Better: area OK, but power still wrong.

Michel

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: New multiwire-plane lifter design guide (was Re: lifter in a 
accelerating frame)


> Michel Jullian wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Harry wrote:
>> 
>>>> 100 kg thrust, 1 m gap, 0.9 kV/mm
>> ...
>>> Is this correct?
>>> 
>>> power consumption  9 kW
>>> area               3.1 m^2
>>> wire spacing       1.3m
>> 
>> Only the wire spacing is correct, check your power and area calculations.
> 
> 
> power consumption  90 kW
> area               310 m^2
> 
> Harry
> 
>>> Suggestions:
>>> Rephrase the scaling rules to read:
>>> 
>>> "The W per g are proportional to the kV/mm, whereas the m^2 per g are
>>> proportional to the inverse square of the kV/mm."
>>> 
>>> I would also explicitly show the mass in the calculation
>>> of the area in the example section.
>> 
>> Thanks for the improvements, revised version:
>> *********************************************
>> MULTIWIRE-PLANE LIFTER/IONOCRAFT DESIGN GUIDE:
>> --------
>> Reference design: At 1 kV/mm (the max we can do without arcing) the power
>> consumption is 2 W per "gram" of thrust, and the required area is 0.0025 m^2
>> per g.
>> 
>> Scaling rules: The W per g are proportional to the kV/mm, whereas the m^2 per
>> g are proportional to the inverse square of the kV/mm.
>> 
>> Wire: as thin as possible (0.1mm OK in most cases), wire-wire spacing = 1.3
>> times the gap length d (optimum value)
>> 
>> EXAMPLE:
>> ---------------
>> We want to lift 50 g, and we choose a v/d of half the max value i.e. 0.5
>> kV/mm, namely v=25kV for a d=50mm gap, to save on power consumption (our 
>> color
>> monitor is only 75W)
>> 
>> 1/ Required power per g: 2 W * 0.5 = 1 W  -> Power consumption for 50 g = 50 
>> W
>> 2/ Required area per g: 0.0025 m^2 / 0.5^2 = 0.01 m^2 -> Area for 50 g = 0.50
>> m^2
>> 3/ Wire-wire spacing: 1.3*50 mm = 65mm
>> 
>> *********************************************
>> --
>> Michel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>

Reply via email to