Lehpron From United States, joined Jul 2001, 7027 posts, RR: 18 Posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1623 times:
This post was inspired by the nuclear/solar thread, the contents were inspired by that SharperImage device the Ionic Breeze back in 2001. I'm just spitting this out now cuz 1) I doubt I'll build it and 2) someone else has got to have thought of it. If you scratch my back...?
IMO, either source nuclear/solar can make electricity and thus power an electric propulsion system. I'm not implying motors though. I'm thinking of ionized air through a magnetic field.
It would basically be a tube with a magnetic solenoid wraped around it and at both ends would be screens that charge and cancel the air as it passed. My guess was at the time was that a chemical solution would be sprayed/mistified into the air at the inlet, interacts with the positively charged bow screen, gets accelerated by the mag field and cancels it's charge in a negatively charged tailpipe screen. Through inertia the mag field would 'suck' air into the system and 'pump' air out the back -- a jet engine's principle, except NO detectable polutants! Imagine the noise reduction! Imagine that maintanence may take hours, that sucking in birds that may not die, well maybe severely brain damaged...
I thought there was the off chance that a bit of ionized gas got out and had harmful effects. I was thinking of aluminum oxide based soln, but then found out about it's relation to Alzhimer's, I posted in the Non-aviation forum like 3 years ago.
Ion Breeze works is because the positive and negative plates are close enough to charge the particles in the air, that when they cancel, they collect the particles as dust'n stuff. A jet version would collect soot, dust, anything; inaddition to the fact that the charged screens/plates are 10 feet or more apart. That's was why I thought of a chemical solution.
The way the system would operate would be by recycling it's own chemical solution, re charging it and accelerating it as it went. It just needs electric power, I thought.
Anyway, I had though this platform would be perfect to transistion to ramjet for high speed using conventional hydrocarbons, or staying electic for subsonic flight. I think my initial estimates were such that the permeability for the ferromagnetic material that the solenoid was to be made of simply do not exist yet. We'd need something with a constant on the order of 750,000+, that way the current running through the wires can provide enough mag field strength to sustain a cruise without overheating the wires.
The stronger the mag field, the greater the thurst; the change in pressure of the air comes from accelerating the air itself.
I used to have a class on material science, in the text the highest permeability constant attained was 66,000. It was copywritten in 1996 for reference.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
VirginFlyer From Australia, joined Sep 2000, 3716 posts, RR: 45 Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1614 times:
I'm not certain if I completely understand your concept, but the ion engines proposed for spacecraft all have a very low thrust output, and thus all produce very low accelerations. The key advantage to them is that they can operate over a long period of time, meaning that although the acceleration is slow, a high speed is eventually achieved. Unfortunately an aircraft needs pretty much the opposite - they have to accelrate fairly fast so they can reach a flying speed, but there is not a need for a constant accelleration over a long period of time.
Are you proposing some sort of compression of the air, or is this simply relying on acclerating mass through the engine? Would your engine concept be able to deliver the sort of acceleration required for aircraft? Would the magnetic fields generated interfere with communication and navigation equipment, or for that matter could they be harmful to the occupants of the aircraft?
Don't get me wrong, it sounds like an interesting concept, but I feel that out of everything proposed to date, the gas turbine engine still represents the best method of aircraft propulsion.
V/F
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large. Then make the dream real. - Donald Douglas Snr
MrChips From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 651 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1576 times:
Lehpron is thinking of something like magnetohydrodynamics, in which the medium around the vehicle is given a charge, and the other end of the vehicle is oppositely charged. The medium then is accelerated towards the other end, providing thrust.
Theoretically, it is possible to do this. Japanese researchers have already made an MHD-powered ship.
Some major problems will crop up with this idea, however:
1) Efficiency - the MHD ship, even though it had the same installed gas-turbine derived horsepower as a small destroyer, was only able to make about 8 knots. If it was running conventional screws, 30-35 knots would have been achievable. Since air is 760 times less dense than water, you need that much more power.
2) Scale of power generation - as mentioned above, the amount of power needed to make MHD propulsion possible is enormous - it would weigh many times more than the jet fuel and engines of today's aircraft. Even with the advent of practical superconductors, we would still have problems with both generating power and distributing it efficiently.
3) EM Signature - If used in a military application, MHD would render stealth technologies useless. Why hide the aircraft if it's miles-long wake of electrically-charged air is visible on radar?
