Heck yeah, and he DESERVES to be that proud, should this turn out to work as they hope. It's groundbreaking (ground-leaving?) research, and shows a LOT of potential. I can't wait to see where this goes. Figuratively and literally. :-)
Artemis Kitty they have been using this kind of technology in black projects for decades.. UFO actually fly off a similar principle, they are hollow in the center of the disk and it has a torroid shaped field around it.. the ionized air can travel through it's center and it's hull has high voltage which ionizes the air and pushes it around it and through it's center.. it turns the air around it into plasma and uses it as a propellant, so air resistance is no longer a factor and the air is actually what's making it go
Artemis Kitty all of the black project aircraft use this principle, it can make the craft go really really fucking fast because as I said.. drag is no longer a factor
@@greenthizzle4 what do you mean split it with voltage? What are you gonna do with that voltage? You can't just throw voltage at the water to split it into plasma can you?
They show tests where the catapult worked, but the pane didn’t, and the plane only went about 5 meters. So obviously something had to work for the plane to go 60, and in the test it’s not like the catapult launched the plane at the speed of sound. Not to mention that it’s kind of impossible to glide at that low of an altitude for many reasons.
jazzyflymc the Wrights powered flight was in 1903 and yes it used a catapult. But by the time of Vlaicu’s rubber band powered flight they were doing ground takeoffs and selling planes to the Army.
@ Seriouspatt - His obvious excitement should make you feel very very sad, not happy. It's a manifestation of complete lack of integrity coming from the staff of one of the most prestigious academic institution in the word. It's not an amazing idea, it's as useless as it was when it was invented. All he did is repackage it and "sell" it to a new extremely gullible generation. It's not an amazing machine, it's a complete waste of money, you can buy similar useless "ion drive" toys for a few $.
@@ankush-kl2nf Well, give me a few million $ and I'll come up with something much better and useful. As for the "flat earth" and "global warming hoax" nonsense, I wouldn't be surprised if you were an american since the US is the only country on earth where you're considered smart if you know the earth is a sphere and global warming is a huge problem. Your standards are insanely low. Regarding the mighty ion drive in the video, instead of attacking me, wouldn't it be wiser to learn a bit about how that craft works? Because maybe we have a reason (there's many actually) for saying it's completely useless.
@@cthulhufhtagn7520 Unfortunately, very many are, due to lack of habitat, and other things (?) www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2019/february/the-world-s-insect-populations-are-plummeting-everywhere-we-look.html#:~:text=The%20review%20looked%20at%2075,at%20least%202.5%25%20per%20year.
Perfect propulsion system for an airship. The airflow over its entire surface area could be accelerated, it could even be steared by switching off the power to one side or the other. Better use helium rather than hydrogen as a lifting gas though.
As a lifting gas? Helium is expensive? Combine it with high voltages? And what do you think what would happen that if to steer it turned off one of the wings? The hydrogen is ionized and that causes the hydrogen (electrically charged) to navigate through the course of an electromagnetic field, roughly speaking, that will drag particles of air, creating up lifting forces.... What are you people saying?
that would be the slowest steering ever considering the force would be applied so close to the center of mass. it would be like a big fish with small stubby fins, not gonna work pal
i thought the same thing except it would be ideal for holding against a very slow wind say under 5 mph when the airship wants to stay in one spot over an event
Very interesting idea, I personally think this is more useful in a maritime application , together with improved solar energy it can be used as a kind of powered sail for small boats or even large ones
In Dr. Barrett's and his colleague's paper that was claimed to be "peer reviewed" and was released by the Journal of Nature, it is stated definitively that his student team built "the first heavier than air ion propelled aircraft of any kind to carry its power supply." That paper is NOT correct!! At 3:04 minutes into this video Dr. Barrett says "this is probably the first solid state flight of a heavier than air vehicle." In the beginning of the video he implies the same thing a couple of times though the first time around only he says airplane. He is clearly implying it is the first ion propelled vehicle to carry its power supply as was written in the paper for his craft. Lifting a power supply has been the one main challenge with this technology mathematically! The video is seriously historically incorrect about who was first to carry the power supply! The first ion propelled aircraft to carry its power supply has a US patent specifically for demonstratively being able to carrying its power supply already! (US 10,119,527) It has been shown in flight to many aerospace professionals including NASA personnel with its power supply onboard. There is a list of names on my website of officials that observed it flying with onboard power. It was widely published by the patent office before Barrett's team flew. In my opinion it would be difficult to miss online for any expert in the field, especially a team like the MIT one. If you click on the channel icon to the left there are 6 public flight videos showing it flying with onboard power..., a patent number, and website for it, that anyone can see. Importantly, there is a complete unambiguous scientific explanation of how it works, in the patent and under the flight footage videos. It flies for minutes in any direction including vertically rather than just seconds horizontally. I hope people will please realize that it takes a lot higher thrust to weight and efficiency level to do that... It does not require catapults or large wings to carry its power supply. My comments are starting to get restricted online, so please share the truth before it is gone! Thank you! Ethan Krauss
Having experimented with one of these, back in the '90s, I was amazed at the strong a breeze that it generated. Indeed, it can easily extinguish a small fire, by simply blowing it out.
This has been done already and tested as drones in the early 2000s. It's nice to see that the potential of the assymetrical condenser is still being studied;
The first heavier than air EAD (ion propelled) device to lift its power supply, did so in 2006. Before that it was considered almost impossible to have onboard power, due to the thrust to weight ratio of ion propulsion systems. There are 35 flight videos of the earlier invention with onboard power on my YT channel. Now this group at MIT claims they built the first ion propelled craft of any kind to lift its power supply. Even after 4 years they won't back down on the absolute BS. They cannot change the facts though no matter what new twisted terminology they cook up! The earlier one with onboard power has two patents that show how to increase the efficiency of ion propulsion by a large amount. The patents also cover all ion propelled crafts with onboard power since 2014.
It was not well played, because it was possibly not honest, or at least certainly not correct. The MIT craft was not the first nor anywhere near most efficient one with onboard power.
Yessss somebody has put it to the test! I've been planning and designing an air craft using ionic wind. I hope this gets more traction with media and companies to explore some new ideas
I see no point for humanity to make it normal for humans to actually carry an aircraft. I’m sure there are people who can balance a pony on their head. But will there be a craving for one to be able to execute such a feat on the regular? I’m leaning, ever so slightly, towards no. There will not. Will maybe be a genre hit on porn sites.
Impressive! I can see the potential with this. Maybe with 20 years of development and serious battery storage improvements, it could power a large aircraft.
For those of you who are complaining about the catapult used for takeoff: 1. They have limited space and don't have room for takeoff 2. The method of propulsion currently requires a kick-start to get it moving, and that's not exactly that bad because, 3. Aircraft on Aircraft Carriers use what essentially amounts to a slingshot to get them up to speed on the undersized runways for takeoff, So are those gliders? no. Stop your whining. Until further tests are conducted with greater space, The usefulness of this type of propulsion is Up in the Air. ;)
I feel like the commentator was down playing the achievement they've done. The fact that you've proven the technology is feasible is huge! Now it's time to experiment with efficiency and different configurations. The models shown look like they have 4 rows a few inches apart. I've very curious how tightly pact together they can be versus flight efficiency, maybe even to the micro level (imagine a fabric doing it!) Also varying the voltage, maybe modulating it, so many things to experiment with! I'm excited to see this technology grow!
There is a much better version of this with an onboard power supply. Please check out my you tube videos and patent and so on. MIT was not the first this time!
Is there is a limit the how much can ionize the air for a turns into plasma. This will never be viable on Earth. But the technology does have many uses and applications in space.
As an engineer, I wish to express my deepest congratulations to you and your team as Ion Drive will undoubtedly change the WORLD as we know it! Cheers! 👍🍺🍺🍺👍
Dear MyEyesBled, If you click on the channel icon to the left, you can see a patented ion propelled aircraft with onboard power that predates the MIT device. It is also more than an order of magnitude more powerful for its weight. It is very well verified. Honestly, I don't know how MIT didn't know about my devices.
No he discovered electrogravitational propulsion. Not "anti-gravity". His tests worked in vacuum and submerged in oil. You are producing ion wind. Not the same thing. His devices consisted of sealed capacitors which were charged to very high potential. When a capacitor is highly charged and allowed to move freely it will move in the direction of the positive plate due to the concentrated electrons interacting with gravity.
