Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
qxcontinuum

Us Navy anti gravity advanced aircraft Patent

72 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

qxcontinuum

The full article can be seen  below. This part Is very interesting: 

"

The craft described in the patent features a cavity wall filled with gas, which is then made to vibrate using powerful electromagnetic waves.

This then creates a vacuum around the craft, allowing it to propel itself at high speeds.

The UFO-style ship can be used in water, air or even space."

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2019/04/18/us-navy-secretly-designed-super-fast-futuristic-aircraft-resembling-ufo-documents-reveal-9246755/amp/

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

As I explained in another thread where this was mentioned, a vacuum is not a good means of movement.

1. It limits the speed of travel.

2. It prevents travel to space.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma

here we go again:sleepy:

patent drawings of this secret craft are available for all to see -- not so secret then:rolleyes:

who wrote this drivel? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
5 hours ago, stereologist said:

As I explained in another thread where this was mentioned, a vacuum is not a good means of movement.

1. It limits the speed of travel.

2. It prevents travel to space.

...great now you’re correcting the Navy? Geez...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
36 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

...great now you’re correcting the Navy? Geez...

Another bizarre comment unrelated to anything posted in this thread.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
6 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

...great now you’re correcting the Navy? Geez...

1. It's NOT the Navy's claim.

2. Do you think he's wrong?  Then tell us, Cap'n, how does a vacuum make you go fast - in a vacuum?  And even in atmosphere, you do realise that the difference between a vacuum and ground level air is a measly 14.7 psi..  How much force do you think you get from 14.7 psi?  (Hint, a conventional combustion engine uses compression ratios of 10:1 or more, and rockets and jets do NOT get their power by sucking.  They use compression and combustion to create pressures just a tad greater than 14.7 psi..

 

Seriously, Cap'n, why don't you try adding to threads rather than subtracting?

  • Like 5
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard

As close to Clickbate as it gets.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn

I am on my man-period today and feeling abnormally masochistic and argumentative, so I will bravely take up the banner to defend this patent.

Just consider the abstract for a moment...

Abstract
A craft using an inertial mass reduction device comprises of an inner resonant cavity wall, an outer resonant cavity, and microwave emitters. The electrically charged outer resonant cavity wall and the electrically insulated inner resonant cavity wall form a resonant cavity. The microwave emitters create high frequency electromagnetic waves throughout the resonant cavity causing the resonant cavity to vibrate in an accelerated mode and create a local polarised vacuum outside the outer resonant cavity wall.
 
This sounds like a way of producing a more effective EmDrive effect.
5 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Then tell us, Cap'n, how does a vacuum make you go fast - in a vacuum

It isn't the vacuum that is doing the work, it is the electromagnetic field.  Please refer to the notion of a polarised vacuum in the link above.

5 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

 And even in atmosphere, you do realise that the difference between a vacuum and ground level air is a measly 14.7 psi..  How much force do you think you get from 14.7 psi? 

This is the wrong way of thinking about the issue.  The deal with the EmDrive was that it produced a tiny but continuous thrust, but over time in a vacuum, this small continuous thrust can become a major source of forward momentum.  Is it as powerful as a propellant? Of course not, but if you can get thrust without propellant, just from harvesting electrons from solar energy, then you are a long way ahead.  Chemical propellants exhaust, but a small continuous electrical  thrust that becomes an exponential force over time in a vacuum is potentially pretty useful if used cleverly.

17 hours ago, stereologist said:

As I explained in another thread where this was mentioned, a vacuum is not a good means of movement.

1. It limits the speed of travel.

2. It prevents travel to space.

Are you aware that vacuum that is low energy is full of gluons, but when charged up, you can chase the gluons away, thus facilitating having less mass by making a system of molecules have less to interact with?  Virtual particles are tricky little things.  In fact an energised vacuum is quite different to the normal gluon rich vacuum of space.  This will not limit the speed of travel; that is what gravity, inertia, and mass are for.  As for preventing travel to space, I strongly doubt that the vessel is designed to be flown from Earth into space, and it is likely that the craft would be taken into space on conventional rockets, then used to create electromagnetic thrust to get about once up there.

16 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Frankly, that is meaningless bull**** - a quantum field polarised vacuum?????  Forgive my mirth... :D :D

 On the other hand, if you are driving off gluons to create an easier path thru space by minimizing particle interactions against your souped up EmDrive, maybe it is less funny?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/05/nasa-emdrive-impossible-physics-independent-tests-magnetic-space-science/

EM drive = zero.  There are still those clinging on, I see .... I'm not one to say I told you so.. oh no not me...

 

And to address the rest, I did quote as follows "a working room temperature superconductor would have far more radical uses that are actually within the bounds of possibility' than a hybrid craft that can theoretically create a quantum vacuum around itself".  That 'quantum polarised vacuum' business is just fancy words - if you claim otherwise, how about you explain where the advantage is, over just using the superconductor to create an intense EM field.  Why/How does the vacuum improve efficiency, especially given your example was only relating to space travel, ie IN a vacuum...?

We don't even have a vague idea of what is being suggested, let alone a proof of concept or even some basic maths and numbers to back up the basic claims...

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Well.. here's a thing. 

Why would the Navy bother to patent something that can't be built ? For that matter, why would the Navy patent ANYTHING ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
12 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Well.. here's a thing. 

Why would the Navy bother to patent something that can't be built ? For that matter, why would the Navy patent ANYTHING ? 

Are you being funny sir? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
7 minutes ago, Timothy said:

Are you being funny sir? 

I'm serious. 

The Navy does a LOT of research. However, it usually want's to keep it secret. If you submit a patent application, then the 'secret' of your invention is visible to the world. 

In addition, does the Navy have a commercial arm ? Does it receive money (potentially from foreign governments) to "license" use of its patents ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

I'm serious. 

The Navy does a LOT of research. However, it usually want's to keep it secret. If you submit a patent application, then the 'secret' of your invention is visible to the world. 

In addition, does the Navy have a commercial arm ? Does it receive money (potentially from foreign governments) to "license" use of its patents ? 

It still needs to generally conform to law. And to protect ideas, that includes patents. 

Have they never patented anything else which has resulted in new technologies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
20 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

I am on my man-period today and feeling abnormally masochistic and argumentative, so I will bravely take up the banner to defend this patent.

Just consider the abstract for a moment...

Abstract
A craft using an inertial mass reduction device comprises of an inner resonant cavity wall, an outer resonant cavity, and microwave emitters. The electrically charged outer resonant cavity wall and the electrically insulated inner resonant cavity wall form a resonant cavity. The microwave emitters create high frequency electromagnetic waves throughout the resonant cavity causing the resonant cavity to vibrate in an accelerated mode and create a local polarised vacuum outside the outer resonant cavity wall.
 
This sounds like a way of producing a more effective EmDrive effect.

It isn't the vacuum that is doing the work, it is the electromagnetic field.  Please refer to the notion of a polarised vacuum in the link above.

 

Isn't it really describing a form of multi environmental super cavitation? 

Except I too can't see how that will work in space. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
Posted (edited)
On 8/12/2019 at 5:12 PM, ChrLzs said:

1. It's NOT the Navy's claim.

2. Do you think he's wrong?  Then tell us, Cap'n, how does a vacuum make you go fast - in a vacuum?  And even in atmosphere, you do realise that the difference between a vacuum and ground level air is a measly 14.7 psi..  How much force do you think you get from 14.7 psi?  (Hint, a conventional combustion engine uses compression ratios of 10:1 or more, and rockets and jets do NOT get their power by sucking.  They use compression and combustion to create pressures just a tad greater than 14.7 psi..

 

Seriously, Cap'n, why don't you try adding to threads rather than subtracting?

The article says that the U.S. Navy has patented an anti-gravity aircraft design not a dyson vacuum cleaner. Now let me ask you again... Do you think that the Navy is wrong and stereo is right? 

Edited by Captain Risky
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
22 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/05/nasa-emdrive-impossible-physics-independent-tests-magnetic-space-science/

EM drive = zero.  There are still those clinging on, I see .... I'm not one to say I told you so.. oh no not me...

 

And to address the rest, I did quote as follows "a working room temperature superconductor would have far more radical uses that are actually within the bounds of possibility' than a hybrid craft that can theoretically create a quantum vacuum around itself".  That 'quantum polarised vacuum' business is just fancy words - if you claim otherwise, how about you explain where the advantage is, over just using the superconductor to create an intense EM field.  Why/How does the vacuum improve efficiency, especially given your example was only relating to space travel, ie IN a vacuum...?

