Flying Saucers?

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu May 17, 2018 3:13 pm

.

Project 1794. An early prototype of a real flying saucer,

Declassified: America's Secret Flying Saucer
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a8699/declassified-americas-secret-flying-saucer-15075926/
By Joe Pappalardo, Feb 10, 2013
In the 1950s, a small team of engineers set to work on a secret program called Project 1794—a supersonic craft designed to shoot down Soviet bombers. Now a trove of declassified documents reveals the audacious mission to build a flying saucer.

Frost's design was detailed in a 117-page report—the same document that ultimately was unearthed by the NDC. The proposed craft featured a central turbine, called a turborotor, powered by six turbojet engines. The turborotor sucked in air that was directed through the body of the aircraft. The exhaust exited from vents placed along the circumference of the aluminum saucer; vanes and shutters directed the exhaust toward the ground to hover.


Airman. I easily found the 117pg report referred to in the PM article. Project 1794 Final Development Summary Report 2April-30May 1956. The next three images come from that report. I altered the third by rotating it to horizontal.






Again quoting from the Popular Mechanics article.

Getting off the ground is easy. Then it happens, as it always does: When the saucer rises above its 3-foot cushion of exhaust, it starts to buck like a rodeo bull. The researchers are crestfallen; they've seen this instability before. They call it hubcapping, after the circular way a car hubcap oscillates on its rim when dropped on hard ground. Potocki aborts the flight and sets the Avrocar down.

Over the years the engineers would test wide-ranging methods to control their craft: shaped nozzles, spoilers, skirts, bigger engine transition doors, vanes—even, at the suggestion of the Air Force, and to Frost's dismay, a tail. Nothing worked. The Avrocar never achieved stability in the air, and it never traveled faster than 30 knots or higher than 3 feet. So much for intercepting bombers.

Airman.Despite the impressive attempt, there’s not a whole lot here. Where’s the spin? This flying saucer is better described as a circular flying wing with a complex air intake and engine exhaust systems that apparently didn't work. I believe the “hubcapping” problem occurs because there’s no spin stabilization. I guess I just included the Project 1794 information for the Popular Mechanics article and pictures.

Any discussion?

.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 794
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri May 25, 2018 4:38 pm

.
Back to the Mars Helicopter.
Airman wrote. Alien Flying Propellers on Mars eh? Kinda sounds like the Drones in a vacuum experimental suggestion above - with vacuum at 1% earth standard atmosphere. I expect the drone will work, more on that later. Considering the stated 40,000ft helicopter altitude limit here on Earth vice the 100,000ft equivalent atmospheric pressure on Mars, why would they expect the drone to work at all? Wouldn't it be easier to perform the experiment at 1% standard air pressure or vacuum first? After all, they don't know that on its surface, Mars emits a stronger charge field than Earth does on its surface. It's such a tiny experiment. I must be missing something
Airman. Well, yes. Here's an image from 48 seconds into the previous youtube video I posted Mars Helicopter https://youtu.be/oOMQOqKRWjU.  


We hear and see the rotors spinning, the copter on the floor, Quote “24 hundred, 26 hundred” and the copter lifts in the controlled experiment.

I also have additional information, from the Keck Institute for Space Studies http://kiss.caltech.edu/lectures/Aung_Lecture_2015.html, which links to the youtube file,
Mars Helicopter Scout [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3y7iJEe7uM KISSCaltech]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3y7iJEe7uM[/url]


KISSCaltech
Published on Nov 12, 2015
MiMi Aung, the Autonomous Systems Deputy Division Manager at JPL, presented the Mars Helicopter Scout at the Keck Institute for Space Studies lecture on April 1, 2015. The Mars Helicopter Scout is a current proposal to demonstrate helicopter flight at Mars on the Mars 2020 mission.The Mars Helicopter Scout will scout ahead of a planetary surface rover to provide high-resolution aerial images of the terrain for science and operational purposes. This talk described the scope of the Mars Helicopter Scout proposal, the signficant science and operational benefits of a helicopter in planetary surface exploration, and the technical design overview of Mars Helicopter Scout. … .
Airman. Initial testing and analysis of the Mars Helicopter has been successfully completed – lift was generated by co-axial rotors under Mars-like conditions. The idea was shelved pending the decision earlier this month by NASA to include it in the 2020 rover mission.

