Superior Ionic Plasma Thruster Inspired By Nature (BTC Mark 3)

Let this ionic thruster turn some gears, and let my sponsor betterhelp connect you to a therapist who can support you - all from the comfort of your own home. Visit betterhelp.com/plasma or choose PlasmaChannel during signup, and enjoy a special discount on your first month of support.
Perhaps a sequential ionic thrust topology is not the way to go. It makes the most sense, but in reality results in dimishing returns. In this video - I explore the possibility of a peripheral approach to ionic thrust, using triconvergent air, and build it into a thruster which is impact proof.
Try out OnShape for free, at Onshape.pro/PlasmaChannel
OpenSauce tickets and info can be found here: opensauce.com/
BSI Mark 1: • Designing A Next-Gen I...
BSI Mark 2: • The Next Generation of...
Ionic wing: • Designing A Self Prope...
Support / Follow Plasma Channel on:
Patreon: / plasmachannel
Twitter: / channelplasma
Facebook: / plasmachanne. .
Instagram: jay.bowles.plasma
Check out the new merch here: crowdmade.com/collections/pla...
=======================
**Music credits**
======================
Title screen music:
Song: Sappheiros - Awake
Music provided by Vlog No Copyright Music.
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Unported
Video Link: • Sappheiros - Awake (Vl...
ALL other music provided by Epidemic Sounds
#future #innovation #ionicthrust
I am also a television actor! Follow me on IMDB
My IMDB: www.imdb.com/name/nm6578948/

[@BillDeWitt]

I've mentioned this before, but you need exponential spacing. You are trying to accelerate a 2.8 column of air with another 2.8 stream input. Because you want external entrainment, you might consider an exponential horn housing. Each 2.8 input would force more air into a smaller space, increasing the speed. Alternatively, each thruster could be exponentially increased in power, to use the same level of input more efficiently. So like cut the first one in half, raise the last one by double. Without external entrainment, you could change the distance between anode and cathode to accelerate the same stream successively but with increased speed each time. The first one would be closest, and the second one twice as separated, but since the air is already moving, the ions would travel much faster covering the doubled distance in the same time.

[@TheObserver567]

I don’t think that will behave as you mentioned. Not sure this system can compress air. But would be worth testing. Likely why he did not see much improvement when doing the spacing. Would love to see a 15” version of this.

[@JoeyBlogs007]

Why not put all thrusters in one sealed tube to get more of a jet effect?

[@TheObnoxiousSquirrel]

@@JoeyBlogs007 because it won't pull air in from the side to compress it and further increase airflow

[@andrebarreto9177]

@@JoeyBlogs007 or maybe circular thrusters, just kinda hard to build.

[@user-jx5ju8pe7o]

Erm Akchually ☝🤓

[@MarcStollmeyer]

I really think you need to switch to static thrust measurement as a method of comparing efficiency rather than output velocity alone. For example, you might be seeing the same 2.8 meters per second output on two designs with the same power but one could have way more thrust than the other due to the surface area of the output. You might also have a design with lower velocity that is far more efficient than one with higher. You kinda touched on this with liters of flow but a thrust stand will provide more accurate information. Grams of static thrust per watt is the gold standard of measured efficiency. You should be making more than 1 gram per watt from what I know about ionic thrusters. 4 grams per watt is the highest I’ve ever heard of from research papers.

[@julianholstein3840]

^THIS!!! Great comment, do you think this could be done with just a kitchen scale?

[@graymatrrocks]

100%

[@DoubsGaming]

With maybe a little math and providing a point for rotation yes you can use any scale. (given it's accurate) Basically the same as a load cell.

[@manz5945]

Yeah, he absolutely needs a better way of measuring thrust and efficiency

[@gary.richardson]

It seems like all thrusters need to have equal thrust. Otherwise, one is doing most of the work.

[@redhairshanks9491]

Man seeing an american engineering channel use the metric system is a breath of fresh air. Awesome project man, this has huge potential

[@ethenharrelson4688]

Every math and science class I’ve ever had in my life uses metric. Hell every American unit system is metric and then converted to imperial

[@ThatDiecastGuy69]

take your metric mumbo jumbo and leave freedom alone

[@Rich77UK]

As a British child of the 80s, my schooling and life even now (I work for American firms a lot and also with electronics), which is a blend or should i say, confusing mixture of metric and imperial. Britain STILL measures weights in metric measurements in metres, CM, MM, inches, feet, and miles. Road speed, distances, and consumption are ALL miles and gallons (UK). PCBs are fun as "mil" in Europe/metric is an abbreviation of Millimetre. "Thou" is 1/1000 of an inch. In American Imperial, "mil" is 1/1000 of an inch. So when I lived in San Jose I had to choose my words very carefully. We will never lose the mixture of both until ALL nations switch and industry follows....which I doubt will ever happen.

[@Zeaiclies]

It's more about stubborn pride, and misguided Patriotism than anything that the United States clings to bastardized Imperial units. The cost of converting would be a mere $400 Million dollars or so, but then we could not say we are Special to the World anymore. lol

[@Sandux930]

NASA has used only metric since the 80s

[@TimothyKNetherlands]

Okay hear me out. If you're not going to do it, I might. Consider the following: - A wing profile is revolved radially, such that you end up with a wing profile that's disk shaped. - The disk is initially stationary with air surrounding the disk. - Underneath the disk wing, there's 'zero' radial velocity, indicating high pressure. - Above the wing, there's non-zero radial velocity of air, indicating low pressure. - The radial velocity of air above the wing is induced by plasma. - The electrodes are circular rings placed on top of the disk, where the inner ring has a smaller diameter than the outer ring, such that air flow radially from in to out. - The disk is made using CNC and is supposed to be extremely lightweight, i.e. EPS foam (non-flammable) density of about 30 kg/m3. Preferable thin-walled, perhaps with ribs if there's low stiffness. - Downward 'Wingtips' around the disk's edge could be used to properly separate the high and low pressures. - You could use a wing profile that has a very high Cl, i.e. high lift at low speed, since Cl does not rely on airspeed. - You could subdivide the disk into 4 parts, where each quarter's potential difference can be manipulated, which could help in allowing you to steer. The idea is to create a solid velocity difference between top and bottom surfaces, to create a strong lift force, where the bottom velocity is essentially zero (stand still). Relying on Bernoulli's principle we can determine the lift force. For a simple rectangular plate with area 'A' being in air with density rho, the lift force Fl = 1/2 * rho * A * (Vtop^2 - Vbot^2). I've done quick calculations. Considering your and others previous work, I think it's viable starting at ~45 kV. if we can achieve similar airflow speeds, I think we could create the first actual hovering UFO drone that doesn't rely on moving parts. Some other notes: - There should be sufficient airflow, such that a 'boundary' layer is formed between the high and low pressure zones. Such that air doesn't leak towards the low pressure zone - Use foam that is preferably fire-retardant, since the plasma may ignite the foam. EPS should be suitable, XPS possibly not. - Preferably use foam or another lightweight material for the electrodes. Paint it with graphite spray and use electroplating to make some seriously lightweight electrodes. - One conclusion I had from watching your videos, is that the air speed doesn't necessarily increase with multiple stages. But it does help in creating a more uniform flow over a larger volume or area. Using multiple electrode rings may create a very uniform flow field above the disk. Been thinking about this for quite some time, and I am thinking about doing it as a hobby project, but I think this would fit your Channel a lot better and if it works out, it's a world's first! (not considering Aliens did it before we did, lol.)

