Well could it be?

As for the thrust chamber in the new NASA engines: those are inverted inward and act just like the walls of a more conventional rocket nozzle. If you would do the same to the saucers design then we would be in business.

Arc propulsion would provide most of its thrust from the plasmafied air as it would be magnetized and could pushed and repel the saucer if the saucer is also magnetized. Electric propulsion could also be invisible by just ionizing the air as a magnetic repellent.
 
BTW, I thought the shuttle engines were about as efficient as chemical engines could get, given a rocket engine has to adjust itself as the air pressure decreases. What's better about this next generation?

Hence the move to other methods, like nuclear etc...
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
The heated air applies force because it expands (same as in a jet) the thing is that as it expands it needs something to push off and the side of the saucer is like trying the push a knife by plowing on the shape edge! To test this you can put a glow pug with a nice cone shape rounded end attach it to a very accurate accelerometer and measure the force off the expanding air… the result will most likely show that this force if very weak, if you attach a nozzle to it though I’m sure your will a notice a major a increase.

As for the thrust chamber in the new engines those are inverted inward and act just like the walls of a more conventional rocket nozzle
Click to expand...

It is pushing off the edge of the saucer, F = Ma, it doesn't matter if its an edge. I think what you may be confused by is the amount of air mass the heated edge of the saucer would expose to produce thrust, why you may have used the edge of a knife analogy. The surface area at the edge of the saucer is sufficient to move enough mass to produce enough thrust. If you notice the air foil acts as an inverted nozzle, so the entire curved surface is exposing a great deal of heat to large volume of air. In fact this shape forms a much wider nozzle than any rocket or jet engine! In effect there is more air mass pushing off the surface of the inverted nozzle than what you can get with conventional jet systems.
 
I'd still love to see more details in how undirected heated air will apply a directed vector of force to push the same amount of air on the other side of the disc out of the way. All this at high accelerations, and high Mach speeds. How can you get the air flowing over the heaters (if you get moving this fast) to stay long enough to get heat transferred?

You say it's proven...show me...that's all I'm asking. :)
 
I remembered another test that would prove your point. Does the same thing as my previous test, but simpler to set up.

Suspend a balanced platform by a string, one side with heat sources, the other with a counter weight. If you're anywhere near correct, the platform should be pushed to one side and up, with the string at an angle to the ground instead of perpendicular. Simple test of propulsion, mainly used on the reactionless drives to see if indeed they had only one force vector.
 
Originally posted by Jaxom
I'd still love to see more details in how undirected heated air will apply a directed vector of force to push the same amount of air on the other side of the disc out of the way. All this at high accelerations, and high Mach speeds. How can you get the air flowing over the heaters (if you get moving this fast) to stay long enough to get heat transferred?

You say it's proven...show me...that's all I'm asking. :)
Click to expand...


This is where your thinking is wrong the air is being directed. The airfoil forms an inverted nozzle, directing the air away from the saucer at right angles of its surface. Look at the airfoils curved edge surface. If air is accelerated at right angles of the curved surface it is being directed. As far the argument of air only capable of moving at the speed of sound that is wrong also. Heat transfer issues are your misunderstanding, it like asking how can the shuttle crafts surface or the air surrounding it rise when the air that strikes it doesn't stay long enough to transfer heat.
 
This is where your thinking is wrong the air is being directed. The airfoil forms an inverted nozzle, directing the air away from the saucer at right angles of its surface. Look at the airfoils curved edge surface. If air is accelerated at right angles of the curved surface it is being directed.
Click to expand...

That's my point, show why air would only go at a right angle, and not up. You're talking about using the sides of the disc, since a perpendicular force to them is what you're after. Why would air "rise" horizontally? If you had an enclosure to force it out that way, sure...but by itself?

As far the argument of air only capable of moving at the speed of sound that is wrong also.
Click to expand...

Okay...I'm willing to admit if I'm wrong, show me an example of air moving of its own accord faster than sound. Heating the air to X degrees, at what point will it move away faster than mach one, or more importantly, new air will come in that fast?

