I see nothing misleading in either term Harry, drift describes accurately what the ions do wrt the neutrals, and wind describes accurately what the neutrals do while entrained by the drifting ions.
I agree "ion wind" is misleading though, because it could easily be mistaken for "ionic wind" (a wind of ions). It would have been better to call it "ion induced wind" or "ion entrained wind". Note there are many scientific terms which would benefit from a change, e.g. anode and cathode should be renamed by their original names eisode and exode as I mentioned once cf wikipedia, but one can't change engrained habits, think of all the textbooks which would have to be rewritten :-) Michel Professional arbiter, whale herder, etymologist, and general purpose mad scientist ;-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 7:05 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Army paper on lifters ... >> Anyway beware that what they call "ionic drift" is what the rest of the world >> calls ion wind (ion induced wind of neutrals, as in paddle induced flow of >> water), aka ion drag, aka electric wind, aka corona wind, and what they call >> "ballistic ionic wind" or "ionic wind" has nothing to do with ion wind. If >> they had known the correct terms they might have found relevant literature on >> the subject lol :) >> >> Michel > > For this phenomena drift and wind are both misleading terms...if you ask me. > > Harry >