[@gingginggango]

DAMN BRO COOKED

[@Skywalker8510]

As an engineering student that’s wants to go into aerospace. This comment is really interesting.

[@FIashOOT]

I am not reading all that,but you sound smart and it sounds like a good idea

[@PlasmaChannel]

This is a good situation to explore. You may want to check out my ionic thrust wing I recently invent/built. It’s about 5 videos back. I designed it that way so as to Introduce a permanent velocity difference between top and bottom, creating lift even when the wing is at zero velocity horizontally. Incorporating that into a UFO shape has potential- though - that air has to come from somewhere. If all the radial ionic segments blast air outward on the top, it means the air must come from a center column in the middle of the top. This does introduce significant drag interaction between air above and top of ufo surface.

[@TimothyKNetherlands]

@PlasmaChannel, I appreciate your response. I've watched the video, and it's definitely a step in the right direction. If it could be made more lightweight, perhaps it could already achieve flight. I'm uncertain about the 'refill source' of the air. It could be drawn in from the center top of the disk, or perhaps it's sucked in over the entire top surface. I've been pondering about this. While it seems logical that the majority is drawn in from the center due to the direction of flow, if we consider air molecules being 'pushed' away locally by the plasma, it makes me wonder why the void wouldn't replenish locally either (thus 'refilling' air across the entire surface). But that could indeed be a replenishment due to the flow itself. Perhaps you could check the inflow velocity of your plasma fan. Is it close to zero, or is there obvious suction? Edit: watching your wing video again, there's obvious suction. So it would make sense it comes from the top center. Regarding drag, the initial goal is to create a hovering disk, achieving a force balance. Considering the suction from the middle, I'm unsure of the drag's significance. My intuition says it's relatively little compared to the lift generated. However, this largely depends on how air is drawn in, the surface area affected by drag, and the interaction of the moving air molecules with the disk (vector of the molecules). That's why I'm quite eager to see if it would even work experimentally. And if it fails, it'd be a succesful failure, since in the end it's a learning experience. The primary objective should be achieving a force balance for sustained hovering. The lift force could significantly surpass the weight, especially if lightweight materials like foam are used. If there's sufficient margin, it may also handle the drag, who's order of magnitude is yet unknown. Exploring its dynamic behavior, it's obvious that rapid acceleration/speeds won't be achievable due to the significant frontal area of the disk. Please keep it mind; I'm eager to see where the wing design leads! :)

[@avocadoarms358]

Dude, a second Channel of just you recording the process of you designing and building the prototypes in long form, like an hour or even longer, would be mad and you’d be able to get a video out sooner, less editing needed because it’s a second channel video, no music is really needed, just pure analysis and prototyping. I’d love to see how you do your process and how your brain works. I often say you can see Adam savages brain work on the outside as he builds things. And I love the rawness of the content.

[@pimvanduijne]

I fully agree, but it would increase the overall work-load.

[@PlasmaChannel]

That’s a good idea!

[@Quickened1]

​@@PlasmaChannelyour 3D modeling skills are off the charts, that's for sure! Your brain never shuts down when you're designing this stuff! Awesome designs... We commoners could never understand the hours you put into this. Thanks for being who you are. 👍

[@dracconis69]

@@PlasmaChannel Nature doesn't do angles. Since most if not all of your ideas and designs are coming from nature (Think about that for a moment), I would suggest you take the shape design of the MKII and the concept of the MKIII and combine the 2. In other words make the MKIII round with 4 sections per circular ring at the same 22 degree inclination.

[@LokiScarletWasHere]

Better yet, if he records the process for said second channel, that can lighten the recording load for the main channel, albeit increasing the recording and editing load as a whole.

[@Makex_sweden]

Awesome work! Here are some improvements i suggest: - measure grams of thrust per watt instead of airspeed - focus mainly on achieving max thrust at a certain size - use a single tube design with no holes in the sides of the design to simplify aerodynamics and testing Robust design like you did was really smart, hope you continue with the ionic thurster. Would love to see this on rc planes or even table fans in the future

[@guytech7310]

"use a single tube design with no holes in the sides of the design to simplify aerodynamics and testing" The concept he is applying is to pull air in from the sides & push it to the center.

[@ashleyobrien4937]

@@guytech7310 Couldn't agree more, he is not concentrating on the thrust, which is the absolute problem with this type of propulsion, messing around with all the other superfluous aspects is kind of lazy, but I know why he's doing that, it's easier than tackling the hard issue and it satisfies the easily impressed viewers out there, so, meh, I wouldn't call any of this really interesting or intriguing. For example if you look at another unrelated channel, ah "Tech. Ingredients" I think it's called, a father and son team who tackle all manner of projects those guys REALLY dig into the science and do respectable work.

[@CaedenV]

Could you imagine the power bill of such a fan compared to a typical 10-20W fan? Sucking down 100W of power just to have a small breeze with chance of electrical shock lol.

[@PlasmaChannel]

@CaedenV haha it’s exhilarating isn’t it? You forgot the best part - a small chance of fire too 😅

[@HYEpower]

​@PlasmaChannel iv been trying to explain the basics of my advanced aerospace to you for many many years and though my plasma thruster is very different you miss one major aspect in the technology. You have no pressure chamber around the thruster.... to explain it quick you have a pressure chamber but small scale for yours uses an elastic balloon. The thruster will need a skeleton around it for the deflated balloon to go around. One end of the balloon has a intake valve that can only suck air in from the thruster intake. On the other end you need a pressure valve that will release at a specific calculated pressure needed to launch it... have the thruster work and inflate the balloon building pressure that will fill it to desired pressure the the valve releases and as that happens thrust the thruster full power and it will utilize the pressure thrust combined with the thrusters thrust.. to cool it down so it does not melt the balloon use very cold helium gas dispersed into the plasma field but u think you should be good. Mine uses a metal pressure chamber at high pressures using hot plasma cooled down using very cold helium gas. The balloon method would be good to experiment with before using metal pressure chamber and a thruster that can produce dangerous pressures.

[@sethmathieus4776]

"my work has paralleled MIT's attempt" is not something many people can say. Congratulations man, good work!

[@PlasmaChannel]

I appreciate that, thanks!

[@mattdriscoll4102]

@@PlasmaChannelDo you know how awful BetterHelp actually is? You should really read up on their shortcomings as a therapy service. It’s irresponsible to advertise their service.

[@AarushA.S]

​@@PlasmaChannel 1 trusted 3m/s 3 truster no improvement?

