Anti-Gravity Airplane,1950s

[hesham]

Hi,

According to what I have found during Internet searches, this "The G-Engines Are Coming" article is a much-sought-
after story.It appeared in the November 1956 issue of Young Men magazine (a 13-month-long title existing between
Air Trails and American Modeler). An article in the October 1958 issue of American Modeler titled "Anti-Grav" referenced this story. Until Mr. Bob Balsie for scanned the pages from his rare copy of the original magazine, it was available
nowhere. Science fiction writers are fascinated with the concept of anti-gravitational devices. More than one false
premises forms the basis of this article, the most notable of which is a claim of the existence of a "g-particle"
(that which is responsible for the gravitational force). Although the postulated possibilities for exploiting the
misconception are fantastic, we now know that only extragalactic beings possess such knowledge.
Do they walk among us? See the true documentary titled Men in Black for the answer.

The G-Engines Are Coming!, November 1956 Young Men

We now know that only extragalactic beings possess such knowledge

www.airplanesandrockets.com

 

[edwest4]

There is an article in the June 1957 issue of Mechanix Illustrated. Titled Conquest of Space: Anti-Gravity: Power of The Future by G. Harry Stine, Chief, Navy Range Operations, White Sands Proving Grounds. He tells readers: "There are many firms working on the problems of anti-gravity -- the Glenn L. Martin Co., Bell Aircraft, General Electric, Sperry-Rand Corp. and others."

 

[Bottleship]

Anti-gravity theme - very old. Concept of L. B. Afanasyev, "Galileo", 1913:

Russian Imperial UFO... (realisation wasn't suggested).
I heard about other idea of anti-gravity apparatus from book of British writer, 1890th.
(OMG, I began to think about battle - Nicolas II on "Galileo" + Britishes on their UFO vs Hitler on "Haunebu"... Brain, why are you doing this to me?)

 

[archipeppe]

Nick Cook built his book "The hunt for Zero point" (2001) around such 1958 A-Grav concept.

 

[Bottleship]

From "Tehnika - molodezhi" magazine, 1938, "Future's airplane", author - Grohovskiy:

"Airplane-shell" with centrifigal engine, to create lift force (anti-gravity?). Speed to 2000 kmph, service ceilling to 100 km.

 

[hesham]

Thank you dear Iron,and I sent it before in Grokhovski topic;

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/various-grokhovski-projects.17629/#post-190923

 

[steelpillow]

More than one false premises forms the basis of this article, the most notable of which is a claim of the existence of a "g-particle"
(that which is responsible for the gravitational force).

Presumably this is the graviton, the theoretical quantization of the very real gravity waves which LIGO recently observed for the first time. Few scientists nowadays believe the graviton to be hypothetical, they just have trouble knowing how to update quantum theory to accommodate it.

But for anti-gravity, the graviton is believed to possess some devastatingly disappointing characteristics. For that we would have to turn to the "dark energy" which is causing the expansion of the Universe to accelerate, and nobody yet has the slightest inkling what the heck is going on there.

Sometimes I have a hard time deciding whether truth or fiction is the stranger.

 

[MigLui]

Quantum field theory dictates than any time you quantize a field, excitations of that field manifest as the bosons of that field. See Quantum electrodynamics with the photon, and Quantum Chromodynamics with the gluon. The graviton would then be a spin=0, massless ( travels at c ) particle which mediates. the gravitational field.
What LIGO found were gravitational waves from the merger of two large Black Holes. The energy released was equivalent to several solar masses, but as the event happened over 2 billion light years away, the interference pattern detected from the quadrupole 'stretching' of the 4 km LIGO arms was microscopic.
Dark energy is equivalent to A Einstein's Cosmological Constant, and could be the result of the slow roll from a false vacuum state of the Universe.
And no there is no anti-gravity.
Gravity is purely attractive, based on the energy-momentum that gives rise to space-time curvature
But it can be counter-acted by other forces ( electromagnetic, buoyant, and for aircraft enthusiasts, differentia air pressure.