We don't even have a vague idea of what is being suggested, let alone a proof of concept or even some basic maths and numbers to back up the basic claims...

 

Alchopwn Just handed you a big intellectual knuckle burger. 

man-with-a-black-eye-picture-id90797990?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
16 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Well.. here's a thing. 

Why would the Navy bother to patent something that can't be built ? For that matter, why would the Navy patent ANYTHING ? 

The fact of the matter is that they would actually. But it would be non-classified projects typically in collaboration with universities and other outside entities, simply because the latter live off such. 

A project like this, no way.

cheers,

Badeskov 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
On 8/13/2019 at 9:58 AM, ChrLzs said:

And to address the rest, I did quote as follows "a working room temperature superconductor would have far more radical uses that are actually within the bounds of possibility' than a hybrid craft that can theoretically create a quantum vacuum around itself". 

You actually just misdescribed the process pretty badly.  It isn't the quantum vacuum that is important except as it pertains to the facilitating of the rest of the process.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/05/nasa-emdrive-impossible-physics-independent-tests-magnetic-space-science/

Note the following paragraph:

"When they turned on the system but dampened the power going to the actual drive so essentially no microwaves were bouncing around, the EmDrive still managed to produce thrust—something it should not have done if it works the way the NASA team claims."

It is important to point out that NASA hasn't actually shown that the device doesn't produce thrust.  What they have proven is that they still don't really know how it is producing thrust.  It may interest all parties concerned to know that a patent isn't invalidated because the theoretical explanation hasn't caught up with how it works yet.  For example, the fundamental principles of aeronautics were completely rewritten in the early 2000s, and technically invalidated a lot we thought we understood about powered flight.  Did that invalidate even one aeronautic patent? No.  What the patent office is concerned about is whether the object produced by the patent actually does what the applicant claims, not whether the explanation of how it works is valid. How do I know this?  As a translator, I have worked in a couple of patent offices.

6 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Alchopwn Just handed you a big intellectual knuckle burger. 

Look at that picture again.  Where is the reddened swelling?  That's just makeup.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
16 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

The article says that the U.S. Navy has patented an anti-gravity aircraft design not a dyson vacuum cleaner. Now let me ask you again... Do you think that the Navy is wrong and stereo is right? 

You are clearly clueless and attempting a rather inane straw man argument.

The simple fact is that a vacuum based drive won't work in a vacuum. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
16 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Alchopwn Just handed you a big intellectual knuckle burger. 

man-with-a-black-eye-picture-id90797990?

The Em drive has been shown to not work. What part of that do you not understand?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
10 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

You actually just misdescribed the process pretty badly.  It isn't the quantum vacuum that is important except as it pertains to the facilitating of the rest of the process.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/05/nasa-emdrive-impossible-physics-independent-tests-magnetic-space-science/

Note the following paragraph:

"When they turned on the system but dampened the power going to the actual drive so essentially no microwaves were bouncing around, the EmDrive still managed to produce thrust—something it should not have done if it works the way the NASA team claims."

It is important to point out that NASA hasn't actually shown that the device doesn't produce thrust.  What they have proven is that they still don't really know how it is producing thrust.  It may interest all parties concerned to know that a patent isn't invalidated because the theoretical explanation hasn't caught up with how it works yet.  For example, the fundamental principles of aeronautics were completely rewritten in the early 2000s, and technically invalidated a lot we thought we understood about powered flight.  Did that invalidate even one aeronautic patent? No.  What the patent office is concerned about is whether the object produced by the patent actually does what the applicant claims, not whether the explanation of how it works is valid. How do I know this?  As a translator, I have worked in a couple of patent offices.

Look at that picture again.  Where is the reddened swelling?  That's just makeup.

The EM drive has been shown to not work. The tiny detected force is exactly equal to the computed force determined by using standard phsyics equations applied to the magnetic field of the Earth interacting with the magnetic field of the device.

The fact that the device produced thrust when it was on, but not producing microwaves was the clue that there was a prosaic explanation for the thrust. Also, the thrust changed when the drive was rotated 90 degrees.

It doesn't work. That is the bottom line.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
16 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

The article says that the U.S. Navy has patented an anti-gravity aircraft design

what makes you believe this article is factual? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.