average atomospheric pressure is 1.03 kg per square cm, now imagine a disc with a surface of 20m. it's easy to calculate the force operating on a disc is 3,278,272.8 kg. now fix a strong cathode ray pointed upwards from the center of the disc to create a vacuum and huge difference of pressure is produced. disc will accelerate at a great speed.
(http://static.wixstatic.com/media/5a6b06_1b739c617540ebd339b4d82152e57a2c.jpg_srz_585_486_85_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz)
objects is always sucked into the area of lower pressure. speed could be controled by varying the level of vacuum and the direction by simply pointing the cathode ray in different direction.
since the pressure is uniform, this craft wouldn't experience inertia and could make sudden changes of direction.
what do you think?
When you say cathode ray do you mean fire an electron gun upwards from the top of the disk?
If yes, how would that create a lower pressure above the craft than below.
there is nothing mysterious about that, even B2 is alleged to charge it's leading edge to reduce drag by ionizing the surrounding air and like charges repell.
cathode ray shooting electrons which are in turn deflected by a magnetic field would produce a vacuum surrounding the discharge, that is, an area of lower atmosheric pressure.
in simple terms, something like this
(http://s27.postimg.org/bdalzdek3/cathode.jpg)
That makes sense to me. This would lower inertia but would not eliminate it entirely as it is impossible to isolate the craft from the environment using an electron gun. It looks like it could lift the craft though if the electron gun was powerful enough.
So the golden question is how much power would you need to actually lift the craft? Is it efficient enough to be able to carry on board fuel?
Of all the viable modes of propulsion I have seen so far the stumbling block has been how to carry a fuel source capable of powering the craft for any length of time. They often require a lot of energy and would therefore require a highly efficient fuel source (mass to energy). That is the reason Lazar's fuel would be such a boon if we had something like that.
according to my understanding, if the whole craft is being accelerated uniformly by any energetic gradient, no inertia is experienced within it.
for the smaller craft, i estimate little power would be enough. also, it may not need any fuel on board. if you create a vacuum in vertical direction, you could use that huge air pressure differential to also run the turbines/generators.
so craft could have a hollow section through the middle to allow the air flow generating the needed power.
i wonder if there are cathode ray tubes of higher power available. and if there are those not made of glass but stronger material.
Quote from: Pimander on October 17, 2014, 05:45:35 PM
That makes sense to me. This would lower inertia but would not eliminate it entirely as it is impossible to isolate the craft from the environment using an electron gun. It looks like it could lift the craft though if the electron gun was powerful enough.
So the golden question is how much power would you need to actually lift the craft? Is it efficient enough to be able to carry on board fuel?
Of all the viable modes of propulsion I have seen so far the stumbling block has been how to carry a fuel source capable of powering the craft for any length of time. They often require a lot of energy and would therefore require a highly efficient fuel source (mass to energy). That is the reason Lazar's fuel would be such a boon if we had something like that.
Quote from: vril-ya on October 17, 2014, 06:08:09 PM
so craft could have a hollow section through the middle to allow the air flow generating the needed power.
It won't work with a hole through because the air moving up through it would reduce the pressure above the craft.
Quotei wonder if there are cathode ray tubes of higher power available. and if there are those not made of glass but stronger material.
I think they are used in welding at high power.
Quote from: Pimander on October 17, 2014, 08:55:21 PM
It won't work with a hole through because the air moving up through it would reduce the pressure above the craft.
"it won't work", i heard that one before. usually it's wrong. air going thorugh hole would INCREASE the pressure above the craft, but the pressure from below is still far greater.
QuoteI think they are used in welding at high power.
maybe
Quote from: vril-ya on October 18, 2014, 02:48:18 AM
air going thorugh hole would INCREASE the pressure above the craft, but the pressure from below is still far greater.
The air would immediately move from below the craft through the hole to compensate for the movement of negatively charged ions away from the top of the craft. The pressure would stay the same above and below because of he hole. NO hole would work better.
It is a good idea but the hole would not be a good thing in my opinion. The key is to have a very efficient way to fire electrons. If you can find one it would be very interesting. I know old TV sets had cathode rays in them so it is probably possible to guess what the mass of a large electron gun would be.
I think electron guns (not cathode ray tubes) are used with high power welding.
the hole would work perfectly as the sucked air is immediatelly ionized and expelled, so low pressure area is continuosly maintained. the expelled air would minimaly affect the vacuum above the craft, if at all.
electron guns are used in welding. these are quite huge. it is questionable if it could be made practical regarding the size/power ratio.