 

[Dilandu]

lift force (anti-gravity?).

Nah, just overly optimistic 1938 assumptions of supersonic aerodynamic.

 

[steelpillow]

Quantum field theory dictates than any time you quantize a field, excitations of that field manifest as the bosons of that field. See Quantum electrodynamics with the photon, and Quantum Chromodynamics with the gluon. The graviton would then be a spin=0, massless ( travels at c ) particle which mediates. the gravitational field.
What LIGO found were gravitational waves from the merger of two large Black Holes. The energy released was equivalent to several solar masses, but as the event happened over 2 billion light years away, the interference pattern detected from the quadrupole 'stretching' of the 4 km LIGO arms was microscopic.
Dark energy is equivalent to A Einstein's Cosmological Constant, and could be the result of the slow roll from a false vacuum state of the Universe.
And no there is no anti-gravity.
Gravity is purely attractive, based on the energy-momentum that gives rise to space-time curvature
But it can be counter-acted by other forces ( electromagnetic, buoyant, and for aircraft enthusiasts, differentia air pressure.

The forces of nature are not quite that tidy an a lot of the above is still speculative. It is just too early to rule out novelties, indeed the standard model is at an impasse and physicists are desperate to discover the novelty which will reinvigorate it. There are several bosons which mediate the weak nuclear force and they do have mass; the W+ and W- bosons are each other's antiparticles. Similarly the Higgs boson, carrier of the Higgs field, is massive; on the other hand the Higgs field is scalar, having only magnitude, where all the others are vectors with a direction as well. The cosmological constant is only one proposed source of Dark Energy. It could turn out to be a repulsive gravitational force mediated by a fifth boson or boson family. Anti-particles might be involve; we still know very little about antimatter, for example whether the gravitational force between matter and antimatter is attractive or repulsive. Maybe Dark Energy is an antigraviton (though there are reasons for doubting that).

Then there is the geometry angle. At its heart, General Relativity is a geometrical theory; spacetime is a geometrical surface known as a 4-manifold, mass tells spacetime how to curve, the curvature of spacetime tells mass how to move. Its equations are remarkably similar to those of electromagnetism, so similar that Kaluza-Klein theories add an extra, fifth dimension to General Relativity and electromagnetism simply appears in there as a consequence. Adding in the small-scale forces leads to 10-dimensional string theories, all of which are special cases of 11-dimensional M-theory. Nobody knows how to make these theories work realistically, nor how they might add Dark Energy to the mix. The big problem with Kaluza-Klein is that it predicts a scalar field which we do not see in nature. Although the maths suggests otherwise, I have a secret hope that the answer will involve the discovery, perhaps even via an Einstein-like assumption, that this is no more nor less than the Higgs field.

This strange dichotomy between particles and dimensions to some extent echoes that between the particles and waves of quantum theory, but so far only electromagnetism and the fermions of matter are reasonably comfortable in both camps. Either side, the Great Unknown beckons. There is even a huge anomaly in that the expansion of the Universe requires vast amouts of positive energy to be pouring in from - somewhere. We have absolutely no idea where it is coming from and this constitutes about the most glaring violation imaginable of the law of conservation of energy. With that blown out of the water, pretty much all bets are off and antigravity would be a cheap price to pay for restoring order. One thing we do know, extrapolating "common sense" from today's standard model is the wrong way to go.

 

[uk 75]

The late Syd Mead's fabulous artwork vehicles needed anti-grav to work. Elegant vehicles using this system belong to my childhood like the silver clad operatives on SHADO's moonbase in the 1980 of Gerry Anderson's UFO. Whatever happened to the future? Even John Wyndham and J G Ballard didnt write novels where we all get to keep 2 metres away from one another in a dystopian Britain.

 

[steelpillow]

Well yes, now I come to think about it, personal anti-gravity packs would be a great way to maintain social distancing!