[@13374me]

@@PlasmaChannel It might be a good idea to read some of the papers that are open access on the subject, if you haven't already. There are a huge amount of variables, not just lateral spacing of the individual thrusters but also vertical spacing, as well as voltage comparisons, spacing between the anode and cathode, pin vs wire ionization etc. It might be a little too in depth for what you're going for, but if you are working on pushing the technology looking at what other people are working on in the field would be beneficial, it's not just MIT either there are Chinese papers as well.

[@maxng7211]

I love that part of the design change is you've moved from 'how fast can we push air' to the more important question 'how much air can we push'.

[@davidharley7753]

Just a reality check: at 4m/s and a cross-sectional area of about 100cm2 you're putting about 0.3W of power into the air; for a 70W input. Because energy rises as velocity squared the second stage of your first prototype is actually _more_ efficient than the first. To maximize thrust efficiency you actually want to move a large volume of air slowly rather than a small volume fast, something ionic thrusters might be suited to. However, due to the nature of ionic acceleration much of the energy input is going into rotational/vibrational states of the molecules rather than velocity, so it's unlikely ionic thrusters will ever be efficient enough to compete with, say, a propeller. But still fun stuff, thanks for posting.

[@dennisalbert6115]

His structures are basic structures. With more research, better material, and material structures, it will improve. For example, toroidal fins are structure improvements, and it will happen for ionic thrusters, too

[@anthony_horton]

@@dennisalbert6115 Iterative refinements like that historically get you improvements of a factor of a few, eventually. If you're starting with a system that is about 0.5% efficient then you're not a factor of a few short of where you need to be in order to be competitive, you're a couple of orders of magnitude behind. At that point you either need a radical change to the entire approach, or just accept that atmospheric ionic thrusters are a very, very cool scientific curiosity but not really a viable form of propulsion.

[@BooBaddyBig]

I haven't checked your arithmetic, but he might well be better off just running resistance wires and running a thermal cycle.

[@anthony_horton]

@@BooBaddyBig If turning electrical energy into thrust by moving air is the objective then nothing else comes even close to a brushless DC motor turning a well matched propeller, on more or less any performance metric you choose (except perhaps for low noise). Buying some off the shelf FPV drone motors and marvelling at how good they are wouldn't make for compelling content, though. Plasma Channel is sticking with atmospheric ionic thrusters because building very cool high voltage physics toys and making well produced videos about them is what he does, and he's very good at it. I just wish he would be more honest that that is what he's doing (as he is in a lot of his other videos), rather than wrapping it up in the "I'm inventing the future of aerospace" schtick.

[@PlasmaChannel]

Great input! I know the pursuit is nearly pointless - ionic thrust will never compete with propellers on efficiency. Then again, I’m not going for efficiency. If I can design a thruster that uses 5 times the power of a propeller system (currently it needs more power than that haha), I’d still consider it a win. Because as battery densities continue to increase, as small scale nuclear becomes a reality, energy requirements for electrical apparatus aren’t going to matter much. So I’m focusing more on the improvement of thrusters approach, less on the trying to actually beat a propeller approach, Great input

[@steveclemo75]

Amazing! You're part way to a turbine engine with no moving parts. It's possible there is turbulence happening between each stage as you're compressing air and then running the next stage at the same size. It might make sense to reduce and move the 2nd stage to the size of the covergance point of the first stage. Not sure of the 3 stage, maybe the same or go larger than the first stage, like and afterburner, with a case the diameter of the largest stage, assuming it ultimately needs to be fit as such in a plane. Also, redesigning it circular as opposed to triangular will reduce internal turbulance, adding a slight twist to the blades to create a vortex should also stabilize airflow. Just spit balling, you're doing great stuff.❤

[@BooleanDisorder]

This series is my medication. Love it. Thanks for showing us this progress!

[@BrianJacobson]

I think you should run a design competition and have viewers submit thruster designs and you build and test them.

[@alleycatsphinx]

Love this

[@kingmasterlord]

great way to farm patents to buy up and sit on.

[@TimothyKNetherlands]

@@kingmasterlord not really. The moment you share, you can no longer patent the idea.

[@wpjohn91]

Rc test flight

[@kingmasterlord]

@@TimothyKNetherlands like they cant make some legally distinct tweak then file a patent that's broad af.

[@markkmchugh]

May you thrust yourself further into excellence. Well done sir, loving your content and brain

[@vor6126]

your work and rapid-prototyping inspires me so much

[@nzuckman]

Please drop Better Help as a sponsor man, they sell people's medical info to advertisers :(

[@techno_viking2609]

not just that but they also threatten everyone who dodge their sponsorship, they are a real evil shady company.

[@ThatLineupGuy]

And they don't check if they're therapists are liscened, so please don't take them as a sponsor if you care about your audience.

[@cncmasterw]

​@@randomsomeguy156look yourself in a mirror and remember. Even moms can love the ugliest child.

[@etaaramin9361]

​@@randomsomeguy156no, then we just wont get more Bsi thruster videos, which are some of his most fascinating.

[@projectdeveloper9311]

@@randomsomeguy156 That's kinda shitty behavior against the guy in my opinion, it's not like he's at fault for a shitty company, probably don't even know about this, but do whatever you want, your choice anyway

[@TheOfficialReapsZ]

Drop the betterhelp.

[@vivekdubey9061]

What's the deal with it?

[@pimvanduijne]

WHY? let the man earn some money doing what he loves?

[@zillamill]

​@vivekdubey9061 they have routinely subpar service turnout for the prices they charge, go for him for the sponsorship tho

[@hevscientist_017]

lore?

[@alligatorscrublord]

@@pimvanduijne it's not about the sponsorship, it's about the fact that that sponsorship is betterhelp. betterhelp makes no guarantee that your therapist will be licensed or educated, and it's not actually as cost effective as getting a licensed one for less time.

[@DoremiFasolatido1979]

1) They need to still be circular. They can be segmented...1/3 or 1/4 circle for each thruster, but a round interior will create smoother airflow and offer larger internal area for objects to fit through without compromising volume. 2) You'll need to find a way to more smoothly merge the flows so that they compound one another. As it is, currently, they're slamming into each other and losing energy. They're not blending together to improve flow, and they're losing velocity in the process. My recommendation would be to find a way to offset the thrusters at an angle, laterally. Instead of merely tilting them so their exhaust is pointed inward, also tilt them so that flow is off-centered, to create a vortex. Then they shouldn't be slamming into one another, but more like merging on a highway.

[@ralph72462]

Super impressive!😊 Awesome work! 👌 I have been following your progress and you have come a pretty long way towards something that might end up being used in a real life application and surpass the model stage. I think you are on the right track. Can't wait to see your next video.

[@Hesous]

I have been designing air ducts recently, and one of the very important things is to not restrict the air flow rapidly. For the best results it's best to stay under 10 degrees of restriction. Keep up the good work!

[@jonathoncouchey7151]

Funny enough for engine cylinder heads it's about 15 degrees as the limit.

[@AffectiveApe]

Your explanations and commentary are excellent. Awesome video and project. Edit: I do agree with some of the other commentators that some of the revelations about BetterHelp's data policies deserve scrutiny and push back. Hopefully you can find more responsible sponsorship partners moving forward.

