3 ms·
https://youtu.be/boB6qu5dcCw?t=128 https://youtu.be/boB6qu5dcCw?t=128 >But it is not a viable propulsion source. At least not on Earth for things larger than a
by hnphillipj 8y ago
https://youtu.be/boB6qu5dcCw?t=128 https://youtu.be/boB6qu5dcCw?t=128
>But it is not a viable propulsion source. At least not on Earth for things larger than a meter or so.
It's 5m wide
- superkuh 8y agoThanks for providing that. It does prove my point though. That plane is not flying at all. It is falling with style. The initial forward momentum is from the launch rail, not from the electrostatic propulsion.
- hnphillipj 8y agohttps://sci-hub.tw/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0707-9 https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-01... see the top of page 534, figure b. You are correct that the initial forward momentum is from the launch rail, but the graph clearly shows that the ion engine provides thrust. Is the title of the HN submission misleading? Yes. Did the plane achieve flight with the ion engine alone? No. Was the plane able to maintain and gain altitude because of the ion engine? Yes. A step forward in the right direction but not as much of a breakthrough as the submission title would have you think. >As far as I can tell it doesn't exist outside of the person's mind. Based brah. I'm being serious when I say that I think HN needs more of this type of comment. They seem to love rigidity in comments, but not any bluntness or banter thrown in there.
- erbium 8y agoNice work finding the paper.
- Junk_Collector 8y agoThanks for finding the paper. Sucking almost 3A out of the battery, it's not going to fly very long, but that's also a fairly inefficient power converter design. There is lots of room for improvement.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]