 

[RanulfC]

From "Tehnika - molodezhi" magazine, 1938, "Future's airplane", author - Grohovskiy:
View attachment 630026
"Airplane-shell" with centrifigal engine, to create lift force (anti-gravity?). Speed to 2000 kmph, service ceilling to 100 km.

From the shape fo the vehicle, the fact it's called an "airplane-shell" and the 'landing' facility I suspect it's a ballistic "aircraft" launched from a similar facility and accellerted initially by equipment at the facility using those curved 'hooks' on the ventral and dorsal surface. They'd be used to slow an support the vehicle in the tube on 'landing'. I suspect the "centrifugal engine" is a compressor that would power the array of extnternal 'steering' jets on the side or a propulsion system for the aft aerospike. But that's just a guess based on some other such concepts from the late 40s and early 50s.

The optimism of the initial posted article was because science had explained what caused gravity, (mass) and a concept that was grabbed onto was the idea that gravity bent 'space-time' all lumped with a general concept that if you could have postive and negative electrical force and attractive and repulsive magnetic force then "real soon now' we should discover the particle or mechanism that created gravity, (we had, mass but that's not what the general public or writers wanted but something like a 'graviton)' that could be manipulated to create anti-gravity. This was an extension of the late 19th century assumption that a powerful enough electomagnetic field could be used to 'fly' against the Earth's magnetic field.

Today we've several canidate systems of possiblely genterating or counteracting gravity as suggested by Robert Forward, (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/antigravity.php, specifically "Indistinguishable From Magic" and "The Negative Matter drive essays) but unfortunatly for writers and romantics wanting flying AG-cars and spacecraft it's not likely to be quite that simple or straight forward.

Randy

 

[edwest4]

Gravity occurs due to angular momentum as can be experienced by pilots making rapid up and down maneuvers. The G forces are momentary but blood flow is affected and blackouts can occur. Anti-G gear was being developed during World War II. Another example is the spin of the earth. If it stopped spinning, then what? I recall a photo of von Braun and a few others in an aircraft cabin. Since the aircraft was falling faster than freefall, they were floating in mid-air.

Then there is the work of Thomas Townsend Brown in the 1920s. "How I Control Gravitation" was published in Science & Invention, August, 1929.

 

[steelpillow]

Gravity occurs due to angular momentum as can be experienced by pilots making rapid up and down maneuvers. The G forces are momentary but blood flow is affected and blackouts can occur. Anti-G gear was being developed during World War II. Another example is the spin of the earth. If it stopped spinning, then what? I recall a photo of von Braun and a few others in an aircraft cabin. Since the aircraft was falling faster than freefall, they were floating in mid-air.

Then there is the work of Thomas Townsend Brown in the 1920s. "How I Control Gravitation" was published in Science & Invention, August, 1929.

Sadly the physics there is wall-to-wall rubbish. G-suits do not provide anti-gravity, they are simple variable-pressure suits; some of our members her have no doubt flown in them. If the Earth slowed down gracefully we would notice only that the days were growing longer and going West felt a little "uphill" and "into the wind" until the days stopped altogether; your weight at the poles is very little more than at the equator, the effects of centrifugal force are minimal. Poor Mr Brown never did understand electromagnetics and ion mechanics - any more than most folks here do - and speaking as a sometime plasma control systems engineer (i.e. someone who does understand them, and at a professional level) I feel qualified to make that assurance.

 

[edwest4]

What T.T. Brown observed was electron movement in a capacitor. For some reason, his work 'disappeared' for decades in the open record. I am well aware of what G-suits do.

 

[Dilandu]

From the shape fo the vehicle, the fact it's called an "airplane-shell" and the 'landing' facility I suspect it's a ballistic "aircraft" launched from a similar facility and accellerted initially by equipment at the facility using those curved 'hooks' on the ventral and dorsal surface. They'd be used to slow an support the vehicle in the tube on 'landing'. I suspect the "centrifugal engine" is a compressor that would power the array of extnternal 'steering' jets on the side or a propulsion system for the aft aerospike. But that's just a guess based on some other such concepts from the late 40s and early 50s.