If anyone knows why the MIT craft got almost 2M views, Please let me know. If you click on my purple channel icon to the left you will see 5 prototypes of a much earlier patented ion propelled aircraft that is over 1000% more powerful and efficient by weight. It was officially patented specifically for carrying an onboard power supply!...
This Nature video and accompanying research paper are some of the most mistaken "news" articles in history. This article should be amended to include the real first heavier than air ion propelled aircraft with onboard power. It is extensively verified to predate the MIT device with onboard power.
So for all that, the only footage of the (one?) successful flight is the 4 seconds from 2:50 to 3:03, correct? It does look like the contraption might be creating its own lift over above the thrust from the catapult launch but it passes out of frame just at the point where it starts exhibiting sustained flight.
"We provide a proof of concept for electroaerodynamic aeroplane propulsion, opening up possibilities for aircraft and aerodynamic devices that are quieter, mechanically simpler and do not emit combustion emissions." i'm pretty sure ionized nitrogen molecules will react with oxygen to create nitrogen oxides?
@@ashIibabbitt1111 i have no idea how much would be generated but some would. i wouldn't laugh unless i had a sense of the order of magnitude. just like there are no zero emitting vehicles - particulates are likely what contribute to asthma incidence near freeways, but they are from tire powder, brake dust, and spilled oils/chemicals/road dust on the roads getting kicked up by traffic.
@@ashIibabbitt1111 you are right, flew right over my head! i need to lighten up - this is a passionate interest of mine, so sorry if i left my sense of humor behind...
@@ashIibabbitt1111 If any signifigant amount of N2O is generated then in the future you might see the occasional bored teenager hanging around ion engine exhausts.
My friend and I build a wing using this exact setup shown in 2006 in order to study it. We basically wanted to measure the amount of trust we could generate. Our setup was derived from "lifters" but we built a airfoils wing with an 18 gauge wire and an aluminum foil covered wing. We fixed the wing on a axis connected to a vertical axle so when the electric field is generated, it would create thrust and turn the axis circularly. We had the masses and geometry and hence torque could be computed. It would be a great area of research to investigate methods to maximize the thrust whole constraining the geometry.
Yes...you get funding from idiot investors and government grants that see something amazing in a propulsion system that is several orders of magnitude less efficient than a propeller driven aircraft.
@@jorgensenmj There is an ion propelled aircraft that has promise, but they are funding the wrong one! The MIT craft is exactly as you say, it is not powerful or efficient for its weight.
4 ปีที่แล้ว
@@bridgendesar didn't need govt funding. If it's so promising big companies like boeing, airbus or even google, virgin.... would proly invest in that
There was a video from some years back over a decade or more, where a man was hovering a similar but smaller and very lightweight frame in his garage using simple components, even perhaps aluminum foil with similar concepts. So MIT took an already developed concept and ran with it. Good to see that he old adage, there is nothing new under the sun, remains true.
Ion propulsion is real. However, it is so weak that it can only power small satellite in space which has no air friction but it could never power a plane in Earth's atmosphere. The video of MIT and it's claim shown here is definitely false. In reality, what made this plane fly is not the ion propulsion but the power of momentum caused by its sling shot launch pad. This plane will fly with or without ion propulsion if you pull or push it by any kinetic means because this plane is just a glider plane. This plane should take off from the ground without any external kinetic power assist to prove that this plane can really fly using ion propulsion only. But obviously it cannot.
The silence of the plane is one of its distinguishing features, would have been nice to isolate that for a few seconds. But really good technical explanations and historical context, thank you.
*Wonderful invention. Electricity will win :-)* The ion wind could be very useful to accelerate the air that is coming out of the jet turbines. It's like giving a boost to something that is already fast. Great for the future of travel !
The B-2 Spirit already utilizes this technology to help gain more lift than its body can aerodynamically provide, especially when carrying a full bomb load. It's not widely disclosed of course.
Not if you want energy efficiency. we need more v * m (velocity * mass). With a limited amount of energy onboard to be converted to kinetic energy (0.5 * v^2 * m) which is actually utilized in the form of momentum(v * m). It is better to have less v and more m(more air to be thrown backward in a slower speed). edit: I too believe this technology is gonna be useful. The idea to boost something already very fast is not energy efficient, might be needed and prictical in certain field but not on a plane.
@@JukentheBox "The B-2 Spirit already utilizes this technology" Any reliable sources which confirm this? I'd be very very surprised if this were practical.
I think that this could be already applied to real size planes without "testing their lives". It is really interesting to look how we take ideas from old experiments. We should take a look on the past more often because something that could not be posible in the past, might be possible now.
Have you tried to place the airfoil in different places? Like: in between the electrodes, below/above the electrodes, or even, before the electrodes? What about doing it just like the Dyson air multiplier does? Therefore using a toroidal ion drive which would propel a greater amount of air through the middle of the torus? Take a look at the Tokyo Shibaura patent 1981, and the Dyson patent 2009. Then again, the fact that they are linear in shape must not be a problem, but perhaps they should be more spread apart, to allow more air to be dragged in between them.
Well it's important to understand that the "air multiplier" concept dumps huge amounts of power into initial air acceleration to pull all the extra air with it. So when efficiency is an issue that concept is counter productive.
He does mention some limits. which may be insurmountable, like the breakdown voltage of air. This is affected by temperature, atmospheric pressure and relative humidity. Much more may be done with electrode configurations to more efficiently generate ions and accelerate them toward the anode.
I agree, though with subnanosecond pulses the limits can be pushed. Also, with different geometries the "limits" can be orders of magnitude higher. Please click on my channel icon to see some early examples.
Ion lifters are interesting crafts. It's good to see this technology getting some attention for terrestrial applications, outside of tabletop novelty. For your design i see just straight bars for the propulsion, however if you make a cylindrical wing, even if it's not the main wing, you can modulate power at different points of it's radius to steer, while also getting an airfoil ducting effect, pulling more air around said wing.
Actually, TT Brown DID discover a method for electrogravitic propulsion. The only reason people haven’t heard of his work is that it was almost immediately co-opted by the military and went black.
@addictive object *.* they can prove there is a phenomenon that appears to cause masses to attract to each other, but no, no one can prove that gravity as we accept it is real. it could be a misunderstanding of what we are observing. I actually suspect this is the case.
Self contained Ion Powered Aircraft with onboard power. US patent number 10,119,527 filed in 2014. Sorry if some one already commented on this in one of the 1500 posts!
No, watch the video carefully, it says it uses nitrogen. My guess is that you will end up with quite a bit of Nitrogen Oxide, just like the stuff produced after a lightening strike. Nitrogen Oxide is a kind of fertilizer that precipitates to he ground to make the plants grow healthier.
I've watched it several times, don't worry, but the Nitrogen is on the + side, shouldn't it be forming something on the - side ? And btw there's also ozone being produced when lightening strikes...
@@flori8320 Electric arcs ionize atoms in the air, and some of it will, just like after a lightning strike, recombine into ozon (O3) and nitrous oxides (NOx). Ozone is highly reactive and dangerous in too high concentrations (it has a distinct smell but is dangerous below the smelling threshold). NOx is poisonous and one of the gases catalytic converters in cars break down to nitrogen and oxygen. NOx is actually more than one type of gas, depending on how much oxygen there is relative to the nitrogen. (That is what the x means).
I would guess he said that be cause he was aware of my patent application for the Self Contained Ion Powered Aircraft. It was fully patented for carrying its power supply onboard (US 10,119,527) before the MIT version flew. Who can say for sure, but the probability is extremely high.
I have read a number of comments varying from positive to the opposite, I think it commendable that this is being looked at with fresh eyes and minds. I also have a couple of thoughts to share. In this we see an assisted launch, no doubt as a means of proof of concept that flight can be sustained. Having said that I think the next logical step must be to see an unassisted take off so that acceleration overcoming stationary friction and inertia is essential for this to be shown as a viable propulsion system. The other thing that occurs to me is this is not at this point overcoming Gravity. It is launched from above ground level at a slight upward angle so it is sort of maintaining altitude and that is what I see.. The ion drive used in Space does not have to do this and in fact uses other Planets Gravity to assist in progress in an almost complete Vacuum. In that situation it has shown to be a viable drive for an extended mission. It will not I feel come to fruition in my lifetime of that I am sure (59 yrs of age). I do not however discourage any work in this field as it could well be a solution to some or many problems and dilemmas we face today. I also like the idea of fresh thinking because if we allow ourselves to go stale then NOTHING NEW will come about. I say bring it on and go your hardest, Cheers from John, Australia.
