It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

anti gravity air craft!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Why do people think antigravity is impossible when history has proved time and time again that nothing is impossible?

Isn't gravity a byproduct of mass in motion? in the Hunt for Zero point Nick Cook mentions the Nazi torsion field expierements. Isnt that what the "Bell" Device was? If you could get a object that is big enough with enough mass spinning fast enough couldnt you in effect start to create your own gravity field?

I think Nick Cook is pretty reputable but question some of the stuff he speaks of. The thing about "The Hunt for Zero Point" is he just presents the evidence or lack thereof and allows you to make your own conclusion.

The one part of Cook's book that makes me really think there might be something out there is the comparison of antigravity technology to the Manhattan project. Antigravity was the big buzz in aerospace world in the 50's but then it went silent in '57 and no one spoke of it after that much like atomic technology the decade prior.

[edit on 14-10-2005 by warpboost]

[edit on 14-10-2005 by warpboost]




posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by meshuggah1324
*off topic* Can't the Aurora go 3,600 mph or 1 mile per second? I've heard this before.

Also, I've heard people say anti-gracity aircraft is impossible. It's not defying gravity 100%, it's really just aircraft that "manipulate" or reduce gravity around the craft by 30%, 50%, or even up to 70% using electro-magnetics and other means...

[edit on 14-10-2005 by meshuggah1324]

[edit on 14-10-2005 by meshuggah1324]

That's called inertial dampening, it's not Anti-grav, in fact, Anti-grav is nothing but negative-g's.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Someone's not very familiar with the 4 forces of flight.

Thrust, Drag, Lift, and WEIGHT.

Weight being the gravity that PULLs the aircraft down, and lift being the force that keeps it up, in no way is any plane anti-gravity.

Shattered OUT...


Someone is very familiar with the forces of flight...

It depends on your definition of 'anti-gravity'



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
meshuggah1324, Some people have theorized that the B2 Spirit uses some type ofelectrogravitic lifting technolgy in the wings but who knows. I read one claim that made good sense to me in that even if the technology didn't work that great and "only" provided 5-10% of the lift required to stay airborne it could drastically reduce fuel consumption, increase the payload capacity and the range of the aircraft.


I've heard people allude to something in the wings - I believe it is 'simply' (its anything but simple! But you know what I mean) polarisation of the airflow around the aircraft, and the use of magnetic fields to aid the circulation of airflow around a wing which gives it its lift The B-2 is a pretty thick wing section, and flying at transonic speeds, shock induced separation is bound to be an issue, so magnetism could be used as a means of re-energising the flow downstream of the shockwave to reduce or eliminate the effects of BL separation. It may also be used to reduce spanwise flow along the wing within the boundary layer - helps with flow over the control surfaces.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Someone is very familiar with the forces of flight...

It depends on your definition of 'anti-gravity'

But there is only one kind of Anti-gravity, you can't have dozens of different types of anti-gravity just to prove your point. Lets stick to one theoretical anti-gravity shall we? I think that the tech involved and the concepts by themselves are complicated enough, no need to confuse the masses(I.E. me) of any more.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Anti gravity should be the manipulation of the pull of the earth without using brut force , abit like being in water and neith sinking or rising. I wonder if any of you have looked in to the harmonic energy grid around the planet? This energy can be tapped for the use and propultion of said aircraft. I am now thinking that this is now the case but we are being left in the dark. The earth is a giant generator with massive magnetic fields ( fact) if you can put in the force needed to repel this attraction then control it in different directions i would think you could move around in any direction freely.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
cronauer 1965 says:

you have looked in to the harmonic energy grid around the planet? This energy can be tapped for the use and propultion of said aircraft.


What is a "harmonic energy grid"? I'd never heard of it. What evidence do you have for its existence, what is this energy in harmony with, and how do you "tap" it?



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   
I suppose the first thing about making an 'anti/null-gravity' device is to understand what gravity is...

I have to confess, I don't exactly know;

Is gravity the result of mass?? (The widely held view - but what is the mechanism of its operation?)

Or, is it a by product of the electrical attraction within atoms? (since everything is made of atoms it would be possible everything is affected by it)

Its widely stated that within an atom 'gravity' is negligible:

[QUOTE]The gravitational interaction of (A stable particle with positive charge equal to the negative charge of an electron) protons is approximately a factor 10^36 weaker than the electromagnetic repulsion.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, atomic scale gravity has never been measured from what I see - just calculated based on models.

The mechanism of gravity seems not to be fully understood - hence all the work on string theories etc. If the mechanism is not understood - it would be fortuitous indeed if we learned how to manipulate it.


Anyone is more than welcome to educate me on the subject!



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
kilcoo316, what you said about gravity and its mechanisim of operation is interesting especially the part about atoms. It reminds me of the "Modern Marvels" on the History Channel episode about magnetisim and how it all starts at the atomic level with the electrons and how they spin. IIRC they said that the electrons spinning and the angles they do so at creates a magnetic pull, so could that have something to do with how gravity operates? Could it be magnetic as a result of mass (lots of atoms with spinning electrons pulling)? I hope that made some sense?



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
kilcoo316, what you said about gravity and its mechanisim of operation is interesting especially the part about atoms. It reminds me of the "Modern Marvels" on the History Channel episode about magnetisim and how it all starts at the atomic level with the electrons and how they spin. IIRC they said that the electrons spinning and the angles they do so at creates a magnetic pull, so could that have something to do with how gravity operates? Could it be magnetic as a result of mass (lots of atoms with spinning electrons pulling)? I hope that made some sense?