Quote from: Pimander on October 18, 2014, 11:17:16 AM
The air would immediately move from below the craft through the hole to compensate for the movement of negatively charged ions away from the top of the craft. The pressure would stay the same above and below because of he hole. NO hole would work better.
It is a good idea but the hole would not be a good thing in my opinion. The key is to have a very efficient way to fire electrons. If you can find one it would be very interesting. I know old TV sets had cathode rays in them so it is probably possible to guess what the mass of a large electron gun would be.
I think electron guns (not cathode ray tubes) are used with high power welding.
Quoteobjects is always sucked into the area of lower pressure. speed could be controled by varying the level of vacuum and the direction by simply pointing the cathode ray in different direction.
Again won't work in space...where are you going to create a low pressure area in a perfect vacuum?
and who ever said this method is intended to be used in space? with this system you could achieve great escape velocity. if you are refering to reactionless drive, it does indeed work in space, sooner or later you will have to admit it.
Quote from: Ellirium113 on October 18, 2014, 03:17:37 PM
Again won't work in space...where are you going to create a low pressure area in a perfect vacuum?
Quote from: vril-ya on October 18, 2014, 02:24:37 PM
the hole would work perfectly as the sucked air is immediatelly ionized and expelled, so low pressure area is continuosly maintained. the expelled air would minimaly affect the vacuum above the craft, if at all.
I disagree.
If you blow away from a hole (effectively what the electron gun would be doing) from above a hole then you pull air through the hole. Without a hole is far better. All that is continuously maintained with a hole is the movement of air through it.
Which would cause most lift, a wing with a hole in it or a wing without? The disk in this design is effectively doing the job of a wing.
Quoteelectron guns are used in welding. these are quite huge. it is questionable if it could be made practical regarding the size/power ratio.
That is what I thought. I have never heard of a lightweight electron gun but they are probably possible. Given a design need there is always an engineer who can pull it off.
you can disagree, but this doesn't mean you are right. of course air is pulled through the hole, so it propels the turbine, but when air reaches the vacuum above the craft, electron gun breaks it downs and expells it. so, vacuum is always maintained. in short, it's much better with the hole, as it doesn't affect the propulsion while it provides power for the craft.
this system is not my invention, it is used by a number of ET species and is confirmed over multiple ET contacts. the ETs that use this system say they use it as stationary power plants for electrical energy on their planets as well.
Quote from: Pimander on October 18, 2014, 04:47:10 PM
I disagree.
If you blow away from a hole (effectively what the electron gun would be doing) from above a hole then you pull air through the hole. Without a hole is far better. All that is continuously maintained with a hole is the movement of air through it.
Which would cause most lift, a wing with a hole in it or a wing without? The disk in this design is effectively doing the job of a wing.
tv cathode-ray tubes use little power (~100Wh). but if 10 of these were stacked together, that would already give 1kWh. with such power it would be possible to experiment on a small scale model, let's say 45-50cm disc.
QuoteThat is what I thought. I have never heard of a lightweight electron gun but they are probably possible. Given a design need there is always an engineer who can pull it off.
Quote from: vril-ya on October 18, 2014, 07:09:32 PM
you can disagree, but this doesn't mean you are right.
It doesn't but I am right. :P
Quoteof course air is pulled through the hole, so it propels the turbine, but when air reaches the vacuum above the craft,
There won't be a vacuum or much lower pressure because of the hole.
Quoteelectron gun breaks it downs and expells it.
It would only ionise some of the molecules, it would not "break it down".
Quoteso, vacuum is always maintained.
How if the pressure is not lower because of the hole allowing air through?
Quotein short, it's much better with the hole,
Only if you want to blow air through a hole rather than fly.
Quote[ as it doesn't affect the propulsion while it provides power for the craft.
It would use power to power the electron gun. It could pul back some of the energy but lots will be lost doing other work.
Quotethis system is not my invention, it is used by a number of ET species and is confirmed over multiple ET contacts. the ETs that use this system say they use it as stationary power plants for electrical energy on their planets as well.
Well it must work then. ::)
Quotetv cathode-ray tubes use little power (~100Wh). but if 10 of these were stacked together, that would already give 1kWh. with such power it would be possible to experiment on a small scale model, let's say 45-50cm disc.
Make sure you don't put a hole through the middle because it won't work. Maybe ET was lying to throw you off the scent. :)
in short, ET wasnt lying and you are absolutely wrong. electrons emanating from cathode ray tubes "break down" the atmosphere and produce free hydrogen which then also becames ionised.
regarding the hole, it works perfectly. column of air coming from below is expelled vertically by the electron gun and a magnetic field deflecting it. vacuum is maintained, and the process is continued.
i hope i cleared out what was confusing you.
