Silent and Simple Ion Engine Powers a Plane with No Moving Parts

So, let's think for a moment. He got some thrust, nothing grandiose, but this engine is using electron differences. A muon, is essentially a fat electron. Same basic idea, but a mass of 207~ times that of an electron. So, if we were to utilize the same for this idea, would you not expect a vast improvement?

Either way, there is a nice gauge theory secret involving Muons that will yield a very powerful propulsive action.

So, let's think for a moment. He got some thrust, nothing grandiose, but this engine is using electron differences. A muon, is essentially a fat electron. Same basic idea, but a mass of 207~ times that of an electron. So, if we were to utilize the same for this idea, would you not expect a vast improvement?

Either way, there is a nice gauge theory secret involving Muons that will yield a very powerful propulsive action.

Wow, I am pretty enthused by this.
1903 First powered flight by the Wright Brothers
1914 fighter planes.

2018 the first flight using an em type
2029 they will have rail guns

a reply to: Archivalist

It is not electrons which provide thrust. It is air molecules. To increase thrust you must increase voltage. It's explained in the article in the OP but here's a visual.

To get more bang for your electric buck one might want to try neutrally buoyant aircraft. As much like a submarine but in the atmosphere.

As a past member said... over coming g is a b1tch.

Maybe even try a pulsed phase array to make a tunnel in front of you or something. Then it becomes the path of least resistance!

Still wanna see more on the plasma jet engines!

Cool stuff nonetheless!

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

As much like a submarine but in the atmosphere.

Sometimes known as a blimp. But propellers are more efficient, if noisier.

originally posted by: BlackProject

originally posted by: rickymouse
You know what scares me about this? I understood completely what this guy was talking about. I am enthused by this, I have turned back into a nerd again. I was a nerd in highschool, I spent most of my life trying to fit in and it was very hard. Now in my sixties I am losing my way and returning to nerdology.

What's interesting is that you point out that you found it easy to understand. That is a clear sign of something that will become a significant part of our civilization. Also being easy to understand means that its a simple idea and as for long time, its been said its the simple ideas that are often the best.

It also shows that technical technology like this isn't that technical yet if we do not think it up, we will never push to try achieve it.

I hope this man develops an actual plane and he gets the respect he deserves.

For now, I have designed paper airplanes and jets that have flown farther than that when I was young. My designs were off topic from what other kids used to make, I was engeneering and testing them. The usually folded airplanes were not very good compared to many of my designs. It was no fun for me to be a parrot in grade school, I actually created my own way to multiply, divide, add, and subtract that I would do in my head quickly. But in school you had to show your work so I would get half credit sometimes, within a few minutes I would have all the answers done and spend twenty minutes trying to show the math, which was extremely frustrating to me. How can a person be cheating if he hands in his paper in five minutes and everyone else hands it in in twenty minutes. I tried it but lost half the credit because I did not show the work and follow the procedure they wanted me to follow. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see you flunk even if you have every answer right in a tenth of the time others do.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

As much like a submarine but in the atmosphere.

Sometimes known as a blimp. But propellers are more efficient, if noisier.

Some of us prefer the term LAV (Lighter than Air Vehicle), or Airship.

And propellers are only efficient up to a certain altitude (around 100K feet, or so, with a specially designed propeller to maintain subsonic tip speeds)

Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) are looking promising for really high altitudes beyond 100KFT.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Archivalist

It is not electrons which provide thrust. It is air molecules. To increase thrust you must increase voltage. It's explained in the article in the OP but here's a visual.

Yes, because voltage sans electrons is the best.

That isnt flying, it’s falling with style!

I’ve seen paper planes go further.

they could turn it by increasing the voltage on one side and have it do circuits.

a reply to: Archivalist

Yes, because voltage sans electrons is the best.

Fine. Use muons for electricity. Good luck with that.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Thanks for posting, what you say is interesting and certainly ties in with speculation over the years that the B2 bomber has benefitted from this type of technology. I'd hazard a guess that the principles of ionocraft have been known for decades and a big budget project could have used them to help with stealth and maybe increase fuel economy - albeit only slightly?

a reply to: dug88

That doesn't look like flight lol
Looks like they threw it with a slingshot and it glided for a bit

a reply to: Archivalist

That's a very cool video thank you!

a reply to: Phage

I am talking about bladder filled airships that are more along the lines of neutral buoyant craft than blimps or aerostats (basically gas filled bags). Bladders are pumped full of helium where they offset the weight in that area. If they want to land, they pump the helium back into the canisters making the craft "heavier" by not balancing the weight out. Kind of how a submarine works. Just in the atmosphere not under water.

They are rigid (or semi-rigid, but those are like blimps with underside cabins) craft, not just a floppy balloon (like the aerostats which are also 100s of bladders of helium) which is where the difference is.

There was one being developed (it seemed about ready to launch) but then it went all quiet like. All I can find
are links to mid-2000s and some of those are now gone (just looked and keep getting 404'd). You know, "craft of the future" news with few details from MSM.

Lockheed's airship is kind of along the lines but it also goes in a different direction (a hybrid blimp/wing-shaped craft with rigid frame but with a huge bladder on top). But what I am referring to is a bit more radical. Airlander 10 has some of this incorporated with different bladders but this craft said, "like a submarine but in the air".

Closest I can find is "vacuum airship" which is more of a dream than reality.

ETA: They are also nothing like ballast tanks on submarines (used for diving and rising). GAH! Wish I could find the link! And yeah, it also used propellers to move around.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

A rigid, or semi-rigid, lighter than airship (LAV) is usually called a “dirigible”.

Dirigibles typically have a rigid framework (typically made of aluminum, though modern designs can benefit from carbon fiber), covered in a lightweight fabric which is tightly stretched to provide a (somewhat more) aerodynamic (low drag) surface. Lift cells containing helium are enclosed within the rigid framework.

Zeppelin is, historically, the most (in)famous dirigible builder.

As to “pumping helium back into canisters” to land; not heard of anyone actually doing that. The nature of helium would, I think, make that process rather problematic to be used inflight.

To provide lift, the helium must be allowed to expand in volume sufficient to displace a volume of air that weighs more than the LAV. That large a volume of helium would have a very low density, making it very difficult to “pump”.

You would also have to compress the gas (usually into a cryogenic liquid) to store the helium in a form as compact as a canister if you are dealing with the amount of gas used by the typical LAV.

That’s a lot of heavy equipment.