Live data from Hacker News

Jet propulsion by microwave air plasma in the atmosphere

arstechnica.com

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: Jet propulsion by microwave air plasma in the atmosphere

#31
post #28

"The essential idea is that air is ionized to a plasma, which is rapidly heated and allowed to expand to generate thrust." So this is just a conventional heat engine, with an electric heater. This heater may be able to get the air much hotter than other methods, but the thing about a heat engine is that you cannot get useful work out unless the working fluid can expand sufficiently. An afterburner creates more thust…

Yeah, it seems like it might make more sense if they could figure out a way to use the RF fields to actually accelerate some of the ions in the plasma. Then you might be able to reach much higher exhaust velocities than with a conventional jet engine. I don't think your thermodynamic objections would apply to that case since the energy would remain organized, it wouldn't just be heat. To do that though you'd need to…

>Yeah, it seems like it might make more sense if they could figure out a way to use the RF fields to actually accelerate some of the ions in the plasma.

That's essentially what they are doing, but in an oscillating path rather than a continuous path:

In the waveguide, the charged particles in the plasma start to oscillate with the microwave field (aka: RF) while rapidly heating. The ions, atoms, and electrons collide with each other frequently, spreading the energy from the ions and electrons to the neutral atoms, heating the plasma rapidly. As a result, the researchers claim that the plasma rapidly heats to well over 1,000°C.

I don't know if you can rectify RF energy like you can with voltage. That might be one way to create a more continous path. They might also be able to add an electromagnetic field to create a net velocity out the provebial barn door as they do with ion thrusters, but I think the problem there is you just can't get enough free air path to accelerate to very high speeds...it'd be like trying to drive an F1 car at full throttle in bumper to bumper traffic. You could also pass a current through the plasma to generate lorentz forces like they do in plasma driver rail guns.

One huge advantage with this design is no moving parts and presumably extremely low manufacturing costs. So it might not be awesome for commercial airliners but it could be useful for high endurance UAVs. Pack a few dozen of them and use just the ones you need.

Re: Jet propulsion by microwave air plasma in the atmosphere

#32
post #31
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it seems like it might make more sense if they could figure out a way to use the RF fields to actually accelerate some of the ions in the plasma. Then you might be able to reach much higher exhaust velocities than with a conventional jet engine. I don't think your thermodynamic objections would apply to that case since the energy would remain organized, it wouldn't just be heat. To do that though you'd need to…

>Yeah, it seems like it might make more sense if they could figure out a way to use the RF fields to actually accelerate some of the ions in the plasma. That's essentially what they are doing, but in an oscillating path rather than a continuous path: In the waveguide, the charged particles in the plasma start to oscillate with the microwave field (aka: RF) while rapidly heating. The ions, atoms, and electrons collide…

> I don't know if you can rectify RF energy like you can with voltage.

You can in essence, because charged particles have inertia, they don't instantly follow the EM field. That's how RF particle accelerators work. But there you're working with a beam of charged particles, not a neutral plasma.

It still sounds to me that they are essentially using the RF energy just to heat the plasma and in that case the parent's objections seem valid, though I don't know much about jet engine design.

Re: Jet propulsion by microwave air plasma in the atmosphere

#33

"The essential idea is that air is ionized to a plasma, which is rapidly heated and allowed to expand to generate thrust." So this is just a conventional heat engine, with an electric heater. This heater may be able to get the air much hotter than other methods, but the thing about a heat engine is that you cannot get useful work out unless the working fluid can expand sufficiently. An afterburner creates more thust…

> For the most part, it makes no sense to use electricity to power a heat engine.

Exactly. And modern aircraft engines generally just use the turbine to power a high bypass fan, at which point why pretend to be a heat engine when you could just spin the fan directly and save a tremendous amount of power?

Re: Jet propulsion by microwave air plasma in the atmosphere

#34
post #33

"The essential idea is that air is ionized to a plasma, which is rapidly heated and allowed to expand to generate thrust." So this is just a conventional heat engine, with an electric heater. This heater may be able to get the air much hotter than other methods, but the thing about a heat engine is that you cannot get useful work out unless the working fluid can expand sufficiently. An afterburner creates more thust…

> For the most part, it makes no sense to use electricity to power a heat engine. Exactly. And modern aircraft engines generally just use the turbine to power a high bypass fan, at which point why pretend to be a heat engine when you could just spin the fan directly and save a tremendous amount of power?

Modern high bypass turbines provide a lot of power for the weight and extreme efficiency. Essentially, they are a gas turbine which then gets to extract extra energy from their exhaust gasses without adding a lot of weight or mechanical complexity.

There are a lot of trade offs involved, but for large 500+ MPH aircraft high bypass turbofans are simply the most cost effective option.

Re: Jet propulsion by microwave air plasma in the atmosphere

#35

"The essential idea is that air is ionized to a plasma, which is rapidly heated and allowed to expand to generate thrust." So this is just a conventional heat engine, with an electric heater. This heater may be able to get the air much hotter than other methods, but the thing about a heat engine is that you cannot get useful work out unless the working fluid can expand sufficiently. An afterburner creates more thust…

Replacing chemical combustion with electrical heating in a heat engine was an idea that popped into my head a number of years ago while thinking about the heat exchanger for Skylon's SABRE engine. I'll skip the drunken, derailed train of thought that made that particular leap, but off and on since then I've been really intrigued by it, and spent more time thinking about it than I'd care to admit!

First and foremost, I agree that the compressor is probably the most difficult part (though theoretically, if you pre-ionized the gas, you could use magnetic compression). Also, I completely agree that, given current energy densities for electric storage, this is only something that could be useful in some really niche applications.