[@custos3249]

As someone in psych, you really gotta dump BetterHelp as a sponsor. For everyone else on PC, don't forget about sponsorblock.

[@VandalIO]

Why ? Are they dodgy ?

[@Tylorean]

@@VandalIO Not only that; they sell your data, overcharge you and underpay their „psychiatrists“, who often aren’t even trained.

[@custos3249]

@@VandalIO How would you feel about not just having your data sold in a capacity I still don't understand doesn't violate HIPPA standards, the "help" you receive _might_ come from someone the credentials they advertised but probably not since licensure is all state by state (good luck if you're outside the US), and have fun finding someone able to maintain even the basics since the underpaid "therapists" they employ are expected to have turn around times faster than some insurance companies mandate. Sure, they may not be as bad as asylums from the 1940s, but I wouldn't say that's a compliment.

[@custos3249]

@@VandalIO Hilarious YT censored this. Anyway- How would you feel about not just having your data sold in a capacity I still don't understand doesn't violate HIPPA standards, the "help" you receive _might_ come from someone the credentials they advertised but probably not since licensure is all state by state (good luck if you're outside the US), and have fun finding someone able to maintain even the basics since the underpaid "therapists" they employ are expected to have turn around times faster than some insurance companies mandate. Sure, they may not be as bad as asylums from the 1940s, but I wouldn't say that's a compliment.

[@TesserId]

I've heard people who work these kinds of services are incentivized to rope you in to staying on for long periods to rack up charges and get you to come back for more. They get penalized if they fail to rack up the charges. The same applies to those working psychic hotlines.

[@GuyayeFusa]

your insights into this topic have been invaluable, thanks!

[@FletaNagine]

thanks for always being so informative and thorough!

[@masonliang4493]

Maybe you could try a circular design instead of a triangular design. I feel like it might focus the air a little better.

[@swagger7]

I was going there as well, creating a high speed vortex?

[@romanbengaldrole4061]

It could be interesting to place a central charged rod so the airflow gets “added” and focused (even directed maybe ?)

[@romanbengaldrole4061]

High speed vortex why not, but I tried to design this for a water propeller, and you would need Lorentz force = weird magnets placement… Basically you would need a magnetic field that goes to the center (hence the rod), and a way to attract it to a focused point in the back + a “venturi” style system could be interesting as the air would be pulled in the vortex… I would try this if i had high voltages and strong magnets…

[@JoeyBlogs007]

Agree and a better power to weight ratio as the cylinder has a natural strength advantage, so you can make it thinner

[@VandalIO]

I was thinking the same ! Like anode and cathode be rings from bigger to smaller with air guides within to guide airflow

[@_alextimka_]

Cool video. Shitty sponsor

[@narrativeless404]

tru

[@TJPlaysNow]

Super cool! Can't wait to see and talk at open sauce! I need to finish my videos about my projects. I also can't believe it's been a full year since your last version of the engine. Super super cool technology and I love the progress

[@othoapproto9603]

This is a lesson in holding my tung, at so many levels!

[@NFTI]

Yeah! Can't wait for OpenSauce! See you there!

[@TheGuyWhoComments]

1 like is crazy

[@vexari4683]

yeah

[@osculant]

Can’t wait to see you at Open Sauce again this year! Had a great time chatting with you at the last one.

[@RyanF470]

You could change to a design similar to a Dyson Fan, with a small inlet at the front surface. Curved surface and using an aerofoil design to reduce pressure further back in the ring design would create a venturi effect allowing the air to move faster, you can then recombine the two streams of air both now traveling faster together, increasing the pressure again, as they combine with the outside air you should gain a larger net air throughput. Ensuring the outer and inner surfaces are smooth and dont cause too much air turbulance. You could also create multiple voltage points. Entrance 2xV, V, GND Any air that entered without being energised can then be energised at intermediary steps. This would keep the voltage differentail in one direction, otherwise you could end up with a second stage causing a counter effect.

[@michaelamorello3348]

Been a pleasure following the iterations of these thrusters! Others might have suggested this, but I would suggest a dedicated testing rig that puts the anemometer at either a fixed distance from the thruster, or has variable distance gauges so that you can reliably capture data at the point of highest constructive interference (or multiple points along the air stream). Excited to see Mark 4!

[@torven1092]

Truly becoming closer to real life Halo every day

[@TIAHQ]

🛸🉑CERN- Large Hadron ColliderATLAS Experiment at FLASH مغربيUNHCR AfghanistanChina Xinhua EconomyUKF DubstepScience & EngineeringBilal Hussain Bill Nye The Science GuyFBI Community OutreachUSA TODAYUnited States Space ForceUnited NationsNASA Solar System ExplorationMolvi Roohulamin HaqqaniSupreme Court JudgmentsSupreme Court of New South WalesUS Supreme CourtThe White House Donald J. Trump BMW Middle EastLamborghiniKendrick Lamar🌌😾🛡️🦌🇦🇫🈸🈸🈸🈸🈸🈸🈸😾 🇩🇪⚖️🦌🌌🈴 🇮🇷 🇨🇳🇸🇩🇹🇹🇹🇷🇲🇽🇮🇷🇩🇪🇪🇺🏁🏁🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️🚩🀄️🔲◾️🔺🇰🇵🇺🇦🇬🇧🆚👩🏼🇺🇸👩🏼 BMW of Clear Lake

[@defeatSpace]

Slipspace might be a bummer

[@greenfoxgrasstail2534]

As long as its not as bad as the Paramount + Series xD.

[@oskarwallin8715]

Sorry but dropping my sub until better help is no longer a sponsor. Not a nice comapny that predates on peoples mental health to sell their data to third parties.

[@user-lt8dp7mv7k]

Bro it ain’t his fault he gets money from people that try and help u if u have a problem with it u don’t need to tell people bc nothing is gonna happen

[@tannerw1332]

How about just not use better help, almost everything in this world is corrupt

[@paradiselost9946]

hi! have you tried the latest new version of "not giving a damn"? if people are dumb enough to click links and accept advertising, so what? if you tried "not giving a damn", it wouldnt matter! i used to be uptight and stressed about things beyond my control, but ever since trying "not giving a damn", life has been easy as! lol. sub. see? you got the clicking disease... you really need a dose of "not giving a damn" ! awe hell, i havent had my hit for a day or two, see what happens? i start giving a damn and writing long posts...

[@Danman350]

@@paradiselost9946 the size of your comment SCREAMS "doesn't care" lol

[@paradiselost9946]

@@Danman350 lol. who gives a damn?

[@gavinhicks7621]

Few design changes I would make 1.) less steep angle so less loss of energy when the air streams collide 2.) the sequential thrusters have diminishing returns, but are more efficient. Using multiple sets of 2 sequential thrusters converging into one stream would give a more efficient and powerful flow I believe. 3.) use a circular thruster and angle the outputs of each set of thrusters in a way to produce a vortex inside the body of the thruster. Just some ideas.

