Ion drive for aircraft imminent.

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 2:55:20 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
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.

So?

Mook, you've lived in English speaking
countries your whole life.

True.

You cannot possibly be this inarticulate
and illiterate. Sheez.

That you imagine me inarticulate says more about you than I.


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

William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 2:55:20 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
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.


So?


So we speak English and those three things mean you were replying to
what I said.



Mook, you've lived in English speaking
countries your whole life.


True.


You cannot possibly be this inarticulate
and illiterate. Sheez.


That you imagine me inarticulate says more about you than I.


I don't 'imagine' anything about you. Just speaking to the evidence.


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

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 8:42:22 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 2:55:20 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
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.


So?


So we speak English and those three things mean you were replying to
what I said.

That you imagine I take account of anything you say is funny.




Mook, you've lived in English speaking
countries your whole life.


True.


You cannot possibly be this inarticulate
and illiterate. Sheez.


That you imagine me inarticulate says more about you than I.


I don't 'imagine' anything about you. Just speaking to the evidence.


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

I bet you think this song is about you! lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZmCJUSC6g

William Mook wrote:

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 8:42:22 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 2:55:20 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
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.


So?


So we speak English and those three things mean you were replying to
what I said.

That you imagine I take account of anything you say is funny.


That you insist that you don't WHILE REPLYING TO ME is even funnier
and must be the product of a deluded mind.

It's time for you to seek help again, Mook.


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

In article ,
says...

I bet you think this song is about you! lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZmCJUSC6g

Time for you to stick to youtube and stay off Usenet News.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

It's funny that someone so delusional constantly urges sane people to seek help! Lol

The interesting thing about micro-scale and nano-scale construction is the ability to radically increase the thrust to weight ratios of engines.

A jet or rocket engine's thrust scales as the square of its dimension whilst its weight scales by the cube of its dimension, so the smaller the higher the thrust to weight all things being equal. For this reason, knowledgeable rocket scientists know that MEMS based chemical engines will have thrust to weight of 1000 to 1 or more - instead of the 20 to 1 or 70 to 1 ratios typical of macroscopic rocket engines.

With an array of such engines, made at the same density as UHDTV screens, and over similar areas, of several square meters, propulsive skins or tiles, can be made which generate 7200 pounds per square foot - far higher than wings! and mass only 7 or 8 pounds per square foot!

By creating skins with well defined thrust vectors over their surface, and addressing those vectors reliably, a propulsive skin or tile that is simultaneously reliable, safe, and controllable is built.

This transforms rocketry.

The same relation is true for electro-spray or ion rocket and jet technologies!

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/mit-spl...besats-to-nasa

With these technologies, efficiencies can be made far higher than with thermally based systems, and so can exhaust speeds!

This radically improves efficiences of propellant use, when sources of electrical power are applied. This is why beaming energy to remote spacecraft via laser or maser beams, is an important field, and is ideally suited for use with electric rocket and jet technologies.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstro...-087-DFRC.html

A rocket that boosts straight up at 2 gees from the surface, has one gee net thrust, and attains escape velocity in

V = a * t --- t = V/a --- t = 11,190 / 9.80665 = 1141.1 seconds -- 19.01 minutes

Which occurs over a distance of less than;

D = 1/2 * a * t^2 -- D = 0.5 * 9.80665 * 1141.1^2 = 6,384,244 meters.

Now for each kilogram (kg) of weight we require the production of 2 * g0 = 2 * 9.80665 = 19.6133 Newtons of thrust. With an exhaust speed of 50,000 meters per second this means;

F = mdot * Ve --- F / Ve = mdot --- 19.6133 / 50000 = 0.000392266 kg/sec.

This is 392.266 milligrams per second. Multiplying by the boost time, we have

mdot * t = Mass -- 0.000392266 * 1141.1 = 0.4476 kg per kg of take off weight!

About the same fraction as a long-distance airliner.

Now the rocket equation gives a more accurate figure, noting that fighting gravity all the way to escape velocity adds 10.37 km/sec to the gravity drag loss;

u = 1 - 1 / exp( (10.37+11.19) / 50.00 ) = 0.3503

The same fraction as a regional airliner.

Of course using all the tricks we know to get to orbit, requires only that we achieve 9.2 km/sec. 7.9 km/sec is orbital speed above the atmosphere, and the 1.3 km/sec added speed is the combined gravity and air drag loss of an optimum gravity turn trajectory. In this case with a 50.0 km/sec exhaust speed and a 9.2 km/sec final speed we have;

u = 1 - 1 / exp( 9.2 / 50.0 ) = 0.1681

Same fraction as a long distance trucker or rail operation.

