UFO Technology Vid

Originally posted by Symbiot
reply to post by AaronF

 

Really? Because even wikipedia says that a vacuum can lift more weight than helium or hydrogen. So who is it that needs to go back to physics class??

Ok then, show me a real vid of something, not a CG , being lifted by a vacuum, made from manmade materials, about the size of a small car!! I say small car to give you the best possible chances, as the volume of a vacuum and its associated "manmade" materials to hold such a vacuum constant will always outweigh any weight reductions from creating a vacuum.

Now please, i wasnt attacking you, but when you defend such bad physics on an open forum, you should be aware youll take some flack.


Regards
Aaron

reply to post by sherpa


I don't hate you for anything. I've just been a bit jumpy lately.

reply to post by AaronF


They are not bad physics my friend. It's really quite simple, carbon nano tubes are more than enough strength to hold a vacuum, moreover they are extremely light weight. If you want a video just take a look at any video of a UFO. Other than that it's top secret technology so you wouldn't see anything. You think the news just says hey look at this awesome technology that's top secret?

Take a look at this. When the craft is on the ground the craft experiences about 1 atm of pressure, but the chambers are full of air so there is no problem. Now if the chambers are half empty the craft is about half it's maximum altitude, being higher in the sky the pressure is lower too so the craft experiences maybe 0.5-0.6 atm of pressure. If the chambers are at their lowest air concentration, maybe 1% full and 99% vacuum then the craft is at it's maximum altitude and the pressure is even lower on the craft, maybe 0.1-0.2 atm. So try to keep in mind that when the craft has a full vacuum in the chambers it is also experiencing less pressure, at no point does the craft experience ground level pressures with a vacuum in it's chambers. The materials used for construction of the craft do NOT need to be strong enough to contain a complete vacuum and withstand 1 atm of pressure, only strong enough to contain a complete vacuum and maybe 0.1-0.2 atm of pressure.

reply to post by Symbiot


What I find most interesting about this thread (aside from the ideas you've presented Symbiot) is the fact that everyone is having difficulty accepting that a vacuum chamber could provide lift...people that see no problem with using helium or hydrogen to lift an airshift. I honestly don't understand the engineering principles necessary to make a vacuum-lift craft a reality, but in theory It makes sense.

reply to post by avocadoshag


I find that quite interesting myself. My YouTube page is rife with the same problem, people that seem to be pretending that a vacuum is not lighter than air.

It's not a problem of vacuum providing lift versus helium or hydrogen. Gases have mass
and weight, a vacuum removes mass and weight. The problem is with the physics of
support of the structure that contains the vacuum.

Fill a balloon with enough helium to overcome the weight of the latex and you have lift.
Fill a balloon with vacuum and you have, well, nothing. Any structure that could
hold a vacuum, and still be light enough to contain enough vacuum to lift itself
would implode at present technology. And nano tubes be damned. Create
a structure of nano-tubes that weighs NOTHING-ZERO-ZILCH, and you still have the
problem of the weight of the apparatus to provide propulsion. There's math involved
but for every pound of payload your are going to need (x) amount of cubic feet of vacuum
to buoy this mass into the atmosphere.

I thought this thread was a joke when I first posted, but you guys are serious I think.
ET's, or terrestrial UFO's using balloon technology to travel at mach+ speed in a vehicle
that would require thousands of cubic foot of vacuum space to lift a single human, not
to mention his chair, controls, propulsion system, guidance...whatever???
Really, are ya'll not kidding?

You ever hear of gravity....doesn't it seem more likely that gravity, or electro-magnetics
would be the preferred means.

One of these technologies mastered will get you out of the atmosphere and into orbit.
Guess which one it is...

1. balloon
2. gravity

reply to post by rival


You're forgetting that at higher altitudes pressure is lower. As I mentioned earlier the craft's construction does not need to be strong enough to withstand 1 atm of pressure while containing a vacuum because the only point where the craft contains a vacuum that craft is high enough to where it is only experiencing maybe .1 or .2 atm of pressure.

You're also forgetting that helium craft can lift several passengers, plus propellers, plus constructing materials, plus additional cargo load so why would a vacuum be less efficient?

reply to post by rival


I forgot to mention about your magnetic anti-gravity type statement. The problem with using a magnetic field to oppose the Earth's magnetic field is that the magnetic field would need to be incredibly strong. We're not only talking about immense amounts of electricity required to generate this magnetic field, but also the forces caused by this magnetic field. The field generated by the craft would create more force on the ship's hull than the hull would experience containing a vacuum.