[@virutech32]

The first 2 yeah, but making a vortex would waste kinetic energy spinning instead of going directly backwards

[@gavinhicks7621]

@@virutech32 yeah honestly no idea if it could help by pulling in more air with Bernoullis principle or if it would waste energy. it might be good for atomizing fuel if you were to throw the electric only part out the window though haha.

[@virutech32]

@@gavinhicks7621 It would pull more air by not spinning since that would push air out of the inlets. chemical-ion hybrid would be interesting. probably as an after-burner since flames could compromise the resistance of the air-gaps.

[@TheAmayzinRayzin]

Nothing more pure than the giggle before setting stuff on fire

[@DanleyTonkin]

Been with the channel since 800 subscribers and man how it has become better and better :)

[@PlasmaChannel]

Olectralab! Honored to see you here. Yeah you’ve been a big follower for years. I really appreciate you. You’ve seen some big changes.

[@DanleyTonkin]

@@PlasmaChannel You have made leaps and bounds in technology that I can only dream of attempting with my cheap $20 soldering iron and hot glue gun lol. I love i how your channel contributes positively to the internationally followable technology Journey. I can't wait to see what you have planned for the big 1 million subscriber milestone. I use ceramic disc magnets from microwaves to get more thrust on a needle and pipe ionic thruster but yours is way better I was amazed! keep it up, and thankyou for all your contributions to the international and possibly oneday integalactic knowledge base :) keep up the awesome videos. Also I love the editing and way you talk so calmy about something so cool :)

[@rafaelgutierrez3630]

There's really no channel I consistently follow every single video EXCEPT for this channel. I love this project and I'm here for this the whole thing. Can't wait for the next update

[@PlasmaChannel]

Whoa, that means a lot to me! Thank you so much, I appreciate you.

[@online247365]

​@@PlasmaChannel I agree with the sentiment that @rafaelgutierrez3630 expressed but will add that there is one other channel that I treat the same way and maybe others here haven't yet discovered... TechIngredients, like your channel is very much a "new video posted. I click!" channel. Both of your channels are amazing and I would LOVE to see a collaboration! Keep up the great work. 👍🏻

[@NineToFiveGamer]

Friends don't let friends get sponsored by Betterhelp

[@hunterwatts1478]

100%

[@It-b-Blair]

You should sponsor the videos then

[@nzuckman]

@@It-b-Blair it would be infinitely better if he had a Patreon instead of advertising fake therapy.

[@THenny]

He does...​@@nzuckman

[@narrativeless404]

@@nzuckman tru

[@socialzombie94]

It's always a good day when this guy uploads something. Thanks for the knowledge dump, love your pursuit with this project.

[@mcrazylarenable]

So in all honesty if you have a taper after all stages are done with a reduction of 15-30% and some splines/fins to reduce turbulence towards the exit and get some better linear flow you can get a massive boost to your velocity. Love the videos best of luck.

[@ThePaulus2010]

this design is also very good for stacking it ! or making a wide straight surface.. looks awesome!!

[@davidgalea430]

Love your improvements

[@simontanguay3619]

You could take inspiration from axial compressors, and have your cross-section slowly reduce for each stage to improve and achieve a set pressure ratio by the end. One reason why in your case more stages doesn't seem to help is that all stages are identical. However, downflow stages will need more power and a different geometry since they are fighting a higher pressure. Then, your high pressure flow could go through a converging nozzle to accelerate even further (or just add more and more smaller ionic stages along the way, it might work as well).

[@fischele5790]

BetterHelp sells medical data to advertisers. Do you want to be a part of that?

[@snerttt]

You're using google

[@nigeladams8321]

​@@snertttGoogle isn't claiming to offer a medical service

[@Sh3rr1ff]

@@snerttt usually when you go to a therapist you expect some sort of confidentiality

[@snerttt]

@@Sh3rr1ff but you're using Google, it's not personal, it's advertising data that you're already giving away by using this website.

[@snerttt]

@@Sh3rr1ff you're using Google though what's new

[@KaileyPulie]

your approach to this subject was so innovative!

[@toobin8r]

I could imagine changing the angle of the inputs might help: after the air’s pulled through the first set of inputs, it’s moving more horizontal than at the 22° angle, but as that air passes the second thruster frame, you’re reintroducing air at that 22° angle, so there might be a spot that’s got some backdraft, kinda like how there’s sometimes spots on a river where the water’s flowing back upstream. Maybe doing something like having the first set of inputs angled like normal, the second set angled somewhere between 17.5 and 15°, and the third set closer to 12.5°, something like that, might help.

[@paveltsvetkov7948]

Hi Jay. Did you measure the thrust force in newtons or grams. To check the thrust to weight ratio?

[@leafboye33]

He's probably doing that behind the scenes but I can't imagine him really getting on stage just yet to show those numbers, maybe when he gets further ahead he'll start seriously giving us TWR numbers

[@planckstudios]

C'mon, the flames weren't enough to convince you that this tech could rival propellers? Only engineers are concerned with numbers and established methods of testing. This isn't for you. It's pretend. For views. For people who don't know better

[@kdoubleg]

better help is a horible company taking advantage of people at their worst. Iv been unsubing and refusing to watch videos aponsored by them. Hopefully you will drop them as a sponsor because your content is quite good.

[@BartJBols]

By colliding the streams of air in a column you are inducing massive turbulence and a high pressure field behind the engine. that might sound good, but it basically makes the engine need a stronger internal compression to overcome it. I suggest to either increase the size of engine intake the further to the front, or to make them exhaust parallel to each other. In other words, either brute force a large intake into a small output and compress it down with each stage, or make it all flow parallel and avoid compression and go for airspeed. To illustrate with water, laminar flow moves more water compared to chaotic flow at the same pressure and pipe diameter, but if you want to increase the pressure, its easier to just force it down the tube in chaotic flow by increasing the pressure.

[@VictorF0326]

I like how it went from circle to triangle like Tony's Arc Reactor.

[@aykyi2668]

I share my knowledge: NIM engine. (Negative-Impulsive-Magnetic) Engine. (Because you build things, so why not help a bit) Nice idea with the waves but you didnt use it yet in your thruster. You recognized some air is sucked into the thruster, although it thrust air out? What is missing is the consideration of how the air consist and what actually move the air... electrons. Electron speed is determined by the voltage. If multiple thrusters are in row, it accelerats the air with the voltage-plasma but not beyond the voltage. Also the distance of the accelerating parts could be 1 factor at your build, also try to get lower ampere with same thrust results. In SHORT: Air volume calculation, air consistance calculation, thrust calculation with air, thrust efficiency by testing the best volt to ampere ratio, Thrust Frequency. Air(A): volume x consistance, Thrustfactor(Tf): volt x ampere, ThrustOutput(TO): Tf x A x TF (Thrust-Frequency) Think of the electrons AS if its waterdrops. Always make the plasma visible once to see where its flowing (helps alot). Also a magnetic field guides the electrons, because these are negative charged.

