Aircraft

[onlinebiker]

Aloha AF:

I met a retired airman who was once stationed at Edwards AB. He said he saw a small aircraft, silent without an engine or a propeller, take off and fly like any other airplane.


My guess: they used static electricity in the form of charged plate capacitors with glass as the insulator/dielectric as a sort of engine and controlled it using electromagnetism as thrust.


What you say?

I say, i am an electronics engineer, Msc., since the mid 90s, and i havent laughed so hard for a long time (probably since the early 2000s) reading this tread. No offense intended.

Originally i had prepared a much longer, much more detailed evaluation of T.T. Brown and his "antigrav" research as well as the basics of capacitors and forces involved. But then i told myself: "Dont do that to yourself, please".

So, in the end what can i say? If you are interested in electricity, by all means keep studying, and you may overcome the "Mt. Stupid" of Dunning-Kruger and realize how naive you were.

As i said, no offense intended, but there is almost no polite way of telling someone how ignorant he is.

There's always some schmuck looking for the free lunch.......

...

Like those "bolt on carburators" back in the 70's that would give your land yacht Chrysler 100 mpg...

"The oil companies bought the patent".



Yeah..


Right...

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Uhm..... I think the word you want is 'Naivete', Deesse23.

Since, to my mind, the word 'Innocence' is associated with it.

The soldiers proudly marching off the the fields of war in 1914 were 'Naive' towards the horrors that awaited them.

Being traind soldiers, they would not be ignorant of the trauma of conflict.

A better fit for 'Ignorant' then/perhaps?

Cheers.

[Deesse23]

At work.

Uhm..... I think the word you want is 'Naivete', Deesse23.  

A better fit than 'Ignorant', perhaps?

Cheers.

No, ignorant is better imho. Naivete is a state of mind, which i really wont accuse him of.
I mean ignorant in terms of "not knowing" with no further implications, like being "stupid". Something that gets mixed up very, very often, particularly to insult others. That is not my intention. Ignorance in terms of "to learn you have a lot, young padavan".

I am, for example, very ignorant regarding art(s). All kinds of them. Particularly in executing them myself. Cant paint, or sing or design fashion, whatever, at all Thats a fact. I however am fascinated by art. I have seen Mona Lisa and other stuff in the Louvre. Wasnt impressed by Leonardos work, but by others´ work which is considered to be "meh" by the arts experts.
Thats how life is. Sometimes you are interested in stuff you dont have the faintest clue about and which you cant do yourself, at all, because you have no real understanding.

Because real understanding needs a whole different level of effort....and sometimes talent, which you sometimes just dont have.

I am also ignorant about lots of other stuff, biology, boichemics. I may have a very rudmentary understanding of Evolution and genetics, and the latter is already a stretch.


But i am digressing again...

[Rhizomorph13]

@Deese23

I work at Intel among some of the brightest minds I've ever met, many of them EEs. Just because you are an electrical engineer doesn't mean you work with the necessary disciplines to address what we are talking about. So thanks for the horse laugh but a detailed response would be much more appreciated than your halo effect, bullshit response. I doubt the efficacy of dielectric stress being used for propulsion but it is better to engage the discussion rather than just laugh it off.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Deese23

I work at Intel among some of the brightest minds I've ever met, many of them EEs. Just because you are an electrical engineer doesn't mean you work with the necessary disciplines to address what we are talking about. So thanks for the horse laugh but a detailed response would be much more appreciated than your halo effect, bullshit response. I doubt the efficacy of dielectric stress being used for propulsion but it is better to engage the discussion rather than just laugh it off.

Normally, I'd be inclined to agree. 

However, given Haipule's obvious disdain for established science and his sporadic attempts at near-trolling, I doubt very much that he's interested in 'engaging the discussion'.  Look at the OP again - he claimed to have met a guy who claimed to have seem this aircraft at an Air Force base. No corroboration, no first hand account, nothing but a baseless, impossible-to-confirm claim.  And bear in mind that this is the guy who thinks the luminiferous aether is real and that black holes don't exist.

Sometimes, a horse laugh is the best possible response.

Boru

[Deesse23]

@Deese23

I work at Intel among some of the brightest minds I've ever met, many of them EEs. Just because you are an electrical engineer doesn't mean you work with the necessary disciplines to address what we are talking about. So thanks for the horse laugh but a detailed response would be much more appreciated than your halo effect, bullshit response. I doubt the efficacy of dielectric stress being used for propulsion but it is better to engage the discussion rather than just laugh it off.

Normally, I'd be inclined to agree. 