In the actual paper, the reason for the catapult launch was because of the limited gym size they had to work in. It's possible it might be able to accelerate itself to liftoff on a long enough stretch and given enough battery capacity, though the paper didn't specifically address that as far as I can remember.
@@alekseiangell4886, That may well be the case as you have said. With extra weight of battery and a rolling undercarriage, or very low friction then it seem to make the challenge even greater, would you agree with that as a fair way of thinking? John. PS In the paper were there any hints on how much thrust was achieved, just curious, Thanks.
You know you could use frequency to align the air molecules (making them thicker) under the wings and body - and also around the rear of the fuselage, providing it was tapered in the back like a teardrop, causing it to move forward. Nice work BTW here, enjoyed the video and love this project.
@@itsxerxes6754 Actually, no. This is not the future. This method of propulsion is old, unsafe (produces Ozone and NOx), and has a high power consumption.
This is not very impressive at all...I have seen paper airplanes fly much farther. I see no evidence demonstrating SUSTAINED flight. Just gliding. It doesn't look like the ION propulsion is providing even an ounce of thrust. A propeller and rubber band can do much better.
@@jorgensenmj its the first flight, of a tech demonstrator. lol. It's proof of concept and nothing else. besides... every plane that has ever flown has had to stop flying at some point...
Hello monoham, I had replied to you under this Nature video, now I don't see my reply! Just google ion propelled and onboard power to see my earlier crafts in flight, or see my channel directly.
I built one for the science fair at my school when I was like 11. Mine was tethered though for power reasons. Glad someone is making progress. It's a cool design that looks promising.
The same could be said about the Wright brothers first flight. Look where we are now as far as flight goes. This is similar to the nuclear propulsion systems for long range bombers which were being developed during the 50's to the 60's. It works in much the same manner, but is less efficient, and without the nuclear reactor being carried on the aircraft. A solar powered plane powered this way seems very feasible within the next few decades.
Great concept, lot of work must be spent until flying model took off first. I remember in school high voltage experiments got in trouble when air humidity got high. It is a real motivative challange to overcome the effect of clouds and small drops in the air.
The man who thought he had found electro gravitation was Townsend Brown. He found if you pass electrical voltage through a condenser, thrust will be applied in the direction of the positive pole. The problem is that it 100,000 volts to negate 1% of gravity. Which means you would need 10 million volts to negate gravity assuming the positive pole was pointed straight up. Some say this is Ion Wind. I don't think we can say that with any authority as this effect (running voltage through a condenser) has not been fully studied. Scientists of the day and even today just assume(d) it was ionic wind because their minds couldn't comprehend it being anything else.
The mass of the ionised air is so little that it could never accelerate a heavy mass down a standard runway to a speed enough for a wing to work. The plane in the video was launched. Ion propulsion will work very well over huge distances, like to other planets, but you could never accelerate a wheeled vehicle (or taxi a plane) from one set of traffic lights to another.
@@johnuferbach9166Space craft with ion thrusters bring a source of ions with them. These can be much better for long range missions than chemical thrusters.
Thank you for how you made and how It works. Now, I can do this for a 3D printed drone. Ion Propulsion here I come. I just need to change my design of propellers to wings and lighten the load, which is easy for me.
@@zangryomani1257 yeah, as a narc, you got butt hurt. I would much rather be dumb than to be someone who idealizes narcissism like yourself. And yeah it got an initial mechanical thrust, and a tiny percent of its glide was from ion "propulsion" before crashing after several seconds. Totally useless on any craft that weighs more than 5 pounds and is impacted by the breeze or weather.
A spherical shape with an opposing internal sphere, combined with segmented polarity switching, would be incredibly interesting to see. Even tethered for power, that would likely produce interesting results. Seems to me a spherical shape would allow for almost uninterrupted coverage which would greatly increase the production of an ionic wind and multiply the speed and improve directional control.
That is very cool thing , but saying that in the future it will replace millions of drones is a bit rediculous, image how much ozone that quantity of ion drones will produce ... ozone is poisonous gas
Hi Zack, The MIT device does produce too much ozone. My VTOL ion propelled invention predates MIT's (patented and verified). It carries its power supply, and is carefully designed to produce almost zero ozone. It uses extremely low current and a few other techniques to avoid that. I really hope you like it at least a little better! Here is a video and the website for it. Video: th-cam.com/video/Qdg0_hjuksQ/w-d-xo.html& Website: www.electronairllc.org
Я из России , и плохо говорю по английски , по этому напишу на русском же языке. 1) не совсем понимаю, как получить высоковольтные элементы питания. 2) надо уменьшить расстояние между катодом и анодом ( медной проволокой и алюминиевым профилем ) . Так получится, что нужно будет меньше вольт , и в приницпе тяга же останется. В идеале бы чешуйчатое покрытие . 3) надо устанавливать ионные движители над крылом. Тогда именно там будет создаваться движение воздуха и там будет меньше плотность воздуха , соответственно создаваться будет подъёмная сила.
Aria Ax Ion propulsion is very efficient. The only problem is that it generates very little thrust, why it’s often used in small space probes that operates without resistance in the vacuum of space. I’m skeptical that this will ever work with any kind of payload or practical use.
@@joeltarnabene5026 Stricly speaking this is Ion propulsion, but it different to the ion propulsion of spacecrafts. I think the efficiency of this propulsion here, is way lower than the space one. This is because air is all around the cathode and anode, so there is probably a lot of charge leaking into the air without producing a positive thrust. While the ion thrusters in space, use stored gas that is accelerated (similarly), so there is probably very very little wasted charge.
Good point, but they should have acknowledged the patented Self Contained Ion Powered Aircraft, before saying they built the first ion propelled craft to carry its power supply. There are 5 public flight videos online, as well as sufficient legal and scientific verification of operability with onboard power that should be more than adequate.
This is a new technology and it takes a long time to perfect it , but is very interesting to see this green technology in the airplanes, and i think that can be used in other things like firstly the drons, then the train or i dont know. That is why i love the technology, we can make a better world with the innovation.
Watching the video I had the same idea as you, fixing some details on small scale vehicles would help us in the future when we need it for the big ones 😁
Ok, I hope you are reading the comments. I have been working on magnetic lift(single magnet) and started to look into ionic propulsion. MY QUESTION; how do you know the difference between the ionic propulsion and the gliding aspect for your craft?
Nice concept, but the high voltage would produce Ozone when it breaks down the air which is a harmful pollutant at low altitudes such as the ones they envisage any potential drones using.
If you fly these ionic craft at high altitude you can rapidly replenish the ozone depletion that the oil burning jets cause. A big secret is, if you add a strong magnetic field, the thrust is increased dramatically. The old design creates it's own magnetic field B=E/c around 2 militesla. This B field crossed with the E field that is on the order of 500 kv/m yields a Poynting vector that provides the bulk of the thrust which is NOT IONIC rather it is light pressure force. Given by the equation: F=SA/c S=[ExB]/mu B=E/c S=E^2/mu*c F=E^2/mu*c^2 This is where no external magnetic field is present B can be substituted by E/c If you use magnets then F= EB/(c*mu) where c is speed of light and W is the power in watts and A is the area and S is the Poynting vector. Mu is the permeability constant. 1.2E-6 As you see by incorporating neodymium magnets the force is dramatically increased. Ex. Using 1 Tesla neomags F= (500000V/m * 1T)/(1.2E-6 * 3E8 m/s)= 1388 N thrust. About 350 lbs Regretfully only a handful of scientists will read this before the video is taken down. ALL HAIL BIG OIL
If solid state means no moving parts then some pulsejets qualify for this... unless fuel is considered a moving part, which usually it is not. Just a thought.
@@SolarizeYourLife This is a common misconseption, so don't feel bad, but pulsejets can run on compressed gas (already pressurised) and other fuels can be aspirated into the engine by areodynamics, or forced in by a pressurised bladder. Some pulse jets do indeed use pumps though.
hmm. I see a lot of crash scenes, and a few other cutscenes which are to short to judge if there's any propulsion at play at all. Those same cutscenes could be done with a paper airplane.
yep... mit is pretty sub par with their presentations. seriously, their own channel is a bunch of stuff even less functional. lol. i still wish them the best, but they dont inspire confidence at all. lmao.
This glider would have flown much further without that massive amount of drag on it without the minuscule amount thrust it produces, this seems ludicrous.
