ChatterBank3 mins ago
Experts In Aerodynamics Wanted.
Let’s say ufos are real, is there any advantage the saucers are more aerodynamic than conventional rocket/aircraft designs in the earths atmosphere and seeing there isn’t any air resistance in space would it matter on the shape of your craft?
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Jahulaye. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I can't see that the shape should have any great advantages in space except, possibly, that it would be possible to arrange thrusters (for steering the craft) in a more efficient way than they could be on some other designs.
If the alien lifeforms have found a way of creating artificial gravity then it's possible that some sort of 'spinning top' design might be behind it.
Within an atmosphere though, it's possible that those aliens might have got further with developing circular flying wings than the Americans did:
https:/
If the alien lifeforms have found a way of creating artificial gravity then it's possible that some sort of 'spinning top' design might be behind it.
Within an atmosphere though, it's possible that those aliens might have got further with developing circular flying wings than the Americans did:
https:/
More interesting is John st Clair’s patent and the rise of sightings of the TR-3B triangular craft.
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
Hmmm
'Let's assume UFOs are real'
I'm not convinced, but that's not important for the question.
Consider four cases
1. In a vacuum (such as interplanetary space), travelling with no internal acceleration
2. In a vacuum (such as interplanetary space), accelerating under its own power
3. In an atmosphere with no reliance on aerodynamic forces
4. In an atmosphere relying on aerodynamics for manoeuvring
In case 1, shape and geometry is largely irrelevant.
In case 2, the craft needs structural integrity. If an accelerating force is applied at one end (say), then the craft needs to be strong enough that the acceleration forces are transmitted throughout the craft without bending or breaking the craft.
Case 3 is similar to case 2, except that the craft needs to be a bit (quite a lot) stronger to overcome air resistance. This would be a craft that can travel fast in any direction and change direction quickly (Perhaps a UFO). A saucer shape would partially meet these criteria. The saucer shape is good for movement in any lateral direction, though less good for up/down motion. A sphere, or egg shape might be the best for that kind of all-purpose craft. However, the amount of power needed to resist the forces of gravity on one hand and air resistance on the other would be significant.
Case 4 describes our human-engineered aircraft. They cannot travel in any (random) direction; nor can they change direction quickly, because they rely on aerodynamic forces to remain airborne and to change direction. Humans design aircraft with wings, fuselage etc in order to exploit aerodynamic forces to permit fast manoeuvring. There are issues such as flight stability that can aid or hinder manoeuvrability. This is largely because the power/drive forces available to such human craft is limited compared to the craft described in case 3.
I'm not sure what you are trying to show. You appear to think the TR-3B is something real.
There is a patent on this:
https:/
And there is some good science in there, expressed quite deliberately to look true (and yes, the Laplace equations are right, and they do describe some fields (such as electrostatic), but the patent does not appear (to me) to offer any reasonable method for resisting gravity using these field equations.
I'll admit it is a while since I did this kind of field theories, but the patent does not quantify the forces, or how the supposed 'plane field' generates forces as it interacts with the electrostatc field.
You should be aware that one can make up (almost) any mumbo jumbo and get it patented, if you have the right money to pay patent lawyers.
Second, a series of sites debink the myths surrounding this supposed military craft:
https:/
https:/
http://
I'm not sure where you want to go with this. Personally, it looks to me like a hoax designed to hoodwink the gullible with sciencey-looking stuff.
Probably you'll criticise me for having a closed mind. No worries.
If there is no reliable evidence of the thing; if there is no reliable science to back up the patent; if the published theories are a bunch of bullsh1t, you are welcome to believe it, but I don't.
'Let's assume UFOs are real'
I'm not convinced, but that's not important for the question.
Consider four cases
1. In a vacuum (such as interplanetary space), travelling with no internal acceleration
2. In a vacuum (such as interplanetary space), accelerating under its own power
3. In an atmosphere with no reliance on aerodynamic forces
4. In an atmosphere relying on aerodynamics for manoeuvring
In case 1, shape and geometry is largely irrelevant.
In case 2, the craft needs structural integrity. If an accelerating force is applied at one end (say), then the craft needs to be strong enough that the acceleration forces are transmitted throughout the craft without bending or breaking the craft.
Case 3 is similar to case 2, except that the craft needs to be a bit (quite a lot) stronger to overcome air resistance. This would be a craft that can travel fast in any direction and change direction quickly (Perhaps a UFO). A saucer shape would partially meet these criteria. The saucer shape is good for movement in any lateral direction, though less good for up/down motion. A sphere, or egg shape might be the best for that kind of all-purpose craft. However, the amount of power needed to resist the forces of gravity on one hand and air resistance on the other would be significant.
Case 4 describes our human-engineered aircraft. They cannot travel in any (random) direction; nor can they change direction quickly, because they rely on aerodynamic forces to remain airborne and to change direction. Humans design aircraft with wings, fuselage etc in order to exploit aerodynamic forces to permit fast manoeuvring. There are issues such as flight stability that can aid or hinder manoeuvrability. This is largely because the power/drive forces available to such human craft is limited compared to the craft described in case 3.
I'm not sure what you are trying to show. You appear to think the TR-3B is something real.
There is a patent on this:
https:/
And there is some good science in there, expressed quite deliberately to look true (and yes, the Laplace equations are right, and they do describe some fields (such as electrostatic), but the patent does not appear (to me) to offer any reasonable method for resisting gravity using these field equations.
I'll admit it is a while since I did this kind of field theories, but the patent does not quantify the forces, or how the supposed 'plane field' generates forces as it interacts with the electrostatc field.
You should be aware that one can make up (almost) any mumbo jumbo and get it patented, if you have the right money to pay patent lawyers.
Second, a series of sites debink the myths surrounding this supposed military craft:
https:/
https:/
http://
I'm not sure where you want to go with this. Personally, it looks to me like a hoax designed to hoodwink the gullible with sciencey-looking stuff.
Probably you'll criticise me for having a closed mind. No worries.
If there is no reliable evidence of the thing; if there is no reliable science to back up the patent; if the published theories are a bunch of bullsh1t, you are welcome to believe it, but I don't.
-- answer removed --
1 to 12 of 12
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.