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 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 19:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvbau2$1bgd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58640 |
On 11/1/2016 4:13 PM, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous to >>> the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: >> >> BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >> with propulsion methods. >> > > But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable > way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. > how many pounds of thrust does it take to keep 4000 pounds up in the air, stationary, and then gliding ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 22:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qfii1cpuj85lnvadot6qacj5kmibssn44q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58644 |
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:10:39 -0500, Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> wrote: >On 11/1/2016 4:13 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>> In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous to >>>> the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: > >>> >>> BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >>> with propulsion methods. >>> >> >> But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable >> way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. >> > > >how many pounds of thrust does it take to keep 4000 pounds up in the >air, stationary, and then gliding ? Sounds like 4000lbs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 19:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hkhi1c1ksv8ei8m6m667t2hosfflc1icta@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58644 |
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:10:39 -0500, Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> wrote: >how many pounds of thrust does it take to keep 4000 pounds up in the >air, stationary, and then gliding ? Zero using baloons: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy5qUexdMVI> <http://mavericklsa.com> If you don't like the baloons: "4 Real Flying Cars That Actually Fly" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXuypU5lDsM> "10 Amazing Flying Cars You Won't Believe" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-uq1Uqp_8g> Sorry. I couldn't find any numbers on gas mileage. <http://www.cessna150152.com/faqs/performance.htm> A Cessna 150 gets 15 to 22 miles/gallon. My 2001 Subaru Forester gets about 21 miles/gallon. The difference is wasted fuel while idling, stop-n-go traffic, and an engine that's not optimized for operating in a narrow rpm range. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 02:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <091oed-n02.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58644 |
In sci.physics Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 11/1/2016 4:13 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>> In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous to >>>> the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: > >>> >>> BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >>> with propulsion methods. >>> >> >> But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable >> way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. >> > > > how many pounds of thrust does it take to keep 4000 pounds up in the > air, stationary, and then gliding ? Depends on what is generating the lift. 0 for a balloon, something more for other types of machines. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 14:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA6B3928AD49C6taustingmail@69.16.179.42> |
| In reply to | #58636 |
"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote in
news:nvab5b$is1$1@dont-email.me:
> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles
> analogous to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes:
>
> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft".
> Clark R*
> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA
> Review Article
> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published
> Date: October 20, 2016
> Abstract
> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted
> flying cars, and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now
> does make possible the long desired flying cars.
The reason we don't have flying cars has nothing to do with the
method of propulsion. We've *had* flying cars for decades. And this
will do nothing to make them a) cheaper, b) easier to fly, or c)
safer when there are tens of millions of them in the air at once.
> Note that if it works then all propeller
> and rotor driven craft become obsolete.
Just like all propeller and rotor drive craft became obsolete when
jet engeins were invented. Sure.
> Also, intermediate range
> automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD craft,
Effectively, jet powered cars? Because it sounds like there will be
a high speed exhaust of _some_ kind behind the vehicle. Which makes
it . . . unlikely.
Plus, two orders of magnitude increase in thrust to weight from
current ion engines isn't even close to what a car needs.
> so a
> large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated,
> replaced by this zero-emission travel method.
The electricity has to come from _somewhere_.
As is usual, nearly universal, with all announcement of
revolutionary new technologies, this reads more like a prospectus
for investors than anything else. Which is to say, he wants to
invest a whole lof of other people's money into finding out if it
works.
If he really believed it would work, he'd invest his own money, and
keep _all_ the profits himself.