Thomas Townsend Brown, while experimenting with this phenomenon, is said to have done successful vacuum tests. If he actually figured out how to do that it would mean It doesn't ionize air particles. There is a chance that this is causing an interaction between the electromagnetic field and gravity itself, electrogravitics.
My patented "Self Contained Ion Powered Aircraft" is ion propelled and carries its power supply, it does not produce ozone. It would though if it were configured the like the MIT device.
Anyone else remember the whole thing with lifters and guys doing the same thing with R/C "plasma-craft" like from over a decade ago? I think Jean-Louis Naudin was the most memorable of the bunch. Or is that stuff not easily found anymore? (Sure the videos from then would have been 240p potato quality, but it's not like they weren't doing anything. Admittedly the majority was still hypothetical and renders, but they did have some crude working demo aircraft to help back those concepts.) I suppose this is a bit like how Wright Brothers got all the attention and credit, even though they were writing to Langley and getting good advice from him while proceeding with their work.
They did, but they should've compared it to the glider without a grid, because when the ion drive is switched on it negates the drag of the grid. Please click on my channel icon to see a more efficient such device.
*I'm not an expert on this but this looks pretty much like a glider to me.* *I read that this has been a concept since 55 years ago. It didn't take real aircrafts that long to become a thing within their first much more modern concepts.* *If this is at this age after 55 years, then I guess it will take 300 years more before a commercial sized plane form of it will be in use.*
Ion propelled planes, or other topic. If they wouldn't just have certain spots for ion interaction, where the ions are emitted, or thrown out through jets. If ion propelled planes, or other ion propelled vessels. Utilized propulsion of some sort, shedding ions. In which all at once, from entirely a charged vessel's polarized haul. Energy signiture's, or signal's, or ions would be possible to send, or to receive. It's like torus Field's, or alternating currents, or energy field's, or force balances. Or it's like how entenna's work, as they interact with field dynamics. All what would really be needed for polarized haul's to emit energy wave form's, is energy to power it and a strong energy field. Things like frequency, or signiture's, or like a schuman earth resonance. Or in likeness, when nikola tesla had a oscillating machine setting to the right frequencies. It's essentially about a medium like around the earth. A medium, where energies persist matrix's and gives it form. As I said around such polarized haul's and in which could be utilized.
Cathode, "wire" is NEGATIVE, ion flow to "WING" PLATE, is ,ANODE=POSITIVE+, Mistake is "BATTERY" is been, labeled incorrectly, for century's backwards. Thats 1st thing, you are taught!
@@runforitman Not exactly. I mean my electrical knowledge is limited but , since we are talking about a flying object that has no ground(what is 0V) how do you make the ions move toward the other wire if it has the same charge as the air? So this is why I believe they have to "negatively charge" the other wire(s) to actually make it work.
Have you thought about just having a long wing chord and then accelerating the air just above the wing? That could get rid of the draggy wires and leave just the normal airfoil. It would integrate the wires structurally and aerodynamically...
If you click on the purple channel icon to the left, you can see 5 prototypes of the one that really is the first to carry its power supply! It doesn't need a catapult either:).
Claiming this as being the first it totally disingenuous and frankly plagiarism. Google "lifter" and you can see people were messing about with this in the 90's.... prats
A question here for anyone who can answer it; due to the fact that ionisation energy is a constant thing dependent on gasses involved, will the efficiency of ion aircraft be stuck at a high limit that can never be surpassed?
If you click on the purple channel icon to the left, "all" of your ion propulsion questions will hopefully be answered. (The answer to your question though is no.)
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
His enthusiasm is infectious, and it was pretty mesmerizing to see it glide across the room silently. Excited to see this develop!
Please click on the channel icon to the left, to see an earlier one with onboard power!
He's genuinely proud and excited about his work. Best of luck to him.
Heck yeah, and he DESERVES to be that proud, should this turn out to work as they hope. It's groundbreaking (ground-leaving?) research, and shows a LOT of potential. I can't wait to see where this goes. Figuratively and literally. :-)
Artemis Kitty they have been using this kind of technology in black projects for decades.. UFO actually fly off a similar principle, they are hollow in the center of the disk and it has a torroid shaped field around it.. the ionized air can travel through it's center and it's hull has high voltage which ionizes the air and pushes it around it and through it's center.. it turns the air around it into plasma and uses it as a propellant, so air resistance is no longer a factor and the air is actually what's making it go
Artemis Kitty all of the black project aircraft use this principle, it can make the craft go really really fucking fast because as I said.. drag is no longer a factor
@@greenthizzle4 how can you know if "UFO" use them if a UFO is an unidentified object lol, take your tinfoil hat off
@@greenthizzle4 what do you mean split it with voltage? What are you gonna do with that voltage? You can't just throw voltage at the water to split it into plasma can you?
I think the real accomplishment here is that you made a very, very light aircraft that didn't disintegrate after a nose-dive!
Причем пикирование изначально было ожидаемо т.к. разгоняя воздух под крылом они создают там более низкое давление. Уж это в MIT должны были учесть!?
Bird Strikes will be interesting....
Yum, instant fried chicken
@@calvinthedestroyerсмеется тот кто смеется последним.
Our meal for this flight tonight is fresh flash roasted duck.
@@calvinthedestroyer A flying fly catcher.
A yummy bird strike
Other than the catapult, there are no moving parts.
The first Wright Brothers flight was also achieved with the use of a catapult for the take off.
@@dcs4947 , that's why you should google Aurel Vlaicu (spoiler alert: no catapult was used).
Other than the catapult there also doesn't seem to be anything responsible for the distance. At best, this video shows a very good glider.
They show tests where the catapult worked, but the pane didn’t, and the plane only went about 5 meters. So obviously something had to work for the plane to go 60, and in the test it’s not like the catapult launched the plane at the speed of sound. Not to mention that it’s kind of impossible to glide at that low of an altitude for many reasons.
jazzyflymc the Wrights powered flight was in 1903 and yes it used a catapult. But by the time of Vlaicu’s rubber band powered flight they were doing ground takeoffs and selling planes to the Army.
Watching this man and his obvious excitement makes me feel very happy. What an amazing idea, what an amazing machine.
@StealthyMonk or flying cars and mass tourism to the moon base.
Sadly, I will most likely see none of those either.
@
Seriouspatt - His obvious excitement should make you feel very very sad, not happy. It's a manifestation of complete lack of integrity coming from the staff of one of the most prestigious academic institution in the word.
It's not an amazing idea, it's as useless as it was when it was invented. All he did is repackage it and "sell" it to a new extremely gullible generation.
It's not an amazing machine, it's a complete waste of money, you can buy similar useless "ion drive" toys for a few $.
@@I3VI5 uh man I am itching to see what you come up with...
I won't be surprise if you started claiming the earth is flat and global warming is a hoax
@@ankush-kl2nf Well, give me a few million $ and I'll come up with something much better and useful.
As for the "flat earth" and "global warming hoax" nonsense, I wouldn't be surprised if you were an american since the US is the only country on earth where you're considered smart if you know the earth is a sphere and global warming is a huge problem. Your standards are insanely low.
Regarding the mighty ion drive in the video, instead of attacking me, wouldn't it be wiser to learn a bit about how that craft works? Because maybe we have a reason (there's many actually) for saying it's completely useless.
he's happy because some sucker funded him.
I’ve always dreamed of a concept like this and I’m happy to see it actually exists
In case you didn't know there are 30 videos of mostly earlier ion propelled crafts on my channel. They all have onboard power.
As someone who's spent nearly a housand hours in kerbil space program, this plane looks promising.
No doubt, they just should've given credit to the inventor of the earlier, patented, more powerful and efficient one, with onboard power!
Not long enough to spell Kerbal correctly
Your credentials are impeccable
flying bug zapper. instead of spraying insecticides, just fly a few of these around the city.
Flight catapult! Old American farce! Who invented the airplane was Santos Doumont do Brasil.
i think you're trying to be funny, but people that do not understand the science might actually believe you.
Considering insects are already going extinct, we don't need this.
@@patrick1532 lmao what? I hope you're not talking all insects
@@cthulhufhtagn7520 Unfortunately, very many are, due to lack of habitat, and other things (?) www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2019/february/the-world-s-insect-populations-are-plummeting-everywhere-we-look.html#:~:text=The%20review%20looked%20at%2075,at%20least%202.5%25%20per%20year.
Perfect propulsion system for an airship. The airflow over its entire surface area could be accelerated, it could even be steared by switching off the power to one side or the other. Better use helium rather than hydrogen as a lifting gas though.
