sk8dad
Concerning powering the craft and the electrical concepts involved, I feel there small clarification is justified. First, voltage value, while necessary for proper corona discharge, isn't the key attribute that determines the thrust estimation. Instead, it's power (aka rate of work). It makes sense when you think that to lift the craft and any payload is the classic example of doing work. In an electrical system, power is defined as voltage times current. Thus, high voltage with little current isn't going to do much work (think static shock). Any EE graduate can design a relatively cheap and lightweight high voltage power supply, but with existing technology, it's unlikely anyone can design one that not only can deliver the kinds of power needed to lift a craft but also carries it's own energy source. What we're talking about is a generator with massive coils and cooling support, powered by (combustion, chemical, nuclear) fuel all being carried by the craft. Secondly, on the issue of radar detection, even if you could completely mask the metallic electrode system (corona wire and anode surface), would be hard to hide the fact that the craft is essentially a wide band RF generator. In other words, the craft is a beacon in the EM wavelengths. You won't even need a radar to spot it. That said, it would be pretty cool to have silent aircraft.
Paul van Dinther
come on. Do us a favor and link to a youtube of a device like that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZy1Aqleno
Gee whiz
Is the author aware of the current state of small fusion power sources i.e. at skunkworks and the University of Washington+NASA?
kayanlau
If the setup creates an electric arc, wouldn't that make ozone? That's considered a detectable emission.
Noel Frothingham
The eddy currents would be fairly easy to detect as well.
Slowburn
re; kayanlau
When operating properly it does not arc.
Dave B13
I had never heard of this before. But I recall seeing an article about similar system of propulsion for submarines involving ions (charged particles) in the mid 1960's, it involved hacking a isolation transformer and then running salwater in a plastic tube through a gap where the transformer laminiations are removed, and watching movement of particles suspended in the water. IMO the maglev trains are a completely different animal, those are more like electric motors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_propulsion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics
Stephen N Russell
Isnt this the basis for those V wing UFOs seen in AZ in 1997? Use this power source??
hec031
Actually this is old news. In fact there have been very detailed studies done on Lifter's, payed for by NASA and published as internal reports. The problem is this kind of research goes through cycles and everyone except for a few of us remember the prior cycle.
The main issue of the Lifter is that, it does not scale well and you loose all your efficiency. Any engineer will tell you that this is a common problem with a lot technologies. They look good in the small scale or in a purely controlled laboratory setting, but try making bigger or take them out of the laboratory and other new factors start taking away all the benefits.
Also a Lifter's ion wind thrust is completely dependant on pressure. As pressure drops (as you gain altitude) efficiency and thrust drop dramatically. It's been a dead end road since day one.
VirtualGathis
It's funny the way they describe the end result sounds remarkably like the Tesla flying ship. It never flew but Tesla's concept describes a vehicle shaped like an elongated ellipsoid, vaguely like a US football, with corrugated skin. I think he wound up with the same issue the article attributes to blocking Electro-Hydro-Dynamic thrust, lack of a sufficiently dense power supply to make it possible. It will be interesting to see what it looks like if anyone ever builds it.