This image contains most of the Scout’s details. Both of the two-bladed counter-rotating propeller rotors are 1.1m in diameter. I don’t see a pitch adjustment mechanism. MiMi Aung mentioned that the max tangential spin velocity for rotors is the speed of sound – how does that work on Mars? I might suggest we could increase the charge lift created by replacing the currently planned rotor blades with ones where most of the rotor’s mass is closer to the highest spin velocity at the rotor’s outer edge.

The mainstream’s standard pressure fluid lift theory cannot explain how lift and thrust can be generated in the relative vacuum of Mars’ atmosphere - there’s not enough air for propellers to pull or push. Read the youtube comments, some people are very upset at NASA as well as with their own educations.

The charge field exists. Miles has proven that with at least a thousand examples. I think we can safely add the Mars Helicopter Scout to the list.

If I say something that you feel doesn’t agree with your charge field understanding, please jump in.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 794
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon May 28, 2018 12:52 pm

.
No peeps; fair enough, I’ll need to make a better case for Coaxial Rotors.

Let me remind the reader, the goal here is to improve charge field awareness by choosing interesting “lift” subjects and seeing where the charge field takes us. I don’t have a lesson plan and I rarely read beyond the current idea being presented. I’m not trying to explain or entertain. I am trying to figure it out - in the open - in an effort to promote charge field physics with forum discussion. Until then, I’m dragging the reader through my stream of consciousness. Bear in mind, by the end of the thread I hope the reader may design her own flying saucer.

Coaxial Rotors. I found a great into to Coaxial Rotor Helicopters by Trevor English at http://shortsleeveandtieclub.com/ Trevor’s article includes the youtube video below as well as two nice gifs. I’ll quote his entire text, although I’ll interrupt it twice to add my charge field comments.

http://shortsleeveandtieclub.com/the-perfect-helicopter-understanding-coaxial-rotor-design/
How to Create the PERFECT Helicopter
https://youtu.be/a3IMqkffIFo

Published on Oct 10, 2017
The majority of helicopters are built using tail rotor systems, but this may not be the best design. Coaxial helicopters and the advantages they bring may be the future of helicopter engineering. Lockheed Martin along with Sikorsky have embarked on a journey to create a new breed of coaxial craft that could spell the future for multi-purpose helicopters. In this video, we take a look at not only this innovation, but just what makes coaxial craft potentially superior to other designs.

The Perfect Helicopter: Understanding Coaxial Rotor Design
April 4, 2017, by: Trevor English
Trevor English. Coaxial rotor designs have been used on military helicopters for the better part of the last 75 years. The design eliminates the need for a tail rotor and creates a much more stable, and safer, machine.

In order to understand how a design with two coaxial rotors far outperforms other helicopters, we have to examine the physics at play. For single-rotor helicopters, lift is generated through the main rotor rotating. This rotation generates torque about the main helicopter, which causes the main fuselage to want to spin around in the opposite direction. Early engineers designed the tail rotor to counter this torque and keep helicopters stable. Tail rotors are generally much smaller rotors mounted on a perpendicular axis to the main rotor. By controlling the speed of the tail rotor, the pilot can stabilize the craft as well as control direction of the helicopter.

Slowing the tail rotor would cause the helicopter body to rotate in the opposite direction of the main rotor due to excess torque in that direction. Speeding up the tail rotor would do the opposite. Along with direction, helicopter pilots can control the yaw of the craft by adjusting the angle of the tail rotor. By pitching the tail rotor slightly up or down, the pilot creates a moment arm through the helicopter which in turn adjusts the yaw of the craft.

Airman. Single - rotor helicopters generate torque on the body of the helicopter that must be countered by adding a tail rotor. Trevor didn’t explain why the torque is generated, in the video the narrator says that there is a net motion due to excess torque, that’s not an explanation.

The definition of charge lift easily explains why. Once again, as with the spinning disc, we must consider both the rotor’s forward and spin velocities, Vf and Vs, orthogonal to the earth’s emission field. A single rotor will feel maximum charge lift where Vf and Vs are in the same direction, while the least charge lift is created where Vf and Vs are in opposite directions.

A spinning disk that generates the same uneven charge lift is free to rotate its spin axis away from the vertical – recall understable, stable and overstable discs, defined in terms of how quickly they rotate away from their vertical spin axis in response to uneven charge lift. A spinning rotor is engine driven and of sufficient mass to prevent any axis rotation. The rotor behaves like a very stable gyroscope. The uneven charge lift felt by the rotor is equivalent to a tilting force applied to a gyroscope resulting in precession. The tail rotor’s primary purpose is to counter gyroscopic precession caused by uneven charge lift felt on the forward moving spinning rotor. The skilled pilot uses the tail rotor for additional control.

