Ion Engine Efficency: What Mass is Optimal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter flatmaster
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Engine Ion
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the efficiency of ion engines and the optimal mass of propellant ions. A derived equation shows that the change in velocity for a spacecraft is influenced by the mass of the ions and the potential applied. It is concluded that a lighter ion could provide greater thrust, allowing for less propellant to achieve the same velocity change. The conversation also questions why xenon, a heavier ion, is commonly used, suggesting that its ease of ionization may be a significant factor. Ultimately, the analysis emphasizes the importance of understanding the relationship between ion mass and propulsion efficiency.
flatmaster
Messages
497
Reaction score
2
I was arguing with my NASA friend the other day about what would make a more efficent propellent for an ion engine. Is it a lighter ion or a heavier ion. THis was what I derived.

Assume a charge q of mass m is accelerated through a potential V. The mass of the ship is M. Working through the problem with the tools an intro physics student could comprehend, I arrived at an equation that gives you the change in velocity for the ship after consuming ONE available ion.

v = Sqrt[2qVm/(M^2)]



I'm pretty confident in this. The units work out and all variables are in the correct place intuitively.

i'm confused on one point. I already have velocity as a function of mass of one particle. Do I need to divide by mass of one particle to get to velocity change per unit mass?

I think I'm confusing particle mass with bulk mass somehow.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
You're equation is correct. Not sure why the velocity change per unit mass would be useful here. If we assume a certain number of ions are generated per unit time, then multiply your equation by the rate at which ions are generated to get the acceleration.
 
Well, you want to carry as little propellent to keep the weight down. A higher change in velocity per unit mass would allow you to carry less propellent to achieve the same change in velocity.
 
Thinking about this a little more, and I am thinking the quantity of interest is the velocity change due to burning a fixed mass of fuel, since the "energy budget" would include a certain amount of fuel by mass.

Multiplying your v expression times the number of particles in a total fuel mass mf would give Δv for that mass of fuel. This number of particles is simply mf/m, so we have

Δv = Sqrt[2qVmf2 / (m2M2)] = Sqrt[2qV] mf/(mM)​

I guess this is pretty much what you were getting at ... essentially divide by the mass m to get the velocity change per unit mass of fuel.

EDIT:
I posted this before reading your post #3. (Yes, I had this edit window open and in progress for nearly an hour.) I agree with what you said.

So it appears that a smaller particle mass results in a greater thrust.
 
Well, if that's the case, why are they using xenon? It's heavy. Is xenon particularly easy to ionize multiple times? I mean, all that you need this particle to do is get ionized and fly out the back. Other than ease of storage, all other properties are irrelevant.
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
Back
Top