I found this issue; essentially this is the part of general article about "airplanes of the future", in which author envisioned that with the appearance of more capable engines - like jet ones - the wings would become redundant, because the aircraft hull would provide enough lifting force by itself. Nothing ever about anti-gravity; just the more elegant approach to old maxima "with good engine, even a barn could be made to fly".

 

[RanulfC]

From the shape fo the vehicle, the fact it's called an "airplane-shell" and the 'landing' facility I suspect it's a ballistic "aircraft" launched from a similar facility and accellerted initially by equipment at the facility using those curved 'hooks' on the ventral and dorsal surface. They'd be used to slow an support the vehicle in the tube on 'landing'. I suspect the "centrifugal engine" is a compressor that would power the array of extnternal 'steering' jets on the side or a propulsion system for the aft aerospike. But that's just a guess based on some other such concepts from the late 40s and early 50s.

I found this issue; essentially this is the part of general article about "airplanes of the future", in which author envisioned that with the appearance of more capable engines - like jet ones - the wings would become redundant, because the aircraft hull would provide enough lifting force by itself. Nothing ever about anti-gravity; just the more elegant approach to old maxima "with good engine, even a barn could be made to fly".

Ahh but that means you haven't heard about the Schauberger Vortex Engine, (which btw all diagrams of show to be essentially a Condie turbine usually mounted on a submarine but like those who push this lets just ignore that for the momement ) which generates anti-gravity and free-energy, (because why not) that are used in all jet airplanes, (because the engine parts rotate don't you know) which is why they have no fuel in their wings like we're shown, (better to carry chem-trail tanks I suppose) because they don't need fuel, (free energy remember) and anti-gravity provides lift, (why did they need wings again in that case) and it's all a scam to charge us extra money for 'fuel' the airplanes don't even need!

Wait, what what I originally talking about again? Ahh, never mind just keep in mind it proves the Flat Earth or something...

On a more serious note, yes I've seen an F-4 Phantom fly so I agree with enough power anything is possible
This was also essentially the concept behind the various aerodyne jet-lift vehicles but you have to give the author cudos for following the logic to the extent of realizing that as the saying goes "Stopping takes some pre-planning"

Randy

 

[MigLui]

Gravity occurs due to angular momentum

You are on the right track...
The equivalence principle is a direct equivalence between acceleration and gravity ( see A Einstein's elevator gedanken ),except of course, any realistic gravity field has tidal effects.

@steelpillow

W and Z bosons acquired mass via the Higgs mechanism, during the last symmetry break ( fall from a false vacuum energy state ) which directly lead to the separation of the Electroweak force into EM and weak forces ( see 1979 Nobel, awarded to Glashow, Salam and Weinberg ), and the inflation of the Universe from 10^-35 to 10^-32 secs after the Big Bang event ( Guth, 1979 ). The fact they have mass means, in virtual state ( less than a quantum of action ), that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the invariant speed of light, limits their range. That is the reason for the weak interactions of neutrinos.
Anti-matter does not have negative mass. Mass and energy are properties of the system, and related by
E^2 = (Moc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 ( or (fc)^2 instead of (pc)^2 for massless particles )
In the rest frame, this is usually abbreviated to E = Moc^2 since there is no momentum,
such that two energetic photons can convert to a particle-antiparticle pair, and vice versa.

As for M, or Superstring theory, it is a beautiful theory, but may have no application to reality.
Besides I'm a Loop Quantum Gravity physicist ( by education, not career ).

 

[edwest4]

Gravity occurs due to angular momentum

You are on the right track...
The equivalence principle is a direct equivalence between acceleration and gravity ( see A Einstein's elevator gedanken ),except of course, any realistic gravity field has tidal effects.

@steelpillow

W and Z bosons acquired mass via the Higgs mechanism, during the last symmetry break ( fall from a false vacuum energy state ) which directly lead to the separation of the Electroweak force into EM and weak forces ( see 1979 Nobel, awarded to Glashow, Salam and Weinberg ), and the inflation of the Universe from 10^-35 to 10^-32 secs after the Big Bang event ( Guth, 1979 ). The fact they have mass means, in virtual state ( less than a quantum of action ), that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the invariant speed of light, limits their range. That is the reason for the weak interactions of neutrinos.
Anti-matter does not have negative mass. Mass and energy are properties of the system, and related by
E^2 = (Moc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 ( or (fc)^2 instead of (pc)^2 for massless particles )
In the rest frame, this is usually abbreviated to E = Moc^2 since there is no momentum,
such that two energetic photons can convert to a particle-antiparticle pair, and vice versa.

As for M, or Superstring theory, it is a beautiful theory, but may have no application to reality.
Besides I'm a Loop Quantum Gravity physicist ( by education, not career ).

Thank you for your reply. Is there anything to the idea that brief moments of energy can appear in the vacuum of space seemingly from nowhere? I picture a sine wave where the tops appear and the troughs are not visible. The 'tops' represent an energy contribution.

 

[steelpillow]

@steelpillow
Anti-matter does not have negative mass. Mass and energy are properties of the system, and related by
E^2 = (Moc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 ( or (fc)^2 instead of (pc)^2 for massless particles )
In the rest frame, this is usually abbreviated to E = Moc^2 since there is no momentum,
such that two energetic photons can convert to a particle-antiparticle pair, and vice versa.

Thank you for your reminder on the physics of the electroweak force, I am sure we all appreciate its relevance to antigravity.

Yes antimatter has positive mass, but whether it falls downwards or upwards under gravity has yet to be demonstrated. Most assume that it must fall down but there remains a salmon of doubt - the antimatter guys are working on it, you will be glad to hear.

 

[MigLui]

Is there anything to the idea that brief moments of energy can appear in the vacuum of space seemingly from nowhere?

Yes, commonly known as quantum fluctuations, are the result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Observables like position and momentum ( best known example ) follow the relation
delta(x)*delta(p) >=hbar/2
This makes the quantum world decidecly 'fuzzy' as you cannot know position and momentum to any specified degree.

Two other observables, energy and time, follow the same relation.
For a brief instant, a volume of space can 'borrow' energy, but in accordance to the HUP, has to pay it back after the time has elapsed. This accounts for such things as virtual particles ( which mediate forces ), Hawking radiation ( black Hole evaporation mechanism ), and even the possible 'origin' of the Universe.

As antimatter has positive mass, the stress-energy-momentum tensor is the source of the gravitational field, and therefore, attractive, i.e. antimatter falls down, and they make quite a bit of it in accelerators.

 

[edwest4]

Virtual particles which mediate forces. So if one could borrow or use a sufficient amount of these virtual particles for the purpose of propulsion, in a cyclic fashion, perhaps one could get somewhere while repaying the first virtual particles as one accumulates new ones along the way. Perhaps by using a kind of rectenna.

 

[hesham]

RADIO WAVES KEEP AIRSHIP ALOFT (Jan, 1929)

Propellers and engines are not needed to fly the model airship of Bernays Johnson, who is shown with his craft in the photograph at the right. A powerful radio wave which neutralizes the pull of gravity is the force which keeps the ship aloft. Johnson experimented for ten years before he succeeded in discovering the principle of his anti-gravity waves. The ship can be controlled from within itself or from the ground. It was exhibited at the recent Boston radio exposition.

Anther Anti-Gravity older concept.