--
Terry Austin
Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 10:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nvfhtn$stq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58641 |
As mentioned previously, battery-powered airplanes and helicopters do exist. The ionic propulsion will likewise be battery-powered but at a more efficient power usage, if the ionizing wires are at the nanoscale. The greater efficiency for ionic propulsion with nanoscale wires can be confirmed with any wires at the nanoscale, not just carbon nanotubes. For example, the intense fields created by nanoscale wires in microcircuitry boards is well-known to those in the field. So anyone who has familiarity working with microcircuitry boards with nanoscale wiring could confirm this. And that's all that's required. That in itself would be the game changer. Even if it's only done on a model the size of a model airplane, once it's shown that nanoscale wiring for ionic propulsion produced better power-to-thrust ratio than helicopters, that would be sufficient for this to supplant helicopters as a hovering transport method. Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" wrote in message news:XnsA6B3928AD49C6taustingmail@69.16.179.42... "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote in news:nvab5b$is1$1@dont-email.me: > Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles > analogous to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: > > Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". > Clark R* > Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA > Review Article > Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published > Date: October 20, 2016 > Abstract > Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted > flying cars, and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now > does make possible the long desired flying cars. The reason we don't have flying cars has nothing to do with the method of propulsion. We've *had* flying cars for decades. And this will do nothing to make them a) cheaper, b) easier to fly, or c) safer when there are tens of millions of them in the air at once. > Note that if it works then all propeller > and rotor driven craft become obsolete. Just like all propeller and rotor drive craft became obsolete when jet engeins were invented. Sure. > Also, intermediate range > automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD craft, Effectively, jet powered cars? Because it sounds like there will be a high speed exhaust of _some_ kind behind the vehicle. Which makes it . . . unlikely. Plus, two orders of magnitude increase in thrust to weight from current ion engines isn't even close to what a car needs. > so a > large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated, > replaced by this zero-emission travel method. The electricity has to come from _somewhere_. As is usual, nearly universal, with all announcement of revolutionary new technologies, this reads more like a prospectus for investors than anything else. Which is to say, he wants to invest a whole lof of other people's money into finding out if it works. If he really believed it would work, he'd invest his own money, and keep _all_ the profits himself. -- Terry Austin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 17:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7c9sed-svf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58661 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > As mentioned previously, battery-powered airplanes and helicopters do exist. As research toys; there are not as yet any electric airplanes or helicopters that could be called practical in any sense of the word. > The ionic propulsion will likewise be battery-powered but at a more > efficient power usage, if the ionizing wires are at the nanoscale. > > The greater efficiency for ionic propulsion with nanoscale wires can be > confirmed with any wires at the nanoscale, not just carbon nanotubes. For > example, the intense fields created by nanoscale wires in microcircuitry > boards is well-known to those in the field. So anyone who has familiarity > working with microcircuitry boards with nanoscale wiring could confirm this. An intense field does not automatically means motive power. Are you saying microcircuitry boards have to be lashed down to keep them from flying away? > And that's all that's required. That in itself would be the game changer. > Even if it's only done on a model the size of a model airplane, once it's > shown that nanoscale wiring for ionic propulsion produced better > power-to-thrust ratio than helicopters, that would be sufficient for this to > supplant helicopters as a hovering transport method. Yeah, sure. You do know the tips of such ion generators burn away and the smaller the tip the faster they burn? > Bob Clark <snip> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 13:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvnrob$423$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58665 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >> As mentioned previously, battery-powered airplanes and helicopters do >> exist. > >As research toys; there are not as yet any electric airplanes or >helicopters >that could be called practical in any sense of the word. > >> The ionic propulsion will likewise be battery-powered but at a more >> efficient power usage, if the ionizing wires are at the nanoscale. >> >> The greater efficiency for ionic propulsion with nanoscale wires can be >> confirmed with any wires at the nanoscale, not just carbon nanotubes. For >> example, the intense fields created by nanoscale wires in microcircuitry >> boards is well-known to those in the field. So anyone who has familiarity >> working with microcircuitry boards with nanoscale wiring could confirm >> this. > >An intense field does not automatically means motive power. > >Are you saying microcircuitry boards have to be lashed down to keep >them from flying away? > >> And that's all that's required. That in itself would be the game changer. >> Even if it's only done on a model the size of a model airplane, once it's >> shown that nanoscale wiring for ionic propulsion produced better >> power-to-thrust ratio than helicopters, that would be sufficient for this >> to >> supplant helicopters as a hovering transport method. > >Yeah, sure. > >You do know the tips of such ion generators burn away and the smaller the >tip the faster they burn? > >> Bob Clark > > In regards to the mode of operation, the lifters don't operate via electron emission. The air molecule ion production is due to the intense electric fields around the high voltage wires, a known phenomenon among electrical engineers called corona discharge or electrical breakdown. The wires are usually horizontal for most lifters and the corona field is generated around the length of the horizontal wires, not at the tips of the wires. There versions of the lifters that use the ionization around the end tips or wires, but this is also due to the intense field strength there, not electron emission. The corona in small diameter wires in electronic devices is limited by the coatings placed on the wires. In the lifters, the wires used are uncoated. A recent paper showed for nanowires at diameters in the range of 100 nm, the corona discharge in air arises at voltages of only about 100 V/m. This is compared to the 3,000,000 V/m normally found in air for macroscale wires: Nanoscale Res Lett. 2016; 11: 90. Published online 2016 Feb 16. doi: 10.1186/s11671-015-1217-4 ZnO Nanowire-Based Corona Discharge Devices Operated Under Hundreds of Volts. Wenming Yang, Rong Zhu,corresponding author and Xianli Zong https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4754239/ [free full text] This doesn’t show you can get thrust at these lower voltages, but the results on the air ionization are in accordance to what the mathematics predicts. And the air ionization is what generates the thrust. New ideas should be subjected to critical review. But that critical review should include testing to see if they actually work. Bob Clark -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 19:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nce4fd-39d.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58680 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>> As mentioned previously, battery-powered airplanes and helicopters do >>> exist. >> >>As research toys; there are not as yet any electric airplanes or >>helicopters >>that could be called practical in any sense of the word. >> >>> The ionic propulsion will likewise be battery-powered but at a more >>> efficient power usage, if the ionizing wires are at the nanoscale. >>> >>> The greater efficiency for ionic propulsion with nanoscale wires can be >>> confirmed with any wires at the nanoscale, not just carbon nanotubes. For >>> example, the intense fields created by nanoscale wires in microcircuitry >>> boards is well-known to those in the field. So anyone who has familiarity >>> working with microcircuitry boards with nanoscale wiring could confirm >>> this. >> >>An intense field does not automatically means motive power. >> >>Are you saying microcircuitry boards have to be lashed down to keep >>them from flying away? >> >>> And that's all that's required. That in itself would be the game changer. >>> Even if it's only done on a model the size of a model airplane, once it's >>> shown that nanoscale wiring for ionic propulsion produced better >>> power-to-thrust ratio than helicopters, that would be sufficient for this >>> to >>> supplant helicopters as a hovering transport method. >> >>Yeah, sure. >> >>You do know the tips of such ion generators burn away and the smaller the >>tip the faster they burn? >> >>> Bob Clark >> >> > > In regards to the mode of operation, the lifters don't operate via electron > emission. The air molecule ion production is due to the intense electric > fields around the high voltage wires, a known phenomenon among electrical > engineers called corona discharge or electrical breakdown. The wires are > usually horizontal for most lifters and the corona field is generated around > the length of the horizontal wires, not at the tips of the wires. There > versions of the lifters that use the ionization around the end tips or > wires, but this is also due to the intense field strength there, not > electron emission. Also the end tips of sewing needles as they have a tiny tip and being steel more resistant to end erosion and are cheap. > The corona in small diameter wires in electronic devices is limited by the > coatings placed on the wires. In the lifters, the wires used are uncoated. If you have corona you have electron emmision by definition and with electron emmision you get tip erosion. > A recent paper showed for nanowires at diameters in the range of 100 nm, the > corona discharge in air arises at voltages of only about 100 V/m. This is > compared to the 3,000,000 V/m normally found in air for macroscale wires: Hardly a surprise. Why do you think Van de Graaff generators are topped by a big, round, smooth ball? Did you ever do the high school experiment where you scotch tape a thumbtack to a Van de Graaff generator? > Nanoscale Res Lett. 2016; 11: 90. > Published online 2016 Feb 16. doi: 10.1186/s11671-015-1217-4 > ZnO Nanowire-Based Corona Discharge Devices Operated Under Hundreds of > Volts. > Wenming Yang, Rong Zhu,corresponding author and Xianli Zong > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4754239/ [free full text] > > This doesnt show you can get thrust at these lower voltages, but the > results on the air ionization are in accordance to what the mathematics > predicts. And the air ionization is what generates the thrust. > New ideas should be subjected to critical review. But that critical review > should include testing to see if they actually work. > > Bob Clark Again, tip erosion, RFI, and total power required. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 11:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA6B5764F6C329taustingmail@69.16.179.43> |
| In reply to | #58661 |
"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote in
news:nvfhtn$stq$1@dont-email.me:
> As mentioned previously, battery-powered airplanes and
> helicopters do exist. The ionic propulsion will likewise be
> battery-powered but at a more efficient power usage, if the
> ionizing wires are at the nanoscale.
>
> The greater efficiency for ionic propulsion with nanoscale wires
> can be confirmed with any wires at the nanoscale, not just
> carbon nanotubes. For example, the intense fields created by
> nanoscale wires in microcircuitry boards is well-known to those
> in the field. So anyone who has familiarity working with
> microcircuitry boards with nanoscale wiring could confirm this.
>
> And that's all that's required. That in itself would be the game
> changer. Even if it's only done on a model the size of a model
> airplane, once it's shown that nanoscale wiring for ionic
> propulsion produced better power-to-thrust ratio than
> helicopters, that would be sufficient for this to supplant
> helicopters as a hovering transport method.
>
> Bob Clark
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to
> revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator,
> to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'.
> This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
>
> Nanotech: from air to space.
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/1
> 3319568/
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" wrote in message
> news:XnsA6B3928AD49C6taustingmail@69.16.179.42...
>
> "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote in
> news:nvab5b$is1$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles
>> analogous to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes:
>>
>> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft".
>> Clark R*
>> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA
>> Review Article
>> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 /
>> Published Date: October 20, 2016
>> Abstract
>> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted
>> flying cars, and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now
>> does make possible the long desired flying cars.
>
> The reason we don't have flying cars has nothing to do with the
> method of propulsion. We've *had* flying cars for decades. And
> this will do nothing to make them a) cheaper, b) easier to fly,
> or c) safer when there are tens of millions of them in the air
> at once.
>
>> Note that if it works then all propeller
>> and rotor driven craft become obsolete.
>
> Just like all propeller and rotor drive craft became obsolete
> when jet engeins were invented. Sure.
>
>> Also, intermediate range
>> automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD craft,
>
> Effectively, jet powered cars? Because it sounds like there will
> be a high speed exhaust of _some_ kind behind the vehicle. Which
> makes it . . . unlikely.
>
> Plus, two orders of magnitude increase in thrust to weight from
> current ion engines isn't even close to what a car needs.
>
>> so a
>> large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated,
>> replaced by this zero-emission travel method.
>
> The electricity has to come from _somewhere_.
>
> As is usual, nearly universal, with all announcement of
> revolutionary new technologies, this reads more like a
> prospectus for investors than anything else. Which is to say, he
> wants to invest a whole lof of other people's money into finding
> out if it works.
>
> If he really believed it would work, he'd invest his own money,
> and keep _all_ the profits himself.
None of that adds up to flying cars. Again, the reason we don't
have flying cars has nothing to do with propulsion systems. We've
*had* flying cars for nearly a century.
--
Terry Austin
Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 19:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvbapa$1bgd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58636 |
On 11/1/2016 10:09 AM, Robert Clark wrote: > Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous > to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: > > Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". > Clark R* > Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA > Review Article > Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date: > October 20, 2016 > Abstract > Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying > cars, and we got 140 characters. he is an idiot. flying cars are sub optimal airplanes, and he saw it in a James Bond Movie, the 140 character field on all cellphone calls, was set by the telcom companies about 40 years ago
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 00:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9FgSz.7537$iI2.5772@fx07.iad> |
| In reply to | #58636 |
Robert Clark wrote:
> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous
> to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes:
>
> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft".
> Clark R*
> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA
> Review Article
> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date:
> October 20, 2016
> Abstract
> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying
> cars, and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make
> possible the long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion
> method though than propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by
> electric fields known as electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works
> by ionizing air then using electric fields to propel the charged air
> molecules rearward, thus producing thrust. It's quite analogous to the
> famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD has been known at least since the
> sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, the thrust is so low. So far
> the EHD craft have not been able to lift both themselves and their power
> supplies. The ones made so far leave the power supply on the ground and
> connect to the craft through power cables. But the equations of EHD
> suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for thinner
> ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then this
> important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for
> the craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and
> the power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics
> suggests. Note that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven
> craft become obsolete. Also, intermediate range automobile travel would
> be taken over by the EHD craft, so a large proportion of
> carbon-emissions would be eliminated, replaced by this zero-emission
> travel method. In regards to space propulsion, since EHD is so similar
> to ion drive, using components at the nanoscale may also work to improve
> the thrust of ion drive. This would be important to shortening the
> flight times of spacecraft using such drives. This is important not just
> for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that use such ion drives to
> reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, the ion drives used
> have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites to reach GEO,
> resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the satellite
> companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would
> reduce the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue.
> Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires;
> Ionic wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive
> https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63
>
> Bob Clark
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
> 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
> launchers, to 'flying cars'.
> This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
>
> Nanotech: from air to space.
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
What is the Isp?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mike <ham789@netzero.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 01:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nver60$e4l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58651 |
On 11/2/2016 1:33 AM, Robert Baer wrote: > Robert Clark wrote: >> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous >> to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: >> >> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". >> Clark R* >> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA >> Review Article >> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date: >> October 20, 2016 >> Abstract >> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying >> cars, and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make >> possible the long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion >> method though than propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by >> electric fields known as electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works >> by ionizing air then using electric fields to propel the charged air >> molecules rearward, thus producing thrust. It's quite analogous to the >> famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD has been known at least since the >> sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, the thrust is so low. So far >> the EHD craft have not been able to lift both themselves and their power >> supplies. The ones made so far leave the power supply on the ground and >> connect to the craft through power cables. But the equations of EHD >> suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for thinner >> ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then this >> important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for >> the craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and >> the power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics >> suggests. Note that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven >> craft become obsolete. Also, intermediate range automobile travel would >> be taken over by the EHD craft, so a large proportion of >> carbon-emissions would be eliminated, replaced by this zero-emission >> travel method. In regards to space propulsion, since EHD is so similar >> to ion drive, using components at the nanoscale may also work to improve >> the thrust of ion drive. This would be important to shortening the >> flight times of spacecraft using such drives. This is important not just >> for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that use such ion drives to >> reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, the ion drives used >> have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites to reach GEO, >> resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the satellite >> companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would >> reduce the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue. >> Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires; >> Ionic wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive >> https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63 >> >> Bob Clark >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize >> 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital >> launchers, to 'flying cars'. >> This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: >> >> Nanotech: from air to space. >> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > What is the Isp? > What good is ion drive? If you want to get from here to there, you need an energy source sufficient to accelerate/maintain/decelerate some mass. Doesn't matter how you do it, you can't get there on less energy, given current physics. If you're in space with low friction losses, you can use an electric field to accelerate a small mass to high velocity to generate thrust. But you still have to have the energy source to drive it. If you're not in a hurry and are close to a star, no problem. A terrestrial vehicle like a flying car does not sound well suited to ion drive. Just lifting it off the ground with anything resembling thrust is a deal breaker in so many ways.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pj9sed-svf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58655 |
In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote: > On 11/2/2016 1:33 AM, Robert Baer wrote: >> Robert Clark wrote: >>> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous >>> to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: >>> >>> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". >>> Clark R* >>> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA >>> Review Article >>> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date: >>> October 20, 2016 >>> Abstract >>> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying >>> cars, and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make >>> possible the long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion >>> method though than propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by >>> electric fields known as electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works >>> by ionizing air then using electric fields to propel the charged air >>> molecules rearward, thus producing thrust. It's quite analogous to the >>> famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD has been known at least since the >>> sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, the thrust is so low. So far >>> the EHD craft have not been able to lift both themselves and their power >>> supplies. The ones made so far leave the power supply on the ground and >>> connect to the craft through power cables. But the equations of EHD >>> suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for thinner >>> ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then this >>> important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for >>> the craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and >>> the power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics >>> suggests. Note that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven >>> craft become obsolete. Also, intermediate range automobile travel would >>> be taken over by the EHD craft, so a large proportion of >>> carbon-emissions would be eliminated, replaced by this zero-emission >>> travel method. In regards to space propulsion, since EHD is so similar >>> to ion drive, using components at the nanoscale may also work to improve >>> the thrust of ion drive. This would be important to shortening the >>> flight times of spacecraft using such drives. This is important not just >>> for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that use such ion drives to >>> reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, the ion drives used >>> have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites to reach GEO, >>> resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the satellite >>> companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would >>> reduce the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue. >>> Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires; >>> Ionic wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive >>> https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63 >>> >>> Bob Clark >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize >>> 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital >>> launchers, to 'flying cars'. >>> This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: >>> >>> Nanotech: from air to space. >>> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >> What is the Isp? >> > What good is ion drive? > If you want to get from here to there, you need an energy source > sufficient to accelerate/maintain/decelerate some mass. > Doesn't matter how you do it, you can't get there on less energy, > given current physics. > > If you're in space with low friction losses, you can use an electric field > to accelerate a small mass to high velocity to generate thrust. > But you still have to have the energy source to drive it. > If you're not in a hurry and are close to a star, no problem. > > A terrestrial vehicle like a flying car does not sound well > suited to ion drive. Just lifting it off the ground with > anything resembling thrust is a deal breaker in so many ways. Being near an ion drive would literally be a hair raising experience and likely to generate RFI far in excess of FCC standards. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 15:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nvio19$ll1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58651 |
... > What is the Isp? > >--- Quite slow if you're thinking in comparison to ion space drives. it's in the range of a few tens of meters per second, recalling from memory for the "lifters" that have been made by amateur experimenters. Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Martin <wwm@wwmartin.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 11:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nvdcbs$aes$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58636 |
On 11/01/2016 08:09 AM, Robert Clark wrote: > Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous > to the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: > > <SNIP> I'll see your ion drive and raise you one baloney drive. It's very efficient, just plug it into the internet and it recharges. ----------------------------------------------------------- >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 09:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nvfe09$dn0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58636 |
Good question. You can make one of these EHD devices yourself, commonly called "lifters", to test this. Do a web search on: "lifters" and "power supply" for the many explanations online for how to make them. My guess is since it's the intense electric fields that is creating the ionization they will still work in high humidity or rain. Note also the EHD effect also works with liquids. Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- wrote in message news:5ec5d120-948f-4013-a835-cd5ae4e4dd19@googlegroups.com... On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 8:09:00 AM UTC-7, Robert Clark wrote: > Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous to > the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: > > Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". > Clark R* > Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA > Review Article > Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date: > October 20, 2016 > Abstract > Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying > cars, > and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make possible the > long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion method though than > propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by electric fields known as > electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works by ionizing air then using > electric fields to propel the charged air molecules rearward, thus > producing > thrust. It's quite analogous to the famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD > has > been known at least since the sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, > the thrust is so low. So far the EHD craft have not been able to lift both > themselves and their power supplies. The ones made so far leave the power > supply on the ground and connect to the craft through power cables. But > the > equations of EHD suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for > thinner ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then > this > important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for the > craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and the > power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics suggests. > Note > that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven craft become > obsolete. > Also, intermediate range automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD > craft, so a large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated, > replaced by this zero-emission travel method. In regards to space > propulsion, since EHD is so similar to ion drive, using components at the > nanoscale may also work to improve the thrust of ion drive. This would be > important to shortening the flight times of spacecraft using such drives. > This is important not just for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that > use such ion drives to reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, > the > ion drives used have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites > to > reach GEO, resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the > satellite > companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would reduce > the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue. > Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires; > Ionic > wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive > https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63 > > Bob Clark > Do they work when it's raining / in humid environments? Michael --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 09:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nvff61$i6q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58636 |
The commonly used name for these EHD devices made by amateurs is "lifters". The problem with their not being able to fly independently is the power supplies are so heavy. Look for example at the lifter here: How to: "Lifter" Power Supply. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfdsEVjBpBU Quite commonly the lifters weigh, and the thrust they can produce, is in the range of grams but the power supplies weigh in the range of kilograms. So how do you solve that problem? Let me give an analogy. Many people are aware of the technical innovations the Wright brothers made to be able to develop a successful flying machine. They made their own wind tunnel. They tested various air foils to find efficient ones of high lift. They developed a warping wing technique for steering. However, not as well known is the one key innovation they made for which all those other innovations would have been worthless. When many scientists of the time after doing a mathematical analysis asserted that no heavier-than air flying machine could work, oddly enough they were *right*. But the problem was, they were basing this on the power sources widely known at the time, steam engines. But the steam engines were so inefficient they could not supply sufficient power for their weight. They were too heavy. Around the time of the Wright brothers though the internal combustion gasoline engine was coming into use for automobiles, but they were still too heavy for the Wright brothers use. So the one *key* innovation the Wright brothers made was that they designed and built their OWN lightweight internal combustion engine. Now, back to the EHD propulsion method. The power supplies are too heavy, so what can we do about that? Well, you can make them out of lightweight materials. That's a possible route to follow, but most amateur and even professional experimenters have used ready made power supplies or used ready made parts to build them. The result is they are all pretty standard weight for the power they put out. But let's analyze this further, *why* are the power supplies so heavy? It turns out the reason they are so heavy is the voltage needed for the ion propulsion method is in the range of tens of thousands of volts, frequently as high as 50,000 volts. This then requires heavy transformers to produce voltage this high. Alright then, can we find a way to reduce the required voltage? Yes! It turns out if you reduce the diameter of the wires doing the ionization of the air then the required voltage is reduced. In fact, according to the math if the wires are at the nanoscale then the required voltage might be reduced to only tens of volts instead of tens of thousands of volts. For the small-scale lifters, if you used now wires at the nanoscale, it may be they could be powered by a couple of 9-volt batteries connected in series. So that's the key point, for nanowires the voltage required for ionization is severely reduced. This is the content of Peek's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peek%27s_law Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "John Larkin" wrote in message news:adjh1c5npmcbodbs2ojif5vhfrgjm33dbb@4ax.com... On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:06:41 -0700 (PDT), mrdarrett@gmail.com wrote: >On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 8:09:00 AM UTC-7, Robert Clark wrote: >> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous >> to >> the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: >> >> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". >> Clark R* >> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA >> Review Article >> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date: >> October 20, 2016 >> Abstract >> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying >> cars, >> and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make possible the >> long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion method though than >> propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by electric fields known as >> electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works by ionizing air then using >> electric fields to propel the charged air molecules rearward, thus >> producing >> thrust. It's quite analogous to the famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD >> has >> been known at least since the sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, >> the thrust is so low. So far the EHD craft have not been able to lift >> both >> themselves and their power supplies. The ones made so far leave the power >> supply on the ground and connect to the craft through power cables. But >> the >> equations of EHD suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger >> for >> thinner ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then >> this >> important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for >> the >> craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and the >> power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics suggests. >> Note >> that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven craft become >> obsolete. >> Also, intermediate range automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD >> craft, so a large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated, >> replaced by this zero-emission travel method. In regards to space >> propulsion, since EHD is so similar to ion drive, using components at the >> nanoscale may also work to improve the thrust of ion drive. This would be >> important to shortening the flight times of spacecraft using such drives. >> This is important not just for robotic spacecraft but also satellites >> that >> use such ion drives to reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, >> the >> ion drives used have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites >> to >> reach GEO, resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the >> satellite >> companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would reduce >> the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue. >> Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires; >> Ionic >> wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive >> https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63 >> >> Bob Clark >> > > > >Do they work when it's raining / in humid environments? > >Michael No. And under even ideal conditions, they don't work for long. Why do people invent (and press release) crazy sci-fi dreams that ignore basic physics? There is a reason why helicopters have gas turbine engines and giant fan blades... and horrendous fuel consumption rates. Why don't they just use their jet engines to lift the vehicle? -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 08:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hbmm1c13l3j7tiepf8ls2teoqpqfoq36op@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58659 |
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:48:31 -0400, "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >The commonly used name for these EHD devices made by amateurs is "lifters". >The problem with their not being able to fly independently is the power >supplies are so heavy. Look for example at the lifter here: > >How to: "Lifter" Power Supply. >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfdsEVjBpBU > >Quite commonly the lifters weigh, and the thrust they can produce, is in the >range of grams but the power supplies weigh in the range of kilograms. So >how do you solve that problem? > >Let me give an analogy. Many people are aware of the technical innovations >the Wright brothers made to be able to develop a successful flying machine. >They made their own wind tunnel. They tested various air foils to find >efficient ones of high lift. They developed a warping wing technique for >steering. > >However, not as well known is the one key innovation they made for which all >those other innovations would have been worthless. When many scientists of >the time after doing a mathematical analysis asserted that no heavier-than >air flying machine could work, oddly enough they were *right*. But the >problem was, they were basing this on the power sources widely known at the >time, steam engines. But the steam engines were so inefficient they could >not supply sufficient power for their weight. They were too heavy. > >Around the time of the Wright brothers though the internal combustion >gasoline engine was coming into use for automobiles, but they were still too >heavy for the Wright brothers use. So the one *key* innovation the Wright >brothers made was that they designed and built their OWN lightweight >internal combustion engine. > >Now, back to the EHD propulsion method. The power supplies are too heavy, so >what can we do about that? Well, you can make them out of lightweight >materials. That's a possible route to follow, but most amateur and even >professional experimenters have used ready made power supplies or used ready >made parts to build them. The result is they are all pretty standard weight >for the power they put out. > >But let's analyze this further, *why* are the power supplies so heavy? It >turns out the reason they are so heavy is the voltage needed for the ion >propulsion method is in the range of tens of thousands of volts, frequently >as high as 50,000 volts. This then requires heavy transformers to produce >voltage this high. Alright then, can we find a way to reduce the required >voltage? High-voltage power supplies don't need heavy transformers. But they do need a source of power. I doubt that an ion thruster could lift its own batteries for five minutes even if the power converter weighs zero. > >Yes! It turns out if you reduce the diameter of the wires doing the >ionization of the air then the required voltage is reduced. In fact, >according to the math if the wires are at the nanoscale then the required >voltage might be reduced to only tens of volts instead of tens of thousands >of volts. For the small-scale lifters, if you used now wires at the >nanoscale, it may be they could be powered by a couple of 9-volt batteries >connected in series. Again, you won't get enough lift to support those two batteries, and they would be dead in minutes anyhow. The tiny tips would erode rapidly, too. Don't top post on usenet. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 12:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvfrpu$1i6c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58663 |
On 11/3/2016 10:41 AM, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:48:31 -0400, "Robert Clark" > <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: > >> The commonly used name for these EHD devices made by amateurs is >> "lifters". The problem with their not being able to fly >> independently is the power supplies are so heavy. Look for example >> at the lifter here: >> >> How to: "Lifter" Power Supply. >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfdsEVjBpBU >> >> Quite commonly the lifters weigh, and the thrust they can produce, >> is in the range of grams but the power supplies weigh in the range >> of kilograms. So how do you solve that problem? >> Now, back to the EHD propulsion method. The power supplies are too >> heavy, so what can we do about that? Well, you can make them out of >> lightweight materials. That's a possible route to follow, but most >> amateur and even professional experimenters have used ready made >> power supplies or used ready made parts to build them. The result >> is they are all pretty standard weight for the power they put out. >> >> But let's analyze this further, *why* are the power supplies so >> heavy? It turns out the reason they are so heavy is the voltage >> needed for the ion propulsion method is in the range of tens of >> thousands of volts, frequently as high as 50,000 volts. This then >> requires heavy transformers to produce voltage this high. Alright >> then, can we find a way to reduce the required voltage? > > High-voltage power supplies don't need heavy transformers. But they > do need a source of power. I doubt that an ion thruster could lift > its own batteries for five minutes even if the power converter > weighs zero. > >> >> Yes! It turns out if you reduce the diameter of the wires doing the >> ionization of the air then the required voltage is reduced. In >> fact, according to the math if the wires are at the nanoscale then >> the required voltage might be reduced to only tens of volts instead >> of tens of thousands of volts. For the small-scale lifters, if you >> used now wires at the nanoscale, it may be they could be powered by >> a couple of 9-volt batteries connected in series. > Again, you won't get enough lift to support those two batteries, and > they would be dead in minutes anyhow. > > The tiny tips would erode rapidly, too. > Don't top post on usenet. > > An ion thruster is a form of electric propulsion used for spacecraft > propulsion. It creates thrust by accelerating ions with electricity. > The term refers strictly to gridded electrostatic ion thrusters, but > may more loosely be applied to all electric propulsion systems that > accelerate plasma, since plasma consists of ions. wiki (note the last line) Ion thrusters are categorized by how they accelerate the ions, using either electrostatic or electromagnetic force. Electrostatic thrusters use the Coulomb force and accelerate the ions in the direction of the electric field. Electromagnetic thrusters use the Lorentz force. In either case, when an ion passes through an electrostatic grid engine, the potential difference of the electric field converts to the ion's kinetic energy. Ion thrusters have an input power spanning 1–7 kW, exhaust velocity 20–50 km/s, thrust 25–250 millinewtons and efficiency 65–80%.[1][2] The Deep Space 1 spacecraft, powered by an ion thruster, changed velocity by 4300 m/s while consuming less than 74 kilograms of xenon. The Dawn spacecraft broke the record, reaching 10,000 m/s.[1][2] Applications include control of the orientation and position of orbiting satellites (some satellites have dozens of low-power ion thrusters) and use as a main propulsion engine for low-mass robotic space vehicles (for example Deep Space 1 and Dawn).[1][2] The ion thruster is not the most promising type of electrically powered spacecraft propulsion (although the most successful in practice).[2] An ion drive would require two days to accelerate a car to highway speed. The technical characteristics, especially thrust, are considerably inferior to the prototypes described in literature,[1][2] technical capabilities are limited by the space charge created by ions. This limits the thrust density (force per cross-sectional area of the engine).[2] Ion thrusters create small thrust levels (the thrust of Deep Space 1 is approximately equal to the weight of one sheet of paper[2]) compared to conventional chemical rockets, but achieve high specific impulse, or propellant mass efficiency, by accelerating the exhaust to high speed. The power imparted to the exhaust increases with the square of exhaust velocity while thrust increase is linear. Conversely, chemical rockets provide high thrust, but are limited in total impulse by the small amount of energy that can be stored chemically in the propellants.[3] Given the practical weight of suitable power sources, the acceleration from an ion thruster is frequently less than one thousandth of standard gravity. However, since they operate as electric (or electrostatic) motors, they convert a greater fraction of input power into kinetic exhaust power. Chemical rockets operate as heat engines, and Carnot's theorem limits the exhaust velocity. Ion thrust engines are practical only in the vacuum of space and cannot take vehicles through the atmosphere because ion engines do not work in the presence of ions outside the engine. Spacecraft rely on conventional chemical rockets to initially reach orbit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web