Air equivalent of rail gun possible?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the feasibility of applying rail gun principles to propulsion in air by charging the air around an object. It distinguishes this concept from existing technologies like ion thrusters and ionocrafts, noting that the latter operates on different principles involving ion movement. The idea suggests creating a propulsion mechanism where an object generates its own conductive path through charged air, similar to how a rail gun operates with its rails. Participants clarify that a rail gun relies on a flow of electrons between positive and negative rails, which differs from the proposed air-based system. Ultimately, the conversation centers on the theoretical potential of using charged air for propulsion akin to a rail gun.
thematrixiam
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
If a rail gun works by having an object that moves along a path, where either side has opposite charge, could that same principle be applied in air?

I am not talking about an ion thruster, that already exists. I am saying, if wasting energy was not an issue, could it be possible to charge the air on either side of an object , allowing for movement across the bottom in the same manner that occurs with the rain gun, and have it gain propulsion from that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmmm, not sure if I read that right, but it looks like that ionocraft uses slightly different principles.

It looks like the movement comes from the ions moving from the wire to collecter.

The picture shows the wires as being above the collector. So they would move in a downward motion.

A rail gun does not work that way, from my understanding. A rail gun is created by using a negative and positive rail. It has a flow of electrons moving across the projectile.

The reason I mentioned Ions, is I figured the air could be charged with negative and positive ions at either side and use that to induce the flow of electrons. Basically, a rail gun projectile that produces it's own rail out of air.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?
Back
Top