Quote from: Pimander on October 18, 2014, 11:30:59 PM
It doesn't but I am right. :P
There won't be a vacuum or much lower pressure because of the hole.
It would only ionise some of the molecules, it would not "break it down".
How if the pressure is not lower because of the hole allowing air through?
Only if you want to blow air through a hole rather than fly.
It would use power to power the electron gun. It could pul back some of the energy but lots will be lost doing other work.
Well it must work then. ::)
Make sure you don't put a hole through the middle because it won't work. Maybe ET was lying to throw you off the scent. :)
Quote from: vril-ya on October 19, 2014, 04:55:22 AM
in short, ET wasnt lying and you are absolutely wrong.
Are you sure you know what ET said? :)
Quoteelectrons emanating from cathode ray tubes "break down" the atmosphere and produce free hydrogen which then also becames ionised.
What do you think the source of hydrogen ions is? Water vapour in the air? The electron gun?
Quoteregarding the hole, it works perfectly. column of air coming from below is expelled vertically by the electron gun and a magnetic field deflecting it.
That doesn't even make sense. What on earth do you mean by, "a magnetic field deflecting it?"
If you blow a column of air upwards you generally cause a downwards thrust. That is how a jet engine works. Check out old Isaac Newton for further information.
You are literally blowing hot air. ::)
QuoteThrust is a reaction force described quantitatively by Newton's second and third laws. When a system expels or accelerates mass in one direction, the accelerated mass will cause a force of equal magnitude but opposite direction on that system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust
In your model, air moving upwards through the hole will cause an equal and opposite downward direction in your system - the disk.
Funny, the same equal and opposite force law was the reason your impulse drive would not work too. Live and learn.
Quotei hope i cleared out what was confusing you.
The key part is highlighted for you so we can all see which one of us is confused. You blow air one way and you move the other way. Simple,
IF you understand physics. :P
you cannot claim anything before making the experiment. experiments, if done, will show if this system works as suggested or not.
magnetic field is deflecting the electrons just like it does in a old TVs.
narrow colum of air is blown out vertically, but the low pressure area is maintained all around it. force acting below the craft is magnitudes of order higher that the colum of air being blown upwards.
just because there is little hydrogen in the atmosphere you assumed there be no hydrogen released, and you are wrong again. these rays break the atmosphere down completely, and set free the nuclei, which they subsequently join up with, thus producing the hydrogen.
impulse drive works, there is no dubt about that. laws of nature are quite different from what you suppose them to be. much to learn, still.
Quote from: Pimander on October 20, 2014, 12:42:46 AM
Are you sure you know what ET said? :)
What do you think the source of hydrogen ions is? Water vapour in the air? The electron gun?
That doesn't even make sense. What on earth do you mean by, "a magnetic field deflecting it?"
If you blow a column of air upwards you generally cause a downwards thrust. That is how a jet engine works. Check out old Isaac Newton for further information.
You are literally blowing hot air. ::)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust
In your model, air moving upwards through the hole will cause an equal and opposite downward direction in your system - the disk.
Funny, the same equal and opposite force law was the reason your impulse drive would not work too. Live and learn.
The key part is highlighted for you so we can all see which one of us is confused. You blow air one way and you move the other way. Simple, IF you understand physics. :P
Quote from: vril-ya on October 20, 2014, 03:52:48 AM
you cannot claim anything before making the experiment. experiments, if done, will show if this system works as suggested or not.
What, have you built a working one? ???
Quotenarrow colum of air is blown out vertically, but the low pressure area is maintained all around it. force acting below the craft is magnitudes of order higher that the colum of air being blown upwards.
How are they? What physical law or mathematics makes it so?
Blowing air upwards creates a downward thrust normally.
Quotejust because there is little hydrogen in the atmosphere you assumed there be no hydrogen released, and you are wrong again. these rays break the atmosphere down completely, and set free the nuclei, which they subsequently join up with, thus producing the hydrogen.
It is possible to liberate hydrogen nuclei from atoms but I don't think this amount of energy is likely to do that.
You are talking nuclear physics now (i.e. liberating protons from the
nucleus!) To do that requires even higher energies than I thought we were discussing. Such a craft needs a fuel source capable of triggering a nuclear reaction.
Liberating protons would also cause an explosion as the electrons would combine with them and produce H
2 which is explosive. I don't see why liberating Hydrogen from the air would make this craft fly.
Quoteimpulse drive works, there is no dubt about that.
I refer readers to the thread on that for details of why that statement may well be false.
Quotelaws of nature are quite different from what you suppose them to be.
But the laws of mechanics work in most real world machines which is why engineers rely on them every day.
