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.

 

Professor Designs Plasma Driven UFO

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   

University of Florida mechanical and aerospace engineering associate professor Subrata Roy has recently applied for a patent to build a circular aircraft that can hover in the air like a helicopter without any moving parts or fuel.

The saucer will hover and propel itself using electrodes that cover its surface to ionize the surrounding air into plasma. Gases (such as air, which has an equal number of positive and negative charges) become plasma when energy (such as heat or electricity) causes some of the gas's atoms to lose their negatively charged electrons, creating atoms with a positive charge, or positive ions, surrounded by the newly detached electrons.


from www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

Give it ten years and we all have one




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Dont get your hopes up - the patent office these days doesn't do its job, you can find all sorts of real rubbish in there including perpetual motion machines, antigravity machines, teleporation devices, free energy machines and a lot of propulsion systems.

This is simply another one to add to the list.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Linky


If you read this abstract (which requires a fee to access) you will find out that While EFD (Electro-Fluid-Dynamics Device) engines are possible... the "energy conversion efficiency is severely limited to less than 1% by the fact that the ioniser and accelerating mechanisms are not independent." (per the article and then quoted in wikipedia, although not footnoted).

What this means is while the EFD does work, it takes such a huge amount of energy to make it in any way useful that until we perfect fusion technology and shrink it down to a very small size... this "engine" will never power anything.

In addition, the EFD can only operate in mediums where there are enough atomic structures to allow for ionization. That means that it is absolutely useless in the vacuum of space.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amniodarone
In addition, the EFD can only operate in mediums where there are enough atomic structures to allow for ionization. That means that it is absolutely useless in the vacuum of space.


Unless you add a cloud of gas around the ship (in space)...

You are about to leave the atmosphere so you suck in air and compress it in tanks, while drifting against the vacuum of space. When you are in space you blow out the air and create a cloud or a bubble around the ship, then ionise the gasses and create enough push to take off in heavy speeds. Likeways if you want to stop, the same procedure is performed only you thrust in the oposite direction.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


Haha, might I suggest that you skip the whole plasma part of your suggestion and just push the air out through a nozzle. I would rush to patent this "ion-free compressed gas momentum exchanger" but I think someone has already thought of it before.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Well, this patent is a toy obviously. It was what seven inch. wide and could be driven by solar panels or a quick battery... If they could make a toy at a cock's (or any chick's) length, Im in.... Like I said, this will be great. Your own UFO

[edit on 19/9/2008 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Lemmygess, the prototype will go foir $6.000 before next year at eBay,,,



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Think of it as a "skimmer on oil".... If you continue to pour oil in front of it, you continue to go. The "sucking" of the atmosphere would have to be enormous to provide any ionization at all... and you need something to move against. An expanding sphere of molecules in the vacuum of space would not allow sufficient ionization to propel anything. In fact... all the researches specifically state that this propulsion will not work in a vacuum. So, surrounding your "spacecraft" with molucules would not yield anything.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by Amniodarone]

[edit on 20-9-2008 by Amniodarone]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amniodarone
Think of it as a "skimmer on oil".... If you continue to pour oil in front of it, you continue to go. The "sucking" of the atmosphere would have to be enormous to provide any ionization at all... and you need something to move against. An expanding sphere of molecules in the vacuum of space would not allow sufficient ionization to propel anything. In fact... all the researches specifically state that this propulsion will not work in a vacuum. So, surrounding your "spacecraft" with molucules would not yield anything.


what if you recycle the air-plasma? You only need it in front of you to make the ship stop or slow down. In zero gravity the gas cloud turned plasma would be where you put it. And if you have enough energy from let's say a cold fusion plant, you could create a strong magnetic field around the ship holding the plasma in place. And what about dark matter? Will we one day learn how to make propultion and energy out of what they say are the most abundant elements in the universe? In the vacuum of space you don't need continous propultion, you just need a push in the right direction, and the ship will accelerate into cosmos until someone step down the break pedal.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Dont get your hopes up - the patent office these days doesn't do its job, you can find all sorts of real rubbish in there including perpetual motion machines, antigravity machines, teleporation devices, free energy machines and a lot of propulsion systems.

This is simply another one to add to the list.


Its not the patent office jobs to determine how workable a concept is, or if it is even valid. They issue patents based on an idea being unique, not on if it works.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot

Its not the patent office jobs to determine how workable a concept is, or if it is even valid. They issue patents based on an idea being unique, not on if it works.