The power is of course, beamed to the system. Recall that to produce two gees requires 19.6133 Newtons per kg of take off weight. This requires 0.000392266 kg/sec mass flow rate. With an exhaust speed of 50 km/sec the power required to maintain this mass flow rate is;

Power = 1/2 * mdot * Ve^2 = 0.5 * 0.00039226 * (50^2) megawatts per kg. = 0.4903 MW/kg

So, today, 2 quadrillion watt laser beams exist;

http://www.popsci.com/researchers-ja...powerful-laser

2.039 kg per MW may be lifted at two gees using a 50 km/sec exhaust speed electro-spray rocket.
2.039 metric tons per GW may be lifted in the same way.
2039 metric tons (2/3 the size of the Saturn V moon rocket) may be lifted per TW.
2,039,000 metric tons (4x the size of the largest ship on the oceans today) may be lifted per PW.

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/26...magic-54-mark/

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

http://aviationweek.com/oshkosh-2016...an-goes-hybrid

Specifications

Data from Jane's All the World's Aircraft 2014/15 and Airbus
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

* * *

With batteries capable of 3,000 Wh/kg the 167 kg battery weight then contains 391.3 kWh enough to fly the vehicle a distance of 2,318 km in 14.49 hours. Two Tesla super charging stations will recharge an aircraft with this range fully in 82 minutes at a cost of $43.

A surplus of Diggity - think about the girl all the time...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogcx-zcF02k

With powerful lightweight electric motors, in combination with super batteries, VTOL take off and landing - with efficient long-range flight - are easily achievable - using AI drone technology - using a Siri like app that carries on with radio traffic.

Using this configuration of electric props

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z0I_ktvbl0

With this airframe

http://www.cobalt-aircraft.com/#1

and advanced batteries described above, provides superb capabilities.

Specifications (Co50)
Data from Company news release estimates

General characteristics

Crew: 1 Pilot
Capacity: 3 to 4 Passengers

Length: 30 ft (9.1 m)
Wingspan: 30 ft (9.1 m)
Height: 10 ft (3.0 m)

Max takeoff weight: 3,417 lb (1,550 kg)
Fuel capacity: 109 U.S. gallons (410 L; 91 imp gal)
Powerplant: 1 × Continental TSIOF-550-D turbocharged piston aircraft engine, 350 hp (260 kW)

Performance

Maximum speed: 250 kn (288 mph; 463 km/h) maximum cruise at FL250
Cruise speed: 250 kn (288 mph; 463 km/h) economy cruise at FL220
Range: 1,434 nmi (1,650 mi; 2,656 km) economy cruise at FL220

Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
Time to altitude: 12 minutes to 10,000 feet

Avionics

Garmin G3X Touch

Three electric fans producing 86.7 kW each - two forward one rear - that rotate from horizontal to vertical - to provide VTOL capabilities - and speeds of up to 463 km/h. Replacing the 109 US gallons of av-gas mass 317.6 kg with super batteries described above obtains 952.8 kWh. This provides 3.52 hours of flight at 463 km/h which gives a range of 1,634.4 km. Not too shabby.

Now, the Cobalt Valkyrie uses a Continental TSIOF-550-D engine that produces 350 hp (261 kW) at 2600 rpm, dry weight 558 lb (253 kg) plus two turbochargers of 35.2 lb (16.0 kg) each.

Now the EMRAX268 Brushless AC motor masses 19.9 kg (44 lb) and produces 200 kW (270 hp). Three of these motors mass less than 60 kg - and during high speed cruise consume 87 kW each. During lift off they consume 200 kW - giving the aircraft superb VTOL climb ability.

http://www.enstroj.si/Electric-products/emrax-268.html

So, the 60 kg three engine three fan system replaces the single fan 285 kg system (with turbo-chargers) and thus there is a spare 225 kg of weight lifting capacity for the power.

Replacing 225 kg of thermal engine weight with 3 kWh/kg batteries obtains an added 675 kWh - which translates to 2.58 added hours at 463 km/h - 1,197.4 km range. A total of 2,824.3 km range in 6.1 hours of flight.

Sweet!

1,627.8 kWh capacity for the aircraft - is recharged in an hour with a dozen super charger stations operating simultaneously for $179.06 - which is very cheap!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1JsBhRCRH0

Shorty get down, good lord
Baby got 'em up open all over town
Strictly biz, she don't play around
Cover much ground, got game by the pound
Getting paid is her forte
Each and every day, true player way
I can't get her out of my mind
I think about the girl all the time
East side to the west side
Pushin' phat rides, it's no surprise
She got tricks in the stash
Stacking up the cash
Fast when it comes to the gas
By no means average
She's on when she's got to have it
Baby, you're a perfect ten, I wanna get in
Can I get down, so I can win

I like the way you work it
No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up

I like the way you work it
No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up

I like the way you work it
No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up

I like the way you work it
No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up

She's got class and style
Street knowledge by the pound
Baby never act wild, very low key on the profile
Catchin' feelings is a no
Let me tell you how it goes
Curve's the words, spins the verbs
Lovers it curves so freak what you heard
Rollin' with the phatness
You don't even know what the half is
You gotta pay to play
Just for shorty, bang-bang, to look your way
I like the way you work it
Trumped tight all day, every day
You're blowing my mind, maybe in time
Baby, I can get you in my ride