If you know of some other rules then explain them. Myself and the other members at PRC are always looking for something new but it needs to make sense or to be possible to demonstrate. We have wasted at least two years on nonsense that resulted in no working model.
I have promised the site owner and myself that I won't stand by a second time and watch made up science (and worse) take over here.
I am still find it hard to believe you can't see the validity of any of my points and can't help being suspicious about your intentions here.
Quotemuch to learn, still.
Without doubt. when there isn't I'll abandon the meat suit.
Quote from: Pimander on October 20, 2014, 03:12:28 PM
What, have you built a working one? ???
How are they? What physical law or mathematics makes it so?
no, but ET came from a moon of jupiter by it.
QuoteBlowing air upwards creates a downward thrust normally.
pressure from below is much greater.
QuoteIt is possible to liberate hydrogen nuclei from atoms but I don't think this amount of energy is likely to do that.
You are talking nuclear physics now (i.e. liberating protons from the nucleus!) To do that requires even higher energies than I thought we were discussing. Such a craft needs a fuel source capable of triggering a nuclear reaction.
high voltage is capable of liberating nuclei without using huge power.
QuoteLiberating protons would also cause an explosion as the electrons would combine with them and produce H2 which is explosive. I don't see why liberating Hydrogen from the air would make this craft fly.
in experiments done by dino kraspedon, hydrogen was produced due to the breakdown of the atmosphere. it flies well.
QuoteI refer readers to the thread on that for details of why that statement may well be false.
indeed, it has proven reactionless drive works.
QuoteBut the laws of mechanics work in most real world machines which is why engineers rely on them every day.
all classical laws predics this works.
QuoteIf you know of some other rules then explain them. Myself and the other members at PRC are always looking for something new but it needs to make sense or to be possible to demonstrate. We have wasted at least two years on nonsense that resulted in no working model.
I have promised the site owner and myself that I won't stand by a second time and watch made up science (and worse) take over here.
that is your own fault. this is just one of the systems that work. it needs to be done correctly.
QuoteI am still find it hard to believe you can't see the validity of any of my points and can't help being suspicious about your intentions here.
those who claim to be suspicious of others are usually those we should be suspicios about.
QuoteWithout doubt. when there isn't I'll abandon the meat suit.
number of "laws" will have to change. period.
I take it you can prove all that?
Good luck with the prototype. ::)
there is no need to prove something that is already proven. this will probably replace airplanes in near future.
Quote from: vril-ya on October 21, 2014, 01:46:53 PM
there is no need to prove something that is already proven. this will probably replace airplanes in near future.
Show us the proof then. We're dying to see it.
you are not dying to see it, otherwise you would do the experiment yourself and not ask others to do everything for you. i rest my case.
Quote from: Pimander on October 21, 2014, 03:12:20 PM
Show us the proof then. We're dying to see it.
So you are full of BS. You have no proof. Thank you for your honesty.
on the contrary. you ask for "proof" but you didn't understand the basic principles that make it work. you're full of it. you got much to learn.
Quote from: Pimander on October 22, 2014, 02:03:37 AM
So you are full of BS. You have no proof. Thank you for your honesty.
Deflection. You have no proof. If you do post it. :P
Hey Pi
Leave this guy alone unless you are having fun.
He was a member of the IG for awhile and got kicked out. This was before the purge :P
V
You remember me? Go find some where else to play. I am the last surviving member of the IG I hope that you understand You don't want to get any more mud in your face do you.
Have a nice day
Bless
Back
Quote from: Back on October 23, 2014, 10:23:25 PM
I am the last surviving member of the IG....
Really? Wow what happened to them all? I am showing 48 members that are still on the active list of that group
Hmmmm maybe I need to check them all one by one
::)
Quote from: Back on October 23, 2014, 10:23:25 PM
Leave this guy alone unless you are having fun.
I was and now I'm bored with it...er him.
QuoteHe was a member of the IG for awhile and got kicked out. This was before the purge :P
Bloody hell. ::)
I hope he didn't learn about propulsion there. LOL :P
i got bored with you loong time ago. i tried to help you get out of your confusion, but there is no point. i advice you go back to physics 101, before considering any propulsion methods, let alone unconventional ones.
Quote from: Pimander on October 23, 2014, 11:14:59 PM
I was and now I'm bored with it...er him.
Bloody hell. ::)
I hope he didn't learn about propulsion there. LOL :P
Quote from: zorgon on October 23, 2014, 10:38:08 PM
Hmmmm maybe I need to check them all one by one
::)
Some of the members "might" have been socks but there are still a few IG members active as far as I know.