Could be related - if magnetism comes from electrons spinning, then maybe gravity from protons/neutrons (the nucleus) spinning? I don't know, I'm just speculating!



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Regarding Nick Cook's credibility,...

I started reading his book, "The Hunt For Zero Point." For me, he lost all credibility by the time I had reached the end of the Preface. It was a description of his alleged visit to the F-117A crash site at Bakersfield, California. Utter rubbish. If this is an example of his best research then the rest his work is called into question as well.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Warpboost
Isn't gravity a byproduct of mass in motion?

no, it isn't.

Gravity is all about mass...nothing else.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Warpboost
Isn't gravity a byproduct of mass in motion?

Gravity is the pull that a mass has on another mass. Inertia is the force that keeps a mass moving constantly in one direction.(Inertial Dampening different)

with Inertia and gravity, planets revolve around a star. That is why planets revolve on an eliptical orbit. Well, it's why they are in orbit, eliptical is for another reason.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Actually, from a brief search online - alot of hypothesis seems to revolve around movement within the atom, and interaction between the electric fields of the proton and electron.


It is well-known that energy-momentum is the source of gravitational field. For a long time, it is generally believed that only stars with huge masses can generate strong gravitational field. Based on the unified theory of gravitational interactions and electromagnetic interactions, a new mechanism of the generation of gravitational field is studied. According to this mechanism, in some special conditions, electromagnetic energy can be directly converted into gravitational energy, and strong gravitational field can be generated without massive stars. Gravity impulse found in experiments is generated by this mechanism.


citebase.eprints.org...:arXiv.org:gr-qc/0510010

Apparently it is 'well known'
Certainly not 'well known' by me!!

[edit on 18-10-2005 by kilcoo316]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
The B-2 is a pretty thick wing section, and flying at transonic speeds, shock induced separation is bound to be an issue, so magnetism could be used as a means of re-energising the flow downstream of the shockwave to reduce or eliminate the effects of BL separation. It may also be used to reduce spanwise flow along the wing within the boundary layer - helps with flow over the control surfaces.


The cord of a wing is more important then the thickness. In case anyone isn't familiar with the term, CORD, refers to the ratio of thickness to length (front to back). On flying wings like the B-2, the wing is very long from fromt to back. At its thickest point, the wing has a cord of only about 4.1 to 1. The wing is thick, but there isn't enough cord to cause air flow seperation.

Tim

[edit on 19-10-2005 by ghost]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost

The cord of a wing is more important then the thickness. In case anyone isn't familiar with the term, CORD, refers to the ratio of thickness to length (front to back). On flying wings like the B-2, the wing is very long from from front to back. At its thickest point, the wing has a cord of only about 4.1 to 1. The wing is thick, but there isn't enough cord to cause air flow seperation.

Tim

[edit on 19-10-2005 by ghost]


I assume the ratio you are referring to is the thickness to chord (4.1-1) or t/c of around 0.25?

A typical airliner wing section is around t/c of 0.13, and they suffer from transonic effects - believe me, a B-2 will have a supersonic bubble over the upper surface at high mach numbers, and (without the fancy magnetic field they use, and assuming they don't have other fancy BL or shock control concepts on it) will have a shock induced seperation of the boundary layer.

If an aerofoil section is in its transonic flow regime, irrespective of chord length, it will have a supersonic bubble on its suction surface (the upper surface for aircraft). I'll see if I can find a piccie of it for ya.


edit: Its not a great CFD mesh (the depth across the shock is far far too big), but beggars cannot be choosers, it also must be an inviscid code since there is no boundary layer of any sort.


You can pretty clearly see the supersonic bubble (the yellow-red bit), it should transfer instantly to green, but the grid is pretty poor, so there is still some yellow downstream which should not be the case. Across the shock there is a large adverse pressure gradient, and it is this that will cause the boundary layer to seperate, there are techniques to combat this, including (but not limited to), blowing of the boundary layer downstream (usually axial), blowing of the boundary layer upstream (at an angle has produced some good results in the past I believe), a 'bump' at the shock location to have a number of weaker shocks instead of one strong one, it reduces the pressure gradient, and there are other boundary layer ideas like pressure coupling of upstream and downstream the shockwave - but I've rambled on enough...

[edit on 19-10-2005 by kilcoo316]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
kilcoo316 I was just wondering if you are a aeronautical engineer? What software did you use to make that diagram of a wing?



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
kilcoo316 I was just wondering if you are a aeronautical engineer? What software did you use to make that diagram of a wing?


I just grabbed that from a webpage somewhere. The mesh was pretty (very) bad, I probably wouldn't have stuck it online.

If you want to make a simple CAD diagram of a wing, its pretty easy, get aerofoil section data - try NACA (fore runner to NASA) in google or somewhere [NACA0012 is a common symmetrical section], and manipulate it to give yourself some sweep and taper if you want it, run it through a CAD prog like SolidEdge/CATIA/ProE etc and then import into a mesh generator (Gambit/ICEM etc etc) then into a CFD package (Fluent/StarCD/CFX etc)...

Actually, with simple geometry, its best to make it in the mesh generator program, as CAD-mesher interfaces are normally pretty crap - its ruining my happiness at the moment!


[edit on 19-10-2005 by kilcoo316]



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   
I say all those people who claim to be knowledgeable about anti-gravity to make something fly up into space with no fuel.

all those anti grav sites are garbage...and what it all comes down to it made up junk and hoaxes, hoping to grab the attention of the weak minded and have them pay 30 bucks for there exclusive dvd which explains how it all works.


I'll believe it, when I see it. which will probably be around 600 years...so I probably wont see it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join