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: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Symbiot

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.


So what you're saying is stand on a scale and take a deep breath you will weigh more? I think someone missed physics class. How old are you if you don't mind me asking? I just want to know which generation you're in. Now how about the whole "space flight" thing? How do you propose that they fill the chambers with air in the VACUUM of space? Surely they must keep tanks of air on board, right? Here, have a look at this before you go any further: en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Symbiot
 


Not that your ideas are right or wrong, it is because you are trying to do something constructive. Sleep, sleeep...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Symbiot
 


Hi Symbiot,

Please disregard the members that want to attack this thread out of disbelief or try and discredit you, it's just in their nature to do so because they may not had any experience(s) to begin to understand that there maybe something bigger than themselves or just ignorant of the technology has been around for some time.

Excellent vid~! S&F!! I totally understand the concept, however, the first thing that came to my mind was, why would it spin? The only thing i would think is for inner gravity and perhaps for cooling.

As for me, the technology has been around since 1978, if it's military or not, we're in for a big surprise soon.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
man where to begin. How is a simple fan going to produce the acceleration observed in UFO's Like hows the fan going to push the disc at 10,000mph.

Hows the disc going to protect it's self and it's occupants from the inertia.

HOws the thrust vectoring going to make the disc instantly change direction.

Hows the titanium or even the nano particles going to resist the amazing heat generated by the friction of traveling through the air at 10,000mph.

HOws the disc going to fly in space. a vacuum it's self if there is nothing for the fan to suck in and eject.

How are the crew supposed to get anything done inside a cabin so damned cramped

Hows the disc not going to flip end over end and cartwheel about with the thrust being ejected horizontally from the top.

How exactly does the vacuum negate gravity again?

how fast would this thing be able to change altitude. last time I checked UFO's don't fly like blimps or even subs they change 1000's of feet in altitude in a matter of seconds.

How on earth are we manufacturing nano tubes and buckyballs so fast and in such quantities to create a fleet of these things.

What about the power source.



Who's to say there were biological beings in the crafts, why not just make them probes? I think what we're seeing are 2 different types of craft, one is biological flown, the other are remote controlled.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:07 AM
link   
I didn't mean to attack you at all, what I intended was a defense of the truth of physics,
and I was thinking "Alien Technology UFO Vid".

I know UFO literally means UFO, but in the context of the words and forum, I was thinking
alien technology. And the video (nicely done if it was original by you) is a classic alien
disc shape from the Foo Fighter days.

Vacuum balloons (or craft)) using cutting edge materials is an interesting idea--better than
blimps---which tend to explode into fireballs from time to time. I am sorry now for stifling
creative thought. Your idea is feasible. The presentation is what threw me...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Symbiot
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?


Ok I see what you are saying, but a helium craft, is massive, much larger than your CG, and it works by having its particles lighter than air, ie, why your submarine works, look at the size of the chambers, now multiply these by 1000 times atleast, the lifting effects of a vacuum is to do with it not having any relation to mass, therefore no messuarable effect on gravity, but the container does, plus its being PUSHED by the air, not necessarily upwards but from all sides. Its like saying Light is a form of lift, because it has no mass.

Why are they not using vacuums but air in the submarines? Because it would provide no lift, it would just be a vacuum in a chamber in the water. And thats being more efficient as water is denser than the air, therefor according to your physics, a better ratio of lift. It really does not work this way mate.
Its the reason your old CRT tv didnt need bolting to the floor, being basically a big vacuum tube.
If you really want, I will do the maths to average the mass of a vacuum in air at 1atm / ground level, for your lifting of fthe ground. With just the weight of an average person being say 160lbs. But trust me, it wont back your theory up.

Anyway, i appreciate the debate, it got my brain ticking if only for a little bit to explain why this cant happen. You seem like a good person, and I hope not to make a foe of you, but this isnt correct physics mate, if perhaps you can make the object that holds the vacuum weigh almost nothing, then you will have achieved something that weights nothing, and is very easy to move only.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
For my part I have no difficulty in believing the science involved with a lighter then air vacuum balloon and although I always say that a patent does not prove proof that an invention works I will include this link to patent No. US20070001053 for no other reason then to provide an example of the formulae that can be applied.

