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.

 

UFO Technology Vid

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   



Mod Edit -

1k.) Video links/embeds: You will not embed or post a link to a video without a reasonable description of its content and why it interests you, is germane to the topics discussed on ATS or the topic of an existing thread should you post it in a reply to an existing thread.






edit on 14-9-2010 by elevatedone because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Very fine. I'm not a sienctist, and I dont know if that could actually happens. But what about the weight of the ship itself?? Then the metal, would need to be lighter than air too. And the people sitting in the aircraft, should also be as light as air.

And what do you have to say about it OP?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ypperst
 


Yeah yppers,

There is that pesky problem of gravity? Maybe?

Nice graphic work though. The music could use a bit of a change though.

73's OP,

Tom



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Symbiot
 


Interesting video. If I understood this correctly, the craft would be able to go up or down, turn on itself 360 degrees left or right, tilt towards one way or another. The only difference I notice comparing it with a sub is the propulsion system (aside from passenger capablility). Which is nonexistent on the craft. Would pretty much be a "sitting duck" at this point. But interesting vid though...


edit on 14-9-2010 by SonoftheSun because: adding passenger nonexistance...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
As far as weight is concerned the metal and the people do not need to be lighter than air. An air balloon and blimp work on the same principle and both the materials and people are not lighter than air in those concepts either. The reason the UFO can carry significantly more weight than an air balloon or blimp is because it uses a vacuum which is much lighter than helium or hot air. The skin of the craft would be either titanium or carbon nano tube construction, extremely light and strong.

As far as the propulsion, I think you missed the part about thrust vectoring. The engine is in the center of the craft and it's thrust can be directed in 360 degrees and so the craft can move in any direction.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Ahhh... so that's why my vacuum flask keeps floating out of my lunchbox!
Edit to add second line.


edit on 14-9-2010 by DJW001 because: Add second line.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Symbiot
 


So what you are saying Symbiot is that if I fill a box with vacuum (empty all the air) it will float.
So therefore the post office who charges by weight will owe me money???

Nice try though.

(I think that came from Saturday Night Live...Tooter the Turtle, or some such)


73's again?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomdham
reply to post by Symbiot
 


So what you are saying Symbiot is that if I fill a box with vacuum (empty all the air) it will float.
So therefore the post office who charges by weight will owe me money???

Nice try though.

(I think that came from Saturday Night Live...Tooter the Turtle, or some such)


73's again?


Not a bad idea actually, but you'd need something stronger than a cardboard box. I'm not sure where the confusion is here because it's a very simple and already proven concept. A blimp floats because it is filled with helium which is lighter than air. A vacuum is lighter than helium, even lighter than hydrogen so why would it not float? A vacuum has absolutely no weight and thus weighs significantly less than the amount of air it displaces. This is why a UFO can carry significantly more weight than a blimp, because it's even lighter.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Ahhh... so that's why my vacuum flask keeps floating out of my lunchbox!
Edit to add second line.


edit on 14-9-2010 by DJW001 because: Add second line.



Your vacuum flask is not designed to float so it does not have enough of a vacuum to offset the weight of it's constructing materials. However; if you fill your flask with air and weigh it and then suck the air out and weigh it again you'll find it weighs less.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Symbiot
 


Ok Then!!

I'll go with DJW001 on this, and I'll see you:

If I have a titanium sphere and suck all the air out, i.e. vacuum, will it float?
(GRAVITY!!!)

Let's see you hand...

Can we please the "it's a very simple and already proven concept" source?


edit on 14-9-2010 by tomdham because: Added quote:



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomdham
reply to post by Symbiot
 


Ok Then!!

I'll go with DJW001 on this, and I'll see you:

If I have a titanium sphere and suck all the air out, i.e. vacuum, will it float?
(GRAVITY!!!)

Let's see you hand...


Depends on how big your sphere is. The entirety of the sphere must displace more air than it's weight when the air inside of it is sucked out. Like I said, check out information regarding a blimp. The reason the helium balloon part of a blimp is so large is because it needs to displace more air than the craft weighs when filled with helium. The vacuum concept is the same, only the craft need not be nearly as large as a blimp because a vacuum weighs 100% less than helium.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I will add though, if you have a titanium sphere with a vacuum inside of it and that vacuum is not large enough to offset the weight of the titanium you will still find that the sphere weighs less with a vacuum inside than it does with air inside.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Symbiot
 


Ok, again.

I have a titanium sphere that is the correct size and THEN suck out all the air will it float?
So a blimp would have to be 100% the size if it held a vacuum instead of helium??


I'm so confused. I guess I am going to go back and retake physics 101. I would have sworn there was a force called....
GRAVITY!


