for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that > use such ion drives to reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, the > ion drives used have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites to > reach GEO, resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the satellite > companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would reduce > the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue. > Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires; Ionic > wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive > https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63 > > Bob Clark > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize > 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital > launchers, to 'flying cars'. > This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: > > Nanotech: from air to space. > https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, sure, nanotubes are going to revolutionize the world any day now, just like fusion, a cure for the common cold, and peace in the Middle East. BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do with propulsion methods. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 14:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pj0i1clkovfa8lc3c21071bq92ifnh2e11@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58639 |
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous to >> the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: >> >> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". >> Clark R* >> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA >> Review Article >> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date: >> October 20, 2016 >> Abstract >> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying cars, >> and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make possible the >> long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion method though than >> propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by electric fields known as >> electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works by ionizing air then using >> electric fields to propel the charged air molecules rearward, thus producing >> thrust. It's quite analogous to the famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD has >> been known at least since the sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, >> the thrust is so low. So far the EHD craft have not been able to lift both >> themselves and their power supplies. The ones made so far leave the power >> supply on the ground and connect to the craft through power cables. But the >> equations of EHD suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for >> thinner ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then this >> important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for the >> craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and the >> power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics suggests. Note >> that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven craft become obsolete. >> Also, intermediate range automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD >> craft, so a large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated, >> replaced by this zero-emission travel method. In regards to space >> propulsion, since EHD is so similar to ion drive, using components at the >> nanoscale may also work to improve the thrust of ion drive. This would be >> important to shortening the flight times of spacecraft using such drives. >> This is important not just for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that >> use such ion drives to reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, the >> ion drives used have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites to >> reach GEO, resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the satellite >> companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would reduce >> the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue. >> Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires; Ionic >> wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive >> https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63 >> >> Bob Clark >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize >> 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital >> launchers, to 'flying cars'. >> This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: >> >> Nanotech: from air to space. >> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Yeah, sure, nanotubes are going to revolutionize the world any day now, >just like fusion, a cure for the common cold, and peace in the Middle East. > >BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >with propulsion methods. > But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 00:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mumned-rr.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58640 |
In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: <snip> >>BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >>with propulsion methods. >> > > But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable > way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. You do know helicopters spend a fair amount of time not traveling, don't you, but that has nothing to do with flying cars. The cost of the engine is a tiny fraction of the cost of developing, certifying, manufacturing and marketing a flying car, or a flying anything for that matter. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 22:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vdii1c184oduu817ou7dtr5r18ob5il78f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58642 |
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:00:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > ><snip> > >>>BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >>>with propulsion methods. >>> >> >> But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable >> way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. > >You do know helicopters spend a fair amount of time not traveling, don't >you, but that has nothing to do with flying cars. Cars spend a fair amount of time not driving, too. So? > >The cost of the engine is a tiny fraction of the cost of developing, >certifying, manufacturing and marketing a flying car, or a flying >anything for that matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 02:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u41oed-n02.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58646 |
In sci.physics krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:00:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>>>BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >>>>with propulsion methods. >>>> >>> >>> But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable >>> way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. >> >>You do know helicopters spend a fair amount of time not traveling, don't >>you, but that has nothing to do with flying cars. > > Cars spend a fair amount of time not driving, too. So? Not at close to full output power. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 20:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vk0l1cddlh1c15c3le4g81k2qg2l272olb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58649 |
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 02:54:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:00:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>>>BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >>>>>with propulsion methods. >>>>> >>>> >>>> But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable >>>> way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. >>> >>>You do know helicopters spend a fair amount of time not traveling, don't >>>you, but that has nothing to do with flying cars. >> >> Cars spend a fair amount of time not driving, too. So? > >Not at close to full output power. Helicopters don't have a throttle or an "off" button?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 02:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <keiqed-4ba.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58653 |
In sci.physics krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 02:54:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:00:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>>>BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >>>>>>with propulsion methods. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable >>>>> way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. >>>> >>>>You do know helicopters spend a fair amount of time not traveling, don't >>>>you, but that has nothing to do with flying cars. >>> >>> Cars spend a fair amount of time not driving, too. So? >> >>Not at close to full output power. > > Helicopters don't have a throttle or an "off" button? Of course they do but your response shows you know absolutely nothing about helicopters. When a helicopter is hovering, the engine(s) are at close to full power output without going anywhere. When a car is not moving, the engine is at idle. Get it now? And it still has nothing to do with flying cars. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 07:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nvf7ou$npi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58653 |
On 11/2/16 8:20 PM, krw wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 02:54:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:00:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do
>>>>>> with propulsion methods.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable
>>>>> way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage.
>>>>
>>>> You do know helicopters spend a fair amount of time not traveling, don't
>>>> you, but that has nothing to do with flying cars.
>>>
>>> Cars spend a fair amount of time not driving, too. So?
>>
>> Not at close to full output power.
>
> Helicopters don't have a throttle or an "off" button?
>
I think he refers to the fact that a rotorcraft uses ~70% of its
available power just to hover -- i.e., before it's even moving forward,
or carrying any cargo beyond its own weight, it's starting to approach
max output. In addition, current torque monitoring systems for
rotorcraft are only accurate to about +/- 5%, which means that in
practice the pilot is going to have to be real cautious about exceeding
95% output. A heavily loaded rotorcraft will be limited to a VERY small
percentage of its power output for actually moving anywhere.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web