Heat transfer issues are your misunderstanding, it like asking how can the shuttle crafts surface or the air surrounding it rise when the air that strikes it doesn't stay long enough to transfer heat.
Click to expand...

That's friction...big difference. The shuttle isn't acting as a heat source, the heat is from the rapid movement of air out of the way...
 
Originally posted by Jaxom
That's my point, show why air would only go at a right angle, and not up. You're talking about using the sides of the disc, since a perpendicular force to them is what you're after. Why would air "rise" horizontally? If you had an enclosure to force it out that way, sure...but by itself?
Click to expand...


Let's see if the surface is curved then if even if the temperature is so low that we only get a rising of air it is pushng at an angle with respect to the curved surface. You seem to view this as a iron, view it more like a wind storm of a forest fire as it sucks up air to feed the fire.

Okay...I'm willing to admit if I'm wrong, show me an example of air moving of its own accord faster than sound. Heating the air to X degrees, at what point will it move away faster than mach one, or more importantly, new air will come in that fast?
Click to expand...

Here's a link that explains how a jet engine works:

http://www.thaitechnics.com/engine/engine_theory.html
http://www.thaitechnics.com/engine/engine_type.html

Most of the thrust from a jet engine comes from the fan! The fan only moves air and it can move the air at faster than the speed of sound.


That's friction...big difference. The shuttle isn't acting as a heat source, the heat is from the rapid movement of air out of the way...
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. Have you ever heard of cooling by evaporization? It's how refrigeration works. When a gas makes contact with a heated surface it increase its kenetic energy. This causes an expansion of volume of the gas carrying away heat. In other words the gas acts as if it evaporates from the surface. It need only make contact with the surface and based on its conductivity of heat will determine how much heat is carried away.

Here's a site that explains to greater detail.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/thercond.html#c1
 
Originally posted by luvinspoon
Let's see if the surface is curved then if even if the temperature is so low that we only get a rising of air it is pushng at an angle with respect to the curved surface. You seem to view this as a iron, view it more like a wind storm of a forest fire as it sucks up air to feed the fire.
Click to expand...

And the greater the heat source, the faster the circulation of hot and cool air. But that's air movement, not force on the craft. The kinetic energy transmitted from the heater to the air is not a single vector, it is random. The air expanding and escaping does so in all directions, unless we carry the reaction from a heating one into an explosive one. And still given the craft's design, there's no focus of energy.

Here's a link that explains how a jet engine works:

http://www.thaitechnics.com/engine/engine_theory.html
http://www.thaitechnics.com/engine/engine_type.html

Most of the thrust from a jet engine comes from the fan! The fan only moves air and it can move the air at faster than the speed of sound.
Click to expand...

My point was air moving without any aid, as must be the case with your design of heating air to gain thrust. The cool air must rush in unaided....I don't see any turbofan on your saucer. Using the jet engine as an example, without the fan the engine would not be able to suck in enough air to continue burning.

It doesn't matter. Have you ever heard of cooling by evaporization? It's how refrigeration works. When a gas makes contact with a heated surface it increase its kenetic energy. This causes an expansion of volume of the gas carrying away heat. In other words the gas acts as if it evaporates from the surface. It need only make contact with the surface and based on its conductivity of heat will determine how much heat is carried away.

Here's a site that explains to greater detail.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/thercond.html#c1
Click to expand...

But not in a single vector unaided.

I don't disagree with your statements individually, I disagree with how you're putting it all together to make the hot side of the saucer obtain a single force by the air it heats. All I can go by is what you have said and is on the site...maybe there's more to it that what's there?

I repeat my simple experiment....if this is true, why wouldn't a hot source dangling from a wire push itself up at an angle? It would get the same force potential as the saucer is claimed to get. The only objection I can see would be that it's not hot enough...well, by calculation, how hot do you need an emittor 1 x 1 foot square area to impart a force of 1 newton perpendicular to the surface?
 
