The most profitable option for a new propulsion system? (DEKAIR)

Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by DangerZone, Aug 17, 2019.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Aug 19, 2019 #41

    proppastie

    proppastie

    proppastie

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,651
    Likes Received:
    1,048
    Location:
    NJ
    Well the reports of UFO sightings demonstrate some pretty impressive power capabilities. ....
     
  2. Aug 19, 2019 #42

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,692
    Likes Received:
    4,698
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Similar, but those expel ionic matter for a reaction type thrust, don’t they, thereby setting a thrust time limit according to how much fuel you can carry. The type I was talking about conserves total mass by recapturing the ions with the same collector that is being pulled forward toward those ions. But again, I suspect that this kind of thrust would be counteracted by the need to move charges forward to the emitters.
     
  3. Aug 19, 2019 #43

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,614
    Likes Received:
    436
    Location:
    krakow,poland
  4. Aug 19, 2019 #44

    poormansairforce

    poormansairforce

    poormansairforce

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Just an Ohioan
    Ionic lifters still move air mass to function:
     
  5. Aug 19, 2019 #45

    Sockmonkey

    Sockmonkey

    Sockmonkey

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    430
    Location:
    Flint, Mi, USA
    Regular non-rocket aircraft use the atmosphere as reaction mass. The ionic lifter does the same. It just pushes air with electric charges. In space, the only thing you have to push against is whatever you have with you.
     
  6. Aug 19, 2019 #46

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,692
    Likes Received:
    4,698
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Cool! Just run that thing for long enough to entirely fill up the jar electrons. :p
     
    poormansairforce likes this.
  7. Aug 20, 2019 #47

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,185
    Likes Received:
    1,350
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Very true, but you have to understand the effect of having a Specific Impulse an order of magnitude greater.

    Let's say we want to put my Fly Baby into orbit. We'll assume a 1000-pound weight fully loaded but without fuel.

    Add a hydrazine thruster (Isp ~230) to the tail, and it'll need a fuel tank that carries ~38,000 pounds of propellant.

    Use an ion thruster (Isp ~3000) and the fuel required drops to 320 pounds. Still bigger than the stock ~90 pound capacity, but not outside the realm of possibility....

    [​IMG]

    Ron Wanttaja
     
    Jerry Lytle likes this.
  8. Aug 20, 2019 #48

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,692
    Likes Received:
    4,698
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Sci-Fli Baby.
     
    akwrencher likes this.
  9. Aug 20, 2019 #49

    Speedboat100

    Speedboat100

    Speedboat100

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2018
    Messages:
    541
    Likes Received:
    38
    Location:
    Europe

    What if you throw something sleeker into the air...with a simple throwing machine..like supersized catapult that accelerates the object to M3 at high altitude where the air in thin...like Himalayas ? This is the most asked question in the NASA space flight forum.
     
  10. Aug 20, 2019 #50

    Sockmonkey

    Sockmonkey

    Sockmonkey

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    430
    Location:
    Flint, Mi, USA
  11. Aug 21, 2019 #51

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    369
    Location:
    Zagreb HR
    Ion thrusters and ionic drives exist for quite some time, yet they either permanently lose the ions and matter or ions and electrons. Most flying models usually use air or a combination of air and water to gain additional thrust. These are reactive drives, they use action and reaction.

    There are also systems which instead of collecting ions at the tail which were used at the nose - simply create an open loop. These are usually based on oscillators, so that every new pulse is added to the previous one. This allows acceleration, which is then only reduced by friction or drag.

    The DEKAIR does not lose any mass, ions or electrons in the process. It is a closed loop system. The only losses are due to electric resistance and magnetic reluctance which turn to some heat. Let us skip the technical part and get to the topic, which is asking about how to maximize profit out of it.

    Bear in mind that this is a hypothetical question which asks about the best options, about what would you guys do to make this system profitable. This could be beyond making a homebuilt aircraft/spacecraft, because such a system would be too problematic to build without full support.

    Propulsion of larger ships (about 200m) would need a huge source of electric energy, just like submarines or aircraft carriers. Hence the most logic powerplant would be nuclear, and this limits the system to countries which already have the ability to produce nuclear submarines and carriers (as in EU and USA).

    Would four ships be adequate? One run by NASA/USAF, one by ESA and a multinational team, and two private ships for commercial spaceflight to get the invested money back. I could get a percentage from touristic spaceflight for the next 20 years or so after the initial amount for the contracted TOT.

    Each of the four ships would have four SSTO aircraft, which could operate remote controlled as a drone or piloted by one or two pilots. The Space Shuttle was made in four examples, in case one would have some issues. This could also help the mission to Mars, if one ship gets struck by micrometeorites beyond repair.

    That was like one general idea how this could be made profitable. An initial amount of personal money for the TOT, an initial sum to organize building the ships step by step, and then a percentage of every ticket on the ships, to get a cut/percentage for every dollar of profit of those to whom I sold the technology.

    This would cost a lot of money, billions. Hence it seems the only way to make it happen is step by step. What other better options would there be?
     
  12. Aug 21, 2019 #52

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    369
    Location:
    Zagreb HR
    It needs a very high velocity to stay in orbit, it is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity.

    This means it should fly faster than 11.2 million meters per second. Just to get a perspective, an average homebuilt aircraft flys at 50 meters per second. Hence a catapult would not be practical.
     
