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: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
These posts are off topic and should not continue here. I won't give you anymore comments about your vacuum machine. Use U2U for any discussion about other topics.




posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Symbiot
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.


That isn't because the air weighs more. You will float or sink due to the same reason the OP used a submarine in his vid. Pressure, not weight.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


Symbiot isn't trying to lift A LOT of weight, he / we just need it to lift the craft weight itself to fly though the atmosphere.. high enough to propel itself, not necessarily 'lift' materials..



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Symbiot
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.


The Hindenburg also used Hydrogen, not Helium. One little spark...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 


Hi Sherpa, it has ALWAYS been my understanding of patients that the person applying for the patient needed only 1 working model, otherwise.. well.. you see the downfall of that situation .. LOL

I tried to find a quick link to the USPTO where they state you needed one, but the flowchart didn't go into detail I'm not in the mindset of digging thru the entire USPTO site to find out ..

/cheers



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by realeyes

Originally posted by Symbiot
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.



My quote: "OK. Yes. your math works in the limited way you use it. Now apply it to any manner of containment device for a vacuum you can envision. Let us say that a square foot of high-grade aluminum weights 8 ounces. x 6 for all sides of a cube. That gives us 48 ounces for the total weight. Minus .0807 of an ounce for the cubinc foot of air removed, and we have 47.9193 ounces still setting there on the ground. So how in the world are you going to contain a 43,371 cu. feet of vacuum unless some one comes along and invents a weightless container, which is not to be. And then there is the rest of the ship you need to lift with the contained vacuum also.

(You could not contain even one cubic foot of vacuum in an aluminum cubic foot container. It woud collapse. It is unthinkable to consider containing the huge amount you would demand for your ship." (End of my quote



edit on 16-9-2010 by Aliensun because: I messed up ATS quote marks, rectified to some extent.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by sherpa
 


Hi Sherpa, it has ALWAYS been my understanding of patients that the person applying for the patient needed only 1 working model, otherwise.. well.. you see the downfall of that situation .. LOL

I tried to find a quick link to the USPTO where they state you needed one, but the flowchart didn't go into detail I'm not in the mindset of digging thru the entire USPTO site to find out ..

/cheers



Hi Komodo, yes I seem to have a dim memory of something like that but working models are often scaled and are not necessarily practical at full size.

If I could use this example of a patent for a flying saucer it might prove my point :

British Rail Flying Saucer



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by realeyes
 


The point is that if hydrogen can carry metal than a vaccum, which can carry even more weight, most certainly can.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


No offense Aliensun, but your math isn't even math, you just put numbers in there to put numbers in there, but you've done no adding or dividing or multiplying. You're just acting as if putting numbers in your post means that the material must be weightless, which is not true.

The numbers I have put up show that a vacuum just one fifteenth the size of the amount of helium in a k/2 blimp could lift 3500 pounds. A vacuum the size of a k/2 blimp could lift over 33,000 lbs.

It's in the numbers.

Moreover like I said 1 atm of pressure is not that much. Here on the ground we sometimes use GLASS to contain a vacuum. a brittle substance such as glass can contain a vacuum. So I imagine a variety of metals could do the job.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Symbiot
reply to post by Aliensun
 


No offense Aliensun, but your math isn't even math, you just put numbers in there to put numbers in there, but you've done no adding or dividing or multiplying. You're just acting as if putting numbers in your post means that the material must be weightless, which is not true.

The numbers I have put up show that a vacuum just one fifteenth the size of the amount of helium in a k/2 blimp could lift 3500 pounds. A vacuum the size of a k/2 blimp could lift over 33,000 lbs.

It's in the numbers.

Moreover like I said 1 atm of pressure is not that much. Here on the ground we sometimes use GLASS to contain a vacuum. a brittle substance such as glass can contain a vacuum. So I imagine a variety of metals could do the job.


Basically, you totally, totally disrespect the power of a vacuum in Earth's atmosphere.