Tom

BTW waiting for the source that proves this fantastic idea, other than the graphic video.
Thanks.


edit on 14-9-2010 by tomdham because: Waiting for source mentioned above



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomdham
reply to post by Symbiot
 


Ok, again.

I have a titanium sphere that is the correct size and THEN suck out all the air will it float?
So a blimp would have to be 100% the size if it held a vacuum instead of helium??


I'm so confused. I guess I am going to go back and retake physics 101. I would have sworn there was a force called....
GRAVITY!


Tom


Yes you sound very confused. A blimp would be smaller if it used a vacuum instead of helium, not larger. Gravity operates on a blimp just the same as it does a UFO so why do blimps not fall from the sky? The reason is because a blimp weighs less than the amount of air it displaces. The UFO is using the exact same principle, only by using a vacuum it can carry more weight than a blimp and be constructed smaller than a blimp because a vacuum weighs even less than the helium used to float a blimp.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Also, the source that proves this idea is called a BLIMP! Filled with helium a blimp floats because the helium makes it lighter than air. Filled with hydrogen a blimp floats even higher or can carry more weight because hydrogen weighs even less than helium. A vacuum, which is nothing at all, weighs nothing, which is less than helium and hydrogen so the craft can carry more weight and float even higher.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Symbiot
 


Yes, I meant 100% smaller which would be 1 per unit/100 :: 50ft>3/100=0.5ft>3. Now that is much smaller!!!
Gee, Poor Newton didn't have a clue, damn apples!


Sorry I'm just kidding around but I would still like to see a proven airship or vehicle that uses this principle.

Tom



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomdham
reply to post by Symbiot
 


Yes, I meant 100% smaller which would be 1 per unit/100 :: 50ft>3/100=0.5ft>3. Now that is much smaller!!!
Gee, Poor Newton didn't have a clue, damn apples!


Sorry I'm just kidding around but I would still like to see a proven airship or vehicle that uses this principle.

Tom


You certainly could see a proven airship using this if you ever see a UFO. Problem is that everything about UFO's is top secret so you wouldn't be able to hear how they float from 'official' sources.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
You seem to be forgetting that the atmosphere exerts pressure on the vacuum container. The larger the volume, the higher the pressure and hence the structure needs more reinforcement. Try the following experiment: Seal a plastic beverage container and pump out the air. What happens? It gets crushed by the air pressure. Now seal an aluminum can and repeat the experiment. It gets crushed, but not as badly as the plastic container, but it still won't float. The aluminum is more rigid, but it's heavier than the volume of air displaced. Try a steel can. It won't crush at all, but neither will it float. The only way to avoid this problem is to fill the container with a gas that will counteract the pressure of the atmosphere. This will permit you to use a lightweight material to contain it. Congratulations! You are slowly re-inventing the dirigible.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
You seem to be forgetting that the atmosphere exerts pressure on the vacuum container. The larger the volume, the higher the pressure and hence the structure needs more reinforcement. Try the following experiment: Seal a plastic beverage container and pump out the air. What happens? It gets crushed by the air pressure. Now seal an aluminum can and repeat the experiment. It gets crushed, but not as badly as the plastic container, but it still won't float. The aluminum is more rigid, but it's heavier than the volume of air displaced. Try a steel can. It won't crush at all, but neither will it float. The only way to avoid this problem is to fill the container with a gas that will counteract the pressure of the atmosphere. This will permit you to use a lightweight material to contain it. Congratulations! You are slowly re-inventing the dirigible.


That's why the craft is constructed from strong and light materials such as titanium and/or carbon nano tubes. The examples you gave are of items that are constructed both thin and without rigidity. The inside of the craft need only make use of a structural component known as a truss. A truss directs load from one area onto another, it's the same way the roof of a house is constructed. Besides, you make it sound as if it is not possible to create a contained vacuum, which we already know is not true. Vacuum containers have been in use for quite some time and they don't collapse upon themselves because they are constructed with rigidity.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Thanks DJW001!
Saved me a bunch of time. Good explanation.
I was going to eat dinner and didn't want to spoil my appetite by going into great detail.

There is one other thing that wasn't mentioned was the power source for all of these massive vacuum pumps and fans for propulsion.
It would be better to research into Bob Lazar, he worked at Area-51!!!


He used mag lev and some other "secret" ALIEN (wooowooo) stuff.

Thanks again and 73's,
Tom

Oh yeah and...
Symbiot, there is no such thing as a PERFECT vacuum...that is why they use a "getter" to burn up the remaining gas in a vacuum tube (valve, for the Brits) and if there was your incandescent light bulbs would never , or almost never, burn out.



edit on 14-9-2010 by tomdham because: Forgot to add something



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join