|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
In sci.physics mike wrote:
On 11/7/2016 7:39 PM, wrote: In sci.physics mike wrote: On 11/7/2016 1:46 PM, wrote: In sci.physics Phil Hobbs wrote: On 11/07/2016 01:37 PM, wrote: In sci.physics Robert Clark wrote: snip If you know of a means to provide 50,000 V at *lightweight* then you will have solved the problem of an independently flying lifter, using the macrosized wires currently used. You would need about a power to weight ratio for the power source of better than 1 watt per gram, while being able to provide these ca. 50,000 V voltages. Bob Clark Trivial; look at any camera flash unit built in the last several decades. However you have totally missed the point; voltage and the weight of the converter is irrelevant as it is the total power that determines the weight of it all. BTW, here are some real world power to weight ratios: Boeing 777 engine 10 kW/kg 1985 Chevy Celebrity 300 W/kg -- So for a 1000 kg car, that's 402 horsepower? Sign me up! Cheers Phil Hobbs No, that is the power to weight ratio of the engine, not the power to weight ratio of the car. Power is a red herring. What's important is the total energy produced by the engine AND the fuel supply. It doesn't get the least bit interesting until the engine can lift itself and a FULL tank of whatever powers it AND the vehicle AND the payload to reach the destination. I can't imagine that ever happening 1000 feet off the ground on this ole earth at a cost anywhere near the cost of other forms of transportation. Are you trying to say airplanes aren't going to make it in the commercial world? Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying: "Airplanes with ion drive are not going to make it in the commercial world." Whatever technology can make that work will be FAR less costly applied to something that rolls along the roadway. I doubt there is any technology that could ever make it work in an atmosphere. But that misses the point that it's ENERGY that's the concern. Doesn't matter how light or powerful the airplane engine is if it still can't lift enough fuel to reach the destination. It takes a given amount of energy to get from here to there. Changing the engine only affects the efficiency of the process that converts the available fuel source to whatever it takes to motivate the vehicle. Maybe we'll see terrestrial ion engines, but the efficiency improvement won't be huge. Aircraft engines don't lift anything. If we had an electric fuel source of sufficient energy/weight ratio, we'd already have electric airplanes. If you're gonna spend millions of dollars to fling an object into space at escape velocity, it makes sense to have a nuclear power source that applies tiny thrust for a long time using minimal reaction mass to continue the flight to places unknown. For a terrestrial flight to New York, not so much. So, what am I missing? -- Jim Pennino |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
On 11/3/2016 9:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote:
Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and helicopters already exist. Toys. However, the key point is according to the mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters achieve. what math ? got a url ? As important as is the fact that you would no longer need heavy transformers to produce tens of thousands of volts, even more important is the high thrust-to-power ratio you can get by only using low voltages. This page describes the operation of the "lifters": Ionocraft. 3. Mechanism. "A generalized one-dimensional treatment gives the equation: F = I*d/k, where F is the resulting force, measured in dimension ML/T^2 I is the current flow of electric current, measured in dimension I. d is the air gap distance, measured in dimension L. k is the ion mobility coefficient of air, measured in dimension T^2 I/M (Nominal value 2·10^−4 m^2/ Vs). "In its basic form, the ionocraft is able to produce forces great enough to lift about a gram of payload per watt,[6] so its use is restricted to a tethered model. Ionocraft capable of payloads in the order of a few grams usually need to be powered by power sources and high voltage converters weighing a few kilograms, so although its simplistic design makes it an excellent way to experiment with this technology, it is unlikely that a fully autonomous ionocraft will be made with the present construction methods. Further study in electrohydrodynamics, however, show that different classes and construction methods of EHD thrusters and hybrid technology (mixture with lighter-than-air techniques), can achieve much higher payload or thrust-to-power ratios than those achieved with the simple lifter design. Practical limits can be worked out using well defined theory and calculations.[7] Thus, a fully autonomous EHD thruster is theoretically possible." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft#Mechanism Since the power is P = I*V, amperage times voltage, the key thrust to power ratio is F/P = d/kV. So if the air gap distance d remains the same, reducing the voltage increases the thrust-power ratio. Then theoretically IF the lifter is able to operate at hundreds of volts instead tens of thousands of volts you could increase the thrust/power ratio hundred(s) of times. Note that you can't just arbitrarily use a low voltage. You need sufficient voltage to initiate air ionization. Experiments have confirmed that for wires at the nanoscale you do get the important corona inception (air ionization) for voltages in the only 100's of volts range. However, it is very important to note that when you reduce the voltage and wire diameter the thrust is also reduced. Indeed to get thrust sufficient for large scale objects you would then need to use millions to billions of the nanowires. Since the wires are only nanometers wide there is no problem in regards to their fitting beneath a transport craft. But the large number of wires required would be a consideration in regards to the wires corona regions. You can't pack the wires too close together and maintain maximum thrust since interaction between the separate corona's reduces