[@ashleyobrien4937]

yeah, good stuff. Regarding the electrodes potential and air flow, I think it would be worthwhile looking into sequential electrodes at progressively higher potentials, and possibly a pulsed arrangement...

[@andymouse]

All sounds nice an all but electrons are lost to IONs that provide the thrust so straight off the bat you haven't a clue, lets see " thrust calculation with air, thrust efficiency by testing the best volt to ampere ratio, Thrust Frequency." This is bollocks its nonsense Volts * amps is power in watts and what the hell has that to do with thrust frequency. You got some tart your trying to impress ?

[@andymouse]

@@ashleyobrien4937 Realy you as well ? FFS

[@paradiselost9946]

​@@andymouse awww, they was on the right track at first, that air has to move and it takes energy to do so... got carried away with silly things rather than thinking about where the actual action/reaction force is, to MOVE air requires an action with equal and opposite reaction... where is the reaction? the only thing you have to "push" against is the charged molecules. the inertia of the air molecule, its mass, its refusal to change path, opposing the electrostatic forces. what proportion of air flow is due to charged molecules being repelled/attracted to electrodes, as opposed to neutral molecules being impacted, absorbing kinetic energy, and slowing the charged particles down? in a way they was right with the voltsxamps. how many watts goes into just making corona, leakage currents, how much is put into actual force over time on the frame, the electrodes? how much thrust does it make, how efficiently? air flow is not the same as thrust... entraining air doesnt create thrust. air that is dragged along by air you pushed on is nothing but drag. ie, dyson fans dont make thrust by accelerating air through the ring, the only thrust is at the nozzles, the air they sucked in and compressed and release at high speed. but once that air is moving it can perform work if redirected ;) you have to push on air. or get it to push on something... other than more air!

[@andymouse]

@@paradiselost9946 Yes I agree with you, and your making more sense but I must correct you It was me that pointed out that W =P x I not them and an increase in watts is going to increase thing to the point where they can catch fire but why did the say 'Thrust frequency ? gobbledy gook ! not a clue

[@EPMTUNES]

Better Help? Really?

[@Kargoneth]

Money makes videos possible. It is a question of desperation or ignorance (wilful or otherwise) when one accepts sponsorship from questionable sources.

[@AlexAlex10703]

God forbid an actual good content creator making money.

[@VandalIO]

Every other app on your phone sells data ! Facebook does too !

[@EPMTUNES]

@@AlexAlex10703 would be a moral justification given he had no other sponsorship options.

[@TesserId]

I've heard people who work these kinds of services are incentivized to rope you in to staying on for long periods to rack up charges and get you to come back for more. They get penalized if they fail to rack up the charges. The same applies to those working psychic hotlines.

[@bmssenjoyer]

the angularity is inducing turbulence and therefore drag in your air column. consider modifying the thrusters into each comprising 120 degrees of a circle, and directing the thruster output offset from parallel to the axis laterally by a small degree. by inducing a vortex in the air column, you reduce turbulence just as bleed air louvres do in an afterburning turbofan. also, you might consider modulating the diameter of the exit with exhaust vanes, or some facsimile thereof. thus, you can increase exit velo significantly

[@sticky_ricebowl]

if you think about it, having a hollow center has the additional advantage of using bernoulli's principle. Since there's moving air at the tail end of the thruster, surely there's a low pressure cavity in the center front section which is also contributing. Though I would think the individual thruster unit (one side of one triangle) should be a little shorter to maximize that effect.

[@Megs2022]

you should angle each of the 3 segments in each phase to form a vortex in the middle

[@TotalyNotJosh]

Yay more ionic thrusters!

[@thetroll1247]

You are definitely onto something. Dont give up.

[@corynrobinson]

This is an awesome project. It would be cool to see a circular (ring-shaped) wing thruster. You'd get the same hollow center you're looking for while also using the support structure to provide lift

[@VandalIO]

I have an idea !!! Why don’t you make a hybrid ionic thruster ! One with metallic rotating blades and the blades are positively charged and also being driven by a motor and there are bunch of grounded wires at the end Airflow would be fan+ ionic thruster

[@romanbengaldrole4061]

I’m not sure but…The air could try to go sideways to follow the blades, slowing them down and blocking input… interesting though… Or it could make an air vortex since you put the grid. (Rotating grid ???)

[@VandalIO]

@@romanbengaldrole4061 🤔 interesting idea , but grids at higher airspeeds kinda became bottlenecks , but ionic thrusters don’t have a very powerful thrust , it would be very interesting to see it in an experiment

[@romanbengaldrole4061]

@@VandalIO There is a solution : Place a central charged rod, with a higher charge at the end(outputs of generator), and use the Lorentz force to create rotation.

[@VandalIO]

@@romanbengaldrole4061 that’s an interesting one , or we can use a vortex tube like design

[@romanbengaldrole4061]

Then you need additional airflow from the side, unless you make some of it converge from the side, which is complex, but should be extremely efficient of optimized (I’m not a specialist though)

[@Psrj-ad]

when you stack them in series, the electric fields could be interfering with one another. just as the air can be pushed forward, if you put another thruster in front it could add to an opposing force.

[@fusion-star]

Hi, thanks for the cool video. This thruster has a cool idea behind it, but if you look at the veins in a leaf, you will see that there is some distance between them. I think you will achieve much better air flow with 70 to 100mm between each thruster section.

[@LucasM206]

As a product designer, my advice is to research what was already done in the "moving air business". Aka fans, vacuum cleaners, blowers, coolers... There are a vast amount of research in aerodynamics applied to those products. Just look what Dyson does by shaping the air flow and utilizing centrifugal forces. They are great source of information. It's great to see your improvement! Congratulations!

[@The.Heart.Unceasing]

the problem with Ionic thrusters is that the situations where they are better than a simple propeller are very rare. I would also love to see a thrust per watt stat.

[@FemaleRoleModel]

Would be cool to have an ionic propeller. That way the propeller moves due to ionic motion, and the air moves because of the propeller.

[@alleycatsphinx]

@@FemaleRoleModel What about putting the "thruster" concept on the leading edge of the propeller just for directing the air smoothly over its surface and especially around the tips of the prop?

[@FemaleRoleModel]

@@alleycatsphinx I like that a lot.

[@Stuie444]

Man - the fact that you are putting all of this R&D out there before ever getting a single patent in hand, you sir are a gentleman - or just extremely brave. Amazing work!

[@stianmykland5584]

it's not a new technology. The idea was introduced in 1911, over a hundred years ago. Since then, 100kW units have been made with exhaust velocities 10000 times higher than this

[@Stuie444]

​@@stianmykland5584 Oh I know - I was mainly joking. What atmospheric units have hit anywhere near 100kW though?! If you are referring to the X3, that is designed to operate in the vacuum of space (hall thruster), which is a *completely* different set of operating and design principles (main acceleration via magnets, inert gas "fuel" simply injected via nozzles, no entrainment of surrounding air mass, no atmosphere to fight against particle acceleration, etc. etc.).

[@alanicus6969]

Pretty sure that putting these ideas out (dates tamped) kinda Is a patent in a way...

[@alleycatsphinx]

@@stianmykland5584 and yet there is very little public information about it - this kinda channel is really a service to us all.

[@andreibronnikov4733]

You were getting absolutely correct results with Mk 2. Injecting the same amount of energy each stage will yield lesser and lesser velocity due to mv squared over two, doubling the velocity requires quadrupled energy input. Would you mind trying out a christmas tree configuration in order to get a proper convergence? Smallest accelerator at the beginning, "nested" in the second stage, and so on, and so forth , with each stage widening. Another thing to try would be a shared electrode design, where AC drive would power 3 or more electrodes of identical dedign with rounded leading edge and jagged trailing edge, fully utilizing both half waves. Just my 2 cents. Awesome work 😊

[@jojo-._.]

I haven't been here for a while and you really came far!

[@mattw_929]

My “physics nerd common sense” is telling me that a circular shape might help with a more uniform flow, as the three streams coming from the triangles are probably converging in a pretty awkward way. Also some way of directing airflow from each peripheral thruster(like a duct or something) into a smaller output area in the center would likely help reduce turbulence and increase the velocity of the airflow (assuming you are building this for velocity and not displacement ). I am a high school senior so take this with a grain of salt lmao

[@float32]

Spiral shape! Bending metal is easy.

[@paradiselost9946]

in this case, the velocity of the airflow means nothing... air flow is not thrust. the thrust is only due to the mass that is worked upon, accelerated. and the only mass that is worked upon is the charged air molecules. their mass being repelled and attracted to the electrodes, being moved. the issue is that a lot of the air flow is produced not by being charged and repelled, but by getting in the way of the charged molecules that ARE being worked upon... you perform no work on moving that air. that work is due to the air you did perform work upon being SLOWED DOWN. the only way to get that air to perform work is to make it change direction, it performs work against something... which is what you see when you "blow stuff around"... air slow down, stuff get accelerated away. on a turntable, against a dyno, a load... i reckon it has virtually no thrust. all blow, no show :) but if it had a blade mounted behind it, angled appropriately, and spun "backwards" due to redirecting the total flow... and yeah, cones, ducts, circles, curved surfaces, always better... electrically and aerodynamically...

[@DeathSynadate]

Better help sponsor.....big oof

[@theguy2537]

why do they even spend that much on sponsors

[@daniellapain1576]

Make a frisbee design with a parachute dynamic in mind and use this new concept in a drone rotor configuration. This way the solid state propulsion is able to float the craft on air and if precise timing is used to control drop the craft and push it taking advantage of gravity and air pressure to propel itself. The device could fly fast and use very little energy in comparison. Then try it again with a design you can fill with helium. Over all it’s like skipping a stone on water but making each skip barely noticeable.

[@dominictowey124]

You have to trade velocity for thrust, just because the velocity is high doesn’t mean you’re creating more thrust, both are good for different things. It may help if you look at optimising the accelerated fluid coming off the trailing edge of the thruster especially if you’re going to use converging flow. Inducing some vortexes to energise the flow and control the turbulence of the air streams going back together

[@paytonrickle6785]

it would insanely cool to see a lightweight drone that can hover using these.

[@younscrafter7372]

A 30kv power supply and lightweight don't go together very well

[@paytonrickle6785]

I kind of forgot about the power supply. Thank you for pointing that out.@@younscrafter7372

[@alleycatsphinx]

@@younscrafter7372 what about remote power - is there a way to beam electricity at a wire to charge it up?

[@Tylorean]

In the first 10 seconds, you got me to dislike the video already. Betterhelp is not a doling or helpful in any way. I am disappointed that a great KZbinr like you would *ever* accept a sponsorship from them! Do some research before accepting a sponsorship next time!

[@Tylorean]

@@Vacuus_01Thats a bad argument, there are enough sponsors who are not this horrible!

[@LordDragox412]

@@Vacuus_01 I too need to make money somehow, yet I didn't sell my soul to Satan himself.

[@professionaleejit5927]

​@@Tyloreanhe dosent choose sponsors they have to choose him. So shut up and if everyone knows how shit better help is then who cares.

[@MrDoboz]

@@Vacuus_01 this is worse than raid shadow legends

[@PlasmaChannel]

I hear you and appreciate your input. I see your concerns. However, for someone to be triggered so quickly when the entire video has inherent value, inherent, educational, and experience value, to toss the entire video out the window because of a single sponsor that you do not approve of, is very Totalitarianistic.

[@RJDGAMER]

You could also use air flow guides they're like wing-shaped things that direct the flow of air through the center of course it would remove it being Halo but it would streamline in it you could also use something similar to what Dyson does for their fan Airstream to remove turbulence from combining the airstreams

[@Raphvsmith]

Aero engineer here: See 3:12 E=0.5mc^2 so your % increases are being underestimated. Energy @ 2.1 ~ m*2.1^2 = m*4.41 Energy @ 3.2 ~ m*3.2^2 = m*10.24 So delta energy ~10.24-4.41=5.83. This indicates the second stage is actually more efficient than the first. AND considering you are entraining more air, the mass is probably higher so this is already underestimated. Hope this helps!

[@WiggyB]

I think you mean E=0.5 m v^2 and if so, I agree.

[@Raphvsmith]

​@@WiggyBI hope not! I've been using my version for years 😖😂

[@florianverhein]

Yup, efficiency is about energy conversion - in this case to kinetic energy change: 0.5*m*(v_{2}^2-v_{1}^2). If the relationship in velocity continued in the linear way that seems to have been expected, conservation of energy would have been broken :)

[@pimvanduijne]

​@@Raphvsmith I dropped out engineering. But your formula is the one by Einstein for general relativity, and his is the formula for kinetic energy. but i don't think we know the volume or weight of air here so i don't see how any of these really help, maybe to estimate? what do you mean energy @ 2.1? energy like joule? how do you know did he say the wattage? if so then we would still need to know the efficiency of the device and subtract that no?

[@julianholstein3840]

Sorry to nitpick here and my idea may not be entirely correct either, but the c in this formula is light speed and a constant (you can’t plug velocity in there!) The (kinetic) energy formula that applies here is E(kinetic)=1/2*m*v^2 since we are well in the realm of Newtonian physics. Your point still remains with this formula!! Besides, I believe thrust and specific impulse are more important since this is a thruster. Specific impulse kinda is the efficiency of the engine and correlated to exhaust speed. The added stages increased that with diminishing returns. The actual thrust was sadly never measured here. Measuring thrust with maybe a scale or so would have been interesting, because thrust to weight is the limiting factor for using this on a plane I think. Your comment got me thinking so I had to reply:)

[@wesleythomas7125]

"And what yould you do if someone attacked your ionocraft with a peice of fresh fruit?" "Wot if 'e 'ad a gun?" "Wot if 'e 'ad a point-ed stick?"

[@mixmashandtinker3266]

It looks futuristic! :)

[@Repkord]

"Science is not a perfect science" -Jay Bowles Seriously enjoy watching the evolution of the BSI and I very much appreciate you sharing the entirety of your iterative process including the setbacks. Things don't always go the way we hope but thats what drives us to find new solutions and get to better outcomes. Keep up the great work!