Trevor English. Now that we understand the basic mechanics of single-rotor helicopters, we can begin to see why coaxial rotors might present some advantages. By placing two rotors on a single axis and rotating them in opposite directions, a net zero torque around the main body of the helicopter is created, keeping it very stable. Through both mechanical means and electronic means, each rotor is perfectly timed and controlled to cancel out the net torque of the other rotor in real time. This allows coaxial craft to achieve rather significant hovering capabilities when compared to their single-rotor brethren.

Airman. I put together the following information that shows the magnitudes of the orthogonal velocities occurring for each rotor at the 0000, 0300, 0600, 0900, and center – 0 positions.

Calculating Coaxial Rotor Velocity Magnitudes. (As I did with the Frisbee flying disc, http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t453p25-flying-saucers#3612). These velocities are orthogonal to the Earth's Emission Field, Charge lift is a function of these velocities.

When viewed from above, the Forward velocity Vf, is vertically upward on the page. The rotors are: S1 spinning clockwise (CW) at tangential spin velocity Vs1; and S2 is spinning CCW at the tangential spin velocity Vs2. Let: Vs1 = -Vs2; magnitude V = |V|; |Vs1| = |Vs2| = V; |Vf | = V. The magnitude of the orthogonal velocity Vo, is then calculated for 5 positions for each rotor.

0000 (or 1200) position:
S1. Vo = sqrt[Vf^2 + Vs1^2] = sqrt[2* V^2] = 1.41V.
S2. Vo = sqrt[Vf^2 + Vs2^2] = sqrt[2* V^2] = 1.41V.
Vt = 1.41+ 1.41V = 2.82V.
0300 position:
S1. Vo = Vf + Vs1 = V - V = 0V.
S2. Vo = Vf + Vs2 = V + V = 2V.
Vt = 0V + 2V = 2V.
0600 position:
S1. Vo = sqrt[Vf^2 + Vs1^2] = sqrt[2* V^2] = 1.41V.
S2. Vo = sqrt[Vf^2 + Vs2^2] = sqrt[2* V^2] = 1.41V.
Vt = 1.41+ 1.41V = 2.82V.
0900 position:
S1. Vo = Vf + Vs1 = V + V = 2V.
S2. Vo = Vf + Vs2 = V - V = 0V.
Vt = 0 + 2V = 2V.
Center position:
S1. Vo = Vf + Vs1 = V + 0 = V.
S2. Vo = Vf + Vs2 = V + 0 = V.
Vt = V + V = 2V.

I believe each of the two rotors contributes lift and so the two rotor velocities must add. Both velocity sets are directly added for the total coaxial rotor velocities. Anyone agree or disagree?

1200: Vt = 1.41+ 1.41V = 2.82V
0300: Vt = 0V + 2V = 2V.
0600: Vt = 1.41+ 1.41V = 2.82V
0900: Vt = 2V + 0V = 2V.
Center: Vt = V + V = 2V.

The total velocities at each of the three positions: 0300, Center, and 0900 add to 2V. The front and back spin edges of the coaxial rotors are moving fastest with respect to earth’s emission at 2.82V, resulting in two maximum charge lift points. Since those two positions are on opposite sides of the rotor, the two tilting forces applied will cancel and so gyroscopic precession will not occur. Likewise, the maximum velocity – 2V - of each individual rotor also causes two simultaneous tilting forces at 0300 and 0900 which also cancel.
 
Trevor English. When you think of helicopters, you think of vertical takeoff and the ability to hover. Remove those aspects, and the helicopter functions identically to a plane. As a side note, vertical takeoff isn’t exclusive to rotor craft, however planes that harness the ability without rotors – mainly the harrier jet – accomplish the task with much less efficiency and stability.

A helicopter’s ability to hover and be stable is synonymous with its quality of being a helicopter. In coaxial designs, the improved ability to hover and maintain stable flight ultimately make for better helicopters. Better helicopters mean that they are easier to control and much safer for the occupants. Theoretically, if one rotor broke in a coaxial system, the craft could still be landed safely.
Lastly, the application of coaxial rotors means that there is no inherent need for the craft to have a gyroscope to provide stability. The rotational effects of both rotors provide for a near perfect gyroscope, improving the stability of the craft once more.

