Ion drive for aircraft imminent.

William Mook wrote:

On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 1:56:01 AM UTC-8, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:


Aircraft engines don't lift anything.


Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the
engines and airplanes don't go up.

Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
airliners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight...record#Gliders


Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
with an engine.


http://epicholidays.com.au/activity_...ing-simulator/

http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...s-defy-gravity

An unpowered craft with appropriate ground based blowers and controls can easily be envisioned by any competent engineer.


Which part of "not an airplane" and "the blower is a motor" is it that
you can't wrap your head around?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Alain Fournier wrote:

On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:


Aircraft engines don't lift anything.


Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the
engines and airplanes don't go up.

Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
airliners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight...record#Gliders


Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
with an engine.

Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes:


Nope. No engine means they aren't an airplane. An airplane is a
fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle.

That might be /your/ definition,


Yeah, because I own a dictionary. You should try buying one.


I don't understand that. What are you trying to say.


That you don't understand. Perhaps if you used words in standard ways
with standard definitions.


... but it is only valid
in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to
converse with other people, it helps to use words in
a standard way. The first google result gives:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane
airplane
noun
1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the
upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its
fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion,
etc.


There you go. If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to
use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary
definitions.


A definition is a definition. You are struggling
in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why!


All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are.


If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the
dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it?


As usual, you don't understand me. Using secondary 'niche'
definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not
'impressive' at all. Use the main definition.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On 16/11/16 04:42, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:


Aircraft engines don't lift anything.


Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the
engines and airplanes don't go up.

Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
airliners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight...record#Gliders


Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
with an engine.

Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes:


Nope. No engine means they aren't an airplane. An airplane is a
fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle.

That might be /your/ definition,


Yeah, because I own a dictionary. You should try buying one.


I don't understand that. What are you trying to say.


That you don't understand. Perhaps if you used words in standard ways
with standard definitions.


... but it is only valid
in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to
converse with other people, it helps to use words in
a standard way. The first google result gives:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane
airplane
noun
1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the
upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its
fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion,
etc.


There you go. If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to
use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary
definitions.


A definition is a definition. You are struggling
in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why!


All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are.


If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the
dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it?


As usual, you don't understand me. Using secondary 'niche'
definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not
'impressive' at all. Use the main definition.

So "circuit" should only be used to mean "an act or
instance of going or moving around."
"Circuit" should never be used to mean "the complete
path of an electric current, including the generating
apparatus, intervening resistors, or capacitors."
because that's only the *9th* definition.

When you are in a hole, stop digging

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/circuit

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 16/11/16 04:42, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:


Aircraft engines don't lift anything.


Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the
engines and airplanes don't go up.

Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
airliners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight...record#Gliders


Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
with an engine.

Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes:


Nope. No engine means they aren't an airplane. An airplane is a
fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle.

That might be /your/ definition,


Yeah, because I own a dictionary. You should try buying one.


I don't understand that. What are you trying to say.


That you don't understand. Perhaps if you used words in standard ways
with standard definitions.


... but it is only valid
in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to
converse with other people, it helps to use words in
a standard way. The first google result gives:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane
airplane
noun
1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the
upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its
fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion,
etc.


There you go. If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to
use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary
definitions.


A definition is a definition. You are struggling
in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why!


All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are.


If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the
dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it?


As usual, you don't understand me. Using secondary 'niche'
definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not
'impressive' at all. Use the main definition.

So "circuit" should only be used to mean "an act or
instance of going or moving around."
"Circuit" should never be used to mean "the complete
path of an electric current, including the generating
apparatus, intervening resistors, or capacitors."
because that's only the *9th* definition.


I see you don't know the difference between a secondary definition and
a different definition. I'm unsurprised at this.


When you are in a hole, stop digging


Great advice. You should put down your shovel and take it.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:05:20 +0000, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 16/11/16 04:42, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:


Aircraft engines don't lift anything.


Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the
engines and airplanes don't go up.

Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
airliners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight...record#Gliders


Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
with an engine.

Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes:


Nope. No engine means they aren't an airplane. An airplane is a
fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle.

That might be /your/ definition,


Yeah, because I own a dictionary. You should try buying one.


I don't understand that. What are you trying to say.