  13. Aug 21, 2019 #53

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,185
    Likes Received:
    1,350
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Um...if you're talking Earth, that escape velocity looks a tad high.

    A catapult would help, since every meter/second it gives you is one your onboard engine doesn't have to generate.

    However, there are practical considerations. Using one for direct ascent to escape would require a very deep tube or incredible accelerations. using it for LEO insertion would require with a a very long, almost horizontal tube or again, massive Gs.

    Again, though, a shorter tube could gain a percentage of escape.

    Ron Wanttaja
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
  14. Aug 21, 2019 #54

    Sockmonkey

    Sockmonkey

    Sockmonkey

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    430
    Location:
    Flint, Mi, USA
    It's most understandable to just refer to the velocity as seven miles per second.
     
  15. Aug 21, 2019 #55

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,185
    Likes Received:
    1,350
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    NOT to mention that the vehicle would instantly incinerate, emerging at Mach 25 at 30,000 feet....

    Ron Wanttaja
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
  16. Aug 21, 2019 #56

    Speedboat100

    Speedboat100

    Speedboat100

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2018
    Messages:
    541
    Likes Received:
    38
    Location:
    Europe

    No **** sherlock...I mean much sleeker than a homebuilt.
     
  17. Aug 21, 2019 #57

    Speedboat100

    Speedboat100

    Speedboat100

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2018
    Messages:
    541
    Likes Received:
    38
    Location:
    Europe
    You would only need 900 km/h initial speed ( 300 m/s ) to be able build an SSTO. Nasa has studied that in the MAGLIFTER study..way back when.
     
  18. Aug 21, 2019 #58

    Marc Zeitlin

    Marc Zeitlin

    Marc Zeitlin

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2015
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    613
    Location:
    Tehachapi, CA
    Having worked for Henry Kolm, the inventor of the maglev train, on my Master's thesis (Design, Construction and Testing of an Electromagnetically Launched Model Glider - we were building the prototypes [back in 1981] of what eventually has turned into the EM catapult on aircraft carriers) we discussed (and other folks did a bunch of analysis) throwing stuff into orbit from a long EM railgun launcher, pointed up the side of Mt. Kilimanjaro, or something similar. Turns out that while you obviously can't launch people at 25 - 50 G's, the analysis showed that you can throw a telephone pole sized payload (maybe larger) into orbit and get about a 95% payload mass fraction - 5% is burned off as an ablative nose cone, but the rest survives. So it's THEORETICALLY possible to chuck stuff into orbit via ground based acceleration. Obviously, in the past 38 years since, no one has done it.
     
    Aesquire likes this.
  19. Aug 22, 2019 #59

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    912
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    If you invented Dekair, there would be a race among governments to murder you.

    This is not paranoia, DEKAIR is the greatest threat to mankind since the Atom Bomb. Greatest threat to governments since gunpowder, greatest invention since fission reactors & greatest hope for the preservation of humanity.

    It is, a "reactionless drive". Power in, thrust out, no reaction mass thrown away. See the Project Rho website on that.

    "Friends don't let friends build reactionless drives! "

    as to the physics. Your imaginary DEKAIR is a very powerful drive, being able to push over it's own mass. Thus you can fly from Earth surface to interstellar space. One G, as noted above, contiinuous, no fuel restrictions, allows rapid, relativistic interstellar travel. Makes a Mars colony cheap & easy. You do need a power source that has a lot of power, since the same amount of energy is needed to lift a mass as a rocket. A few percent efficiency difference is ignorable, you want to lift a Saturn V mass to orbit? You need Saturn V power.

    A lot of physics majors will argue the existence of any reaction drive breaks The Laws. That may be true, but for sake of argument, we'll allow a loophole. But otherwise we won't allow perpetual motion machines, free energy, or wish drives.

    So why are you marked for murder? Because a DEKAIR powered craft can be used as a kinetic energy weapon. Fly your DEKAIR minivan out past Saturn, slingshot around Neptune, and return to Earth at relativistic speeds and you have a nigh unlimited yield impact up to creating a new asteroid belt.

    The same tech that can give us the stars and preserve the species by putting our eggs in more than one basket, also lets you smash baskets.

    That's one reason the EM drive is both anticipated and feared. Never mind rewriting the textbooks. Even if you can only push 1/1000 of 1 G with a 1000 pound probe powered by a radio isotope generator, you've got the fastest human made object and the deadliest weapon.

    But. That's not your only question. How to profit? Skipping blackmail and other unethical behavior, I'd look to Robert Heinlein's story of the inventor of the "Shipstone". A technobabble ( fictional) high energy battery that would make electric airliners practical. ( & much else! ) His wife realized that his life work was a massively destabilizing invention, much as DEKAIR is. So instead of patenting it, allowing everyone to steal it, ( Chinese copies! ) she proposed building it as a monopoly, with a very nastily boobytrapped casing that would self destruct the battery and the lab trying to break into It's secrets. There is further detail on personnel selection and corporate culture, that will horrify Choppergirl Naturally, a Master of science fiction tells the story better than I do. Go read it.
     
    DangerZone likes this.
  20. Aug 22, 2019 #60

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    912
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    DangerZone likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

arrow_white