Good try Dave, but you need to learn a bit more about corona discharges. As a matter of fact you do get air entraining ion flow, aka ion wind or electric wind, in both corona polarities: +ve ions when the wire is +ve wrt the skirt, -ve ions when you reverse polarity. Air ions of both signs have about the same mobility, hence the unchanged lift.
Of course as you correctly pointed out the wire cannot emit ions. It can only emit or receive electrons, and that's what it does actually at the end of the complex chemistry (about 40 reactions) occurring in the thin neutral plasma sheath (bright purple glow) around the wire. It's the plasma sheath that emits the monopolar (+ve or -ve but not both) ions in fact, not the wire. If you're interested in a straightforward derivation of some of the characteristics (thickness, voltage drop) of the plasma sheath, here is one I wrote some time ago http://www.blazelabs.com/coronaradius.pdf Michel P.S. I wonder what's so hideous about EHD that so many apparently sensible people want to debunk it? ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Thomson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 4:14 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]: Lifters > Hi Michel, > > > > The only problem with ion wind theory is that there isn't enough thrust in > the ions to cause a lifter to lift. What's more, you can reverse the > polarity of the wire and broad conductor and the lift is the same. If > electrons were being emitted as ion wind in one case, they would not be in > the other case. Since there are no positively charged electrons and any > protons would have 1836 times the mass of the electron and give different > results, the ion wind theory is bust. > > > > Just because a mathematical formula gives a number doesn't mean that number > can be applied to a non-existent phenomenon. > > > > Dave > > > > >> Also, for you Michel, why does the ion mobility equation necessarily >> interpret as being ion wind? > > ... > >> Dave > > Because ion [induced] wind yields exactly the above thrust formula if you do > the maths, here is an elegant derivation by R.S. Sigmond (if the 16 kB gif > image makes it to the list) > > > > Michel > >