Patent Application

Here is a summary of the above :


The present invention comprises a new type of vacuum balloon. A layered wall structure is used, including a relatively thick cellular section sandwiched between and bonded to two relatively thin layers.
Different materials are selected for the thick section versus the thin layers (In some instances they may be made from the same materials, but processed in a different way).
The layered wall design is used to form a thin-walled sphere having greatly enhanced resistance to buckling. Using this approach it is possible to create a rigid vacuum balloon, having positive buoyancy, which is also strong enough to withstand atmospheric pressure.
The invention comprises defining a critical range for the relative wall thicknesses. When the defined parameters lie within this critical range, the overall structure is both stable and positively buoyant.


And just as a little bonus here is one mans vision of how one particular design could look, sorry but the text is in Russian but you could always run it through an online translator.

Vacuum Airship

However the linchpin to the OP's claim in my opinion is proving that a workable vacuum craft exists.

And to Symbiot, for my part there are a lot of threads that are just to ridiculous that I will not waste my time on so look on the bright side yours has got my attention



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by scar7
 


I was replying to Aliensun not you Scar7.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by realeyes
 


Actually yes if you take a deep breath you will weigh more, just not by much because your lungs don't hold that much air. You'll notice in water that if you take a deep breath you'll float, exhale as much as you can and you'll start to sink.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
This is an interesting concept and I have enjoyed reading many of the subsequent posts.

My only question concerns the real basis for the theory of about the bouyancy of a vacuum.

If this were true would we not need to nail down some of our politicians. I think the apparent
vacuous nature of some of their ideas would allow them to simplly float away.

Now that I think of it; that would not be all that bad for some of us.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I'll try to run some more numbers, but here's a quick example.

one cubic foot of standard temperature standard mixture air weighs 0.0807 lbs.

Let's say this craft weighs roughly the same as a loaded huey helicopter, 3500 lbs. Bear in mind that a huey does NOT utilize more advanced construction materials such as carbon nano tubes. Utilizing nano fiber for the electrical system alone would lower the weight of the electrical system by 30-50%.

anyway, in order to displace the weight of 3500 lbs you would need a vacuum that displaces about 44000 cubic feet of air. Now we want to lift more than just 3500 lbs because we want the craft to get higher than just a few feet off of the ground so lets say the vacuum displaces an even 60000 cubic feet of air, more than enough to lift our 3500 lb helicopter. This is about 1/15th the size of a k/2 blimp, quite a bit smaller. Not only significantly smaller, but also more maneuverable and able to ascend/descend at will.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Just for the heck of it here's a good one for ya. A k/2 blimp has a balloon filled with about 404000 cubic feet of helium. Now if a craft of the same size used a vacuum it could lift almost 33000 lbs.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Symbiot
Just for the heck of it here's a good one for ya. A k/2 blimp has a balloon filled with about 404000 cubic feet of helium. Now if a craft of the same size used a vacuum it could lift almost 33000 lbs.


Quite right. The main problem is that you simply would need a container for the vacuum that could withstand the incredible amount of pressure of the vacuum.

I once had the concept for a "vacuum balloon" decades ago, but alas, there was not a suitable container and probably never will be because of the incredible strength required of the container--which would need to weight LESS that the weight of the air the whole rig displaced.(Minor technical point there.) Actually, in looking for a solution, I envisioned these wedge-shaped little sections that fit together like a ball of cheese wedges. Each was hollow--a little vacuum within itself--and the whole mass was held together by the vacuum inside this huge ball. But....