RADIO WAVES KEEP AIRSHIP ALOFT - Modern Mechanix (Jan, 1929)

blog.modernmechanix.com

 

[RavenOne]

Hi,

According to what I have found during Internet searches, this "The G-Engines Are Coming" article is a much-sought-
after story.It appeared in the November 1956 issue of Young Men magazine (a 13-month-long title existing between
Air Trails and American Modeler). An article in the October 1958 issue of American Modeler titled "Anti-Grav" referenced this story. Until Mr. Bob Balsie for scanned the pages from his rare copy of the original magazine, it was available
nowhere. Science fiction writers are fascinated with the concept of anti-gravitational devices. More than one false
premises forms the basis of this article, the most notable of which is a claim of the existence of a "g-particle"
(that which is responsible for the gravitational force). Although the postulated possibilities for exploiting the
misconception are fantastic, we now know that only extragalactic beings possess such knowledge.
Do they walk among us? See the true documentary titled Men in Black for the answer.

The G-Engines Are Coming!, November 1956 Young Men

We now know that only extragalactic beings possess such knowledge

www.airplanesandrockets.com

Saw that Image referred inNick Cook’s The Hunt For Zero

cheers

 

[steelpillow]

RADIO WAVES KEEP AIRSHIP ALOFT (Jan, 1929)

Thank you Hesham, that looks rather nice. I'd love to know his recipe!

Here is a rather less believable one, linked to from the page which you linked to, I do not know if it has been posted here before:

Strange Lifting Force Used in Novel Airship - Modern Mechanix (Jan, 1931)

How does this airship keep aloft with neither propellers nor lifting gas? It's the strangest craft yet designed to cruise the skies and represents as far a departure from conventional types of aircraft as can be imagined. You'll find this description of the ship fascinating. WHAT is certainly...

blog.modernmechanix.com

 

[Justo Miranda]

Hi,

According to what I have found during Internet searches, this "The G-Engines Are Coming" article is a much-sought-
after story.It appeared in the November 1956 issue of Young Men magazine (a 13-month-long title existing between
Air Trails and American Modeler). An article in the October 1958 issue of American Modeler titled "Anti-Grav" referenced this story. Until Mr. Bob Balsie for scanned the pages from his rare copy of the original magazine, it was available
nowhere. Science fiction writers are fascinated with the concept of anti-gravitational devices. More than one false
premises forms the basis of this article, the most notable of which is a claim of the existence of a "g-particle"
(that which is responsible for the gravitational force). Although the postulated possibilities for exploiting the
misconception are fantastic, we now know that only extragalactic beings possess such knowledge.
Do they walk among us? See the true documentary titled Men in Black for the answer.

The G-Engines Are Coming!, November 1956 Young Men

We now know that only extragalactic beings possess such knowledge

www.airplanesandrockets.com

Hi

 

[steelpillow]

What T.T. Brown observed was electron movement in a capacitor. For some reason, his work 'disappeared' for decades in the open record. I am well aware of what G-suits do.

You are being had for a mug because you want to believe it. You really think nobody competent has checked? The effects he observed in air have indeed been confirmed, but are consistent with known magnetohydrodynamics principles (which he did not understand), while his claimed result in vacuo cannot be replicated despite repeated attempts. His so-called Biefeld-Brown effect demonstrably does not exist.
During and after my time as a plasma systems engineer, I specialised in electromagnetic compatibility (EMC); such anomalous results and mistaken impressions are an everyday hazard of both disciplines and invariably signify a lapse of experimental rigour. The anomalous results are easy to deal with, it is harder to undo the mistaken impressions by a designer or middle manager who is more concerned with reputation and deadlines than engineering reality - or by an enthusiast who wants to believe because.

 

[edwest4]

"... had for a mug" Well, that wasn't very nice.

MIT engineers fly first-ever plane with no moving parts

MIT engineers have flown the first silent, fuel-free “ion plane.” The light aircraft is the first plane to fly with no propellers, turbine blades, or other moving parts.

news.mit.edu

 

[steelpillow]

"... had for a mug" Well, that wasn't very nice.

