Us Navy anti gravity advanced aircraft Patent

[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/

[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.

[ChrLzs]

It's not unusual for speculative patents like these to be lodged, and interestingly, anyone can 'assign' a patent to the US Navy so then it looks legit...

I'm finding it rather difficult to verify that the patent creator, Salvatore Cezar Pais, does in fact work directly for the Navy, although this claim is made at several sites of rather questionable quality.  Interestingly, one of the sites states that the patent was initally rejected as 'impossible' by the Patent Office, but then shows a letter from the Navy to the patent examiner asking for it to be accepted anyway, in which they concede "this mode of acceleration/movement is beyond the state of the possible, at least at present."  They ask that the patent be granted anyway, just in case something ever comes from it.  Another reviewer, Dr. Brian Collett, a Hamilton College physics chair who teaches courses in electromagnetic theory and quantum physics stated "while patents and peer-reviewed articles about theoretical physics are one thing, the descriptions of the HAUC and the claims in Pais’ research 'bear no more resemblance to quantum physics as I understand it than does ‘The Force’ from Star Wars.' and '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."

 

But what is the kiss of death for me, is the word salad in the patent itself.  It uses phrases like

Quote

"The manner and effectiveness with which the microwave energy couples with the outer resonant cavity wall is called the cavity Q-factor {no equation given} ...can be written as the (energy stored/energy lost) ratio and is in the range of 104 to 109 {no calculation given} ... depending on whether ordinary metal .. or cryogenically cooled superconducting material (Yttrium Barium Copper Oxide or Niobium) is used for the outer resonant cavity wall 100 and outside mold line skin of the craft. One must realize that the high energy/high frequency electromagnetic field generator responsible for the inertial mass diminution effect would generate a repulsive EM energy field while in earth's atmosphere, thereby repelling air molecules in its path of ascent/flight. Consequently, once in orbital space, by local vacuum polarization (quantum field fluctuations' modification/coherence), a repulsive gravity effect (recall the negative pressure of the polarized vacuum) would permit swift movement of the craft (which can be, but without limitation, a cone or lenticular triangle/delta wing configuration).  ... This hybrid craft would move with great ease through the air/space/water mediums, by being enclosed in a vacuum plasma bubble/sheath, due to the coupled effects of EM field-induced air/water particles repulsion and vacuum energy polarization."

 

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

So, allow me to the first to point out that this is utter drivel and nothing will come from any of Pais' 'inventions'.  Call me a stick in the mud, if you like, but do come back in 20 years and let us know if I'm right...  Or as soon as you see any indication whatsoever that this stuff is in use or being tested.

[Piney]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Quote

"The manner and effectiveness with which the microwave energy couples with the outer resonant cavity wall is called the cavity Q-factor {no equation given} ..

No equation exists. 

.can be written as the (energy stored/energy lost) ratio and is in the range of 104 to 109 {no calculation given} ..

No calculation exists. 

 cryogenically cooled superconducting material (Yttrium Barium Copper Oxide or Niobium)

I want to see this metallurgic magic trick. 

is used for the outer resonant cavity wall 100 and outside mold line skin of the craft. One must realize that the high energy/high frequency electromagnetic field generator responsible for the inertial mass diminution effect would generate a repulsive EM energy field while in earth's atmosphere, thereby repelling air molecules in its path of ascent/flight.

Read many 'Star Trek Technical Manuals' do we? 

Consequently, once in orbital space, by local vacuum polarization (quantum field fluctuations' modification/coherence), a repulsive gravity effect (recall the negative pressure of the polarized vacuum) would permit swift movement of the craft (which can be, but without limitation, a cone or lenticular triangle/delta wing configuration).  ... This hybrid craft would move with great ease through the air/space/water mediums, by being enclosed in a vacuum plasma bubble/sheath, due to the coupled effects of EM field-induced air/water particles repulsion and vacuum energy polarization."

Did Deepak Chopra ghost write this? 

 

 

[Dejarma]

here we go again

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

who wrote this drivel? 

[Unusual Tournament]

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...

[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.

[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?

[Hazzard]

As close to Clickbate as it gets.

[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...  

 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?

[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...

 

[psyche101]

Apple patented a rectangle with rounded edges. 

Wonder what they are up to the sneaky sods...... 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cultofmac.com/200224/surprise-apple-actually-does-have-a-patent-on-rectangles-with-rounded-corners/amp/

[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 ? 

[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? 

[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 ? 

[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?

[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. 

[Unusual Tournament]

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 August 13, 2019 by Captain Risky

[Unusual Tournament]

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. 

[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 

 

[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.

[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. 

[stereologist]

16 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Alchopwn Just handed you a big intellectual knuckle burger. 

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

[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.

[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?