originally posted by: Blackfinger
Yeah power to weight ratio is still too far off.
That's what I thought too, but even so I must say if their demo video isn't faked, it's the
first time I've ever seen an ionic lifter lift its own power supply. That seem impressive to me that they were able to do that.
Having been favorably impressed by that feat which I didn't expect to see, the demo video was still very disappointing.
While it did lift its own power supply, it seemed like just barely, and the flight was very unstable, wobbly, and very short, only lasting some
So it looked to be very, very far away from being able to be used to deliver packages commercially. It will need to be able to lift not only itself,
but also the weight of a package and that demo unit doesn't look like it could get off the ground with a package. It will also need longer flight time
(meaning bigger, heavier battery, so even more weight). I'm not too optimistic.
Another issue is the 40 thousand volt difference between positive and negative electrodes. You can't leave those exposed where someone might
accidentally touch them, so whatever the engineers use to try to shield people from that 40,000 volts would add even more weight. It seems pretty
exposed in the demo video but I didn't see any people in that.
originally posted by: pteridine
How much ionized air would have to be generated to get significant lift? If it is all the same polarity, it should be self repelling and we should be
able to smell ozone when a package is delivered. Without standardization of polarity, what would happen if a Posidrone and a Negadrone crossed paths?
Imagine exhaust from one entering the ionizer of the other. Loss of propulsion? Electric trauma?
Air is primarily Nitrogen, so the majority of
the propulsion will result from ion wind generated from positively charged Nitrogen ions (cations) flowing from the positive to the negative
electrode(s) (plus some other cations made of air molecules).
I'm not sure how you would reverse the polarity. They already have one electrode at +20kV and the other electrode at -20kV. If the electrodes were
symmetrical, then reversing that potential would just reverse the direction of ion flow, which would make the ionic wind flow up instead of down.
Ionic wind flowing down is generating lift, Ionic wind flowing up would make it crash into the ground. I'm not familiar with the electrode design on
this Florida company's unit but usually the positive and negative electrodes of ion wind devices are not symmetricly shaped, one has a sharp edge and
the other a smooth edge. In this case I think it's inefficient to try to create ion wind with reverse polarity. See this circuit diagram of a typical
ion wind device:
How ion propulsion works
If you reverse the polarity on that power supply, then the right electrode will be positively charged, and it will attempt to generate positive ions,
but I think it would be very inefficient at doing so. I also think the sharp left electrode would not function efficiently because it would tend to
attract all the ions toward the sharp point, which is exactly what you don't want when you're trying to generate ion wind, it needs to be spread out a
bit. I think the reason the left side gets the positive charge is that the sharp edge is more efficient at generating the positive ions, and the
smooth edge is what you want to spread out the ion wind a bit. So the design illustrated wouldn't work well with reverse polarity, those electrode
shapes are associated with that polarity for specific reasons.
By the way, are you the same guy I remember who thought the e-cat wasn't a hoax? Have you figured that out yet, or am I thinking of someone else?
edit on 2020124 by Arbitrageur because: clarification