Talk:Electrohydrodynamic thruster

A well engineered EHD thruster can achieve a high degree of electrical to mechanical conversion efficiency with the correct design parameters.

Numbers? - Omegatron July 2, 2005 20:30 (UTC)

This issue is from 2005?!.. it still says 'citation needed' in the article and the statement itself is highly ambigous. I will remove it now. 79.223.180.72 (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving EHD thruster to Electrohydrodynamic Thruster[edit]

Hello Omegatron,

This is fine to me. I tried to do it myself, but since the 'Electrohydrodynamic Thruster' page already has some history, I wasn't allowed to move the page onto the existing 'Electrohydrodynamic thruster' page. I quite new to Wikipedia procedures. Can you help?

I'll do it. I have to delete the other. - Omegatron 18:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone know that hydro=water?[edit]

It may be that the term is also (mis)used for air, but that doesn't excuse for not pointing that out... Harald88 12:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a non-scientific misconception, a slight misuse of the term. 'Hydro' means fluid. Since water is a common fluid, hydro commonly refers to it, but the word itself doesn't really mean water. 79.223.180.72 (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary sentence detail[edit]

Close to the introduction, the following phrase is stated/included within the article : "although they still need to carry their own electrical power source or generator. "

I am uncertain as to whether such devices actually NEED to carry their own power sources. It could be possible to `beam' the power direct ot the thruster (so that the thruster could convert Microwave radiation into electrical power for it's thrust) OR for the `beamed' energy to be directed in a way which could be directly utilised (low energy Microwave radiation could be concentrated on a particular spot for ionisation - so at least this part of the ion engine would not require a `local' power source).

ConcernedScientist 12:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100%?[edit]

the statement at the end about having efficientcies close to 100% is almost certainly bogus. please take it off until an actual credible source is given. DescentPro (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)DescentPro[reply]

I removed it Bhny (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]