So why don’t we see more coaxial helicopters? They aren’t without their faults.

The first main fault is that the timing of the two rotor blades needs to be near perfect. Speed and directional changes need to be accomplished together. Even the slightest fault in calibration essentially makes the aircraft unstable and unflyable. A fault in calibration is worse than you probably think for the craft’s ability to fly. If the timing is off enough, coaxial helicopters won’t produce enough lift to even leave the ground and end up just spinning on the tarmac.

On top of the need for accuracy in the tuning of the rotors, these rotors tend not to be as responsive as single rotor craft. When you make an aircraft more stable, you generally make precise movements harder to achieve – it’s a constant tradeoff in aerospace engineering. While coaxial helicopters are safe and efficient, they are not well suited for applications where pilots need fine maneuverability. They are, however, perfect for applications where precise hovering is needed.

The coaxial rotor design is one of the most prominent helicopter designs to date. While it has it’s inefficiencies, it won’t be going away anytime soon. The stability of the design is popular within the hobbyist community and even many military and rescue helicopters to date. If you were designing a helicopter, which design would you choose?

Airman. All good information. Let me rephrase that. If you were designing a flying saucer, which design would you choose?

P.S. Some small corrections: 3 procession to precession, a few number corrections and added the sentence beginning with Likewise.

P.P.S. Trevor English wrote. The first main fault is that the timing of the two rotor blades needs to be near perfect. Speed and directional changes need to be accomplished together.
Airman. If you hadn’t already noticed, I must point out that the 0000, 0300, 0600, 0900, positions are important; that’s where the rotor’s maximum and minimum orthogonal velocities are created, where tilt and counter-tilt must occur. If Vs1 = -Vs2, the two twin-bladed counter-rotating rotors must align twice during each full rotor rotation. “Perfect timing” can only be achieved when each rotor extends to both: 0000/0600; or 0300/0900 – simultaneously; call it spin rate and angle synchronization.

Of course, the coaxial helicopter isn’t being lifted by just the 0000, 0300, 0600, 0900, and center positions alone. All the atoms of which the rotors are comprised are lifted to varying degrees, corresponding to the amount of planetary emissions they receive. Most emissions intercepted, or charge lift generated, lies closest to the highest velocity rotor edge.

I’ll also point out that I’ve concentrated on constant velocity, things get more complicated with speed and direction changes.
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Wed May 30, 2018 7:14 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Added PPS)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 794
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Cr6 on Wed May 30, 2018 1:04 am

Nice research LTAM.  How to develop a craft to tap the charge field at different heights/gravity? Could a craft be built that could adapt dynamically...just to get a little extra lift?

Found these that may be of interest:
https://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/researchers-say-triquad-is-more-efficient-than-a-quad


http://www.krossblade.com/disc-loading-and-hover-efficiency/





An extreme example of this is the AeroVelo Atlas shown left, a human powered quadrotor. Due to ultra-light weight construction it only weighs 128 kg (282 lb) with pilot (which can produce about 1 hp), but it has a massive disc area of almost 1,300 sqm (14,000 sqf). This is more than twice the disc area of the largest helicopter in the US military, the Sikorsky CH53 E Super Stallion, which with a maximum weight of 33,000 kg (74,000 lb) is almost  300 times more heavy than the AeroVelo Atlas. The Atlas' super low disc loading of 0.1 kg/sqm translates into a hover efficiency of 128 kg/hp. CH 53E on the other hand, with its disc loading of around 70 kg/sqm (700 times more heavily loaded than the ATLAS), requires around 10,000 hp to take off which translates into a hover efficiency of only 3.3 kg/hp. The Atlas hence has a hover efficiency around 40 times better than the Super Stallion. An even more extreme example is the F 35 Lightning. It's thrust vectoring and lift fan VTOL system has a disc area of only around 6 sqm (60 sqf) for a weight of up to 30,000 kg (66,000 lb), giving it a disc lading of around 5,000 kg/sqm, around 50,000 times more heavily loaded than the ATLAS. Consequently the F35 requires around 30,000 hp to take off, meaning that it's hover efficiency is only 1 kg/hp, 128 times less efficient than the ATLAS.

Hover efficiency versus disc loading. Lower disc loading is more efficient, meaning less power is required to hover. (Krossblade) Hover efficiency versus disc loading. Lower disc loading is more efficient, meaning less power is required to hover. (Krossblade)

Hover efficiency versus disc loading. Lower disc loading is more efficient, meaning less power is required to hover. (Krossblade)

The general relationship between disc loading and hover efficiency is shown in the graph on the right. What a rotor basically does is to push air downwards in order to push itself upwards (Newton's third law). Broadly speaking, producing the same upwards force, it is more energy efficient to do this moving a larger volume of air downwards more slowly, than moving a smaller volume of air downwards more quickly. This also means that not only does a higher disc loading lead to lower efficiency, it also leads to more severe down wash (the air that for example a helicopter blows downwards and into the faces of onlookers) and also to larger noise from the faster moving blades and air.

So why not make helicopters with huge disc areas, thousands of square meters (tens of thousands of sqf) in order to lift off with very little power? There are several reasons:

1) Large blades make the helicopter more sensitive to wind gusts, the heli becomes less stable

2) Very large and very slowly moving blades would limit the possible forward speed to only a few kph or mph

3) Space considerations also guide helicopter design, a heli has to be able to land in small spaces and park

4) Large blades are technically more challenging to build and can get very heavy

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 954
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed May 30, 2018 7:26 pm

.
Cr6 wrote. Nice research LTAM. How to develop a craft to tap the charge field at different heights/gravity? Could a craft be built that could adapt dynamically...just to get a little extra lift?
Airman. Hi Cr6, thanks for helping me collect my wits. I added a PPS to my previous post. What research? There’s too much information so I’m trying to cut back.
 
I’ll admit I’m happy I included the spin component, Vs, in accordance with Miles’ definition of charge lift. Lift is a function of the object’s velocity orthogonal to Earth emission field, so that, Vo = Vf +Vs. Of course, my ‘charge lift’ diagram doesn’t exactly agree with existing lift diagrams; take this mainstream single-rotor for example.
 
Dissymmetry of Lift
http://www.copters.com/aero/lift_dissymetry.html

QUOTE. Dissymmetry of lift is the difference in lift that exists between the advancing half of the rotor disk and the retreating half. It is caused by the fact that in directional flight the aircraft relative wind is added to the rotational relative wind on the advancing blade, and subtracted on the retreating blade. The blade passing the tail and advancing around the right side of the helicopter has an increasing airspeed which reaches maximum at the 34 o'clock position. As the blade continues, the airspeed reduces to essentially rotational airspeed over the nose of the helicopter. Leaving the nose, the blade airspeed progressively decreases and reaches minimum airspeed at the 9 o'clock position. The blade airspeed then increases progressively and again reaches rotational airspeed as it passes over the tail. UNQUOTE.

Airman. Looking down on a counter clockwise spinning rotor advancing in the forward (upward in the page image) direction. According to the mainstream, lift is created at the “advancing” or “leading”, along the rotor blades’ length, resulting in a maximum lift created at the 0300 rotor direction. This mainstream differential airspeed lift model does not account or allow for lift created when rotors are extended in the 0000/0600 directions. I’ve shown that the charge lift model does.

Most aircraft are built for efficiency; given strict power, performance and weight limits - dynamic costs extra. The SkyCruiser, on the bottom left of the efficiency/power chart you posted is a good example. It utilizes quad rotors for lift, then the craft switches to rear rotors for horizontal thrust – airplane mode, during which the quad rotors are retracted into the fuselage, very smooth. On the right side of the chart we have a fighter jet with thrust vectoring for vertical take-offs or landings, as well as high speed horizontal thrust; it’s dynamic – and wildly expensive.

Given the charge field, can we design craft with a little extra lift? I believe so. I’ll share more on that later. I’m still considering possibilities that I cannot believe have not already been tried. In general, it seems helicopters - quads and coaxials - are enjoying a bit of revival, probably because of drones. Here’s a nice aviation discussion from stackexchange.

Why haven't quadcopters been scaled up yet?
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3300/why-havent-quadcopters-been-scaled-up-yet
QUOTE. Four rotor copters were actually the first copters...
Raúl Pateras Pescara, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1916

UNQUOTE.
Airman. This 1931 helicopter looks to me to be a coaxial dual quad, and it also appears to have a small forward 4 bladed rotor.
Given the stackexchange question, the top answer belongs to Jan H. I’ll quote one paragraph.
 
Jan wrote. And why can't full-scale helicopters use electric motors like the small ones? The reason is that when you scale an airfoil up, the lift it produces increases with its area, which grows with the second power of size, but its weight increases with volume, which grows with the third power of size. Therefore models have much more lift for weight and can afford simple but relatively heavy batteries while full-size aircraft need propulsion systems with higher power density.
Airman. I believe that answer is consistent with the mainstream assumption that air is a fluid. We know that is incorrect in that it ignores the charge field.
 
As I’ve constantly been reminding the reader, every atom within the volume of the airfoil will feel charge lift according to its orthogonal velocity through the emission field. Yes, charge lifted air and propeller thrust add complexity; still, charge lift applies to the entire volume and not just surface area.

Granted, there’s a huge performance difference between aircraft and small models. There’s also a perfectly good charge field explanation. Recall that humans occupy the meter scale, where gravity and charge balance. Objects smaller than a meter are in the charge realm, while larger objects interact mainly with gravity. I’m sure this answer is essentially correct, but I’m not sure what it means. For example, here’s a question I haven’t been able to answer.

QUESTION. Earth charge emission counters 0.1% of gravity for an adult human. Would a house fly also enjoy the same 0.1% gravity reduction? If so, what’s the difference?
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Fri Jun 01, 2018 10:00 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Two typos)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 794
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:54 pm

.
Cr6 wrote. Could a craft be built that could adapt dynamically...just to get a little extra lift?

Airman. Yes, but having given it some thought, I don’t believe “a little extra lift” means what you think it means. For example, let’s take a ride on a thought train – something fast and smooth – a hovertrain will do; and bring a weight scale.

The Problem With Fast Trains: What Happened to Hovertrains?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUXEFj0t7Ek


Ok, with the train and us in motion, at any velocity orthogonal to the earth’s emission field, we must be receiving increased charge lift. The train can “adapt dynamically” by increasing speed.  Our weight - gravity minus charge lift - should reduce. Please stand on the scale and check. Normal, right? How can that be true? Does that invalidate the charge lift model?

My guess is the entire train, as well as us, the scale you are standing on and the air in the cabin are being charge lifted to the same degree and so – at least as far as I imagine - the scale doesn’t measure any decrease in weight. However, if we replace the scale with a different measuring device, such as pendulums – as in Miles’ Allais paper – I believe we should see an increased charge lift and reduction of weight aboard the moving train as an increase in a pendulum’s fundamental period - the time it takes for the pendulum to complete a single back and forth swing.

The same thinking pertains my house fly question. Yes, I suppose the fly feels the “same” 0.1% gravity reduction, and on the train it would receive the same increased charge lift we would. In either case, the fly’s small mass and physical dimensions – much smaller than a meter - along with its amazing velocity and acceleration capabilities allow the fly to exceed the acceleration due to gravity on Earth (9.8m/s^2). Objects larger than a meter generally have slower velocities and take a greater amount of time or energy to accelerate to higher speeds, as in the human powered quad copter posted above – built as light as possible.
   
Moving at higher and higher velocity orthogonal to the earth’s surface results in increasing charge lift. If, by “a little extra lift”, you meant negative buoyancy or weightlessness, then I guess the craft must be able to reach orbital velocity - actually an acceleration - curved motion about the planet, at which time we would float inside our craft. I would then give you a battery powered hand held propeller someone might use to cool themselves off in hot weather, it will allow you to easily propel yourself through the craft’s weightless conditions.

Agree, disagree?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 794
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:19 pm

.
Somehow, the train has remained on track, while moving at hundreds of times faster than sound – along the earth’s surface, and orthogonal to the earth’s emissions. You may recall Cr6 and I had achieved weightlessness and so I gave Cr6 a tiny propeller for “a little extra lift”. I was hoping to avoid the inevitable childlike behavior - bouncing and careening in all directions - bounce.

A train usually travels at a maximum forward velocity in a straight path on the Earth’s surface. Of course, the Earth isn’t flat; at orbital velocity, motion along a well-designed track of the future requires that the track keep the train on the earth’s surface; I like the idea of underground partial vacuum tubes to minimize air resistance. During weightlessness, the track must impose a downward velocity equal in magnitude to the train’s very high forward velocity. For the calculation I’m thinking the orbital velocity should be equal to Earth’s radius divided by 18 minutes (earth radius doubling period), which gives me a forward velocity of about 106km/sec – but I’m not at all confident with that result.

Before we reach orbital velocity, we could probably experience any weight we wanted - as long as it is less than g - by selecting the appropriate forward velocity; again, the track will impose the corresponding downward velocity. Those two orthogonal velocities together create the acceleration necessary in order to achieve the desired weight.

Curved motion about a circular track around the earth.

Any mistakes, questions or comments?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////

No surprise, I’ve been considering flying saucer design requirements a lot lately. After watching a fast train video on youtube, I tried a suggested link - Reactionless UFO Propulsion #2. A minute and a half section, early in the video sounded good enough to share here. The narrator’s tone and cello accompaniment made listening meditative; you may appreciate my transcription instead. Oh, I never tried the cc button before; hah, my transcript’s better. Something new every day.

Reactionless UFO Propulsion #2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aSX9TakHnc

Bantokfomoki. Published on May 7, 2010. 9 min:59 sec in length.

From: 0:34 to 2:06 the Narrator states:
QUOTE: My proposal is that something rotates in the UFO and the centrifugal vectors are made to be non-coplanar with the rotation.

If one could point these centrifugal vectors out of the plane of rotation, accelerations of a hundred g’s and more are easily realizable and the conservation laws are no are longer an impediment because you are then violating them with impunity.

One of the aspects of such a system of propulsion is that the weight of the rotating part should be as heavy as possible because it needs to propel the deadweight of the rest of the craft.

And trace cases of UFO landings indicate that their mass density correspond more to submarine densities than to a jet fighter or aircraft.

I expect the craft itself to be made of the lightest strongest materials and the propulsion system’s rotational part to be as heavy as possible.

To get the required vectors out of the plane of rotation requires some action to get them to shift.

The things that one can do to accomplish this are extremely limited.


We can subject the wheel to intense magnetic or electric fields, and perhaps heat it or cool it to superconducting temperatures.

That’s all there is in this universe to operate on the wheel. If the forgoing doesn’t do the trick nothing else will. For we are then left with just wishing and clicking our heels together. … UNQUOTE.
The image shows one of the "extremely limited" ways we may possibly shift a vector out of the plane of rotation – using intense magnetic fields. Getting required vectors “out of the plane of rotation” via “reactionless propulsion” sounds new to me. Is there anything to it? On the spin side, I’ve learned a bit more about spinning and forward motion so I would add -

The rotational system should include contra-rotating rotors or masses.

It looks to me like I may need to reconsider Otis T Carr’s X-1 again.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 794
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Cr6 on Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:32 am

Could the extra lift come from a graphene blade that could adapt programmatically "on-the-fly" so to speak. For some reason the lift from old copper plated wings comes to mind.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 954
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:36 pm

.
Thanks Cr6,

Charge lift.

Lift - or charge lift – pertains to the amount of charge emission a body feels in opposition to gravity. Here on Earth’s surface, lying, standing or siting, we would weigh 0.1% more were it not for the Earth’s vertical emission field bombarding all of our atomic matter upward. I suppose I agree, 0.1% seems like a small amount of lift – a thousandth of our weight - can we generate more? Yes.
   
The first and easiest way to feel “extra lift” is by forward motion – velocity orthogonal to the earth’s emission field. Walking creates extra lift. We feel a great deal of extra lift when we run or sprint.  Additional lift is felt at higher velocities. This lift is felt equally throughout the object in motion.

The next way to add “extra lift” is by adding spin motion (with spin axis parallel the earth’s emission field). This lift is felt as a function of distance from the center of rotation. Rotation creates a new outward emission field. I believe Miles addressed the additional lift felt by rotation as upward charge that is redirected outward – turning charge. With the Lifter, we saw that turning charge alone - at tens of thousands of volts - was sufficient to keep the lifter suspended in the air. It’s not at all clear to me how forward linear motion turns charge.

I believe we can create additional lift by increasing either mass volume or mass density; it will take additional energy to move those additional masses, but the efficiency gained may justify the effort.

Cr6 wrote. Could the extra lift come from a graphene blade that could adapt programmatically "on-the-fly" so to speak. For some reason the lift from old copper plated wings comes to mind.

Propellers.

The first complication is an air or fluid medium which is also charge lifted – I assume at 0.1%. Moving air or water causes extra lift and flows. Ancient technology - spinning propellers – have been shown to generate thrust – motion in the direction of the propeller spin axis - that can far exceed the charge lift or charge turning I’ve been describing.

Can spinning propellers be used to cause thrust in a vacuum? I don't know, but I believe so, the vacuum must act like a very thin fluid. Proof is the Mars Scout Helo with counter-rotating, 1.1m diameter rotors spinning at 2400 rpm. The prototype was shown to generate lift in Martian simulated 1% Earth atmosphere. How can that be? We know about the charge field; they, presumably, do not.

So how do propellers work in vacuum? Can varying such propeller blade pitches affect the resultant direction of thrust? I'll keep thinking about it.

Flying Saucers? My first Flying Saucer design is comparable to an alpha, a helium atom. Two counter rotating coaxial rotor masses resemble the two opposite polarity alpha proton emission fields. Living quarters would be aboard the "neutrons" spinning at a much slower velocity - in order to generate gravity - between the two counter-rotating rotor masses. Modeling a spacecraft after an atom or molecule makes a great deal of sense in providing additional charge protection when rotating masses intercept and channel increased charge densities outward.  
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 794
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:34 am

.


Demonstrating some progress - mostly with Autocad. The program will not allow each section its own rotation, but you get the idea.


.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 794
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:46 pm

.


And I believe a slightly better second effort. A saucer that opens up into a sort of pinwheel. Again, if the bottom rotors are going to the right - as shown below, then the top propeller rotors should be rotating to the left - they are not; as far as I know, my Autocad doesn't allow it. The four neutrons can spin in a single direction independently of the top or bottom rotors.



The closed - and counter-rotating saucer may provide all the lift necessary in space; however, in Earth atmosphere, I believe the saucer would need to open up into a pinwheel in order to generate thrust.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 794
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Cr6 on Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:39 am

Looking cool! Didn't know about these prototypes.

Found something that may be of interest. How to stop a missle?
--------


"It Looks Like An Ascending Missile," Unidentified Object Photographed Over Washington State, Navy Denies

by Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 11:45

It’s time to get out that tinfoil hat.

Greg Johnson of Skunk Bay Weather, a local weather website that runs camera enabled weather stations on the northern Kitsap Peninsula; Kitsap County, Washington, recorded a mysterious object early Sunday morning that has social media buzzing.

One of Johnson’s weather stations has a camera monitoring the Puget Sound at Whidbey Island from Skunk Bay, and at 3:56 a.m. Sunday by a high-resolution, 20-second exposure camera, snapped what looks like the impossible — a missile blasting off from what seems to be the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island.

My good night cam picked up what appears to be a large missile launch on Whidbey Island Sunday AM. I sat on it for a while. After sharing with Cliff Mass he did a blog on it. https://t.co/jBPXRtRGFP @NWSSeattle @WunderCave @WeatherNation pic.twitter.com/RnN8H3IsQ9
— Skunkbayweather (@Skunkbayweather) June 11, 2018

Johnson told KCPQ13 Washington, he was at first hesitant to release the photo into the public domain because he said it appears to be a missile launch from the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island across the bay.

“I feel strongly it was a missile launch,” Johnson said.

But Tom Mills, a spokesperson for NAS Whidbey Island, told KCPQ13 that “It wasn’t a missile launch from the facility. There are no missile launch capabilities on the Navy base at Whidbey Island.”

“There’s a lot of speculation around here,” Mills said, as he conveniently suggested to KCPQ13 that the image could be a lens flare. “But it’s definitely not a missile launch.”

Cliff Mass, a professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington, speculated that the object looks like a missile on his blog Monday.

“I’ve seen a lot of stuff,” Mass wrote. “But nothing like this.”

“It really looks like an ascending missile,” he added.

There was reportedly Alaska Flight 94 and a helicopter in the region of the northern Kitsap Peninsula at the same time the camera snapped the mysterious object.

In responding to speculation of various aircraft overhead, Johnson said, “For the record… My cams pick up airplanes all the time… I can guarantee this is NOT an airplane. They fly buy much higher and have a whole different signature….. I’ll grab a plane image and share it.”

For the record... My cams pick up airplanes all the time... I can guarantee this is NOT an airplane. They fly buy much higher and have a whole different signature..... I'll grab a plane image and share it.
— Skunkbayweather (@Skunkbayweather) June 11, 2018

Furthermore, The Drive points out that there are no rocket operations of any kind in the region. However, the “closest thing to something like that would be the Ohio class nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) based not too far away at Bangor Trident Base/Naval Submarine Base Bangor.”

http://skunkbayweather.com/


Cr6
Admin

Posts : 954
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum