Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
thrust [2012/11/27 14:25] zashi created |
thrust [2015/05/18 12:46] (current) zashi |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | ====== Thrust ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | I'm quite interested in various methods of propulsion. There are drawbacks and benefits to all conventional forms of propulsion. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This page serves are a scratch board for my various ideas, no matter how dumb or trite. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Em Drive ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | So it's possible (?) to generate thrust using a microwaves from a magentron. Something like 10,000 Watts can produce 6 N of thrust. This merits more examination and possible experimentation. NASA is currently researching this and trying to determine how the trust is actually being generated. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Ionized Air ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Thrusters under this heading combine so sort of air source and ions to generate thrust. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Compressed air tank + Ionizer ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Use a tank of compressed as air source. Accelerate this air via ionizer. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Pros === | ||
+ | * no moving parts | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Cons === | ||
+ | * Tank has limited operation time | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Air Compressor + Ionizer ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Use a turbine-style compressor as the air source, however rather than combine with fuel and burn, the combustion chamber is replaced with an ionization chamber. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Pros === | ||
+ | * No "fuel" save for electricity | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Cons === | ||
+ | * fast moving, complex parts | ||