Actually, it is - the Patent Office should be examining the patent to ensure that it is actually patentable, including the basic fact that it actually works. Its part of the 'Patent Prosecution' stage of patent application.

The problem is, the US Patent Office is now 'self funded' - they make their money from patent applications, so its not in their best interests to either investigate very thoroughly (takes time and manpower) or reject patents.

Which is why the patent system is very much broken at the moment.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
what if you recycle the air-plasma? You only need it in front of you to make the ship stop or slow down. In zero gravity the gas cloud turned plasma would be where you put it. And if you have enough energy from let's say a cold fusion plant, you could create a strong magnetic field around the ship holding the plasma in place. And what about dark matter? Will we one day learn how to make propultion and energy out of what they say are the most abundant elements in the universe? In the vacuum of space you don't need continous propultion, you just need a push in the right direction, and the ship will accelerate into cosmos until someone step down the break pedal.


Whoa there with the broken high school physics.

Lets take this in reverse order, shall we? An object in space needs to expend energy as long as it is accelerating - if you give it a push in the right direction, it will continue in that direction with the same amount of energy as you initially gave it, meaning it won't accelerate or slow down (actually, it will slow down minutely as space is not a complete vacuum).

No one knows the complex chemistry of dark matter yet, we only know about it from basic things missing in several physics theories - we don't know what it is, or what we can do with it. And we won't know until we either get our hands on some, or see a lot of interaction with it.

And to answer your first supposition - ok, so you have moved it to where you want it. Now what? Its not going to produce any directional thrust sitting there in one place (see my explanation above about acceleration in a vacuum). If you regather the plasma and move it around, you are going to cancel out the thrust vectors you want, so no you can't conserve the same plasma and reuse it - you have to eject it from your frame of reference so you can move in the opposite direction.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Then how do you explain how the universe seems to be expanding and how this expansion is accellerating even? Where there is no friction as in the vacuume of space there is nothing stopping an accelerating object from accelerating further. In the vacuume of space, if I throw a ball, what will stop it from further accelerating? Nothing, because of stored kinetic energy, it would keep on accelerating until the object turned into pure energy, and still it would continue accelerating in longer and longer, broader and broader waves, changing colors from ir, through red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet and uv, through the radio active wavelengths (or maybe reversed or mixed order) until it turns into, well, not much at all, perhaps a cosmic wall, end of the road, shell of the universe, or cosmic radio noise or even dark matter. Even Einstein was wrong at one point in his famous theory of general relativity. For speed of light isn't really constant. Photons move at different speeds at different wavelengths.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Then how do you explain how the universe seems to be expanding and how this expansion is accellerating even? Where there is no friction as in the vacuume of space there is nothing stopping an accelerating object from accelerating further. In the vacuume of space, if I throw a ball, what will stop it from further accelerating? Nothing, because of stored kinetic energy, it would keep on accelerating until the object turned into pure energy, and still it would continue accelerating in longer and longer, broader and broader waves, changing colors from ir, through red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet and uv, through the radio active wavelengths (or maybe reversed or mixed order) until it turns into, well, not much at all, perhaps a cosmic wall, end of the road, shell of the universe, or cosmic radio noise or even dark matter. Even Einstein was wrong at one point in his famous theory of general relativity. For speed of light isn't really constant. Photons move at different speeds at different wavelengths.


???


The object only has the momentum that you impart to it at the beginning. It does NOT further accelerate (unless you provide the energy needed). The "stored" kinetic energy is expended in the initial ball throw. You must be mistaking the "stored kinetic energy ball throwing" scenario with the high school physics demonstration of throwing a ball on earth. At the apogee of the throw, there is stored energy due to the force of gravity. The same does not apply (in any appreciable manner) in deep space. There are forces of gravity, but they are very, very small. These forces, and the widely scattered particles in space (yes they do exist, so space isn't really a vacuum), will impart their forces to eventually slow down any object (unless other stronger forces act on them)

Objects do not keep accelerating until they turn into pure energy. The closer to c that you get, the more energy it takes to accelerate. This means that (under ordinary circumstances) you can't accelerate anything with mass to the speed of light.

The speed of light is constant. It might be slower than 186,000 miles per second in different mediums... but the speed of light is the speed of light. Einstein never said that the actual speed was constant... he said that c was constant. There is a subtle difference there.