Anthony Higham Helium is in short supply and expensive so using it is uneconomical.
and combine it with very high voltages, not the best combination
As a lifting gas? Helium is expensive? Combine it with high voltages?
And what do you think what would happen that if to steer it turned off one of the wings?
The hydrogen is ionized and that causes the hydrogen (electrically charged) to navigate through the course of an electromagnetic field, roughly speaking, that will drag particles of air, creating up lifting forces....
What are you people saying?
that would be the slowest steering ever considering the force would be applied so close to the center of mass. it would be like a big fish with small stubby fins, not gonna work pal
i thought the same thing except it would be ideal for holding against a very slow wind say under 5 mph when the airship wants to stay in one spot over an event
Very interesting idea, I personally think this is more useful in a maritime application , together with improved solar energy it can be used as a kind of powered sail for small boats or even large ones
In Dr. Barrett's and his colleague's paper that was claimed to be "peer reviewed" and was released by the Journal of Nature, it is stated definitively that his student team built "the first heavier than air ion propelled aircraft of any kind to carry its power supply." That paper is NOT correct!!
At 3:04 minutes into this video Dr. Barrett says "this is probably the first solid state flight of a heavier than air vehicle." In the beginning of the video he implies the same thing a couple of times though the first time around only he says airplane. He is clearly implying it is the first ion propelled vehicle to carry its power supply as was written in the paper for his craft. Lifting a power supply has been the one main challenge with this technology mathematically! The video is seriously historically incorrect about who was first to carry the power supply!
The first ion propelled aircraft to carry its power supply has a US patent specifically for demonstratively being able to carrying its power supply already! (US 10,119,527) It has been shown in flight to many aerospace professionals including NASA personnel with its power supply onboard. There is a list of names on my website of officials that observed it flying with onboard power. It was widely published by the patent office before Barrett's team flew. In my opinion it would be difficult to miss online for any expert in the field, especially a team like the MIT one.
If you click on the channel icon to the left there are 6 public flight videos showing it flying with onboard power..., a patent number, and website for it, that anyone can see. Importantly, there is a complete unambiguous scientific explanation of how it works, in the patent and under the flight footage videos. It flies for minutes in any direction including vertically rather than just seconds horizontally. I hope people will please realize that it takes a lot higher thrust to weight and efficiency level to do that...
It does not require catapults or large wings to carry its power supply. My comments are starting to get restricted online, so please share the truth before it is gone!
Thank you! Ethan Krauss
Having experimented with one of these, back in the '90s, I was amazed at the strong a breeze that it generated.
Indeed, it can easily extinguish a small fire, by simply blowing it out.
If you click on the purple channel icon to the left, you can see one with onboard power that predates the MIT ion assisted glider.
This has been done already and tested as drones in the early 2000s. It's nice to see that the potential of the assymetrical condenser is still being studied;
The first heavier than air EAD (ion propelled) device to lift its power supply, did so in 2006. Before that it was considered almost impossible to have onboard power, due to the thrust to weight ratio of ion propulsion systems. There are 35 flight videos of the earlier invention with onboard power on my YT channel.
Now this group at MIT claims they built the first ion propelled craft of any kind to lift its power supply. Even after 4 years they won't back down on the absolute BS. They cannot change the facts though no matter what new twisted terminology they cook up!
The earlier one with onboard power has two patents that show how to increase the efficiency of ion propulsion by a large amount. The patents also cover all ion propelled crafts with onboard power since 2014.
0:15 He's getting _paid_ to play around all day like this? Well played, sir, well played!
thats just science, once you have worked yourself up to such a position you are free to research
It was not well played, because it was possibly not honest, or at least certainly not correct. The MIT craft was not the first nor anywhere near most efficient one with onboard power.
Yessss somebody has put it to the test! I've been planning and designing an air craft using ionic wind. I hope this gets more traction with media and companies to explore some new ideas
"I doubt we'll see large aircraft-carrying people"
Well let's see. Genetics are weird.
That’s pretty cursed. I like it
lollllll
I see no point for humanity to make it normal for humans to actually carry an aircraft.
I’m sure there are people who can balance a pony on their head. But will there be a craving for one to be able to execute such a feat on the regular?
I’m leaning, ever so slightly, towards no. There will not.
Will maybe be a genre hit on porn sites.
Note, at 16 to 17 seconds into the MIT video it isn't the MIT EAD V2 shown crashing. The video splices to a model glider with no EAD propulsion.
Impressive! I can see the potential with this. Maybe with 20 years of development and serious battery storage improvements, it could power a large aircraft.
For those of you who are complaining about the catapult used for takeoff:
1. They have limited space and don't have room for takeoff
2. The method of propulsion currently requires a kick-start to get it moving, and that's not exactly that bad because,
3. Aircraft on Aircraft Carriers use what essentially amounts to a slingshot to get them up to speed on the undersized runways for takeoff, So are those gliders? no.
Stop your whining. Until further tests are conducted with greater space, The usefulness of this type of propulsion is Up in the Air. ;)
I feel like the commentator was down playing the achievement they've done. The fact that you've proven the technology is feasible is huge! Now it's time to experiment with efficiency and different configurations. The models shown look like they have 4 rows a few inches apart. I've very curious how tightly pact together they can be versus flight efficiency, maybe even to the micro level (imagine a fabric doing it!) Also varying the voltage, maybe modulating it, so many things to experiment with! I'm excited to see this technology grow!
There is a much better version of this with an onboard power supply. Please check out my you tube videos and patent and so on. MIT was not the first this time!
Is there is a limit the how much can ionize the air for a turns into plasma. This will never be viable on Earth. But the technology does have many uses and applications in space.
As an engineer, I wish to express my deepest congratulations to you and your team as Ion Drive will undoubtedly change the WORLD as we know it! Cheers! 👍🍺🍺🍺👍
Dear MyEyesBled,
If you click on the channel icon to the left, you can see a patented ion propelled aircraft with onboard power that predates the MIT device. It is also more than an order of magnitude more powerful for its weight. It is very well verified. Honestly, I don't know how MIT didn't know about my devices.
No he discovered electrogravitational propulsion. Not "anti-gravity".
His tests worked in vacuum and submerged in oil.
You are producing ion wind. Not the same thing. His devices consisted of sealed capacitors which were charged to very high potential.
When a capacitor is highly charged and allowed to move freely it will move in the direction of the positive plate due to the concentrated electrons interacting with gravity.
He being T. T. Brown.
He didn't 'discover' anything that didn't previously exist for decades before his test flight. Others had made early prototypes that hovered.
@@nicm1411
Please point me towards their work.
If anyone knows why the MIT craft got almost 2M views, Please let me know. If you click on my purple channel icon to the left you will see 5 prototypes of a much earlier patented ion propelled aircraft that is over 1000% more powerful and efficient by weight. It was officially patented specifically for carrying an onboard power supply!...
This Nature video and accompanying research paper are some of the most mistaken "news" articles in history. This article should be amended to include the real first heavier than air ion propelled aircraft with onboard power. It is extensively verified to predate the MIT device with onboard power.
hear hear, i was embarrassed watching this sad attempt at ionic flight.
So for all that, the only footage of the (one?) successful flight is the 4 seconds from 2:50 to 3:03, correct? It does look like the contraption might be creating its own lift over above the thrust from the catapult launch but it passes out of frame just at the point where it starts exhibiting sustained flight.
"We provide a proof of concept for electroaerodynamic aeroplane propulsion, opening up possibilities for aircraft and aerodynamic devices that are quieter, mechanically simpler and do not emit combustion emissions." i'm pretty sure ionized nitrogen molecules will react with oxygen to create nitrogen oxides?
@@ashIibabbitt1111 i have no idea how much would be generated but some would. i wouldn't laugh unless i had a sense of the order of magnitude. just like there are no zero emitting vehicles - particulates are likely what contribute to asthma incidence near freeways, but they are from tire powder, brake dust, and spilled oils/chemicals/road dust on the roads getting kicked up by traffic.
@@ashIibabbitt1111 you are right, flew right over my head! i need to lighten up - this is a passionate interest of mine, so sorry if i left my sense of humor behind...
@@soodanu Me too, but lets laugh at this together.
@@57thornshahahahaha now i got the gas!
@@ashIibabbitt1111 If any signifigant amount of N2O is generated then in the future you might see the occasional bored teenager hanging around ion engine exhausts.