OK. Suppose YOU estimate how much this vacuum tank would weigh. Take your supposed lifting power of the cubic feet of vacuum you mentioned earlier, image a box around it, pick a metal type, find its weight per square foot and figure how much it would weigh to contain your vacuum.

I'll allow you to forgo including any form of reinforcing beams, etc. to keep the whole affair from collapse from the immense implosion of the vacuum. You will find, of course, the same thing I presented to you in simple form and which you totally dismissed for no reason. But that is the manner in which you have kept this thread going: dismissing and whining about naysayers.




edit on 16-9-2010 by Aliensun because: minor corrections of typo and grammer




edit on 16-9-2010 by Aliensun because: Corrected correction!



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


You too are keeping this thread going every time you reply with your paper thin flimsy arguments. Every time I reply to you I give reason. Every time yu reply to me you simply dismiss what I have said with weak arguments if any. Your refer to the explosion of a vacuum chamber as immense as if 1 atm of pressure is some incredible force that cannot be overcome. Its hardly a strong force. It wouldn't even be enough pressure to clean mud off an off road vehicle. 3500Lbs should be plenty to create a chamber able to withstand 1 atm of pressure. Even though the craft would never even need to withstand that because pressure decreases with altitude.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Symbiot
reply to post by Aliensun
 


You too are keeping this thread going every time you reply with your paper thin flimsy arguments. Every time I reply to you I give reason. Every time yu reply to me you simply dismiss what I have said with weak arguments if any. Your refer to the explosion of a vacuum chamber as immense as if 1 atm of pressure is some incredible force that cannot be overcome. Its hardly a strong force. It wouldn't even be enough pressure to clean mud off an off road vehicle. 3500Lbs should be plenty to create a chamber able to withstand 1 atm of pressure. Even though the craft would never even need to withstand that because pressure decreases with altitude.


Obviously, you have absolutely no idea of the attributes of a vacuum in an atmosphere. I leave you in a vacuum then.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:25 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!



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



I'm not sure... but how about a lead balloon?

Mythbusters did it





posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


Well Aliensun, I think that the two of us will just have to disagree on this subject.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
That was a great video



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Displacement does not equal lift. What you want is upsidasium.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Honestly, I too am having a hard time with the idea that a vacuum can provide lift at all.

At first glance it seems plausible when you think of the basic mechanics of submarines and balloons. But when I think of the details my addled mind keeps thinking oxygen, hydrogen, helium, etc are all real physical particles that displace amongst each other. Real particles interact/displace with other real physical particles (they jockey for position on the atomic highways).

On the other hand, a vacuum is literally an absence of any real physical particles. So a vacuum has no real physical particles to interact with at all.


Are you adhering to this idea because of something they told you? If so, do you think perhaps you interpreted it too literally, or out of context?



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Flux8
 


Buoyancy has nothing to do with particle interaction and everything to do with simply weighing less than the amount of particles you displace. A log floats in water because that log weighs less than the amount of water it displaces.

A hot air balloon floats because hot air weighs less let square foot than cold air. A blimp floats because helium weighs less than the air it displaces.

Fill a balloon with cold air. Does it float? No. Fill it with hot air and it does. There is not particle interaction between the air inside the balloon and out because the particles are separated by the rubber of the balloon.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I'll tell you what. You could get two light bulbs, weigh each and against each other, then break one and repeat the measurements.

I'd bet it is a no change, but give it a try.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Matyas
 


You are correct Matyas, there would be no difference, but not for the reason you think. If you weigh a light bulb, you are weighing just that, a light bulb with nothing inside. Once you break it, you would be weighing the glass and filament and other parts of a light bulb, once again with nothing else.

On the other hand, if you weigh a (vacuum-filled) light bulb, then somehow broke the vacuum seal and allowed the bulb to fill with air, it would weigh more because you would now be weighing the bulb and the air inside. In practice, however, the small volume of air admitted into the bulb would make such a small difference it would be almost impossible to measure.

On larger scales the difference is more noticeable. Have you ever noticed that a car tire when properly pressurized is heavier than a flat tire? It's just air inside...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join