Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Heavy Mass Object In-Coming?

page: 44
77
<< 41  42  43   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by reitze
 



I was referring to my critics when I disclosed it as a patent and gained approval of a review board. The Director of Strategic Technology and Development was especially critical... but like I said I proved my point. The primary evidence I used to prove it is what I posted above. The charts and talk I gave about it are basically represented in the patent. Note that the technique also includes a method to change the radius too... The key is that on a same size/strength tower its possible to get way-more power out of it over much wider variations in wind conditions.

Did anyone actually say that it defies the laws of physics or not? Do you understand the difference between being skeptical of a new design's efficiency and the objective knowledge that something would defy the laws of physics?


Well yea there was doubt based on fixed circumference design and strong-opinion that the 3-skinny-blade designs were "optimal" from several Phd engineers and managers... my matlab didn't "proves them wrong" but did demonstrate my assumptions... and that's why I went further and built the physical demo. That changed their minds. And that was with fixed-radius... my design(patent) also includes the ability to expand the radius. But the concept never did "defy the "laws"... rather just their prior understanding of those laws as expressed in a wind turbine.

And BTW, I still wonder about the OP - even though stereo makes very good points in opposition to it. There's too many videos out there of things being covered over and I don't know enough about home-telescope observer networks to readily adopt the 100% proof of a negative. But at the same time I don't hold up my reserve based on my own ignorance as a reason for anyone else to hold onto a 1% hmmmm factor. If it were my concept I would feel a need to produce more/better evidence - like I did for the variable area propeller.




posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by reitze
 


I was looking for more information about the work of Iorio. I did find this.
www.astroengine.com...

Iorio concludes that the minimum possible distances at which a Mars-mass, Earth-mass, Jupiter-mass and Sun-mass object can orbit around the Sun are 62 AU, 430 AU, 886 AU and 8995 AU respectively. To put these distances in perspective, the minimum possible distance a Mars-mass Planet X could orbit is over two times further away from the Sun than Pluto’s 39 AU (average) distance from the Sun.


These are distances based on gravity studies, not visuals. So even if no light was reflected the mass would be revealed by its effects on known objects.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 

WHew, Thank you astrophysicists. You guys are protecting the freedom of the world. Talk about a hard job. There is stuff shooting all over the place out there. When I was a kid, we would have never seen it coming. Planet protectors are watching the sky for us. I guess they could give us a few days warning before we all die. .





 
77
<< 41  42  43   >>

log in

join