Air Plasma engines

Something creeping out of the Black or an evolution of the Ion Drive..Interesting times for sure..

A prototype jet engine can propel itself without using any fossil fuels, potentially paving the way for carbon-neutral air travel. The device compresses air and ionizes it with microwaves, generating plasma that thrusts it forward, according to research published Tuesday in the journal AIP Advances. That means planes may someday fly using just electricity and the air around them as fuel.

Air Plasma engine tech

a reply to: Blackfinger

*raises hand*

Where does the electricity come from?

Electric airplanes (ion jets or propeller driven) don't really seem to be feasible without some really good batteries. Or a really long extension cord.

a reply to: Blackfinger

From what I see the only purpose of the plasma is to absorb the microwaves and heat the air. It is not the most efficient approach, but it is simple I guess.

a reply to: moebius

It's not heat that provides thrust. Plasma is ionized gas (air, in this case), not necessarily hot. Microwaves ionize air. Ions can be manipulated with a magnetic field which shoves them out of the engine, creating thrust.

Reading the source material, this plasma is quite hot.

The flame temperature can reach higher than 1000 °C

aip.scitation.org...

It's not a standard ion drive.

a reply to: Phage

Could they use another source to fire the engine, then have a a MHD type device to generate the electricity?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blackfinger

*raises hand*

Where does the electricity come from?

Electric airplanes (ion jets or propeller driven) don't really seem to be feasible without some really good batteries. Or a really long extension cord.

Or maybe that “semi-trailer sized” fusion reactor that Lockheed-Martin’s “Skunkworks” was crowing about way back a few years ago?

a reply to: myss427

You're sort of implying a perpetual motion type thing.

Most of the power is used in creating the plasma. You need to keep doing that. The magnetron (which produces the microwaves) needs to be powered. There is also a cooling system and air compressor which need power.

a reply to: Bhadhidar

I don't see nuclear power replacing turbine engines anytime soon. And aviation fuel is quite a bit more energy-dense than the best batteries. If it was extremely efficient, you might be able to use a turbine to generate the electricity for something like this and see a net increase over a your typical jet engine.
There's a lot of "if" in there.

a reply to: Bhadhidar

Maybe. If it ever works. They're still working on it.
www.thedrive.com...

a reply to: Phage

We could have portable (couple trailers worth) nuclear stations in the near future. It's a political will/viability question, not so much a technical one.
But having a nuclear reactor to power a military base without needing a ton of infrastructure and reliance on outside infrastructure or for emergencies, is something altogether different than flying them around town.

And even if you grt them small and light enough to fly them, there are big questions about the wisdom of such a plan.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Not sure about "the near future." We're talking about a fusion reactor here. But I agree that putting one in an airplane presents very many engineering problems.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blackfinger

*raises hand*

Where does the electricity come from?

Electric airplanes (ion jets or propeller driven) don't really seem to be feasible without some really good batteries. Or a really long extension cord.

I seem to remember that there were plans and even a prototype using an atomic (Thorium Liquid metal) reactor to power an aircraft?

Found it:

Aircraft Reactor Experiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a reply to: chr0naut

The prototype never got close to operational status.

The project was cancelled 65 years ago. Says so right there in your source.

A fission reactor in an aircraft is a pretty scary idea.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

The prototype never got close to operational.

The project was cancelled 65 years ago. Says so right there in your source.

A fission reactor in an aircraft is a pretty scary idea.

Apparently they put a supercritical mass of actinides at the top of big rockets, too. Who'd have thought? Especially in regard to the numbers of rockets that detonate on launch!

a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah. But they aren't in the atmosphere very long and they have another purpose.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah. But they aren't in the atmosphere very long.

You kidding, that stuff can stay in the atmosphere for days.

a reply to: chr0naut

I meant the rockets.

I see that you edited.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blackfinger

*raises hand*

Where does the electricity come from?

Electric airplanes (ion jets or propeller driven) don't really seem to be feasible without some really good batteries. Or a really long extension cord.

It comes from the journalist that wrote the article - it comes from that source - very similar to magic.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

I meant the rockets.

I see that you edited.

Yeah, still a scary prospect, though.

(lofting nuclear material, not the editing).

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blackfinger

*raises hand*

Where does the electricity come from?

Electric airplanes (ion jets or propeller driven) don't really seem to be feasible without some really good batteries. Or a really long extension cord.

I seem to remember that there were plans and even a prototype using an atomic (Thorium Liquid metal) reactor to power an aircraft?

Found it:

Aircraft Reactor Experiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it was a Uranium molten salt reactor.