DArnoldy From United States, joined Apr 2005, 5 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1474 times:
I don't know a whole lot about all of this as I have only just graduated high school, though I am looking into aerospace engineering at the University of Arizona next year. Anyway, the concept sounds interesting. The only thought I had was related to your ramjet idea. How about using this is as starter or even as a little extra compression boost while in flight for a subsonic ramjet. Or conversely, maybe this concept could be used backwards as an aid in slowing down supersonic flows entering either a ramjet or a traditional turbine engine on supersonic aircraft. Again my knowledge is very limited on all of this and I only know what of read on my own outside of school, here on airliners.net, around the web, and an occasional book..
by the way lephron, ive noticed your interest in transonic/supersonic studies and wing designs and the like, and I think it's all very interesting. I have a particular curiosity in that area of aerodynamics as well, but im just gettin started.. from the sound of it you're pretty far along
Lehpron From United States, joined Jul 2001, 7027 posts, RR: 18 Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1358 times:
I gotta find that old pix I made.
Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 1): Are you proposing some sort of compression of the air, or is this simply relying on acclerating mass through the engine? Would your engine concept be able to deliver the sort of acceleration required for aircraft? Would the magnetic fields generated interfere with communication and navigation equipment, or for that matter could they be harmful to the occupants of the aircraft?
Air is set acharge at the reference inlet.
This charged air is accelerated by a magfield.
As the charged air reaches the exit it is decharged.
There is still a flux of airflow both entering and leaving the engine, hence thrust.
Note the first step; The ionic Breeze product does this with an electrical field and it's neg-pos plates are close together. With this concept, I replaced the eletrical fields with magnetic fields due to the "plates" being some greater distance than a few milimeters. As for charging the air, I donno how to do that. I thought at the time that if I spray a chemical solution of ions into the air just in front of the inlet, the mag field would draw them in dragging the air flow with it. The mag field and chem spray functioned as a compressor would. But there is no combustion, the particles in the air would be dragged all the way to the end where either the charge is cancelled or that another chem solution of anions cancels the charge as it leaves the engine. I don't want a trail of ions in the back, I don't think that is safe.
The chemical spray situation I've always had a problem with. I have even thought ot sraping hydroxide in such that while it decays into water and oxygen, ther may be enough time in between such that the mag field can still draw the ions and anions to accelerate the whole crap out the back. Hopefully it would cancel its own charge out.
Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 1): but I feel that out of everything proposed to date, the gas turbine engine still represents the best method of aircraft propulsion
Gotta give the modern business industry credit, they will not even invest is anything that doesn't give them the highest RoI, nobody likes risks afterall.
Quoting MrChips (Reply 2): Lehpron is thinking of something like magnetohydrodynamics, in which the medium around the vehicle is given a charge, and the other end of the vehicle is oppositely charged. The medium then is accelerated towards the other end, providing thrust.
Theoretically, it is possible to do this. Japanese researchers have already made an MHD-powered ship.
I think I read the PopSci report from like the Early 90's but I didn't understand it then. Probably don't understand it now either...
Quoting DArnoldy (Reply 3): only thought I had was related to your ramjet idea. How about using this is as starter or even as a little extra compression boost while in flight for a subsonic ramjet.
Yeah that's kinda what I thought. Ramjets work by slowing the air to subsonic speeds, but at a high density by slowing it. Technically, ramjets can work around 300kts but they need more oxygen than is provided, hence very low thrusts, you probably won't even get to 100knots. At zero there is no thrust. Well, what about pulsejets? The V1 'buzz bomb' from the WW2 era launch by Nazi Germany was running on jets before there were jet airplanes!
Anyway, they operate like 4-cycle engines in cars than turbines. Theoretically, they have the ablility to provide twice the thrust for the same fuel burn or same thrust for half the fuel -- that is why I think they should be a candidate for very cheap SST's of the future, especially with oils prices so high now. I don't consider turbine jet engines anymore, that's what I have been saying round here. On top of that, pulsejets can transistion to hypersonic, another candidate, again in theory. Officially there are no projects involving an airbreathing pulsjet. I've only read about pulserockets for space, the same fuel burn theory applies but more investment goes to space projects to make them cheaper. If you have an interest in advanced propulsion concepts not astronautics related, look into "Pulse Detonation Wave Engines, and the like.
