QuoteQuoteimagine if DB Cooper had a field-effect enhanced canopy
I had genuine field effect transistors (FETs) in some radio gear I carried while skydiving.
Nothing unusual happend. Maybe I need to crank up the voltage.
How would one construct a field effect canopy Bruce? If you can reduce gravity why not omit canopies and just land your wingsuit. Forget planes too, just beam yourself up. No more wasting fuel for fun Orange.Quote
Tsk, tsk, 377, I don't think you read my articles on field-effect propulsion systems. I'll send them PM to save you the effort of hunting them up a couple pages back.
In the interim, the most simple field-effect to install on a canopy would be to use a material that could hold a charge and turn the canopy into a capacitor. With a portable generating device, it could create an electro-static field that could repel the air molecules around the canopy, thus countering the effects of gravity.
It is widely thought in the avionic inductry that the B-2 bomber uses a similar system to assist its conventional jet engines. My friends in near-by Boeing World say the specs on the B-2, ie: bomb loads, wing spans, and distances it flies, require a secondary propulsion system.
Also, these folks say that Air Force One is similarly equiped with a supplemental propulsion system. They told me that when Dubya flew out of Seattle a few ago from Boeing Field, AF-1 was nearly silent on take-off. It was so quiet that I even heard comment made about it on the radio, if I recall correctly.
Beyond that, we get into some pretty esoteric systems, such as outfitting a canopy with a high-speed, rotating superconductor to block gravity, or using what I think is happening with bees and other flying insects, a device that can generate counter-rotating torision fields, much like two miniature tornados counter-rotating around themselves.
Nick Cook, the author of "The Hunt for Zero Point - Inside the Classified World of Antigraivty Technology," has the most complete description of this kind of technology in the general literature. Cook is also the aviation editor of Jane's Defence Weekly, so he has some pretty good cred.
That said, my preferred system would be to manipulate the quantum field as Georger's article a few pages back describes for Bee Dancing, or as I would describe it, mastering the quantum moment and using techniques based upon the Observer Effect to visualize and establish an anti-gravitic flight.
Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe I will take you guys up on that parachute jump, even though Snowwman is banished from the forum, so I might have to go as the only newbie. Kinda put my money where my mouth is, so to speak, or rather, put James Randi's money next to what my fingers are typing....
...I could use that $1 mill, too.
Orange1 0
QuoteI think it's about 30. I remember doing the problem in a college math class. Or was it 13? It was a straight-forward formula, but conplex, as I recall.
near certainty (probability above 99%) is 57, but more than 23 will give you a better than 50% chance - that may be what you are thinking of.
i discover it now even has its own wiki page...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem
georger must despair even more at the mathematical illiteracy of the masses, when it is all available to them over the internet!!!
btw - did you guys know that there is a page on the MIT website that allows anyone to download lecture notes and sometimes videos of lectures, for free? I think that is really cool. I guess there are probably other top schools that do that too.
edit: here is the MIT page http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm list of faculties down the left, i have only looked at the finance type stuff so far so cannot vouch for what is on the others
377 22
QuoteTsk, tsk, 377, I don't think you read my articles on field-effect propulsion systems. I'll send them PM to save you the effort of hunting them up a couple pages back.
I was joking about expecting FETs to counteract gravity Bruce. I did read your paper and thought it was a very well written survey of current and theoretical technology. I just don't think any of it has a realistic chance of serving as a practical substitute for winged flight with payloads such as humans.
I have seen small tethered electrostatic field devices actually fly, but they couldn't even lift their own power source which was connected to it by the tether cable.
I can tell you with certainty that the 747 known as AF 1 (which incidently is actually a call sign for an aircraft carrying the pres. and doesn't denote a particular airframe) does NOT have any propulsion system besides the 4 turbofan engines.
The plane is loaded with exotic comm and even some ECM gear, is air refuelable, and is not as good a target for heat seeking missiles as a stock 747, but it is basically just a 747 as far as propulsion goes.
I actually worked with electric thrusters for spacecraft, but they just used electric fields to accelerate xenon gas molecules which were ejected at high speed. When you ran out of xenon game over.
A practical electrostatic parachute would look more like a two layer screen as you'd need to accelerate air through a high DC voltage mesh and downward to create lift. The weight of the power source makes it impractical using current technology. The assymetrical capacitor experimental results show forces that if they even exist are way too small for parachute use. Ionic propulsion works, its just power hungry and power means weight in the context of parachuting.
I have heard AF 1 take off several times from Moffet Field in CA. It didn't sound much different from any other 747 of that vintage. It's an old bird. They spent so much time customizing it that when it first flew as AF 1 it had been eclipsed by the much better 400 series of 747s.
377
377 22
Bruce wrote:
QuoteNow that I'm thinking about it, maybe I will take you guys up on that parachute jump, even though Snowwman is banished from the forum, so I might have to go as the only newbie. Kinda put my money where my mouth is, so to speak, or rather, put James Randi's money next to what my fingers are typing....
Bruce, read Randi's webpage cited in my earlier post. The conditions for winning the million dollar prize are rigourous, but fair. If you know anyone who can demonstrate paranormal effects under those conditions then go for it. You can be their manager and take a percentage.
We'd all love to have you take up jumping Bruce. Just promise me you will use regular gear until this anti-gravity stuff gets completely perfected.
![;) ;)](/uploads/emoticons/wink.png)
The Maharishi's 4 way team has yet to perform in a levitating hover. Can you imagine how many points you could turn if you could levitate or even slow down freewfall to say 30 mph???
377
quade 4
QuoteCan you imagine how many points you could turn if you could levitate or even slow down freewfall to say 30 mph???
Not a lot. At that speed there isn't a lot of air to push against.
![;) ;)](/uploads/emoticons/wink.png)
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
georger 245
QuoteQuoteCan you imagine how many points you could turn if you could levitate or even slow down freewfall to say 30 mph???
Not a lot. At that speed there isn't a lot of air to push against.![]()
Not even a TINY bit?
Remember, we are in the land of Field Effects and
the Indiana & So. Dakota Moral Legislature - an
exercise in Levitation itself. All being financed by
Wells Fargo-Americas Servicing and the Obama
Obfuscation who want a solid landing in their favor,
and to hell with everything else.
The central issue is: who gets to land safely.
Field Effects only work in an Inflationary Universe.
377 22
QuoteQuoteCan you imagine how many points you could turn if you could levitate or even slow down freewfall to say 30 mph???
Not a lot. At that speed there isn't a lot of air to push against.![]()
Good point Quade. My bad for not considering reduced airflow at low fall rates. Hmmm...maybe these levitators could vector their mysterious force sideways to turn points?
Cooper and his rig do seem to have disappeared. When they are found it will likely be in another dimension full of single socks, threaded nuts, tiny screws and other things that I SWEAR have truly disappeared.
377
I think it's about 30. I remember doing the problem in a college math class. Or was it 13? It was a straight-forward formula, but conplex, as I recall.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites