Talk:Ion-propelled aircraft

message: Seems to me this would be a good way of using some old-school Teslian technology and combining it with these Ionocraft devices to produce, say, a platform that could be able to resist gravity within a whole room/area.
Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.121.129 (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wireless transmission of electricity + Ionocraft = actual 'antigravity' frictionless movement devices?? 

message: This recent link to a video of TT Brown working with a large bell jar vacuum chamber is a historically important document that Brown did indeed work with vacuum chambers.  Further, as the film makes the point, why would TT Brown and his associates be celebrating with champaing in the video unless an electrogravitic effect had not been demonstrated in vacuum.  Please see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp4hygoD3RU
: Nice soundtrack.  Very scientific. — Omegatron 02:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for this rare video file. It seems clear that they are celebrating a positive result of electrogravitic effect under vacuum, but their vacuum is questionable since when the test is replicated with today's vacuum equipment, null results are always obtained. I have been personally involved in a similar experiment which was originally aimed at proving Brown's work right. As it turned out, the 'electrogravitic force' starts to reduce very fast when air is pumped out of the chamber. At vacuum levels close to the discharge region, see the curve at:
http://blazelabs.com/l-vacuum.asp
the force is much reduced but still measurable. Within the discharge region, the device is inoperable due to high currents which usually result in plasma generation. If one goes to lower vacuum levels at 3.75E-5 Torr, the force effect is totally nullified. The only forces which could be detected are sideways electrostatic attractions towards the chamber itself. Unfortunately, we have no records showing Brown's 'strict conditions' of the above mentioned video, in particular his vacuum level, but following the failure to replicate TT Browns results under the hardest vacuum levels achievable today, leads one to conclude that either Browns setup offered electrostatic attraction between the test device and the surroundings, or that his vacuum contained enough air molecules to generate the measured thrust. The replication of this experiment also gave negative results for NASA. Read Clive Thompson report on his visit to their facility:
http://blazelabs.com/nasatest.pdf
The only force generated at hard vacuum levels and tens of kilovolts can be explained in terms of radiation pressure, due to X-ray radiation from the target surfaces, which is usually so small as to require special experimental setups to detect its presence, but still, this is not electrogravity.
If anybody can ever get positive electrogravitic results under todays strict vacuum conditions, it will be really fantastic, even though, the force will be useless for most practical purposes, but it's quite unlikely to happen. - Blaze Labs Research 18:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bahnson Video on Google Video Shows TT Brown's Work in Vacuum 

message: : Incidentally, they claim the grid of electrodes would be less susceptible to damage, comparing it to broken helicopter blades, but wouldn't an aircraft like this be trivial to knock down by shooting conductive strings at it?  Carbon fiber bombs were supposedly used to short out power plants and substations in Iraq.  — Omegatron 15:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; a UV laser could be much better at shorting out the electrodes and shooting down the aircraft.  ;-) — Omegatron 13:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You must have really impressive warrior skills :-) - Blaze Labs Research 16:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In real life, of course, they'd just use the same missiles they use to hit jets.  Yeah, maybe a bullet would slip through the electrodes with no problem, but it would slip through the rotors of a helicopter, too.  The problem is when an guided missile explodes in the general vicinity of the cockpit or power source.  Electrode arrays instead of rotors aren't going to help much.  But this is all besides the point.  Back to the article. — Omegatron 17:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shooting down and Ionocraft 

message: It's a decent article, but needs to be rearranged and re-sectioned.  The sections have too broad headings, and overlap in content.  There's not even a mention of the vacuum controversy.  NASA explains as follows:
His report
is the only written report we have found from the last half-century that describes a measurement
of a force while in a vacuum chamber. Talley ultimately attributed the force that he observed to
the electrostatic interaction between the chamber and the device. Talley wrote, “Direct
experimental results show that under high vacuum conditions… no detectable propulsive force
was electrostatically induced by applying a static potential difference… between test device
electrodes…” Talley concluded (page 91 of his report5), “If such a force still exists and lies
below the threshold of measurements in this program, then the force may be too small to be
attractive for many, if not most, space propulsion applications.”
----
Coronal Blowers
There are many variants of the original patent where high-voltage capacitors create
thrust, many of which claim that the thrust is a new effect akin to antigravity.
These go by such terms as: Biefeld–Brown effect, lifters, electrostatic antigravity,
electrogravity, and asymmetric capacitors. To date, all rigorous experimental tests
indicate that the observed thrust is attributable to coronal wind. Quoting from
one such finding: “… their operation is fully explained by a very simple theory that
uses only electrostatic forces and the transfer of momentum by multiple collisions
[with air molecules].”
— Omegatron 20:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: This page needs a history section (instead of a list of patents).   Include T. T. Brown, De Seversky, Naudin, etc.  — Omegatron 13:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History & Patents

message: How can this artikle be in both "russian invention" and "american inventions" categories?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.248.181.67 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  russian or american invention? 

message: Can anyone enlighten me as to why there's so little mention of the Biefeld–Brown effect in this article? I remember years ago being fascinated by lifters and searching around the internet for info, and everything I read pointed to Biefeld–Brown as the description of why these things float. Most lifter sites, including the French one that comes up most prominently (with the 250 gram lifter, ), says right at the top of the page, "The Lifter uses the Biefeld-Brown effect discovered by Thomas Townsend Brown in 1928." Similarly I think the lead section of this article should make prominent mention of that effect. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed how old the other comments on this page are. I'm gonna make the edits myself -- feel free to comment here on this though. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't that already implied by "electrohydrodynamic device"?  Now it's redundant. — Omegatron (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biefeld–Brown? 