However, given Haipule's obvious disdain for established science and his sporadic attempts at near-trolling, I doubt very much that he's interested in 'engaging the discussion'.  Look at the OP again - he claimed to have met a guy who claimed to have seem this aircraft at an Air Force base. No corroboration, no first hand account, nothing but a baseless, impossible-to-confirm claim.  And bear in mind that this is the guy who thinks the luminiferous aether is real and that black holes don't exist.

Sometimes, a horse laugh is the best possible response.

Boru

We are talking also about a kook from the 30s who claimed to have found "antigravity", an effect which is supposed to connect gravity to the other fundamental forces, which is like one of the two holy grails of physics. I am completely open to this idea in general, but if you want to convince me of this you need to provide a bit more.....substance.

[Haipule]

Aloha AF:

I met a retired airman who was once stationed at Edwards AB. He said he saw a small aircraft, silent without an engine or a propeller, take off and fly like any other airplane.


My guess: they used static electricity in the form of charged plate capacitors with glass as the insulator/dielectric as a sort of engine and controlled it using electromagnetism as thrust.


What you say?

I say, i am an electronics engineer, Msc., since the mid 90s, and i havent laughed so hard for a long time (probably since the early 2000s) reading this tread. No offense intended.

Originally i had prepared a much longer, much more detailed evaluation of T.T. Brown and his "antigrav" research as well as the basics of capacitors and forces involved. But then i told myself: "Dont do that to yourself, please".

So, in the end what can i say? If you are interested in electricity, by all means keep studying, and you may overcome the "Mt. Stupid" of Dunning-Kruger and realize how naive you were.

As i said, no offense intended, but there is almost no polite way of telling someone how ignorant he is.

No offence taken, glad you had a laugh, I have absativally no idea what the hell I'm going on about. But, I'm not talking about "electronics". I'm talking about the real shit called "electricity". Then you explain how that plane flew.

[Deesse23]

@Deese23

I work at Intel among some of the brightest minds I've ever met, many of them EEs. Just because you are an electrical engineer doesn't mean you work with the necessary disciplines to address what we are talking about. So thanks for the horse laugh but a detailed response would be much more appreciated than your halo effect, bullshit response. I doubt the efficacy of dielectric stress being used for propulsion but it is better to engage the discussion rather than just laugh it off.

I am not obliged to prove that all of this is true or not. I am mor eor less equipped to discuss this, but i am infnitely better equipped than the OP is. He is free to disprove this claim of mine.
I have asked Haipule to elaborate on wtf he is even talking about. He can start to explain what T.T. Browns "Bielfeld Brown effect" is all about and why scientists have done away with it since the TV was still black and white, if he has the education to do so.

I am prepared, but dont expect me to write a whole essay about this topic before the claimant has shown he knows even remotely what he is talking about. That why i said, i am not going to do this to me.

If you want, you can call some of your EE buddies. I would be excited to talk to any of them about the topic. Maybe you should try to ask them about a short comment wha THEY think about antigravity.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I say, i am an electronics engineer, Msc., since the mid 90s, and i havent laughed so hard for a long time (probably since the early 2000s) reading this tread. No offense intended.

Originally i had prepared a much longer, much more detailed evaluation of T.T. Brown and his "antigrav" research as well as the basics of capacitors and forces involved. But then i told myself: "Dont do that to yourself, please".

So, in the end what can i say? If you are interested in electricity, by all means keep studying, and you may overcome the "Mt. Stupid" of Dunning-Kruger and realize how naive you were.

As i said, no offense intended, but there is almost no polite way of telling someone how ignorant he is.

No offence taken, glad you had a laugh, I have absativally no idea what the hell I'm going on about. But, I'm not talking about "electronics". I'm talking about the real shit called "electricity". Then you explain how that plane flew.

I've offered an explanation along with others who've included more technical detail.

To whit, the electricity is ionizing the air molecules. Tbey are moving rear-ward imparting momentum to move the plane forwards.

Hence why such a mechanism doesn't work in the near vacuum of space.

Cheers.

[Deesse23]

But, I'm not talking about "electronics". I'm talking about the real shit called "electricity". Then you explain how that plane flew.

You do know that electricity happens to be the foundation of electronics? That the very first thing you learn about in university is...electricity? That capacitors are part of elctronics?

And no, i am not going to explain anything. You do, you made this thread, and then cited a guy who claimed to have found antigravity in the 30s, and got dismissed by the 50s. Please demonstrate that you have the faintest clue what you are talking about. Please provide any data that what he has claimed is remotely true, that his devices worked by some, until now, unknown effect, connecting gravity and electromagnetism and not by physics already known.

If you convince me (or anyone else), ill promise to call the nobel comitee.