Electrochromatic Panels Tested at Area 51?

ELECTROCHROMATIC PANELS TESTED AT AREA 51? By Norio Hayakawa There are quite a number of new technologies being researched, developed and tested at various leading-edge defense contractor facilities, for example, at Groom Lake/AREA 51's highly compartmentalized, multi-faceted conglomerate complexes. Besides a new generation of VTOL-based UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - remotely-controlled surveillance platforms, some of which may be disk-shaped), there are ongoing development and testing of electrochromatic panels as part of innovations relevant to "daytime-stealth" capabilities. The electrochromatic panels are comprised of thousands of tiny sensors that function as video-cameras that take images of background scenaries, transferring them to the other panels on the other side of the aircraft. This gives the illusion that the aircraft is almost transparent. What the ground observer sees is whatever background images behind (or above) the body of the aircraft that are transposed to the "observer's" side of the body of the aircraft. For example, in a recent artist's rendition of a proposed "Stealth Blimp" (POPULAR SCIENCE), one can see the stars from above (and behind) the blimp, giving it an illusion of being transparent, and making detection somewhat difficult. That an ongoing research, development and testing of such electrochromatic panels at locations such as at Groom Lake/AREA 51 may be taking place was first suggested in an article written by aviation writer, Bill Sweetman (POPULAR SCIENCE - May of 1997). Coincidentally, after that article (suggesting that Groom Lake/AREA 51 was still abuzz with various projects) appeared on POPULAR SCIENCE of May, 1997, the June, 1997 issue of POPULAR MECHANICS, in turn, strangely came out with an article by Jim Wilson suggesting that Groom Lake/AREA 51's operations were transferred to Green River missile launch complex in Utah. This was the beginning of the false rumor that AREA 51 had moved to a new location in Utah. The Green River missile launch complex right now still appears to be an old, abandoned site, with nothing visible of any significance. (As far as Utah is concerned, attention should rather be focused on DUGWAY PROVING GROUNDS, where lots of innovative programs are ongoing, for example, leading-edge research on biological-chemical warfare programs). In the meantime, Groom Lake/AREA 51's conglomerate complex is abuzz with new programs. It is estimated that there are still anywhere from 1800 to 2300 defense-contractor employees constantly at work in highly compartmentalized projects. (reprinted with permission)

The US has been rezearching Daytime stealth for years. WWII saw project Yehudle? that put lights on the bottoms of planes to reduce the dark spot that they showed at altitude. Its not inconciveable that with thin LCD screens and high speed computers that a chameleon plane may be flying. However, how practicle would it be? High altitude cold, constant vibration exposure, FOD would all take its toll.

I saw a documentry on stealth tek dont rember where. anyway they showed armered trucks and solders using this invisiable tek and wile you could still see them you had to look fairly hard .they looked like gost or something along thoes lines.

Yeah I know alot about this kind of technology, I cant say why but I know that the first person to discover this technology was a Japanese scientist Who made a cloak suit! VEry COol I think!

Originally posted by GovA51002
Yeah I know alot about this kind of technology, I cant say why but I know that the first person to discover this technology was a Japanese scientist Who made a cloak suit! VEry COol I think!

Can you please confirm this with some kind of link, because it is unbelieveable without one. Always post some kind of link ior source if posting facts

www.8bm.com...

I can see how a plane could make use of this technology at altitudes where small details are undescernable. But closer to the ground/on the ground how would you overcome the shadow cast by the 'cloaked' object? How would you remove any reflection from the screens of sunlight or indirect light?

Well, I would have to say that I believe that I have seen some of this type of technology.. Read my blog, this link to read what I saw: www.abovetopsecret.com...' . Anybody every play the game Halo on X-Box? If you have then you know what the "Active Camoflouge" is and how it looks. This is similar to what I saw, except in a different form. Read my bl0g.



[edit on 1/3/05 by creamsoda]

Originally posted by GovA51002
Yeah I know alot about this kind of technology, I cant say why but I know that the first person to discover this technology was a Japanese scientist Who made a cloak suit! VEry COol I think!

god, i'm sick of people always bringing this up. There is NOTHING special about this. I could do the same damn thing if I had 2 video cameras and 1 projector, and the clothes they wear are reflective, like how a movie gets projected onto a screen at the theater.

if the camera guy who took this picture would of went to the other side of the girl you would see a video camera behind her big green coat. hardly stealthy.

reply to post by Murcielago


In response to the person that advised that this is very easy to duplicate. it is not just a few people holding simple cameras and projector screens. The material has a built in computer that runs off of a battery by motorola that is jell filled (so if cut it will not leak or lose power) the computer calculates what images should be where in response to the motions that the wearer is going through. The suit can be tied into a BAR type weapon that also has the same type of solid state tech. the battery on the suit alone will lasty about 2.5 hours fully charged, when you add the gun you are cut down to about 2 hours. The material is fairly itchy, and the whole get-up weighs about 30 pounds( no gear ) it provides no more protection from being shot then a light jacket, and khakis. this is easily carried in a waterproof bag, and then put on. it does require a few minutes to get setup and working properly. but can be done solo. You are not invisible but if you are standing next to a brick building, a person will not likely pick you out from over 10 feet away. It is easier to be seen during dusk and dawn, because the direction of the sun.

Ooh this is OLD...
Like 2004 old. But very interesting and I thought
it could use a profile lift.

My idea for quite sometime is that he USAF has a mile wide
triangular aircraft made of Aerogel and Graphene that is covered in
these electro chromatic screens. It's spotted a little too often
to be kept secret for much longer,I think.

From the Jerusalem UFO to Stephenville Texas & to all those Illinois triangle sightings
I think this is the culprit.

reply to post by sealing


Just throwing out an idea here, but if this aircraft were to exist (which is doesnt) and was covered with aerogel and graphene and covered in these electro chromatic screens then why would it have been seen so often? When it's main purpose is visual stealth. Don't you think it would of sort of failed since according to you 'it's been spotted too many times'.

Also 1 mile wide? Not mentioning the propulsion system that would be required to get such a thing off the ground, there's also the fact that the widest runways in the world are around the 300 feet mark, so nowhere near big enough..

Also I was thinking about the cost of such an aircraft as graphene is ridiculously expensive, in 2008 it was 100 million dollars for a cubic centermeter of the stuff.

Now to give you an idea of how expensive this craft would be goes like this:

I'm only going to work out the area of a triangle this big since I can't really be bothered working out the whole thing.

1600 x 1.732/4 for the area.

Which Is 692.8m2 so we'll round it off to 692m2 for the purpose of this exercise.

692m2 is 692,000,000cm2

692,000,000 x 100,000,000 ( cm2 x the cost of the material)

Gives us 6.92e+16 on the calculator.

That's 692 with 14 zeros after it.

Cost to cover a triangle that size with graphene is:

$692 Trillion Dollars.

Now I realize that the actual number would be different to cover an aircraft with graphene would be different because I didn't take into account the actual shape of the aircraft which might be similar to a tetrahedron and I only worked out the area of a triangle just to give you a basic example. The equation may also be completely off since I don't have to use math all that often. Perhaps someone like Zaphod or Bedlam would be able to give you a much better example.