As for the expanding universe.... It is still expanding. The further away the object, the greater the red shift. What you are thinking about is the cosmological constant (a number that is still being refined) I posted a link here (its wikipedia, but the equations are correct, I checked them) if you want to learn more:

Cosmological Constant

Hope that this clears up some of your misunderstandings........

Cheers...


[edit on 09/20/2008 by Amniodarone]



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
In the vacuume of space, if I throw a ball, what will stop it from further accelerating? Nothing, because of stored kinetic energy, it would keep on accelerating until (snip a complete load of twaddle)


What will stop it from further acceleration? Physics. Your physics is made up, as your ball would simply only continue in the direction thrown at the speed that the energy from your throw accelerated it to.

If an object continued to actually accelerate, getting around the universe would be trivially easy. It is not. You need to expend as much energy as you want to end up with.

Try looking into Newtons Three laws of Motion. They are very basic overviews of macro level physics, and should be taught at or before the age of 10 years old.

I really wish posters to forums had more than a science-fiction-esque level of understanding of the laws of physics, it would really cut out stupid topics by around 90% by my reckoning.

[edit on 7/10/2008 by RichardPrice]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amniodarone
You must be mistaking the "stored kinetic energy ball throwing" scenario with the high school physics demonstration of throwing a ball on earth.


The only reason this ball slows down the higher it goes is because of gravity, earth's magnetic field and friction from air. Without any of these three things present, the ball will accelerate until it dissapears in a puff of logics.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 03:57 AM
link   
No, it will not accelerate. In a vacuum, without gravity, the ball will move at the same velocity as you initially applied to it.....unless a force acts on it to cause an acceleration. It's Newton's Second Law of Motion. Really! if you don't believe me... the link along with the formula is below:

Newton's Laws of Motion

Yes, I know that there are certain situations where Newton's Laws don't apply (Quantum mechanics and supermassive black holes notwithstanding). However, the examples that you mention do not include those situations.

I really hope that this helps you understand things better.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
i wonder if anti-gravity has anything to do with the forces of the planets?
i wonder if anti-gravity has anything to do with the stripping of the electron?
i wonder if anti-gravity has anything to do with static electricity?
i wonder if anti-gravity has anything to do with switching of the poles?
i wonder if anti-gravity manipulates the mass?
i wonder if anti-gravity has anything to do with vibration?
i wonder if anti-gravity has anything to do with you?
it is possible, you know.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


Nikola Tesla 1856 - 1943

Another of Tesla's theorized inventions is commonly referred to as Tesla's Flying Machine, which appears to resemble an ion-propelled aircraft. Tesla claimed that one of his life goals was to create a flying machine that would run without the use of an airplane engine, wings, ailerons, propellers, or an onboard fuel source.

Initially, Tesla pondered about the idea of a flying craft that would fly using an electric motor powered by grounded base stations. As time progressed, Tesla suggested that perhaps such an aircraft could be run entirely electro-mechanically. The theorized appearance would typically take the form of a cigar or saucer.


Sounds familar.

An interesting website about Tesla and ufo's
www.swansontec.com...


[edit on 16-10-2008 by Horus12]



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
It seems to hold reason that such a ship would need to utilize several transitional feilds of energy. If we could build a ship to deal with gravity itself, we'd be 2 steps closer. But people have known that if you throw 120 volts through a transformer it's coil will rise since the 50's. Of course were talking about a 6" coil. But, it's also known that Aluminum is highly conductive, and only now determined that Superconductors are based from iron. And that silicone is also a conductor. It's also been determined that Lava Rock, with a relatively common composition heated with compressed hydrogen, would heat easily, but not hold it, allowing the energy to be converted back into electricity, but by keeping it under a cocave shape would give considerable rise, above and beyond the Ionization. Let's get something off the ground under usefull means before tackling the stars. That's the cart before the horse if I've ever heard it. (or perhaps they really can't take human bodies), because ground based attempts to build such a ship were employing an alloy composed of 91% Aluminum, 6% Iron, 3% Silicon. (As recovered and analyzed by wreckage). As Heat can be turned into Electricity as Sound, then so can movement. I have to admit. I find it Hilarious, that they figured out that quartz crystal generates an electric current across their surface when their under pressure. When most solids are heated, they expand. Did I mention coil effect? Did I tell you that super-conductors come from Iron?
And that aluminum and silicon are conductive?
Is there anything else I need say?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join