My friend and I build a wing using this exact setup shown in 2006 in order to study it. We basically wanted to measure the amount of trust we could generate. Our setup was derived from "lifters" but we built a airfoils wing with an 18 gauge wire and an aluminum foil covered wing. We fixed the wing on a axis connected to a vertical axle so when the electric field is generated, it would create thrust and turn the axis circularly. We had the masses and geometry and hence torque could be computed.
It would be a great area of research to investigate methods to maximize the thrust whole constraining the geometry.
Sometimes you get more from the journey than the destination
Yes...you get funding from idiot investors and government grants that see something amazing in a propulsion system that is several orders of magnitude less efficient than a propeller driven aircraft.
jorgensenmj somebody probably said the same thing about making lots of explosions inside a cylinder to drive a horseless carriage, total lunacy
and sometimes nothing but a waste of time
@@jorgensenmj There is an ion propelled aircraft that has promise, but they are funding the wrong one! The MIT craft is exactly as you say, it is not powerful or efficient for its weight.
@@bridgendesar didn't need govt funding. If it's so promising big companies like boeing, airbus or even google, virgin.... would proly invest in that
There was a video from some years back over a decade or more, where a man was hovering a similar but smaller and very lightweight frame in his garage using simple components, even perhaps aluminum foil with similar concepts. So MIT took an already developed concept and ran with it. Good to see that he old adage, there is nothing new under the sun, remains true.
Yes, and it predates MITs "research." It is patented and way more efficient! Check this site: www.electronairllc.org
Ion propulsion is real. However, it is so weak that it can only power small satellite in space which has no air friction but it could never power a plane in Earth's atmosphere. The video of MIT and it's claim shown here is definitely false. In reality, what made this plane fly is not the ion propulsion but the power of momentum caused by its sling shot launch pad. This plane will fly with or without ion propulsion if you pull or push it by any kinetic means because this plane is just a glider plane. This plane should take off from the ground without any external kinetic power assist to prove that this plane can really fly using ion propulsion only. But obviously it cannot.
There are real ion propelled aircrafts, but only the patented ones on my channel really are able fly with onboard power.
The silence of the plane is one of its distinguishing features, would have been nice to isolate that for a few seconds. But really good technical explanations and historical context, thank you.
*Wonderful invention. Electricity will win :-)*
The ion wind could be very useful to accelerate the air that is coming out of the jet turbines. It's like giving a boost to something that is already fast. Great for the future of travel !
Путешествий по нашей планете?
The B-2 Spirit already utilizes this technology to help gain more lift than its body can aerodynamically provide, especially when carrying a full bomb load. It's not widely disclosed of course.
Any more info on this?
Not if you want energy efficiency. we need more v * m (velocity * mass). With a limited amount of energy onboard to be converted to kinetic energy (0.5 * v^2 * m) which is actually utilized in the form of momentum(v * m). It is better to have less v and more m(more air to be thrown backward in a slower speed).
edit: I too believe this technology is gonna be useful. The idea to boost something already very fast is not energy efficient, might be needed and prictical in certain field but not on a plane.
@@JukentheBox "The B-2 Spirit already utilizes this technology"
Any reliable sources which confirm this?
I'd be very very surprised if this were practical.
I think that this could be already applied to real size planes without "testing their lives". It is really interesting to look how we take ideas from old experiments. We should take a look on the past more often because something that could not be posible in the past, might be possible now.
that's right, before the tests were with people and some times they get injuries, but now with this new technology they way to do tests is great
i agree, with the actual technology, they can test the prototipes safety in a real scale and make it perfect .
Ideas must be rewinded until they work! Agree on that
Have you tried to place the airfoil in different places? Like: in between the electrodes, below/above the electrodes, or even, before the electrodes?
What about doing it just like the Dyson air multiplier does? Therefore using a toroidal ion drive which would propel a greater amount of air through the middle of the torus? Take a look at the Tokyo Shibaura patent 1981, and the Dyson patent 2009.
Then again, the fact that they are linear in shape must not be a problem, but perhaps they should be more spread apart, to allow more air to be dragged in between them.
Well it's important to understand that the "air multiplier" concept dumps huge amounts of power into initial air acceleration to pull all the extra air with it.
So when efficiency is an issue that concept is counter productive.
Who are you talking to?
Bert Anernie your mom
He does mention some limits. which may be insurmountable, like the breakdown voltage of air. This is affected by temperature, atmospheric pressure and relative humidity. Much more may be done with electrode configurations to more efficiently generate ions and accelerate them toward the anode.
I agree, though with subnanosecond pulses the limits can be pushed. Also, with different geometries the "limits" can be orders of magnitude higher. Please click on my channel icon to see some early examples.
i just saw aplane that was slingshooted as source of energy
Ion lifters are interesting crafts.
It's good to see this technology getting some attention for terrestrial applications, outside of tabletop novelty.
For your design i see just straight bars for the propulsion, however if you make a cylindrical wing, even if it's not the main wing, you can modulate power at different points of it's radius to steer, while also getting an airfoil ducting effect, pulling more air around said wing.
put it on a table in front of or behind a smoke generater so i can see air flow.
Wind tunnel you mean
Great idea!
watch?v=GijJmIz1G7U
Actually, TT Brown DID discover a method for electrogravitic propulsion. The only reason people haven’t heard of his work is that it was almost immediately co-opted by the military and went black.
it requires a second module which neutralizes gravity, then it would work fine
Yeah but that machine could also propel you forward without the useless glider
it has that second module, it's called a wing.
Zero point energy do research
@addictive object *.* they can prove there is a phenomenon that appears to cause masses to attract to each other, but no, no one can prove that gravity as we accept it is real. it could be a misunderstanding of what we are observing. I actually suspect this is the case.
We call that a blimp
Self contained Ion Powered Aircraft with onboard power. US patent number 10,119,527 filed in 2014. Sorry if some one already commented on this in one of the 1500 posts!
That's a really neat idea. I'm wondering what the negative side might produce, is it Ozone by any chance ?
No, watch the video carefully, it says it uses nitrogen. My guess is that you will end up with quite a bit of Nitrogen Oxide, just like the stuff produced after a lightening strike. Nitrogen Oxide is a kind of fertilizer that precipitates to he ground to make the plants grow healthier.
I've watched it several times, don't worry, but the Nitrogen is on the + side, shouldn't it be forming something on the - side ? And btw there's also ozone being produced when lightening strikes...
@@flori8320 Electric arcs ionize atoms in the air, and some of it will, just like after a lightning strike, recombine into ozon (O3) and nitrous oxides (NOx). Ozone is highly reactive and dangerous in too high concentrations (it has a distinct smell but is dangerous below the smelling threshold). NOx is poisonous and one of the gases catalytic converters in cars break down to nitrogen and oxygen. NOx is actually more than one type of gas, depending on how much oxygen there is relative to the nitrogen. (That is what the x means).
Thx for the info !
@@57thorns thanks
We need more minds on this. This concept is very interesting to experiment with
3:02 "It's probably the first solid state of a heavier than air vehicle" KEY WORD PROBABLY... because DARPA!
I would guess he said that be cause he was aware of my patent application for the Self Contained Ion Powered Aircraft. It was fully patented for carrying its power supply onboard (US 10,119,527) before the MIT version flew. Who can say for sure, but the probability is extremely high.
Wonderful, quite wonderful. And the obvious enthusiasm and pleasere makes it doubly so. Well done sir, well done indeed!
I have read a number of comments varying from positive to the opposite, I think it commendable that this is being looked at with fresh eyes and minds.
I also have a couple of thoughts to share. In this we see an assisted launch, no doubt as a means of proof of concept that flight can be sustained. Having said that I think the next logical step must be to see an unassisted take off so that acceleration overcoming stationary friction and inertia is essential for this to be shown as a viable propulsion system.
The other thing that occurs to me is this is not at this point overcoming Gravity. It is launched from above ground level at a slight upward angle so it is sort of maintaining altitude and that is what I see.. The ion drive used in Space does not have to do this and in fact uses other Planets Gravity to assist in progress in an almost complete Vacuum. In that situation it has shown to be a viable drive for an extended mission.
It will not I feel come to fruition in my lifetime of that I am sure (59 yrs of age). I do not however discourage any work in this field as it could well be a solution to some or many problems and dilemmas we face today. I also like the idea of fresh thinking because if we allow ourselves to go stale then NOTHING NEW will come about.
I say bring it on and go your hardest, Cheers from John, Australia.
I agree, not viable if Earth's gravity applies, but in space who knows?