But that being said, some of those applications are really cool! For example, one of the major challenges of VTOL aircraft is that the rotational inertia of turbines is so great that it's very, very difficult to rotate them during transition from vertical to horizontal flight. Something like this would massively decrease the rotational inertia, making it much simpler mechanically to create tiltwing aircraft.

Also, my understanding is that typically, conventional jet engines are limited primarily by the maximum temperature limit of the turbine blades. Because your compressors here would have to be powered by electricity as well (nothing else makes any sense!), there's absolutely no reason to have a turbine at all; you'd just want a plain old expansion nozzle. That means you could pump way more heat into your plasma, making your engine much more power dense. In other words, your engine could be potentially much smaller for the same thrust, which would be a big deal. Turbine blades need to be both very strong due to their rotational velocity, and extremely temperature resistant because they're literally sitting in the exhaust of a jet engine, which makes them not only really expensive, but also very, very challenging from a metallurgical perspective.

Another, potentially very interesting, application is if you have too little oxygen in your atmosphere to support combustion -- for example, on Mars. Sure, we're about to send a mini electric rotorcraft there, but the atmosphere makes it really very challenging to do that, because the classic "my rotor tips are too close to the speed of sound" problem is much, much more difficult there.

Any kind of ramjet, as you mention, is a possibility, but this would also make it a lot easier to make transition engines (like the J58 that powered the Blackbird) that start as a conventional compressor-fed jet engine and, at cruise speed, transition into a ramjet.

Regardless of application, this is such a fundamental change to the design limitations of jet engines that a lot of the usual design logic simply doesn't apply anymore. Thermodynamics are infamously complicated, which makes it really difficult to draw performance comparisons between an 80-year-old mature technology and something so radically new and different. One way this gets substantially more complicated is that in a traditional jet engine you need to be worried about combustion efficiency, flame stability, etc etc, plus you have to siphon out enough energy to run the engine's compressor, and power the rest of the aircraft (likely indirectly, through an APU!). All of those take a big efficiency hit in traditional engines, whereas this would be, nominally, much better. So my gut would be that, all other things being equal, the powerplant on an airplane with an electric jet engine would be both smaller/lighter and more efficient. But again, this is hard to reason about!

I would be ecstatic to see one of these flying around, but don't expect it to end up in a passenger aircraft any time soon or anything. For that, we need better batteries!

Re: Jet propulsion by microwave air plasma in the atmosphere

#36
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the article is right about the scaling required then I'm very skeptical that this will ever be practical. A 1 kW magnetron is a part found in just about every microwave oven. Scaling that up by 4 orders of magnitude would need a 10 MW RF source or amplifier. I'm pretty sure those don't exist and if they did they'd be very large and heavy. A long time ago I used to do RF engineering for particle accelerators and th…

Thank you for this interesting comment! When you say "continuous", would you consider some very high frequency solid state switching amplifier to be "continuous" enough for this application? I realize it's a different order of magnitude, but those GaN/Si transformers make me wonder if we aren't far off from some kind of megawatt scale solid state amplifier shakeup...

Most high power microwave devices aren't build on semiconductors like Silicon (solid state), yet. They are normally valves of some sort, like magnetrons, klystrons or travelling wave tubes.

Some radars would be in the mega-watt range, but only pulsed with low duty cycles or 1%.

Re: Jet propulsion by microwave air plasma in the atmosphere

#37
post #34
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For the most part, it makes no sense to use electricity to power a heat engine. Exactly. And modern aircraft engines generally just use the turbine to power a high bypass fan, at which point why pretend to be a heat engine when you could just spin the fan directly and save a tremendous amount of power?

Modern high bypass turbines provide a lot of power for the weight and extreme efficiency. Essentially, they are a gas turbine which then gets to extract extra energy from their exhaust gasses without adding a lot of weight or mechanical complexity. There are a lot of trade offs involved, but for large 500+ MPH aircraft high bypass turbofans are simply the most cost effective option.

Yeah, exactly. Being able to stick the turbine in the middle of the ducted fan and then use its exhaust for extra thrust while directly driving the fan with the generated gases is the cherry on top.

If we were going to replace a high bypass turbofan with anything, though, I'd expect it to be a high power AC motor directly driving a ducted fan. Realistically for long haul air travel, though, my guess is we'll stick with turbofans and just use biodiesel or something.

Re: Jet propulsion by microwave air plasma in the atmosphere

#39
post #37
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern high bypass turbines provide a lot of power for the weight and extreme efficiency. Essentially, they are a gas turbine which then gets to extract extra energy from their exhaust gasses without adding a lot of weight or mechanical complexity. There are a lot of trade offs involved, but for large 500+ MPH aircraft high bypass turbofans are simply the most cost effective option.

Yeah, exactly. Being able to stick the turbine in the middle of the ducted fan and then use its exhaust for extra thrust while directly driving the fan with the generated gases is the cherry on top. If we were going to replace a high bypass turbofan with anything, though, I'd expect it to be a high power AC motor directly driving a ducted fan. Realistically for long haul air travel, though, my guess is we'll stick wi…

An idea I've had is to put a small generator instead of a shaft and gearbox, and put the AC motor powered fan somewhere else. Could improve aerodynamics, stealth properties etc.

Re: Jet propulsion by microwave air plasma in the atmosphere

#40
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, exactly. Being able to stick the turbine in the middle of the ducted fan and then use its exhaust for extra thrust while directly driving the fan with the generated gases is the cherry on top. If we were going to replace a high bypass turbofan with anything, though, I'd expect it to be a high power AC motor directly driving a ducted fan. Realistically for long haul air travel, though, my guess is we'll stick wi…

An idea I've had is to put a small generator instead of a shaft and gearbox, and put the AC motor powered fan somewhere else. Could improve aerodynamics, stealth properties etc.

A generator is necessarily on the same order of magnitude in size as the motors it is powering.
Post reply on HN