Ion drive for aircraft imminent.

...

Camera flash units work by using electrical capacitors. So while they are able to provide a large amount of power for their weight, they do this by discharging all their stored energy in only a fraction of a second. This is why despite intense research into "supercapacitors" they still have not been able to replace chemical batteries for sustained, continuous power production.

In regards, to the current carried by the nanowires, you would likely need millions to billions of them to get the required thrust for a large craft. This is because the thrust is lower for lower voltage. Having such a large number of nanowires is a very well-known phenomenon in production VLSI electronic devices though.

About the RFI, it may be because the voltage now required is only in the hundreds of volts range rather than tens of thousands of volts, the RFI is also significantly reduced. This is also something that needs to be tested

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/ 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I looked up the BK 117 helicopter:

MBB/Kawasaki BK 117.

4 Specifications (BK117 B-2). "Max takeoff weight: 3,350 kg (7,385 lb) Fuel capacity: 697 L (183 US Gallons, 153 Imp Gallons) internal fuel

each"

This is a thrust-to-power ratio of 7,385 lb/1,186 hp = 6.2 lb/hp, which is in the range common for helicopters.

About the current needed to be carried by the nanowires, for a 1,300 lb, or

590 kg, helicopter, then IF the nanowires really do allow a 100 times better thrust-to-power ratio than the lifters now, this will be a thrust/power ratio of 100 grams-force/watt, 100 kg-force/kw.

Then this helicopter would need about 6 kw of power. If the voltage required is only say 100 V because we are using nanowires, then 60 amps of current would need to be carried. But remember we would distribute this over millions to billions of the nanowires.

Also, note for this supposed 1,300 lb lifter, 6 kw of power is less than only 8 hp, quite low for an air vehicle able to carry people.

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/ 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you are too low by a factor of 100,

you make mistake it is not 100 gm/watt, but only 1gm per watt.

try again.

off topic, try googling "switching power supplies"

just use copper cables, much cheaper

no, easy to calculate, but you have to get the math right, and you seem to be missing a couple zeros in your required power.

The *current* lifters get about 1 gm-force of thrust per watt of supplied power, or 1 kg-force per kw. But the mathematics suggest using nanowires can improve this by a factor of 100 to 100 kg-force per kw.

By the way, IF it is confirmed nanowires can result in the orders of magnitude improvement, then a 1,300 lb hovering transport craft could be powered by an engine the size of that on a push lawn mower.

This though would be a scenario where you're using a gasoline engine to provide the power that is then converted to electricity to operate the lifter drive.

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/ 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

d

ic

ant

r e

W (593

117_B-2.29

ich

b,

es

can

No-one has so far stated the elephant in the room. Surely if you pack 1000 nanowires into the space a standard wire occupies, the result will behave v ery like one regular wire. Ie for the nanos to work their magic you'd need a gargantuan wingspan.

NT

nanowires have nothing to do with it, they just carry current to motor, and they are less effecient than copper, in fact new ones are coated with copper

there is no improvement.

you still dont get it, the amount of power to keep something up doesnt change at all.

you are saying your nanowire makes vast improvements, but it only supplies power to device, it replaces cables.

what is the resistance of a #18 solid copper wire? what is the resistance of a #18 nanowire bundle ?

Windows doesn't have a 'newsreader', Bob. That's the problem.

What I'd recommend kind of depends on your tech level. There are Windows versions of a lot of Unix newsreaders. Personally, I use Agent and have for years. In the past I've used pine, tin, gnus, and Thunderbird. Almost anything is better than the various Microsoft Mail products bent to be newsreaders.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable  
 man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,  
 all progress depends on the unreasonable man." 
                                      --George Bernard Shaw

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

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

Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial airliners :)

More seriously contrary to most people's belief, aircraft engines aren't speed controls, they are climb/descend controls. Steady-state speed is set by the attitude, i.e. by the elevators.

Of course engines give more opportunities for varying the attitude :)

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

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the 
 truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." 
                               -- Thomas Jefferson

True. Whether it is a tow plane (like seems common in the US), a motor on a winch for a cable launch (common in Europe, or so I'm told), or even "self tow" (engine or motor and propeller on the glider) a glider would have a hard time getting off the ground without some sort of engine/motor.

And before anyone mentions that a glider can stay aloft pretty much "all day" by riding thermals, yes it can. But, if you're spending all day searching for the best thermals, you're not spending any time going from point A to point B, so they're not terribly useful as transportation.

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.

Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes: commercial airliners often take /decades/ to catch up with the technology used in gliders, e.g. composites, wingtips, and lightning strike protection.

Secondly, neither winches nor tugs will take a glider up to 10k/20k/30k/ft (40k/50kft in rare cases!) - and can't even get there on their own! It is unusual for a tug to take a glider above 3kft over here; 2kft is the normal release height.

Finally, you have too little imagination about how to launch a glider. Gravity, bungees, and (in true Fred Flintstone style) horses are also used.

Now, what was that about "up there" and "without an engine"?

False. See my other reply for videos of examples.

(But in Europe winches are more common than tugs, and a typical release height is 2kft, but higher is possible. A normal tug release height is 2kft, sometimes 3kft)

True, but they are a damn sight more fun :)

(Besides, ISTR sailing ships seem to have been used for transportation, even though they were sometimes becalmed :) )

Gliders are most definitely airplanes. They do get launched by winches or catapults, or are sometimes towed into the air by powered aircraft, but once in the air they stay aloft by finding rising air currents and riding them upwards.

Search on "thermal soaring", "slope soaring" and "wave soaring".

The record flight altitudes seem to be set by people who exploit the predictable standing waves that form over mountains.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

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

So?

Yes, you can build a glider, move it to the launch site by ox cart, and throw it off a cliff. You can lift it with balloons. You can even try farting magic pixie dust on them. But that's not how they're usually transported and launched.

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

'Becalmed in a glider means you land. Then you have to figure out how to get it back up in the air again. And you'd better have places to land all along the way.

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

Standard operating procedure: pick a field, pluck off the wings, put glider in trailer, go home. Also many gliders have "get out of trouble" engines, but they expect not to use them.

But the point is not whether gliders are practical means of transport (they aren't), but whether you need engines to go up. (You don't - unless you count the sun as an engine :) )

That might be /your/ definition, 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:

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.
2. any similar heavier-than-air aircraft, as a glider or helicopter.

It disproves your contention that aircraft need engines to go up.

True, and balloons have been used, but I'm skeptical about pixie dust. But those are separate points not related to whether you need engines to go up.