Purchasing new hardware? Read our latest product comparisons

MIT researchers study electro-hydrodynamic thrust


April 8, 2013

An electrohydrodynamic lifter in action (Photo: Anonymous59.)

An electrohydrodynamic lifter in action (Photo: Anonymous59.)

Image Gallery (2 images)

Imagine an aircraft that is silent, invisible to infrared detectors, has zero emissions and can hover in an eerie manner that helicopters can’t. Now imagine it coming from technology currently used to suck dust out of living room air. That’s what a team of researchers at MIT is doing. They've conducted a study that indicates that ionic thrusters, currently a science fair curiosity, might one day take to the skies.

Ionic thrusters sound like something you’d find on a spacecraft, and the principle is similar to that of the ion drives being developed by NASA and other space agencies. However, where an ion drive works like a rocket in the vacuum of space, an ionic thruster is more like a jet engine.

If you want to see an ionic thruster in action, just have a look at one of those electrostatic dust collectors found in many homes. These work on the very simple idea of using an electrostatic charge to pull dust motes out of the air and collect them on metal panels. What does this have to do with flying? Put your hand against the grille of the dust collector and you’ll feel a very slight breeze – despite the fact that the collector has no moving parts. What’s moving it? Ionic wind.

The proper name for “ionic wind” is ElectroHydroDynamic (EHD) thrust. It’s been known since the 18th century that electricity can kick up a tiny air movement, but it wasn't until the 1960s that EHD was identified and developed by scientists and engineers such as air pioneer Major Alexander Prokofieff de Seversky, who developed much of the physics and patented the basic technology.

Elements of an electrohydrodynamic lifter (Photo: Blaze Labs Research)

Severskey used EHD to propel what he called an “ionocraft,” which are still built by students and hobbyists to this day. It works by using an negative anode to charge air particles. These charged particles or ions are drawn down to a positively charged cathode. As the ions move toward the cathode, they bump into other air molecules and push them down, creating the ionic wind.

In a working model, such as the one used by the MIT team, the anode is called the “emitter” and is made from a thin copper electrode. The cathode is of a thicker aluminum tube called a “collector.” These are mounted with a gap between them using a very light framework and powered by means of a wire connected to an outside electricity source.

Seeing an ionocraft in flight is slightly unnerving. Ionocraft aren't very large, being little more than bench top models, but when they take off, they don’t make a sound. Instead, they float up and hover on the wispy breeze forced down by the ion stream. The ionocraft can even be steered by varying the voltage, to turn and tip it like a helicopter.

In the ‘60s, the ionocraft seemed like a revolution in aviation. There was talk about them being used in all sorts of small aircraft, and the military were interested because ionocraft give off no heat, so there’s no infrared signature. Ionocraft were seen as replacing helicopters, as silent commuter ferries, as craft capable of operating at the edge of space, as traffic monitors or anti-missile platforms.

The problem was, the technology didn't scale very well. What worked for a small model that was built like a kite didn't do at all well as the ionocraft got bigger. It couldn't even carry its own power supply, so it wasn't long before ionic thrusters became the denizens of science fairs and the obsession of anti-gravity cultists.

Where MIT came in was at the point that the researchers realized that very few rigorous studies of ionic wind as a viable propulsion system had ever been carried out, and exactly what the ionic thruster is capable of hadn't been measured. So, they devised a test where an ionocraft was hung under a digital scale and tens of thousands of volts with enough amperage to run a light bulb were run through the craft.

The results were surprising. The team discovered that the ionic thruster turned out to be remarkably efficient compared to, for example, jet engines. Where a jet produces two newtons of thrust per kilowatt, the ionic thruster punched out 110 newtons per kilowatt. Furthermore, the thruster was most efficient at low thrust, which meant that power wasn't being wasted.

“It’s kind of surprising, but if you have a high-velocity jet, you leave in your wake a load of wasted kinetic energy,” said Steven Barrett, an assistant professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT. “So you want as low-velocity a jet as you can, while still producing enough thrust.”

Despite these promising findings, don’t expect to see any ionocraft in the skies soon. One problem with ionic propulsion is that even with its remarkable efficiency, it requires incredible amounts of voltage. Even a small craft would need megavolts to lift it, so a lot of work needs to be done to build up thrust while bringing down powerplant weight.

However, the characteristics of the ionic thruster means that increasing its thrust means increasing the gap between the anode and cathode. For an ionocraft to get off the ground with its own power supply and payload, the engine would need to be so large that the craft would be inside the engine. What that means is that an ionocraft would probably be large, round, carry its workings and payload in a bulgy middle section, and take off in vertical silence.

In other words, we might one day see flying saucers.

The team’s results were published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Source: MIT

About the Author
David Szondy David Szondy is a freelance writer based in Monroe, Washington. An award-winning playwright, he has contributed to Charged and iQ magazine and is the author of the website Tales of Future Past. All articles by David Szondy

Has anyone tried using high capacitance cathodes, like carbon nanofoam paper, instead of aluminium foil?