In the actual paper, the reason for the catapult launch was because of the limited gym size they had to work in. It's possible it might be able to accelerate itself to liftoff on a long enough stretch and given enough battery capacity, though the paper didn't specifically address that as far as I can remember.
@@alekseiangell4886, That may well be the case as you have said. With extra weight of battery and a rolling undercarriage, or very low friction then it seem to make the challenge even greater, would you agree with that as a fair way of thinking? John.
PS In the paper were there any hints on how much thrust was achieved, just curious, Thanks.
@@joandar1 Calculated thrust-to-power ratio was 3.2 N/kW with an efficiency of about 2.56%.
On the other hand, just imagine how much fuel could be saved worldwide if ALL aircraft used catapults or other assisted take-off methods.
You know you could use frequency to align the air molecules (making them thicker) under the wings and body - and also around the rear of the fuselage, providing it was tapered in the back like a teardrop, causing it to move forward. Nice work BTW here, enjoyed the video and love this project.
"It has the potential to be a step that's very, uh, interesting"
Let's not go overboard now
Dangus wtf you mean this is the future
@@itsxerxes6754 He's joking about how humble this guy is being.
@@itsxerxes6754 Actually, no. This is not the future. This method of propulsion is old, unsafe (produces Ozone and NOx), and has a high power consumption.
This is not very impressive at all...I have seen paper airplanes fly much farther.
I see no evidence demonstrating SUSTAINED flight. Just gliding.
It doesn't look like the ION propulsion is providing even an ounce of thrust.
A propeller and rubber band can do much better.
@@jorgensenmj its the first flight, of a tech demonstrator. lol. It's proof of concept and nothing else. besides... every plane that has ever flown has had to stop flying at some point...
Finally... T Townsend Brown will be recognized for his genius.
Hello monoham,
I had replied to you under this Nature video, now I don't see my reply! Just google ion propelled and onboard power to see my earlier crafts in flight, or see my channel directly.
I built one for the science fair at my school when I was like 11.
Mine was tethered though for power reasons. Glad someone is making progress. It's a cool design that looks promising.
You might like one on my channel that has onboard power.
Cool video! Perhaps research into different shaped cathodes would be of benefit in increasing thrust. Like meshes etc?
There are earlier patented verified ion propelled crafts on my channel with onboard power.
I wonder if mach speed could be possible with Ion-flight one day.
This impressed me zero amount most of the flight was catapult assisted
The same could be said about the Wright brothers first flight. Look where we are now as far as flight goes. This is similar to the nuclear propulsion systems for long range bombers which were being developed during the 50's to the 60's. It works in much the same manner, but is less efficient, and without the nuclear reactor being carried on the aircraft. A solar powered plane powered this way seems very feasible within the next few decades.
@@greglusha3697 It would be great but I can't see it myself. I just can't see any flight from this other than the force of the catapult
Look at ~2:10 in the video ... clearly powered flight. Poorly edited video to put catapult driven glides and crashes first without somehow explaining.
The Wright’s first flight was against a stiff headwind. It would have looked pretty pathetic in a gym.
Great concept, lot of work must be spent until flying model took off first. I remember in school high voltage experiments got in trouble when air humidity got high. It is a real motivative challange to overcome the effect of clouds and small drops in the air.
The above was NOT the first flight of an aircraft with ion drive and onboard power!
The man who thought he had found electro gravitation was Townsend Brown. He found if you pass electrical voltage through a condenser, thrust will be applied in the direction of the positive pole. The problem is that it 100,000 volts to negate 1% of gravity. Which means you would need 10 million volts to negate gravity assuming the positive pole was pointed straight up.
Some say this is Ion Wind. I don't think we can say that with any authority as this effect (running voltage through a condenser) has not been fully studied. Scientists of the day and even today just assume(d) it was ionic wind because their minds couldn't comprehend it being anything else.
The mass of the ionised air is so little that it could never accelerate a heavy mass down a standard runway to a speed enough for a wing to work. The plane in the video was launched. Ion propulsion will work very well over huge distances, like to other planets, but you could never accelerate a wheeled vehicle (or taxi a plane) from one set of traffic lights to another.
sure it could(in theroy ), just don't get behind it
that's why every plane that has it uses propellors or jets as primary propulsion
to other planets? with a vehicle that needs to be surrounded by air to work?
@@johnuferbach9166 current rockets/thrusters also use air to work
@@johnuferbach9166Space craft with ion thrusters bring a source of ions with them. These can be much better for long range missions than chemical thrusters.
Thank you for how you made and how It works. Now, I can do this for a 3D printed drone. Ion Propulsion here I come. I just need to change my design of propellers to wings and lighten the load, which is easy for me.
Did it even propel itself? It looks like it was shot or pushed off the track, then glided till it stopped?
If that was the case, it would be pitching down alot sooner
@@zangryomani1257 I could have done better with a paper airplane.
@@scottengland8879 [This argument has ceased. Reason: Stupid person detected]
@@zangryomani1257 yeah, as a narc, you got butt hurt. I would much rather be dumb than to be someone who idealizes narcissism like yourself. And yeah it got an initial mechanical thrust, and a tiny percent of its glide was from ion "propulsion" before crashing after several seconds. Totally useless on any craft that weighs more than 5 pounds and is impacted by the breeze or weather.
A spherical shape with an opposing internal sphere, combined with segmented polarity switching, would be incredibly interesting to see. Even tethered for power, that would likely produce interesting results. Seems to me a spherical shape would allow for almost uninterrupted coverage which would greatly increase the production of an ionic wind and multiply the speed and improve directional control.
That is very cool thing , but saying that in the future it will replace millions of drones is a bit rediculous, image how much ozone that quantity of ion drones will produce ... ozone is poisonous gas
Hi Zack,
The MIT device does produce too much ozone. My VTOL ion propelled invention predates MIT's (patented and verified). It carries its power supply, and is carefully designed to produce almost zero ozone. It uses extremely low current and a few other techniques to avoid that. I really hope you like it at least a little better! Here is a video and the website for it.
Video: th-cam.com/video/Qdg0_hjuksQ/w-d-xo.html&
Website: www.electronairllc.org
Я из России , и плохо говорю по английски , по этому напишу на русском же языке.
1) не совсем понимаю, как получить высоковольтные элементы питания.
2) надо уменьшить расстояние между катодом и анодом ( медной проволокой и алюминиевым профилем ) . Так получится, что нужно будет меньше вольт , и в приницпе тяга же останется. В идеале бы чешуйчатое покрытие .
3) надо устанавливать ионные движители над крылом. Тогда именно там будет создаваться движение воздуха и там будет меньше плотность воздуха , соответственно создаваться будет подъёмная сила.
I can see the military naming schemes now. Add a bomb and what do you get? The brand new, "Silent but deadly!"
Of course they will. They will make a fighter plane with not just single, but twin ion engines.
It will be a TIE-fighter
communityband1
I thought "Silent but deadly!" meant a different wind form 💨 🤢
@@sethc6663 Yep, that's where I was going with that! :-)
Unsagbar Beeindruckend. Mir verschlägt es die Sprache! Grandios!
simple and interesting. But how is the efficiency?
Aria Ax
Ion propulsion is very efficient. The only problem is that it generates very little thrust, why it’s often used in small space probes that operates without resistance in the vacuum of space. I’m skeptical that this will ever work with any kind of payload or practical use.
@@joeltarnabene5026 Stricly speaking this is Ion propulsion, but it different to the ion propulsion of spacecrafts. I think the efficiency of this propulsion here, is way lower than the space one. This is because air is all around the cathode and anode, so there is probably a lot of charge leaking into the air without producing a positive thrust.
While the ion thrusters in space, use stored gas that is accelerated (similarly), so there is probably very very little wasted charge.
its bad
Wind is slang for a giant fart, like their idea.
Congratulations to Steven and his lab on succeeding where many others have failed!
Good point, but they should have acknowledged the patented Self Contained Ion Powered Aircraft, before saying they built the first ion propelled craft to carry its power supply. There are 5 public flight videos online, as well as sufficient legal and scientific verification of operability with onboard power that should be more than adequate.
The T Thomas Brown drive worked. The B2 bomber still uses the principal.
I'm glad someone finally did this, and I'm glad he doesn't claim it's antigravity.
What next! A flying bug zapper!
Hey, not just bugs ! It kills humans too
This is a new technology and it takes a long time to perfect it , but is very interesting to see this green technology in the airplanes, and i think that can be used in other things like firstly the drons, then the train or i dont know. That is why i love the technology, we can make a better world with the innovation.