I have an engine, the design has been fluid, not yet froze, so to speak.
Quoting DArnoldy (Reply 3): y the way lephron, ive noticed your interest in transonic/supersonic studies and wing designs and the like, and I think it's all very interesting. I have a particular curiosity in that area of aerodynamics as well, but im just gettin started. from the sound of it you're pretty far along
My website has not been updated in years, in it when I first came to this aviation network, I openly challenged the Boeing Sonic Cruiser's design and purpose. Thesedays, if I wanted to remake a 'sonic cruiser' it would probably end up looking like that. www.lehpron.homestead.com/two.html
Please note, like I have said before, I have a passion for anything super/hypersonic, my school has not taught me this. There's 3 meanings in that, I'll leave that to you. Good luck with you're college years, I'll see you in the industry...
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Stirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 25 Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1079 times:
Lehpron-
I've been reading up on the Romanian inventor Henri Coanda (more on him in a bit), and something Gustav Eiffel said about him might very well apply to you and your theory:
"'This boy should have been born 30 years later!"
Henri Marie Coanda developed the world's first "Jet" Engine. I use the word "Jet" because for 1910, his propulsion system; sans propellor, was something of science fiction. The "Air-Reactive" engined aircraft flew but only once, and was forgotten....for 30 years.
While Dr. Hans von Ohain and Sir Frank Whittle are generally considered as the fathers of jet propulsion, it was Coanda who put an aircraft without propellors into the sky first...in December 1910.
Lehpron keep thinking...you never know where it might lead!
TheCoz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 886 times:
I'd think an engine that creates such a strong magnetic field may adversely affect the nav equipment, specifically your compass heading. Wouldn't you think?
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 868 times:
Quoting TheCoz (Reply 6): I'd think an engine that creates such a strong magnetic field may adversely affect the nav equipment, specifically your compass heading. Wouldn't you think?
depends on how the field is managed.
I've no doubt that MHD is much more advanced within the 'black projects' field, as it would be a huge improvement over current Stealth if the noise and heat plume of a jet engine could be almost totally replaced.
Using strong magnetic fields is also a project in which spacecraft research is interested, as a possible system to deflect incoming ionised particles from the sun and deep space for long endurance missions with crews.
There was huge speculation from many black project watchers that the B-2 used MHD to increase its range and reduce any footprint it leaves. Somehow I doubt that a sufficiently powerful electrical source exists for the sort of arrangement that was alleged. Not at the moment anyway.
What we need today is another Tesla, who thought outside the box on electricity and magnetism. He was way ahead of his time. Today he would be sat in a laboratory at the Skunk Works or BAe Warton, on a fat salary.
Lehpron From United States, joined Jul 2001, 7027 posts, RR: 18 Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 866 times:
Quoting TheCoz (Reply 6): I'd think an engine that creates such a strong magnetic field may adversely affect the nav equipment, specifically your compass heading. Wouldn't you think?
I would think that this application would require specially sheilded equiment. Similar technology to magnetically sheilded computer speakers...:D
From what I remember from physics, the magnetic field strength drops like gravity, per radius squared. It should be concentrated mainly within the engine cavity. Of course, I am assuming such equipment is nowhere near the engines. But the magnetic field is not what worries me, neither are the possibilites of ionicly charged air escaping containment. I worry about the vast amounts of electrical engery required to run this.
Did you know RR makes versions of their Trent 800 turbofan engine specifically modifed as portable emergency electrical generators? From a picture I saw, it looked as if they removes the large fan and stuck a generator on it. Unlike brick and mortar power plants, these things start up within mintues and can produce in the range of 150 Megawatts. That is from a hydrocarbon burn of approximately 30% efficiency. All I can say is Gawd Dame.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Some of them are not only proposed but already in use. The communications satellite I use has XIPS (Xenon-Ion Propulsion System) thrusters in lieu of traditional rocket engines. As VirginFlyer said, they produce substantially less thrust than conventional engines, but since they only require electrical energy as input, they are a smart choice for solar-powered space vehicles. From what I know about XIPS technology today, I doubt we'll see them on airliners any time soon.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Jul 2001, 7027 posts, 
From Australia, joined Sep 2000, 3716 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 651 posts, 
Thesedays, if I wanted to remake a 'sonic cruiser' it would probably end up looking like that. 
From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format