message: Having watched a quite few episodes of this Discovery Channel series I am of the opinion that the "tests" performed on this show is of little to no scientific value and certainly should not merit mentioning in a Wikipedia article as evidence for or against anything. The only mention these experiments deserve in my view is together with other appearances in popular media. It should be removed from the lead section of the present article, __meco (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Before reading this discussion page, I found myself reacting negatively to the reference to an episode Mythbusters in this article.  I have nothing against the show, and I think it's wonderful that it promotes healthy skepticism and empiricism, but it seems a bit distracting to include it here.  I'm likely to delete this section soon, but of course I'm willing to see someone else improve it or persuasively argue for its retention here.  CosineKitty (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythbusters 

message: I think the definition of "beamship" given here ('due to it being constructed from "beams" of balsa wood') is a little dubious. Beamship is a term that has been floating around UFO circles for a long, long time. Billy Meier refers repeatedly to Pleiadean Beamships in his writings and interviews and the word has almost become a synonym for "UFO" or "flying saucer". By his description, a beam is a mode of conveyance and is also used as a verb to describe being conveyed by such, apparently much like Star Trek's "Beam Me Up, Scotty" transporter beam. The term could go back even further to Edgar Cayce's Atlantis readings where he describes aircraft and ships powered by beams of energy originating from a central power station. I think it is significant that these lifters are also powered remotely and are steeped in UFO lore, which seems to me a more likely reason for the choice of the name. A citation is needed in any event. Xot (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beamships 

message: "Much like a rocket or a jet engine (it can actually be much more thrust efficient than a jet engine[1])."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.201.161.119 (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole claim is BS. I have replaced is by a verifiable statement of quite the opposite. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent Clause 

message: Please inform yourself before you can post world wide !!! Lifters was tested by NASA in full vacuum and :yes ,they work !!!
If its hard for you atleast to navigate on the web then here i give you one of the Nasa video tests !!!
Please check the link under and let me know what for lie you will invent more 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYMUv1VJ3VQ
145.53.99.74 (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The wikipedia page about lifters it is a completely no science based  

message: Under the description / definition the article notes " flies silently"  ("An ionocraft is a propulsion device based on ionic air propulsion that works without moving parts, flies silently, uses only electrical energy, and is able to lift its own weight, not including its own power supply"). I've removed "flies silently" as I am not sure this should be part of the definition of an ionocraft. I'd welcome more learned people than me providing a reference to a good publication offering a definitive description of what represents an ionocraft.mgaved (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Flies silently" as a definition? 

message: After contribution to the article in note addition I was advised to bring this in talk page.
The Ionic propulsion definition of this type of propulsion operation is misleading and incorrect in the article. 
My contribution was to encourage scientific groups to put hard facts on what makes this type of propulsion to work in vacuum by doing investigation experiments.
Can someone highlight this point in the article? The definition description has to be fixed.
--Arunasp (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with misleading definition of propulsion operation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ionocraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808044901/http://www.benreuven.com/lifter-efficency to http://www.benreuven.com/lifter-efficency
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/ComnErr.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ionocraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106012611/http://www.neophysicslabs.com/data/Documents/article2.pdf to http://www.neophysicslabs.com/data/Documents/article2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I cannot find any significant WP:RS to support the current article title of "Ionocraft". Seversky seems to have coined it but modern sources hardly ever use it. This formal comment to the FAA uses "EHD aircraft", with "ionocraft" as a sub-type, even cites Wikipedia as one of its only two sources.
Analogously, our primary articles for aircraft with other methods of propulsion include Jet aircraft, Propeller aircraft and Rocket-powered aircraft, so I think that we should try and find something analogous here.
I looked at a few possibilities:
*"Ion aircraft" is the name of a company which makes conventional types. Nor is it commonly used in the present context.
*"Ion-drive aircraft" has appeared at least once in Nature.
*"Ion-powered aircraft" has been massively spread everywhere in the global MIT publicity hit of 2018, but has been barely used outside of that.
*"Ion propelled aircraft" is quite widely used.
*Ion wind aircraft" does not appear on the Internet at all.
*"Ionic wind aircraft" has also been massively spread everywhere in the global MIT publicity hit of 2018, but has been barely used outside of that.
*"EHD aircraft" has seen at least one use  in academic circles.
From this, I would suggest moving the article to Ion propelled aircraft per WP:COMMONNAME. It is the only term that seems to have been commonly used over the years. The fact that its form differs slightly from "Rocket-powered aircraft" need not be an issue.
Does anybody have any comments/thoughts/problems with that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The hyphen Ion-propelled would be better English but agree it could do with a better name and Ion propelled aircraft would be a reasonable move. MilborneOne (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Great work. How about the tags at the head of the article, can they now go? - Ahunt (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about that. There are sections where they are still valid criticisms, especially among the principles of operation, where I do not know enough current practice to make acceptable changes (and I know enough electromagnetics to risk a lot of OR). Maybe still tag that section, and leave the rest to individual inline tags? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be the best idea. - Ahunt (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, looking again the section on design is even worse. On reflection I am not sure whether to tag both sections or to to leave them at the top for now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps more work needs to be done first? - Ahunt (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move suggestion (2019)