MIT engineers fly first-ever plane with no moving parts

MIT engineers have flown the first silent, fuel-free “ion plane.” The light aircraft is the first plane to fly with no propellers, turbine blades, or other moving parts.

news.mit.edu

Yes, the MIT EAD Airframe 2 is the first heavier-than-air craft to fly freely under its own power using electrostatic forces to generate a propulsive ion wind. As such it is a staggering achievement. And that is the whole point. No anti-gravity, no Biefeld-Brown effect, no departure from the text books. Just plain old electromagnetics and gas dynamics to provide engine thrust, coupled to a conventional aerofoil wing to provide lift. To believe in the anti-gravity stuff is to be had for a mug, however unpalatable that may feel; there is no way to put it more kindly.

 

[edwest4]

Show me where I wrote "I belive in anti-gravity." I made a reference to the original article T.T. Brown wrote which he titled, "How I Control Gravitation." The anomaly was him falling off the radar for decades.

 

[steelpillow]

Show me where I wrote "I belive in anti-gravity." I made a reference to the original article T.T. Brown wrote which he titled, "How I Control Gravitation." The anomaly was him falling off the radar for decades.

If you don't believe his nonsense, why defend it? The anomaly is that some people's radar is still tuned to him; he should have fallen off permanently.

 

[royabulgaf]

"... had for a mug" Well, that wasn't very nice.

MIT engineers fly first-ever plane with no moving parts

MIT engineers have flown the first silent, fuel-free “ion plane.” The light aircraft is the first plane to fly with no propellers, turbine blades, or other moving parts.

news.mit.edu

Yes, the MIT EAD Airframe 2 is the first heavier-than-air craft to fly freely under its own power using electrostatic forces to generate a propulsive ion wind. As such it is a staggering achievement. And that is the whole point. No anti-gravity, no Biefeld-Brown effect, no departure from the text books. Just plain old electromagnetics and gas dynamics to provide engine thrust, coupled to a conventional aerofoil wing to provide lift. To believe in the anti-gravity stuff is to be had for a mug, however unpalatable that may feel; there is no way to put it more kindly.

Is this something like the Dyson Fan? Is that reallhy scaleable?

 

[drejr]

No, a Dyson fan just uses a hidden rotor.

This ionizes air molecules and accelerates them electromagnetically to create thrust.

I'm not sure this is the first, model ionocraft have been around forever. This might be the first with an onboard power supply.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GijJmIz1G7U

 

[steelpillow]

The ion-propelled aircraft and the Dyson fan have in common an entrainment effect; the propulsive device directly produces a strong acceleration of only a small amount of air. Friction with the surrounding air causes the kinetic energy to spread into it, entraining it to increase the mass flow and hence propulsive efficiency. But the initial propulsive devices are quite different.
The MIT model is the first ion-propelled example ever to achieve free flight, without being tethered to a heavy earthbound power supply.
Attempts to use the Dyson principle go back at least to Henri Coanda's 1910 failure, through to the 1977 Rockwell XFV-12 VTOL jet which fared little better, and I seem to recall someone is currently working up a new project. Still, if Dyson can do it for simple fans, maybe one day someone will get it right on an aeroplane too.
[edit] in fact, given the current vogue for distributed propulsion, a bunch of those oblong Dyson "fans" arrayed all along the upper span of the wing might be a fun project. Stage 2: ion-augmented entrainment!

 

[publiusr]

This might be where JP Aerospace comes into its own. Could an airship/rectenna/ion wind air-warp nacelle be one feather light structure? The rigid airship/rectenna pokes out of the envelope and that is the ion wind-blade…where you induce an airflow around the skin of the feather light envelope…a gentler beamed energy concept than the more violent laser light craft of Leik Myrabo…and or in concert with it and Mr Powell’s ideas? That might be as good as field effect craft ever get. The inflate then becomes part of Space Solar Power structures to beam more energy back to others of its kind for bootstrapping. Here, great amounts of surface area is what you want.

We will never have gravity manip’ That’s closer to Strong Nuclear Force than the electroweak anyway. If “electrogravitics” were a thing…a fop wearing a powdered wig would have found it before any crank did.

