the green flame

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Bedlam

I'd feel bad for the guy who spent all that time making the PowerPoint slides

It at least had the advantage of never having been done that way, AFAIK. In fact, his supervisors didn't know he was going to do that either.

a reply to: yuppa

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Akira made what have to be hands-down the most accurate predictions about what life/technology would look like in 2020.

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: yuppa

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Akira made what have to be hands-down the most accurate predictions about what life/technology would look like in 2020.

TETSUOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Another one? Even seems to accelerate before it disappears...

a reply to: Araqiel

to me its fake...

a reply to: Araqiel

Now fake or not, I wonder if anyone has tried to ballpark a speed figure for these sightings.

Take the amount of time the flame takes to cross a ballparked stretch of sky at an estimated altitude and there you go...

EDIT: just did it myself and using the 7 seconds of visible time for the object and a ballparked transit distance of 20-30 miles, I got a lower estimate of ~11,000 mph and an upper bound of AT LEAST >15,000 mph.

Given that the heights this thing would likely operate at would skew the altitude/distance estimate to the upper range of my estimates (AKA orbital or near orbital velocities) , I'm going to go out on a limb and call this one a meteor.

I don't doubt that we've had a few exotic fastmovers here or there, but all of the airbreather concepts that had been explored (zip fuels, scramjets, etc) were aimed at a more modest ~3-6,000 mph range.

And all of the concepts for atmosphere-skippers and the like which would be capable of matching the 15,000+mph estimate (any of the later FDL concepts or the Rheinberry) were good old-fashioned rocketplanes and would almost certainly be RP-1 or LH2 powered. Not to mention that they would have flown at altitudes where they'd resemble little more than satellites.

you can determine speed from the shutter speed in that series of pictures and measuring the amount of movement from right to left using the lamp post as a point of refrence.

a reply to: yuppa

You're have to estimate the altitude as well and that's where the uncertainty comes in....

a reply to: gfad

well you can always guesstimate. Its a UFO no need for altitude really. averge altitude for aircraft will work for a guesstimate.

a reply to: yuppa

The only things that could manage my estimated speeds at "average aircraft altitudes" without spontaneously transforming into charcoal briquettes exist solely in the minds of science fiction writers and precocious 6 year old kids.

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: yuppa

The only things that could manage my estimated speeds at "average aircraft altitudes" without spontaneously transforming into charcoal briquettes exist solely in the minds of science fiction writers and precocious 6 year old kids.

Havent seen black triangles and their air tunnel creating tech yet huh? See using directed plasma they create vacuum spaces in front of the aircraft reducing atmospheric drag almost 90 percent. Also do NOT cal these TR-3b. No such thing really.

The "green lady" uses something similiar on its nose and wings to reduce drag as well i assume. Estimated speed is mach 6 for her. Ask ZAPHOD for more details.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: yuppa

The only things that could manage my estimated speeds at "average aircraft altitudes" without spontaneously transforming into charcoal briquettes exist solely in the minds of science fiction writers and precocious 6 year old kids.

Havent seen black triangles and their air tunnel creating tech yet huh? See using directed plasma they create vacuum spaces in front of the aircraft reducing atmospheric drag almost 90 percent. Also do NOT cal these TR-3b. No such thing really.

The "green lady" uses something similiar on its nose and wings to reduce drag as well i assume. Estimated speed is mach 6 for her. Ask ZAPHOD for more details.

Or you could do the same thing using ultrasound generators without the destructive side effects of plasma:
www.google.com...

Regarding the above posts on drag reduction to mitigate heat.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Highly relevant thread started by the OP a month ago. Some excellent links to the topic.

originally posted by: clay2 baraka

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: yuppa

The only things that could manage my estimated speeds at "average aircraft altitudes" without spontaneously transforming into charcoal briquettes exist solely in the minds of science fiction writers and precocious 6 year old kids.

Havent seen black triangles and their air tunnel creating tech yet huh? See using directed plasma they create vacuum spaces in front of the aircraft reducing atmospheric drag almost 90 percent. Also do NOT cal these TR-3b. No such thing really.

The "green lady" uses something similiar on its nose and wings to reduce drag as well i assume. Estimated speed is mach 6 for her. Ask ZAPHOD for more details.

Or you could do the same thing using ultrasound generators without the destructive side effects of plasma:
www.google.com...

True but seeing as how the Tris are made with Graphene its actually better for plasma due to its conductivity right? Although maybe both techs are being used in it. teh green lady itself prolly uses the ultrasonics due to its conventional construction.

Hey MB,

You're the physicist here. Question for you. What speed does ultrasonic sound travel through a medium like air? Cause I always though ultrasonic just meant beyond our hearing threshold of roughly 20,000 hertz give or take a thousand. So wouldn't ultrasonic beams still travel at mach 1 basically? I'm asking cause I am no physicist. But you are.

If an aircraft is travelling through the air at mach six + wouldn't that be 6 times faster than the ultrasound beams speed of propagation? Ie... wouldn't say the green lady outrun the ultrasonic field it's generating? So wouldn't something travelling really fast in a medium like air want something that travels at "C" so you could never out run it or the effect it's creating.

Maybe use ultrasonics in conjunction with the Microwave/IR laser duo. M/IR pulsed beams for plasma blooms to create air spikes on the nose and to create a virtual engine cowling. Ultrasonics as a safer alternative to plasmas along parts of the craft where the air might be travelling slower (or only on subsonic platforms)

Well they make noise cancelling headphones, it wouldn't surprise me if they made noise-cancelling engines and had technology to get rid of sonic booms.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I wouldn't be surprised AT ALL.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

A sonic boom has everything to do with planform. It's not that easy to get rid of.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Doesn't seem like it would be easy to accomplish. Otherwise everyone would be doing it.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

All sound is going to move at the same rate in the same medium, unless we're talking about a shockwave which is different type of thing altogether.

But objects moving supersonic through the atmosphere actually bring a lot of air with them, so some of the air around the object is moving near supersonic too. Basically* the air inside the shock cone is moving with the plane and the sound waves propagate through this medium and then get 'stuck' in the shock cone and bleed out as the cone moves along.

So I think you're totally right that something faster than the object itself is probably a good idea, but under really good conditions I think you could get an ultrasound bubble around your plane in mid super sonic flight and then punch through the cone.** And you could always turn it on before you've gone into plaid and be carrying around an air bubble that way too.

*Fast and loose explanation. Read at your own discretion

**Assuming that works in the first place