I agree with you about use it in air planes and drones. Of course it will be a break from pollution to our world.
That's right, it should be applied in many different things so we can still improving or technology.
Watching the video I had the same idea as you, fixing some details on small scale vehicles would help us in the future when we need it for the big ones 😁
Please see the Self Contained Ion Powered Aircraft. There are many videos of the craft.
That man deserves a beer, holy shit
Ok, I hope you are reading the comments. I have been working on magnetic lift(single magnet) and started to look into ionic propulsion. MY QUESTION; how do you know the difference between the ionic propulsion and the gliding aspect for your craft?
Nice concept, but the high voltage would produce Ozone when it breaks down the air which is a harmful pollutant at low altitudes such as the ones they envisage any potential drones using.
Like thousands of tons of burnt jet fuel is not a pollutant.
@@rRobertSmith you underesteimate the greenhouse gas power of ozone.
If you fly these ionic craft at high altitude you can rapidly replenish the ozone depletion that the oil burning jets cause.
A big secret is, if you add a strong magnetic field, the thrust is increased dramatically.
The old design creates it's own magnetic field
B=E/c around 2 militesla. This B field crossed with the E field that is on the order of 500 kv/m yields a Poynting vector that provides the bulk of the thrust which is NOT IONIC rather it is light pressure force.
Given by the equation:
F=SA/c
S=[ExB]/mu
B=E/c
S=E^2/mu*c
F=E^2/mu*c^2
This is where no external magnetic field is present B can be substituted by E/c
If you use magnets then
F= EB/(c*mu)
where c is speed of light and W is the power in watts and A is the area and S is the Poynting vector. Mu is the permeability constant. 1.2E-6
As you see by incorporating neodymium magnets the force is dramatically increased.
Ex. Using 1 Tesla neomags
F= (500000V/m * 1T)/(1.2E-6 * 3E8 m/s)= 1388 N thrust. About 350 lbs
Regretfully only a handful of scientists will read this before the video is taken down.
ALL HAIL BIG OIL
Thank you for this!
If solid state means no moving parts then some pulsejets qualify for this... unless fuel is considered a moving part, which usually it is not. Just a thought.
You need a pump, to get the large amount of fuel to move fast...
@@SolarizeYourLife This is a common misconseption, so don't feel bad, but pulsejets can run on compressed gas (already pressurised) and other fuels can be aspirated into the engine by areodynamics, or forced in by a pressurised bladder. Some pulse jets do indeed use pumps though.
@Dave Sulphate - I presume liquid fuel could also be fed by gravity. No moving parts (except for the reeds). ;-)
@@cybair9341 This is true for some designs, but many pulse jets also dont even have reed valves either (for example the lockwood hiller type).
1. why does it need a catapult ? 2. why does it stop flying ?
1. catapult provides the initial speed, see the last attempt! 2. the room, in which the experiment took place was limited
hmm. I see a lot of crash scenes, and a few other cutscenes which are to short to judge if there's any propulsion at play at all. Those same cutscenes could be done with a paper airplane.
I agree. I didn't see anything that a well balanced glider wouldn't do IMHO.
specialy taking in considiration the amount of lift those wingtype electrods do
yep... mit is pretty sub par with their presentations. seriously, their own channel is a bunch of stuff even less functional. lol. i still wish them the best, but they dont inspire confidence at all. lmao.
I’m rooting for this guy and his infectious excitement 🙂
This glider would have flown much further without that massive amount of drag on it without the minuscule amount thrust it produces, this seems ludicrous.
Perceptive, See "Self Contained Ion Powered Aircraft" video, for the real thing!
Thomas Townsend Brown, while experimenting with this phenomenon, is said to have done successful vacuum tests. If he actually figured out how to do that it would mean It doesn't ionize air particles. There is a chance that this is causing an interaction between the electromagnetic field and gravity itself, electrogravitics.
My patented "Self Contained Ion Powered Aircraft" is ion propelled and carries its power supply, it does not produce ozone. It would though if it were configured the like the MIT device.
i still have my doubts this was sustained flight and not just power glide...
Anyone else remember the whole thing with lifters and guys doing the same thing with R/C "plasma-craft" like from over a decade ago? I think Jean-Louis Naudin was the most memorable of the bunch. Or is that stuff not easily found anymore? (Sure the videos from then would have been 240p potato quality, but it's not like they weren't doing anything. Admittedly the majority was still hypothetical and renders, but they did have some crude working demo aircraft to help back those concepts.)
I suppose this is a bit like how Wright Brothers got all the attention and credit, even though they were writing to Langley and getting good advice from him while proceeding with their work.
Respect for what you've achieved but seeing that it didn't get to fly on it's own is a bit disappointing :(
Missing the part where they see how far the glider goes when catapulted with power off, for comparison.
They did, but they should've compared it to the glider without a grid, because when the ion drive is switched on it negates the drag of the grid. Please click on my channel icon to see a more efficient such device.
Comon' it's a good glider pushed by a bunch of scientists creating work and funding for themselves.
Are you brain dead ? It clearly flew. It could have gone farther, but thats why this is a proof of concept.
*I'm not an expert on this but this looks pretty much like a glider to me.*
*I read that this has been a concept since 55 years ago. It didn't take real aircrafts that long to become a thing within their first much more modern concepts.*
*If this is at this age after 55 years, then I guess it will take 300 years more before a commercial sized plane form of it will be in use.*
Ok. Now nano-size it.
Why not have multiple + rods up front and one somewhat larger - rod in the rear to have forced and more concentrated propulsion?
Ion propelled planes, or other topic.
If they wouldn't just have certain spots for ion interaction, where the ions are emitted, or thrown out through jets.
If ion propelled planes, or other ion propelled vessels. Utilized propulsion of some sort, shedding ions. In which all at once, from entirely a charged vessel's polarized haul.
Energy signiture's, or signal's, or ions would be possible to send, or to receive. It's like torus Field's, or alternating currents, or energy field's, or force balances. Or it's like how entenna's work, as they interact with field dynamics.
All what would really be needed for polarized haul's to emit energy wave form's, is energy to power it and a strong energy field.
Things like frequency, or signiture's, or like a schuman earth resonance. Or in likeness, when nikola tesla had a oscillating machine setting to the right frequencies. It's essentially about a medium like around the earth. A medium, where energies persist matrix's and gives it form. As I said around such polarized haul's and in which could be utilized.
1:57 so doesn’t that just mean positive is 40,000 volts and negative is 0?
It means the potential across them is 40kV, but it is not the same.
Cathode, "wire" is NEGATIVE, ion flow to "WING" PLATE, is ,ANODE=POSITIVE+, Mistake is "BATTERY" is been, labeled incorrectly, for century's backwards. Thats 1st thing, you are taught!
MsSomeonenew I thought it was practically the same idea
That potential voltage is all you have to care about
@@runforitman Not exactly. I mean my electrical knowledge is limited but , since we are talking about a flying object that has no ground(what is 0V) how do you make the ions move toward the other wire if it has the same charge as the air? So this is why I believe they have to "negatively charge" the other wire(s) to actually make it work.
@@matijagaspar2357 The other wire is 0v
Very exciting as the guy is...
I hope he achieve this, and if so then give him a noble award for his hard work..
Please click on the channel icon to the left, to see a much earlier EAD craft that can carry its power supply onboard.
Description should read "with NO moving parts for the first time".
Have you thought about just having a long wing chord and then accelerating the air just above the wing?
That could get rid of the draggy wires and leave just the normal airfoil. It would integrate the wires structurally and aerodynamically...
take those "ion engines" off and then use the catapult. I would be willing to bet it would fly a longer distance.
Make a actual well designed plane and not whatever the fuck that is and it'll fly 100 metres.
If it is Propel with no wind then why do you need a catapult
If you click on the purple channel icon to the left, you can see 5 prototypes of the one that really is the first to carry its power supply! It doesn't need a catapult either:).
Claiming this as being the first it totally disingenuous and frankly plagiarism. Google "lifter" and you can see people were messing about with this in the 90's.... prats
A question here for anyone who can answer it; due to the fact that ionisation energy is a constant thing dependent on gasses involved, will the efficiency of ion aircraft be stuck at a high limit that can never be surpassed?
If you click on the purple channel icon to the left, "all" of your ion propulsion questions will hopefully be answered. (The answer to your question though is no.)
Engage.
Exciting research!
The pace of modern science is incredible.
If you click on the channel icon to the left, you can see an many prototypes of an earlier one with onboard power.