That you don't understand. Perhaps if you used words in standard ways
with standard definitions.


... but it is only valid
in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to
converse with other people, it helps to use words in
a standard way. The first google result gives:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane
airplane
noun
1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the
upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its
fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion,
etc.


There you go. If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to
use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary
definitions.


A definition is a definition. You are struggling
in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why!


All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are.


If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the
dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it?


As usual, you don't understand me. Using secondary 'niche'
definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not
'impressive' at all. Use the main definition.

So "circuit" should only be used to mean "an act or
instance of going or moving around."
"Circuit" should never be used to mean "the complete
path of an electric current, including the generating
apparatus, intervening resistors, or capacitors."
because that's only the *9th* definition.

When you are in a hole, stop digging

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/circuit

Or, heaven forbid, a schematic (even without all the return current
paths drawn).

On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:33:16 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 1:56:01 AM UTC-8, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:


Aircraft engines don't lift anything.


Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the
engines and airplanes don't go up.

Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
airliners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight...record#Gliders


Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
with an engine.


http://epicholidays.com.au/activity_...ing-simulator/

http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...s-defy-gravity

An unpowered craft with appropriate ground based blowers and controls can easily be envisioned by any competent engineer.


Which part of "not an airplane" and "the blower is a motor" is it that
you can't wrap your head around?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

What part of this isn't an airplane don't you understand?

http://skyventurenh.com/attractions/#skydiving

An unpowered vehicle lifted by blowers is not an airplane. Similarly tow lines and tow airplanes - does not make a glider an airplane - even if an engine is involved with the winch, tow plane etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIsd2vxokyc

Action starts at 2:00

This is a ground effect train - that could easily be powered the same way an air hockey puck is powered.

http://phys.org/news/2011-05-ground-...es-ground.html

http://www.toysrus.com/buy/air-hocke...270bl-67786486

William Mook wrote:

On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:33:16 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 1:56:01 AM UTC-8, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:


Aircraft engines don't lift anything.


Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the
engines and airplanes don't go up.

Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
airliners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight...record#Gliders


Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
with an engine.


http://epicholidays.com.au/activity_...ing-simulator/

http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...s-defy-gravity

An unpowered craft with appropriate ground based blowers and controls can easily be envisioned by any competent engineer.


Which part of "not an airplane" and "the blower is a motor" is it that
you can't wrap your head around?


What part of this isn't an airplane don't you understand?


Uh, that's what I asked you, dimbulb.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Airbus E-fan electric aircraft

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP4iSJNlCCc

http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/co...aircraft.html#

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_E-Fan

General characteristics

Crew: one
Capacity: one passenger
Length: 6.67 m (21 ft 11 in)
Wingspan: 9.50 m (31 ft 2 in)
Max takeoff weight: 550 kg (1,213 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Electric motor , 30 kW (40 hp) each via eight-blade ducted fans,each producing thrust of 0.75 kN (266 lb st), Battery: Lithium-ion 18650, with 207 Wh/kg per cel, total of 29 kWh at a battery weight of 167 kg

Performance

Maximum speed: 220 km/h (137 mph; 119 kn) all performance figures estimated
Cruising speed: 160 km/h (99 mph; 86 kn)
Endurance: 60 min
Lift-to-drag: 16:1

Now, take off is 60 kW and cruising power is 29 kW. This is 29 kWh per 99 miles. 0.293 kWh per mile. That's 1.055 megajoules per mile. At 131.76 megajoules/US gallon this equates to 125.0 miles per gallon equivalent!

The Tesla S has a range of 285 miles on an 85 kWh charge. That's 1.074 megajoules per mile or 122.7 miles per gallon equivalent.

Interestingly, the surface area of the wings on the E-fan total about 10 square meters.

http://www.aps.org/meetings/multimed...tion_Kurtz.pdf

https://www.quora.com/Can-solar-pane...ency-If-so-how

These can collect between 16 kWh and 28 kWh on a typical day on the surface.. This rises to 20 kWh to 29 kWh on a typical day at altitude.

So, this plane could conceivably - with the right kind of solar panel built into its wings - could fly one hour per day - recharged from the environment.