[@topazchicken6414]

Come on better help is a really horrible company. They don’t even use real therapists

[@pieppy6058]

91% of therapists in the US don’t use any proven techniques

[@thespacementv1506]

You really made the Tony stark New-Element Arc reactor of ionic thrusters.

[@Jay-uk8uw]

the triangle shape also allows for a lot more a steerable thrust as well. more voltage on 2 sides vs 1 should direct air flow directions. it also seems like it would benefit from being able to adjust the gaps at run time. like say adjustment threads using a non conductive metal. since it looked like voltage / gap = trust able to adjust more variables during runtime should help with experimentation time. and might uncover extremes that weren't expected.

[@stanisawfelczynski6471]

Remove betterhepl

[@lululala3771]

Why

[@stanisawfelczynski6471]

@@lululala3771 betterhepl bad

[@kelbb1404]

Jewish ​@@lululala3771

[@Urban_Tech369]

Wth

[@nathanstaley8069]

They sell your information apparently

[@kerzwhile]

Incredible!! Amazing work! ❤

[@DansMadventures]

Lot's of cool comments and ideas here. I don't have access to equipment currently, but for someone who does, here's what I'm picturing and can't get out of my head: Take the current turbine design, hanging under the wing, and gut it. With the shell, the housing we have left, a cup that compresses as its moves forward, and now all along the inside of the cup, scoops, spiraling towards the back, each with an internal thruster plane to pull air through it's channel, which exits a smaller outlet than the scoop, outside the housing. Lot's of thrusters, pulling air into scoops then through channels from inside to outside, all inside a giant compressor scoop. Any thoughts??

[@USBEN.]

Been waiting. Nicely delievered.

[@v3n0x]

The craftsmanship 🤤

[@Thugshaker_thequaker]

I just have to say I have been a Bill Oddman fan for years now and the fact that the chaotic menace that he is has brought people together for OS is kinda amazing. He’s like the general no one can predict.

[@letmefindout81]

Wow, such an amazing video! I love seeing new ideas. Nothing like trial and error to come up with a huge breakthrough. I'm not smart at all, but stupid ideas sometimes make great new discoveries. But just thinking out loud, you mentioned that putting them in parallel will boost the speed so much. What if instead of doing them all the same size, you do all three different sizes? You can make the first one the smallest, then make the next one about 50% bigger, and the last one 100% bigger than the first.

[@MnA-yu1hb]

This is cool, try circular design with this if financially possible, hollow out the centre, add all three stages with increased power at each stage. This should give more velocity push like bladeless drone.

[@Neeboopsh]

i have been fascinated by this project. keep nerding ;)

[@KylewTyphewn]

Idea: what if each stage of thruster was closer to the central stream? The pass-through benefit would be sacrificed somewhat, but it may provide significant improvements. And what if each stage had a different angular placement relative to the thruster's longitudinal axis? So the airflow would get deflected at almost 45 degrees at the first stage, narrowing down to 10 or 12 degrees at the end? Or maybe in reverse? And what if the angle and spacing was variable while in operation? You could find the most optimal placement and angle at every airspeed and automate them somehow so the thruster automatically scales thrust with speed? Like others have said, I think this design would also greatly benefit from exponential spacing.

[@ruaine83]

I think having the stages that close isn't allowing the streams from each stage to converge before hitting the turbulence from the next stages. May want to try spacing them farther apart, but with shielding to prevent more air coming in, but have SOME air input to prevent a low pressure / vacuum area formation between stages. That would allow each stage to fully converge before being added to or even wrapped with the next stage column. As I was typing this, I also thought that, if you alter the angles of each stage, you may get coaxial flow where the stages can "wrap" the column of the previous and allow for, maybe not more velocity, but more total mass flow, resulting in more overall power output. You can't totally think of the velocity alone, but how much air is being moved at said velocity. 2m/s for 3 L/s is going to be more power than 4m/s for 1L/s. You simply have more kinetic energy being output. Air is approx 1.2g/L, so for the above you would have 60mN vs vs 47mN, respectively.

[@geemy9675]

about the sequential design providing diminishing returns +50% +25% in speed but ifbyou think in terms of energy you have +130% and + 48% energy (for +100% and +50% power input). or +244% energy for +200% power input overall. it would be interesting to measure thrust too. I think rhe issue with sequential design is the closer you are going to accelerate an aircraft the output velocity, the less efficient the multiple stages are going to become and its the reason why propellers on planes are never used sequentially but in parallel

[@dallynsr]

The final stage that’s outputting the fastest velocity is fed by slower earlier stages, similar to a gas turbine compressor. So the earlier stages need to gather more air to not restrict the final stage(make them bigger like a jet with a large fan disc that graduates down to the smallest row of blades) With trial and error, figure what end velocity is then figure cfm’s, and expand back to the first stage and you’ll get the flare rate needed and then put the stages together in a sealed path not letting outside air in. I think you’ll figure out, at that point, how to bias the earlier gathering stages to help boost whatever is possible for the final stage, or stages.(it might look like a trombone horn, but hey?) This is the same mechanics as stacking three same sized ducted fans in a row and getting diminishing returns from that. Think, how do fans make jet propulsion, and apply it to your ionic stages, but seal off the outside air, it’s not helping.

[@OohzyJohnDow]

This guy is good at what he does.. I just hope his Mr Wonderful character wont ruin it.

[@VulcanGoF]

I love seeing Excelon products in your videos. 🥰

[@prometeled]

great trying different frequencies on the output resonance speeding up the molecules

[@ElwoodSharit]

My grandfather used to build model airplanes as a hobby. I used to love watching when he'd heat treat the laminate that covered the wings. Perhaps you could achieve a significant weight reduction by replacing several of the plastic "wall" segments, with some sort of laminate covered exoskeleton.

[@erlinuraj2694]

Curve the output towords the rear of the engine, slightly twist the output as to get air to flow in a circular way. This will create a stream of air that is way less turbulent and easier to control. Circular airflow also stops the turbulence created by the merging of air from the second and third stages of the engine. That turbulence is killing performance. Best scenario you twist it enough as to create laminar flow and allow for unbroken stream to exit the engine. From this you might come to see that air is moving faster at the edges of the engine instead of in the middle for this im not so sure tho

[@clintcarpentier2424]

It's possible that the triangle shape is creating too much interference, causing the air to fight itself to get out, ie drag. I don't know how you'd test that though; confetti in a fire resistant room? Maybe try a box, with thrusters on just two opposing side. Or, if you wanna keep the three sides of thrusters, you could try the bestagon approach, and connect them with three equal blank sides. Likewise, you may wanna try containing the entire unit in a sleeve. You can get cardboard tubes of varying diameters at the local hardware store. For shits and giggles, you could try funneling the exhaust.

[@Ignotius_Grindelwald]

A really important thing is thrust and drag coefficient. You could measure and add them to the next video. That would be useful in comparing different designs.