I attribute my vacuum balloon concept and my aged argument for comets being interstellar "cometships" to my being an abductee many decades ago. The aliens made me do it! But let us not forget physics when we dream stuff up, OK? You can sidestep physics as I mention in my signature line, but you can't ignore dealing with it in some fashion.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


1 atm of pressure is not that much. You act like it's impossible to counteract 1 atm of pressure when it clearly is not. A submarine withstands significantly more pressure than that so obviously we have materials that can handle it. Moreover you are once again discounting the fact that the craft would not even need to withstand 1 atm of pressure. The craft only experiences 1 atm of pressure when on the ground and at that point the cambers are full of air. When the chambers have a full vacuum the craft is higher in the atmosphere and thus experiencing less pressure, possibly 0.1-0.3 atm of pressure. Moreover carbon nano tubes are lighter and stronger than steel, which means they'd be both lighter and stronger than a submarine's constructing materials.

In addition to that the Hindinburgh used hydrogen as it's lifting gas and it was a solid craft constructed of metal and it obviously floated.

Also the constructing materials do not need to weigh less than air. Does a submarines steel weigh less than water? Do the constructing materials of a blimp weigh less than air? Did the metal in the hindinburgh weigh less than air? NO


edit on 16-9-2010 by Symbiot because: Added response to constructing materials weight



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Symbiot
reply to post by Aliensun
 


1 atm of pressure is not that much. You act like it's impossible to counteract 1 atm of pressure when it clearly is not. A submarine withstands significantly more pressure than that so obviously we have materials that can handle it. Moreover you are once again discounting the fact that the craft would not even need to withstand 1 atm of pressure. The craft only experiences 1 atm of pressure when on the ground and at that point the cambers are full of air. When the chambers have a full vacuum the craft is higher in the atmosphere and thus experiencing less pressure, possibly 0.1-0.3 atm of pressure. Moreover carbon nano tubes are lighter and stronger than steel, which means they'd be both lighter and stronger than a submarine's constructing materials.

In addition to that the Hindinburgh used hydrogen as it's lifting gas and it was a solid craft constructed of metal and it obviously floated.


No, it had a framework of metal lattice work such as on old bridges contained in about ten cloth bags of hydrogen, and the outside was mostly cloth..

Where is your understanding of th simplest things--if your ship weights more than the weight of the air your vacuum chambers displace, it simply ain't gonna move. Please go to a science website find out how much a cubic foot/metre of air weights and build the size of your vacuum chambers from there. You will not be able to build even a containment let alone a whole ship.


edit on 16-9-2010 by Aliensun because: clarification of remarks



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


I have a perfectly fine understanding of things. I've outlined here and in the video that the craft must utilize chambers that displace more weight in air than the craft weighs. My math numbers show this too:

air = 0.0807 lbs per cubic foot

In order to lift 3500 lbs the craft must contain a vacuum that displaces about 43,371 cubic feet of air.

3500/0.0807 = 43370.5

You are clearly just coming up with any thing you can say to make it look like I'm off, but the math shows the concept stands.

And YES, the Hindinburgh contained METAL girders.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Can I ask you something ALIENsun?

Are you a Scientologist? I noticed in another thread you were supporting L Ron Hubbard. Interesting thing to note is how much money Scientology would stand to lose if the truth of UFOs being man-made were made public.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Symbiot
Can I ask you something ALIENsun?

Are you a Scientologist? I noticed in another thread you were supporting L Ron Hubbard. Interesting thing to note is how much money Scientology would stand to lose if the truth of UFOs being man-made were made public.


Well, you noticed wrong. I doubt that anyone else has the same handle as mine. That was not me.

LRH was a conman along with many that preach old or new religions.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


I clicked on your member profile and the post showed up in your list of posts. It's in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen thread.

Nonetheless, you are right. L Ron Hubbard was a con-artist.
I checked it again and I suppose you were only saying Hubbard was not as great a con as Sagan.


edit on 16-9-2010 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)




edit on 16-9-2010 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Symbiot
reply to post by Aliensun
 


I clicked on your member profile and the post showed up in your list of posts. It's in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen thread.


My posts there were about Carl Sagan as being the biggest fraud in ufology.
I have never posted about Hubbard anywhere.

There is a person with the handle Alienson, so you are confusing me with someone else.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join