A small runway is 2000 m x 50 m typically. Covered with solar panels, operating at 40% to 75% efficiency, charging batteries under the runway - could support the recharging of between 5,517 to 10,344 aircraft per day!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQba3ENhlKA

Now, with phased array microwaves emitted from the surface to aircraft visible from the solar airfield, and rectenna built into the wings of the aircraft, aircraft need not land in order to be recharged in flight!

One solar electric airfield every 100 miles means that 6495 square miles of land is served by each. That's 480 airfields across the continental USAs 3,119,884.60 square miles.

The conversion of less than 10% of the more than 5000 public airfields in the USA to this technology allows between 193.4 billion seat miles and 362.7 billion seat miles per year to be supported. That's between 2 & 3 trips per person per day for everyone in the USA.

Now, VTOL electric aircraft are available today, that pick up people and drop them off, using advanced drone technology;

http://www.ehang.com/ehang184

AI is being developed to replace pilots - providing Siri-like verbal responses to radio traffic and control

http://aviationweek.com/flight-deck/...trust-autonomy

Combined with Uber style apps that allow the dispatch of passenger drones on demand;

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/featur...month-is06r7on

Now, flight on demand will likely cause us to spend 20 minutes on average in 3 trips per day - with 1.5 passengers per vehicle on average - that's 40 minutes per person per day. With repositioning to next passenger empty - that's 45 minutes per person per day. That's 10,000,000 vehicles. With a 85% service rate (and 15% down time for maintenance) we have 11,765,000 vehicles to provide on demand flight service for the Continental USA. This replaces 253.7 million motorcars!

The number of airfields converted to solar airfields of the style described above, would have to be increased to around 1,000 - or 20% of the public airfields operating presently in the USA.

An electric tail sitter that folded its wings and put down precisely where needed VTOL fashion, and then flew to altitude and cruised to a destination at high speed (100 mph on average) - would radically increase the range people travelled.

There is no reason we are limited to the 99 mph speed of first generation electrics either!

A $300,000 vehicle (including solar panel airfield) with a $12,000 per year service cost, and a $58,600 per year capital cost (7 years at 8.5% discount) - a total of $70,600 per year. With 11,688 passengers served per year, this is $6.04 per passenger. Another break-down is $0.158 per minute of flight time. That's 1/6th cent per mile at 99 mph. So, if we had $2.00 charge to order the vehicle, and the first 20 minutesis free, and then charge $0.20 for each added minute or fraction.

On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 4:22:22 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:33:16 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 1:56:01 AM UTC-8, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:


Aircraft engines don't lift anything.


Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the
engines and airplanes don't go up.

Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
airliners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight...record#Gliders


Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
with an engine.


http://epicholidays.com.au/activity_...ing-simulator/

http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...s-defy-gravity

An unpowered craft with appropriate ground based blowers and controls can easily be envisioned by any competent engineer.


Which part of "not an airplane" and "the blower is a motor" is it that
you can't wrap your head around?


What part of this isn't an airplane don't you understand?


Uh, that's what I asked you, dimbulb.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Only a narcissist like you would believe everything everyone says is in response to your internal monologue! lol. What makes you think I say *anything* in response to what you say, don't say, ask or don't ask? Sheez.

William Mook wrote:

On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 4:22:22 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:33:16 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 1:56:01 AM UTC-8, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:


Aircraft engines don't lift anything.


Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the
engines and airplanes don't go up.

Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
airliners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight...record#Gliders


Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
with an engine.


http://epicholidays.com.au/activity_...ing-simulator/

http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...s-defy-gravity

An unpowered craft with appropriate ground based blowers and controls can easily be envisioned by any competent engineer.


Which part of "not an airplane" and "the blower is a motor" is it that
you can't wrap your head around?


What part of this isn't an airplane don't you understand?


Uh, that's what I asked you, dimbulb.


Only a narcissist like you would believe everything everyone says is in response to your internal monologue! lol.


'Internal monologue'? Are you confused about what a public Usenet
posting is again? lol.


What makes you think I say *anything* in response to what you say, don't say, ask or don't ask? Sheez.


Because you used the 'Reply To' button, quoted my words, and used the
word 'you' in your reply. Mook, you've lived in English speaking
countries your whole life. You cannot possibly be this inarticulate
and illiterate. Sheez.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine