Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

B2 Bomber and Anti-Gravity

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Hello

Apologies if this has been posted before, I've done a search and can't see any specific thread -although I do recall reading about the B2 and anti-gravity previously here.

Has anyone else seen the 'Sydney Morning Herald' article I've linked to? It's 2 years+ old, but it's a legit newspaper, as far as I was aware:


Herald Link

Here's a site on Project Greenglow:

www.greenglow.co.uk...

I thought anti-gravity was all supposed to be nonsense. See here (section 8.1):

victoria.tc.ca...

Also:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

So could someone tell me if people are 'on to something', or is it just an inspired distraction campaign by military aircraft manufacturers and government?

TD




posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Nobody has yet given me a convincing explanation why a vehicle that is 100% wing would require anti gravity. Of all the whizz-bang gadgetry that might be fitted on the B-2, surely 'anti gravity' of any description would be the one that was least required?

[edit on 3-2-2006 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   

What really put the cat among the proverbial pigeons was a feature published in a March 1992 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology, entitled "Black world engineers, scientists, encourage using highly classified technology for civil applications". For the first time in open literature, this article explained how the B-2's sharp leading edge is charged to "many millions of volts", while the corresponding negative charge is blown out in the jets from the four engines.

"Take-off thrust of the [B2 engine] F118- 100 at sea level is given as '19,000lb (84.5kN) class' by Northrop Grumman and as '17,300lb (77.0kN)' by the USAF. These are startlingly low figures for an aircraft whose take-off weight is said to be 336,5001b (152,635kg) and which was until recently said to weigh 376,0001b (170,550kg). Aircraft usually get heavier over the years, not 20 tones [sic] lighter. Even at the supposed reduced weight, the ratio of thrust to weight is a mere 0.2, an extraordinarily low value for a combat aircraft."

In other words, Gunston is implying that the B2 is seriously underpowered unless there is some means of reducing its mass or of increasing its lift beyond that provided by conventional aerodynamic means.

"Other writers have commented on the size of the B-2 wing and noted that its stealth depends on the huge black skin being made of RAM (radar-absorbent material). This, say the physicists, is 'a high-k, high-density dielectric ceramic, capable of generating an enormous electrogravitic lift force when charged'."


What they are trying to say is the air around the B-2 is polarised to reduce the boundary layer thickness (and to hopefully eliminate shock induced seperation in transonic flow) - that'll improve L/D dramatically.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
If what the above poster says is true, that would explain the low power engines, but again, the wing is extremely efficient and doesnt require the kind of power as say a B1

Train

PS, the B2 is subsonic.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   
What kilcoo posted about reducing the boundary layer thickness makes a lot of sense, so could well be true. but even so, I wouldn't call it anti gravity (not that kilcoo is saying that, but other people sort of 'want' it to be).

[edit on 3-2-2006 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
If what the above poster says is true, that would explain the low power engines, but again, the wing is extremely efficient and doesnt require the kind of power as say a B1

Train

PS, the B2 is subsonic.


Being subsonic doesn't stop a supersonic bubble forming on the upper surface (and as you can see below the lower surface too). Preventing a strong shock on the back end of this bubble is one way of reducing the possibility of shock induced boundary layer seperation, another would be polarising the flow and controlling its movement and ensuring the pressure gradient is minimised (which would be the case with the jet exhaust entrainment through both normal fluid viscosity and through magnetic effects).



note: The vapourisation shows the back of the supersonic bubble and the shock.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by kilcoo316]

[edit on 3-2-2006 by kilcoo316]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Good point waynos. It does make sense when used as a form of drag reducment, but as far as anti-gravitic lift, that is an entirely different thing altogether.

Train



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
just like all stealth planes there are still parts of the B-2 which are classified. The tech to change or munipulate the boundary layer would be a huge advance for any other country.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I don't think that gravity can be fooled that easy... But then again, I'am still so young so half of the stuff you are saying just goes "woosh" over me...
but I'am here to learn...



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
LOL dont worry man im in the same boat ie learning but if you need any thing explained (boundary layer etc) ask. Most people love sharing stuff cause it makes them look smart and you get to learn in the process.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Yeah... Well some of the stuff like Newtons are things we have discussed at school... But as said... I'am learning... And everybody here are awesome, the peoples from Aircraft forums are like my second family...
I love the part that it's always the same peoples who are posting... if you know what I mean...


Big thanks to everybody, Especially you Waynos, for explaining to me the basics in the whole world of aircrafts...