I like the way you work it
No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up

I like the way you work it
No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up

I like the way you work it
No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up

I like the way you work it
No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up

'Cause that's my peeps and we row g
Flyin' first class from new york city to blackstreet
What you know about me, not a mother****in' thing
Cartier wooded frames sported by my shortie
As for me, icy gleaming pinky diamond ring
We be's the baddest clique up on the scene
Ain't you getting bored with these fake ass broads
I shows and proves, no doubt, I be taking you, so
Please excuse, if I come across rude
That's just me and that's how the playettes got to be
Stay kickin' game with a capital g
Axe the peoples on my block, I'm as real as can be
Word is bond, faking jacks never been my flavor
So, teddy, pass the word to your nigga chauncey
I be sitting in car, let's say around 3:30
Queen pen and blackstreet, it's no diggity

I like the way you work it
No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up

I like the way you work it
No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up

I like the way you work it
No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up

I like the way you work it
No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up

Over the Wing Engine Mount - such as that in the Hondajet

http://www.hondajet.com/OTWEM

is used above the landing gear mount - on the Colbalt Valkyrie - for each of the outboard electric fans. Ducted fans similar ot that used in E-fan - are placed on OTWEM and flip through 90 degrees to produce vertical thrust. The tail fan is replaced with a ducted fan similar to E-fan as well, and is equipped with an F-35 style thrust vectoring exhaust - to provide pitch and yaw control

http://imgur.com/PeaVikj

There are 19,299 airports in the USA

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/ri...ble_01_03.html

5,145 are for public use. With 3.797 million square miles this is 738 square miles per air field. Assuming a hexagonal close packing of each air field this is a separation of 33.7 miles (54.3 km). The range upwards from 5,500 m length by 80 m width. With a 75% efficient multi-spectral solar panel built into the runway similar to solar roadways - but solar runways -

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

to charge 861 aircraft per airfield per day. This is 4.43 million aircraft operating 27.02 million flight hours per day carrying 50.04 billion passenger miles per day. This is 8.3x larger than all the passenger miles available in all the scheduled airline flights in the USA today and 50x larger than all private aircraft miles available in the USA today.

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/press_releases/bts016_13

Its 5.1x larger than all the highway miles driven in passenger cars! LOL. Which is amazing! Which means people could fly one or two per aircraft, and there's still enough airfields, solar power and aircraft to meet all the airline needs and all the highway needs of the entire nation!

The airfields at 330 MW peak power each, produce enough surplus power to add significantly to the power grid!

At $840,000 per aircraft, and assuming a 20 year life span, a discount rate of 8.5% and a 4% maintenance cost, with 85% availability - we have

$11.91 capex
$ 4.51 opex
$29.51 energy

$45.93 total

per hour. At 463 km/hr this is 9.92 cents per km. (15.97 cents per mile).

http://newsroom.aaa.com/2015/04/annu...s-aaa-archive/

The AAA estimates that the cost of drving a mile in a sedan is $0.58 per mile - 3.63x greater than the cost described above. At $8,698 per year - and $0.16 per mile - folks in aircraft would travel 54,362.5 miles 87,523.6 km per year. At 463 km/hr they'd spend 189 hours in transit - less time than they spend in autos. Despite the increases - the system described with only 4.5 million drone aircraft - could supply this improved level of service and end ALL CARBON EMISSIONS in the process - and radically reduce fuel imports in the USA.

You would use an UBER style APP in your cell phone to signal an aircraft to your location. One would appear and settle in a convenient spot near you - in a street parking lot or field nearby. You get on board and be wafted directly to your destination. If your destination was more than 4.5 hours away - you would settle down at a convenient air field every 4.5 hours - and spend 30 minutes resting eating as your aircraft recharged and was cleaned.

A flight from LA to NY is 3,944 km and would take 9 hours with a 0.5 hour stop in St. Louis. The trip for up to five people costs $413.37 - Five people sharing the ride would spend $82.68 each. Four people sharing the ride spend $103.35 each!

It costs $52 to go from the airport to your destination in New York, just for fees to go through tunnels and whatnot. It takes about 8 minutes for me to walk from the Waldorf Astoria to Rockefellar Plaza - a distance of 262 feet! lol. A cab ride would cost $7.22 + $4.50 just to get in. So, that's $11.72 for an 8 minute ride.

I would think that if you could be picked up on rooftop, on any building, and dropped off, with a quick ride to and from the roof top - you could charge $10.00 for the first 10 minutes and $8 for each additional 10 minutes or fraction - and you'd give the taxi's a run for their money.

You'd have one aerial pad on top of a building every 250 feet - which if done consistently over the entire Manhattan Island woudl provide 10,179 landing pads. With 10 pick up points and 2 minutes loiter time for loading and unloading - 300 vehicles are loaded and unloaded per hour per pad. That's 293.1 million passenger pickups and drop offs a day. With 10 vehicles per pad - that's 101,790 vehicles serving manhattan - and costing less than automobiles - and producing no pollution.

This would be awesome!