Originally posted by Jaxom
And the greater the heat source, the faster the circulation of hot and cool air. But that's air movement, not force on the craft. The kinetic energy transmitted from the heater to the air is not a single vector, it is random. The air expanding and escaping does so in all directions, unless we carry the reaction from a heating one into an explosive one. And still given the craft's design, there's no focus of energy.
Click to expand...
Again you fail to see that the airfoil is an inverted nozzle and that air is pushing on a curved surface that directs the airs motion, it's not random. Air movement is a force or haven't you seen a windmill work before?

My point was air moving without any aid, as must be the case with your design of heating air to gain thrust. The cool air must rush in unaided....I don't see any turbofan on your saucer. Using the jet engine as an example, without the fan the engine would not be able to suck in enough air to continue burning.
[/B]
Click to expand...

Wrong again, instead of a turbofan it uses a heat source; KE is KE (kinetic energy) it doesn't matter if it's from a fan or a heat source and that is simple physics.


But not in a single vector unaided.

I don't disagree with your statements individually, I disagree with how you're putting it all together to make the hot side of the saucer obtain a single force by the air it heats. All I can go by is what you have said and is on the site...maybe there's more to it that what's there?

I repeat my simple experiment....if this is true, why wouldn't a hot source dangling from a wire push itself up at an angle? It would get the same force potential as the saucer is claimed to get. The only objection I can see would be that it's not hot enough...well, by calculation, how hot do you need an emittor 1 x 1 foot square area to impart a force of 1 newton perpendicular to the surface?
[/B]
Click to expand...

One thing in your experiment that you don't seem to understand and that is you have to isolate the heat to a location on the material. If you just dangle a piece of metal from a wire and heat it, the heat would be uniformly distributed (metal is a good conductor of heat) and no net force would be present.

Also your question isn't making much sense. the saucer doesn't push itself up by heating one end, it pushes itself horizontally. Now if the source is heated underneath itself then yes it could push itself up.


I'm getting a little tired of your arguments; they're getting juvenile
and a little ridiculous. If you don't understand that the surface is super heating air and that change in KE cause a rapid acceleration (explosion) of air which is pushing along the curved surface of the airfoil, then you're lost. You don't have a good understanding of physics and that's the real problem in this debate.

Se ya.
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Luvinspoon,
As you can see from this very quick drawn image below your saucer is a very inefficient thrusting surface! Most of the thrust is lost as pressure against the sides. If you would use one of the other saucer designs though you would have a much better thrusting surface.
http://www.geocities.com/wellcookedfetus/UFOthrust.html
Click to expand...


The first diagram shows the air force on the saucer. There is no thrust lost, the pressure on the sides of the vehicle is what moves the vessel. One end has high pressure (heated air) and the other end has a lower pressure (cooler air). The vehicle would move towards the direction of the lower pressure (cooler air). You also have the heated section to far up the center of the saucer, the heated section is along the curved edge allowing the inverted nozzle effect.

Thanks for demonstrating that the design does really work.
 
Simulate/experiment with the thing and get back to us.

Until then it is just an idea without any kind of math, force diagrams, energy calculations, or any other proof.
 
Originally posted by Persol
Simulate/experiment with the thing and get back to us.

Until then it is just an idea without any kind of math, force diagrams, energy calculations, or any other proof.
Click to expand...


The math for the energy calculations and thermodynamics has already been referenced and force diagrams have already been shown on this thread.
 
There is force loss since the pressure does not push off directly from behind! Most of the force is lost a pressure against the surface of the craft rather then as thrust. Look why don’t you test you propulsion system: it can be done with a shapen glow pug and an accelerometer! I guaranty you the amount of force given off will be pitiful!
 
Unless you are in space near no gravity source that's no a complete force diagram.
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
True... what did you expect if you draw something up in ten minutes on Photoshop!
Click to expand...
Lol... the burden of proof isn't on you anyhow.

I agree that as described your diagram shows the propulsion, but not the effects of gravity, drag, etc...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top