thrust. Among amateur experimenters that have built them, a lot of experimentation has gone into the best geometry to maximize thrust. A common arrangement is the triangular shape, with larger lifters constructed using this basic shape as cells to build up to larger devices. The reason you don't have just have a bunch of parallel wires bunched close together with the lifters is because of the corona region interaction at small distance. Then there would have to be a significant degree of experimentation to determine how close the nanowires could be packed while maintaining maximum thrust. In regards to the comparison of the thrust/power ratio of the lifters compared to helicopters. This is a parameter known as power loading for hovering transports. For helicopters it's commonly in the range of 6 to 10 lb/hp: Helicopter Aerodynamics and Performance. http://images.slideplayer.com/12/349...s/slide_51.jpg This is about 3.6 to 6 grams-thrust/watt. The lifters currently made using macroscale wires get about 1 gram-thrust per watt in thrust/power ratio. So if the nanowire lifters really were able to manage a hundred times better thrust/power ratio than current lifters, that would be a major advance for hovering transport craft. Even if the nanowire lifters only improve the thrust/power ratio over current lifters by a factor of 10, that would still be an improvement over current helicopters. 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/n...ce/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 07:13:09 -0000, wrote:
In sci.physics mike wrote: On 11/7/2016 7:39 PM, wrote: In sci.physics mike wrote: On 11/7/2016 1:46 PM, wrote: In sci.physics Phil Hobbs wrote: On 11/07/2016 01:37 PM, wrote: In sci.physics Robert Clark wrote: snip If you know of a means to provide 50,000 V at *lightweight* then you will have solved the problem of an independently flying lifter, using the macrosized wires currently used. You would need about a power to weight ratio for the power source of better than 1 watt per gram, while being able to provide these ca. 50,000 V voltages. Bob Clark Trivial; look at any camera flash unit built in the last several decades. However you have totally missed the point; voltage and the weight of the converter is irrelevant as it is the total power that determines the weight of it all. BTW, here are some real world power to weight ratios: Boeing 777 engine 10 kW/kg 1985 Chevy Celebrity 300 W/kg -- So for a 1000 kg car, that's 402 horsepower? Sign me up! Cheers Phil Hobbs No, that is the power to weight ratio of the engine, not the power to weight ratio of the car. Power is a red herring. What's important is the total energy produced by the engine AND the fuel supply. It doesn't get the least bit interesting until the engine can lift itself and a FULL tank of whatever powers it AND the vehicle AND the payload to reach the destination. I can't imagine that ever happening 1000 feet off the ground on this ole earth at a cost anywhere near the cost of other forms of transportation. Are you trying to say airplanes aren't going to make it in the commercial world? Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying: "Airplanes with ion drive are not going to make it in the commercial world." Whatever technology can make that work will be FAR less costly applied to something that rolls along the roadway. I doubt there is any technology that could ever make it work in an atmosphere. But that misses the point that it's ENERGY that's the concern. Doesn't matter how light or powerful the airplane engine is if it still can't lift enough fuel to reach the destination. It takes a given amount of energy to get from here to there. Changing the engine only affects the efficiency of the process that converts the available fuel source to whatever it takes to motivate the vehicle. Maybe we'll see terrestrial ion engines, but the efficiency improvement won't be huge. Aircraft engines don't lift anything. Harriers aren't aircraft? Well, they do look a little like bricks. ;-) |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
In sci.physics Robert Clark wrote:
On 11/3/2016 9:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: Yes, that's a good example. Electric, battery-powered airplanes and helicopters already exist. Toys. However, the key point is according to the mathematics you can get even better power-to-thrust ratio with ionic propulsion using ionizing wires at the nanoscale than helicopters achieve. what math ? got a url ? As important as is the fact that you would no longer need heavy transformers to produce tens of thousands of volts, even more important is the high thrust-to-power ratio you can get by only using low voltages. How many times must you be told you do NOT need heavy transformers to produce high voltages? Camera flash units produce tens of thousands of volts. This page describes the operation of the "lifters": Ionocraft. 3. Mechanism. "A generalized one-dimensional treatment gives the equation: F = I*d/k, where F is the resulting force, measured in dimension ML/T^2 I is the current flow of electric current, measured in dimension I. d is the air gap distance, measured in dimension L. k is the ion mobility coefficient of air, measured in dimension T^2 I/M (Nominal value 2·10^−4 m^2/ Vs). And what is the magnitude of I? "In its basic form, the ionocraft is able to produce forces great enough to lift about a gram of payload per watt,[6] so its use is restricted to a tethered model. Ionocraft capable of payloads in the order of a few grams usually need to be powered by power sources and high voltage converters weighing a few kilograms, so although its simplistic design makes it an excellent way to experiment with this technology, it is unlikely that a fully autonomous ionocraft will be made with the present construction methods. Further study in electrohydrodynamics, however, show that different classes and construction methods of EHD thrusters and hybrid technology (mixture with lighter-than-air techniques), can achieve much higher payload or thrust-to-power ratios than those achieved with the simple lifter design. Practical limits can be worked out using well defined theory and calculations.[7] Thus, a fully autonomous EHD thruster is theoretically possible." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft#Mechanism Since the power is P = I*V, amperage times voltage, the key thrust to power ratio is F/P = d/kV. So if the air gap distance d remains the same, reducing the voltage increases the thrust-power ratio. Then theoretically IF the lifter is able to operate at hundreds of volts instead tens of thousands of volts you could increase the thrust/power ratio hundred(s) of times. A typical small aircraft engine produces about 140 kW, so at 500 V your current is a bit under 300 A. A typical small helicopter engine is about twice that size, so double the current for a helicopter. That means the conductors from the power supply must be huge and you have to have hundreds, if not thousands, of emmitters to get the individual currents down to levels that won't vaporize them. Even if you mangaged to pull all that off, you now have a huge RFI generator destroying all radio communication over a wide ares which the FCC would never allow to be operated. -- Jim Pennino |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
In sci.physics mike wrote:
On 11/7/2016 11:13 PM, wrote: Aircraft engines don't lift anything. OK, how about, "Aircraft engines, when properly fixtured, can result in objects disengaging contact with the earth?" How about the engine on fixed wing aircraft provides thrust to overcome total drag to accelerate the aircraft to an airspeed sufficient to provide enough lift from the wings to overcome the force of gravity? How about the engine of a helicopter provides power to spin rotating wings to a speed sufficient to develop enough lift to overcome the force of gravity? For the purpose of this discussion assume that the angle of attack of the rotor blades has been set appropriately. -- Jim Pennino |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 22:05:29 -0000, wrote:
In sci.physics mike wrote: On 11/7/2016 11:13 PM, wrote: Aircraft engines don't lift anything. OK, how about, "Aircraft engines, when properly fixtured, can result in objects disengaging contact with the earth?" How about the engine on fixed wing aircraft provides thrust to overcome total drag to accelerate the aircraft to an airspeed sufficient to provide enough lift from the wings to overcome the force of gravity? How about the engine of a helicopter provides power to spin rotating wings to a speed sufficient to develop enough lift to overcome the force of gravity? For the purpose of this discussion assume that the angle of attack of the rotor blades has been set appropriately. There is more than one aircraft with a thrust to weight ratio greater than unity, not to mention a rocket or two. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
In sci.physics krw wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 22:05:29 -0000, wrote: In sci.physics mike wrote: On 11/7/2016 11:13 PM, wrote: Aircraft engines don't lift anything. OK, how about, "Aircraft engines, when properly fixtured, can result in objects disengaging contact with the earth?" How about the engine on fixed wing aircraft provides thrust to overcome total drag to accelerate the aircraft to an airspeed sufficient to provide enough lift from the wings to overcome the force of gravity? How about the engine of a helicopter provides power to spin rotating wings to a speed sufficient to develop enough lift to overcome the force of gravity? For the purpose of this discussion assume that the angle of attack of the rotor blades has been set appropriately. There is more than one aircraft with a thrust to weight ratio greater than unity, not to mention a rocket or two. Yes, there certainly are but they are niche aircraft in the overall scheme of things and an extremely small percentage of aircraft. Maybe you'd like to include ornithopters in the discussion of engines for flying machines. Rockets are rockets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft -- Jim Pennino |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Ion drive for aircraft imminent.
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 00:13:29 -0000, wrote:
In sci.physics krw wrote: On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 22:05:29 -0000, wrote: In sci.physics mike wrote: On 11/7/2016 11:13 PM, wrote: Aircraft engines don't lift anything. OK, how about, "Aircraft engines, when properly fixtured, can result in objects disengaging contact with the earth?" How about the engine on fixed wing aircraft provides thrust to overcome total drag to accelerate the aircraft to an airspeed sufficient to provide enough lift from the wings to overcome the force of gravity? How about the engine of a helicopter provides power to spin rotating wings to a speed sufficient to develop enough lift to overcome the force of gravity? For the purpose of this discussion assume that the angle of attack of the rotor blades has been set appropriately. There is more than one aircraft with a thrust to weight ratio greater than unity, not to mention a rocket or two. Yes, there certainly are but they are niche aircraft in the overall scheme of things and an extremely small percentage of aircraft. Maybe you'd like to include ornithopters in the discussion of engines for flying machines. Why not? The whole thread is already pretty silly. Rockets are rockets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft Oh, Ion engines aren't be proposed for rockets, too? Never mind. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New computer technology imminent. | Jeff Findley[_6_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | April 24th 15 03:33 PM |
Armageddon Imminent: Fundies Don't Get It (but they will) | Anonymous Remailer | Astronomy Misc | 8 | April 10th 08 07:14 PM |
Armageddon Imminent: Fundies Don't Get It (but they will) | Anonymous Remailer | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | April 10th 08 07:14 PM |
Lunar Eclipse Imminent! | Double-A[_1_] | Misc | 8 | September 12th 07 10:04 AM |
Is a local supernova imminent? | Imperishable Stars | Misc | 7 | October 6th 04 12:40 AM |