Concerning powering the craft and the electrical concepts involved, I feel there small clarification is justified. First, voltage value, while necessary for proper corona discharge, isn't the key attribute that determines the thrust estimation. Instead, it's power (aka rate of work). It makes sense when you think that to lift the craft and any payload is the classic example of doing work. In an electrical system, power is defined as voltage times current. Thus, high voltage with little current isn't going to do much work (think static shock). Any EE graduate can design a relatively cheap and lightweight high voltage power supply, but with existing technology, it's unlikely anyone can design one that not only can deliver the kinds of power needed to lift a craft but also carries it's own energy source. What we're talking about is a generator with massive coils and cooling support, powered by (combustion, chemical, nuclear) fuel all being carried by the craft. Secondly, on the issue of radar detection, even if you could completely mask the metallic electrode system (corona wire and anode surface), would be hard to hide the fact that the craft is essentially a wide band RF generator. In other words, the craft is a beacon in the EM wavelengths. You won't even need a radar to spot it. That said, it would be pretty cool to have silent aircraft.


come on. Do us a favor and link to a youtube of a device like that.


Paul van Dinther

Is the author aware of the current state of small fusion power sources i.e. at skunkworks and the University of Washington+NASA?

Gee whiz

If the setup creates an electric arc, wouldn't that make ozone? That's considered a detectable emission.


The eddy currents would be fairly easy to detect as well.

Noel Frothingham

re; kayanlau

When operating properly it does not arc.


I had never heard of this before. But I recall seeing an article about similar system of propulsion for submarines involving ions (charged particles) in the mid 1960's, it involved hacking a isolation transformer and then running salwater in a plastic tube through a gap where the transformer laminiations are removed, and watching movement of particles suspended in the water. IMO the maglev trains are a completely different animal, those are more like electric motors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_propulsion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics

Dave B13

Isnt this the basis for those V wing UFOs seen in AZ in 1997? Use this power source??

Stephen Russell

Actually this is old news. In fact there have been very detailed studies done on Lifter's, payed for by NASA and published as internal reports. The problem is this kind of research goes through cycles and everyone except for a few of us remember the prior cycle.

The main issue of the Lifter is that, it does not scale well and you loose all your efficiency. Any engineer will tell you that this is a common problem with a lot technologies. They look good in the small scale or in a purely controlled laboratory setting, but try making bigger or take them out of the laboratory and other new factors start taking away all the benefits.

Also a Lifter's ion wind thrust is completely dependant on pressure. As pressure drops (as you gain altitude) efficiency and thrust drop dramatically. It's been a dead end road since day one.


It's funny the way they describe the end result sounds remarkably like the Tesla flying ship. It never flew but Tesla's concept describes a vehicle shaped like an elongated ellipsoid, vaguely like a US football, with corrugated skin. I think he wound up with the same issue the article attributes to blocking Electro-Hydro-Dynamic thrust, lack of a sufficiently dense power supply to make it possible. It will be interesting to see what it looks like if anyone ever builds it.


L. Neil Smith, a science fiction writer, described similar craft in one of his novels a decade-plus ago.


Nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman already proposed just such a drive and suggested that UFOs would seem to fit this type of drive perfectly. Silence, static charge and ozone are common in UFO reports.

Jerry Peavy

Dr Robert Goddard patented Ion thrust over 100 years ago while every few decades its been looked at again and again. So far no one has discovered how to make it into a practical working machine able to fly on its own.

This is mostly due to the scant research funding caused by the narrow group think that its an old technology with no one solving it yet so their minds stay closed. This stops a deep enough understanding of what is going on.

Its nice to see MIT is wise enough to have an open minded approach to technology.

The odds are strong that some day ion thrust vehicles will change human civilization.


Couldn't you stack these things up? Put another wire and another skirt under the existing setup? Alternate the polarity. + - + - + - Make it a tube; or even a long cone. Consider the airodynamics like the Dyson fans.

It might not scale up to airliner size, but look at the popularity and utility of the quad-copter. I think there's potential here.

Matthew Bailey

@Matthew Bailey

I think that they could be "stacked" concentrically in addition to vertically, producing more thrust in a smaller package. The density would obviously depend on how far around the wires the ionization is effective.

I've seen a few old videos that indicate that what we know as UFOs have been around for a while, and are quite secret, but probably experiments. For example, one video showed a black dot flying around an aircraft mid-flight; the object had insane acceleration, but I now know that an unmanned craft using the principles in a helicopter could theoretically achieve such acceleration and precision - just not for long, which is why it only showed up for a few seconds before leaving as quickly as it came.


This is all over you tube under "lifters" I read, it's antigravity but thrust from tiny particles, I forget which. Anyway you can build this at home, it's not a new idea. Chances are area 51 has one and they're flying around freaking out locals in near by towns.. :/



This is old news. Don't drink the NASA-MIT koolaide. Most of the initial testwork was done by amateurs. Check out the experiments listed below. By 2006 there were over 300 successful experiments of these things in all sorts of variations.



One fellow managed to get an onboard powersource. Another lifted a mouse and a third had his attached the the leading edge of model helicopter blade. The second link below is the "how to" guide for building one of these things for yourself. I slapped one together years ago and added mine to the list of successful tests. And I'm no engineer.


A few initial findings BTW. Doesn't work as well in a vacuum or at lower air pressure. Thus flight over 5000 ft would become problematic with out tweaking voltage or the distance between the cathode and the anode. Happy experimenting, folks.

Post a Comment

Login with your Gizmag account:

Related Articles
Looking for something? Search our articles