I thought the video was really interesting, and I liked how they showed the submarine first, as an example. Cool stuff, symbiot.

Does the craft on the video exist, because our government says that it doesn't, and if it does, where is the PROOF? Everyone that believes in this "secret government craft" is as credible as the people that claim they see them in the air, right, isn’t that what we are so vigorously meant to believe? And now, why should we believe this now, this video? People are ridiculed all of these decades for everyone to be sat down and said they were right all the time? What is wrong with the government, they should keep that boring craft above their military bases in the desert and out of my backyard.

No, seriously.

A vacuum is not less efficient at lifting a weight into the atmosphere. In theory, it would
likely be more efficient. The inefficiency is in the weight of the apparatus to achieve
propulsion through the atmosphere--We have no "near weightless" means of propulsion.
Propulsion systems that push air need turbines or blades and a power plant, all these
parts lend considerable weight to the vehicle.

What is proposed in this thread is akin to the atmospheric technology used in blimps.
Using either a vacuum or helium are, in practice, essentially the same thing. Lifting a weight
using a substance lighter than the atmosphere to achieve buoyancy. I am arguing that
there is no significant difference in the lift achieved by a cubic foot of vacuum versus a cubic
foot of helium.

Both vehicles need to displace enough air to compensate for their weight to achieve lift
at sea level, and then both vehicles must overcome this mass of air they are displacing
for propulsion. The larger the vehicle, the more force is needed to propel the vehicle
against the atmosphere.

The tacit gist of this thread is that a properly housed vacuum would provide a significantly
greater lift than a light gas (such as helium or hydrogen) at sea level. If you could
provide some evidence of this, then maybe we could move forward. Right now your
vehicle looks like a huge sexy blimp, at the mercy of the wind because of the air it is
displacing.

reply to post by rival


Could you provide some evidence that UFOs exist at all? Could anyone? Isn't that why this forum exists in the first place?

Moreover the weight of the engine could be overcome by the size of the vacuum. as I said before the craft need not be strong enough to contain a vacuum and withstand 1 atm of pressure because pressure decreases with altitude.

Also the gist of this thread is more than just the weight carrying capability of a vacuum. One of the best arguments for using a vacuum is that one can pump air out to make the craft lighter and then pump air in the make the craft heavier mid flight. One can not do this with a lifting gas such as helium.

I find it interesting that all the other alien/ufo threads I've seen on ATS have largely positive replies. Yet this thread has maybe 2% positivity and the rest are attacks at me or my info.

Here's a good example:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The title of that thread states that the OP has PROOF that aliens exist, but the thread actually contains no proof at all. Even though there is no proof in that thread the replies all say "gee thanks op," "great post op."

Then there's this thread. I have posted something new, something different, some actual information and receive almost nothing but attacks. I wonder why that is...

Originally posted by Symbiot
I find it interesting that all the other alien/ufo threads I've seen on ATS have largely positive replies. Yet this thread has maybe 2% positivity and the rest are attacks at me or my info.

That sucks man. I at least agree with you that these crafts can exist based on what you have proposed. The stuff you are stating can be the real thing and that's why you are making your case on this thread and that is why we DO have this website. I agree with you, based on wikipedia, and you agree with yourself because...

Originally posted by scar7
and you agree with yourself because...

I have my reasons.

Originally posted by Symbiot
I find it interesting that all the other alien/ufo threads I've seen on ATS have largely positive replies. Yet this thread has maybe 2% positivity and the rest are attacks at me or my info.

Reality check! You need to listen what you are being told, apologize for the ignorance of science that you display and close the thread.

You can call it abuse, and you are right in a way, the TRUTH hurts! Please give up your defense of this thread.

Good enough answer. Argue with you later. Nice video.

reply to post by Aliensun


Another attack, how nice.

By the way if you don't like this thread no one is forcing you to read it. Why come here and insult me, why not just ignore it?

How was that an attack. I said your answer was fine with me and that I really did like your video. I was just being humorous when saying I'll argue with you later, its like saying see you later. On any case, I should be the one to be upset because you did not answer my questions, even after asking you 3 times. Then you just give me "I have my reasons" as an answer. I respect you have a level of wanting to explain and that leaves me with nothing else to add to your video, except for good bye.