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Where's the delete post option? I screwed up the math on my first post.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by Travellar]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Being subsonic doesn't stop a supersonic bubble forming on the upper surface (and as you can see below the lower surface too). Preventing a strong shock on the back end of this bubble is one way of reducing the possibility of shock induced boundary layer seperation, another would be polarising the flow and controlling its movement and ensuring the pressure gradient is minimised (which would be the case with the jet exhaust entrainment through both normal fluid viscosity and through magnetic effects).



Kilcoo, that shockcone forms at high subsonic, it does not indicate transonic and furthermore does not indicate supersonic. What are you trying to say?

Are you suggesting that the electromagnetic layer manipulates the shock cone to such a point as to eliminate the sonic boom by causing laminar flow (Smooth Flow to laymens) over the rear wing?

Train



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   
This would also help in stealth if this was true. I was wondering about it myself. If it has some sort of magnetically assisted lift, it can run its engines on a lower thrust so you don't hear it coming, also increasing its range. For those of you who have never had a B2 fly over, land, or take off, they are FREAKISHLY quiet....



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I've heard high power engines that were a LOT quieter than you think they should be too. Ever been near the runway when a 777 takes off? You'd think that 200,000 pounds of thrust would be a LOT louder than it actually is. There are perfectly normal ways to quiet an engine that don't involve antigravity.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   
I agree... I once read about an airshow where the B-2 flew... they said that they were really surprised of the quiet sound... if thet wouldn't have known better they woudn't have known that a plane as flying at all...



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Official ATS B2 Electrogravitic Research Thread


There's a pretty comprehensive breakdown of the possiblities in that link. Well worth a look.


This item is going to sound like a bad reject from conspiracy publications like Nexus or New Dawn, or an X-Files fanzine. It isn't. The indisputable fact is that both the US and the UK are putting serious money into anti-gravity research with military aerospace applications. The only question is how far it is from operational status. There is informed speculation that it is already used in the American B2 bomber.

I believe that access to this potentially revolutionary and obviously highly secret technology, perhaps via the JSF/F35 fighter program, could be behind the otherwise (in my view) inexplicable level of support given Bush over Iraq by Howard and Blair.

For the record I am a mechanical engineer who spent over two years at a British Aerospace guided missile R&D site in the early 1980s and have continued to take a strong interest in aerospace technology. I am a member of ASRI (Australian Space Research Institute). I am not a crank.


Link
Any thoughts, people? Does the JSF-35 come in different flavours? Would Howard and Blair throw their hat's in the ring so they could get the "sports" version?




WaynosNobody has yet given me a convincing explanation why a vehicle that is 100% wing would require anti gravity.


I remember reading somewhere that older flying wing designs were shelved because they suffered from terrible yawing problems. Charging the wing to produce an electrogravitic effect would most likely increase stability. Anti gravity is a bit of a misnomer, as that would tend to mean creating your own gravity in opposition to the dominant gravity effect that your in. There is some debate as to whether this effect would work in a vacuum. You can build a tabletop example of an electrogravitic craft. See here for details.




posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
I a sort of parallel note, Boeing is using some of the B-2 technology in its new aircraft the B 787 Dreamliner. Maybe there are some explanations there about how the B2 is just an ultra efficient plane, much more than a regular aircraft

Seattle Times Article



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by carcharodon
I a sort of parallel note, Boeing is using some of the B-2 technology in its new aircraft the B 787 Dreamliner. Maybe there are some explanations there about how the B2 is just an ultra efficient plane, much more than a regular aircraft

Seattle Times Article


no, not really. it seems to be more about composite materials than propulsion methods


On the new 787 program, Boeing is taking composites technology much further than it did on the 777. The whole 787 airframe, like that of the B-2, will be made from plasticized carbon-fiber composites rather than the conventional aluminum.
. . .

Regardless of how the technology was developed, Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, agreed with Gillette that the 20-year-old material design of the B-2 is no longer state-of-the-art. He dismissed the idea that any composites technology on the 787 could still be militarily sensitive.

"Knowing how to work with composites, by itself, would not greatly aid an enemy," Thompson said.


From a related article on the same site:

Last March, a lead engineer working on the procedure for fastening the 787 wings to the fuselage e-mailed colleagues with B-2 experience.

He wanted to know if they recalled the specifications used on the military plane for aligning and drilling holes in multiple layers of titanium and composite materials.

A Boeing engineer now working in Seattle on the F/A-22 fighter jet program quickly supplied the answer — specific numerical guidance for the drilling machine — from a B-2 manual dated 1991.

Same bloke, different haircut

I don't see how info on drilling holes and composite recipies they don't want China getting a hold of, proves the B-2 is just an efficent plane. How did they solve the problem of corkscrewing out of the sky, which seemed to be a problem of earlier planes of flying wing design?






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join