 

[steelpillow]

This might be where JP Aerospace comes into its own. Could an airship/rectenna/ion wind air-warp nacelle ...

In a word, no. This is more crankery.

To begin with the aerodynamics; it's all about the lift-drag ratio l/d. A fat gasbag has relatively high drag whatever its speed. The higher you go and the thinner the air, the bigger the bag needs to be and the more drag it creates compared to a small one. The critically significant technical point is that the l/d ratio remains relatively constant. Yes a mile-long gossamer-fine airship can create the usual amount of lift at high altitude, but it also creates the usual amount of drag. You very quickly reach speeds at which the drag is way too strong for an ion engine to overcome, indeed for anything of light enough weight to fit in a gossamer structure to overcome.

Then there is the ion-stream propulsion. I am not clear whether it is intended to be air-breathing (a jet) or an ion rocket. Ion rockets are a relatively mature technology, used on some long-endurance spacecraft. They have very poor thrust-to-weight and are wholly impractical as hypersonic atmosphere engines. Scaling up the power density to something comparable to a combustion engine also scales up the ion density and energy, creating an extremely reactive plasma that quickly corrodes parts of the engine away and/or clogs others up with gunk (this is what makes high-power railguns impractical). The MIT experiment shows clearly that the ion jet engine is no better. In fact it is worse, as the entrainment of air which makes it efficient enough to work at slow speeds also slows down the ion jet, and is thus self-defeating in the quest for hypersonic exhaust speeds.

JP have some interesting technologies for high-altitude "edge of space" aerostats, where they have balloon-lifted satellite-like equipment for folks and flown experimental airships. But their high-speed orbital stuff is just pure hype, there is nothing solid to back it up.

 

[publiusr]

I see. I thought with enough power in a beam you might be able to overcome certain limitations. Say you have a powersat just above the limb of the Earth with a beam corridor that the airship could ride along…smoothing a path for it. A large enough reflector to do an in atom’ solar sail push…maybe ionize the air to help the craft along. I guess that would just generate more heat and more problems…

Now…can you slow an object in space without heating it? A backspun flyby rotovator with a tether to the water surface with a subsurface parachute so that takes the abuse…leaving the flyby craft to heat less on descent. Playing around with how to distribute forces differently *might* give an unexpected breakthrough…

 

[steelpillow]

can you slow an object in space without heating it? A backspun flyby rotovator with a tether to the water surface with a subsurface parachute so that takes the abuse…leaving the flyby craft to heat less on descent. Playing around with how to distribute forces differently *might* give an unexpected breakthrough…

You mean a space tether. See for example Wikipedia's take on it.

 

[robot700]

Hi,

According to what I have found during Internet searches, this "The G-Engines Are Coming" article is a much-sought-
after story.It appeared in the November 1956 issue of Young Men magazine (a 13-month-long title existing between
Air Trails and American Modeler). An article in the October 1958 issue of American Modeler titled "Anti-Grav" referenced this story. Until Mr. Bob Balsie for scanned the pages from his rare copy of the original magazine, it was available
nowhere. Science fiction writers are fascinated with the concept of anti-gravitational devices. More than one false
premises forms the basis of this article, the most notable of which is a claim of the existence of a "g-particle"
(that which is responsible for the gravitational force). Although the postulated possibilities for exploiting the
misconception are fantastic, we now know that only extragalactic beings possess such knowledge.
Do they walk among us? See the true documentary titled Men in Black for the answer.

The G-Engines Are Coming!, November 1956 Young Men

We now know that only extragalactic beings possess such knowledge

www.airplanesandrockets.com

check out this blog page for the full article on the G-Engines Are Coming :

The G-Engines Are Coming!

2002 The Hunt For Zero Point Nick Cook's story starts in 1992, when a photocopy of a 1956 news clipping is left mysteriously on his desk a...

zerohurt.blogspot.com