Advanced Propulsion Methods

[uriah]

Hello all!!!

I'm starting this thread in the aim of getting some RC builders working on some more advanced methods of propulsion.

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE TWO MAIN METHODS TO BE DISSCUSED:
Electrohydrodynamics (http://blazelabs.com/l-intro.asp) (EHD)
Electrogravitics (http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0211/0211001.pdf) (Biefeld-Brown effect)

DANGER!!! Both methods require HIGH VOLTAGES which are EXTREAMLY dangerous if used improperly.

I am attempting to build a RC based craft using both effects to propel it.
Xion - EDF Modified Micro Jet (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=476590)

Problems with EHD and BB effect on a flying craft.
1) Weight/ Thrust
2) Hard to obtain materials
3) Dangers to life

During the duration of this thread's activity I will go over everything it will take to get this stuff off the ground... :)

Regards,
-Uriah George uriahgeorge@yahoo.com Secrets 2 Flight (http://www.butseriouslynow.com/fused/secrets2flight/)

[uriah]

Electrohydrodynamics is the effect of an asymmetric capacitor within a fluidic dielectric medium. (Air)

The positive pole (which has a much smaller surface area then the negative) "sucks" electrons out of the nearby atoms. These now highly positive (p+) ions are the accelerated towards the negative (e-) electrode. That is how a EHD "lifter" works at least. One of those can be built for very cheap. The only expensive part is the HV Power Supply (http://www.blazelabs.com/e-exp17.asp).

Also this effect can be switched around, were negatively charged particles will accelerate towards the positive electrode. This is the way my plane will produce its thrust... :p

Here are some great links about EHD lifters and how they work:
EMERGENCE OF NET FORCE IN ASYMMETRIC ELECTRODE SYSTEMS (http://www.bion.si/Elektrokinet_dinam/Lifter/lifter_IJS03.htm)

Some theories about the Lifter working principle JLN Labs (http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/theories.htm)

[IWC]

Very interesting but I don't know if I want to risk my life on RC Aircraft.

Maybe for the FBI but not on RC

[BMatthews]

An intruiging principle but so far the paper has only gotten 1.8 grams of thrust for a 14 Watt input. That's hardly an efficiency that will result in the abandonment of motors and propellers for our use.

I also see that most of what the played with was insulating the electrodes and every instance of that resulted in less thrust but less current consumption. Rather than insulating the electrodes it's apparent that efforts need to be made towards increasing the current or voltage or both in order to encourage more ionic flow and thus more airflow for useable thrust values.

They also mention the corona glow at higher voltages and currents. That's going to play havoc with the RC control I would think.

[uriah]

the RADIO EQUIPMENT will be far forward of the carona...

but it is true... current designs are quite inefficiant... no worries though, i have some tricks up my sleeve. see this link----> http://www.angelfire.com/vt2/secrets_2_flight/maneuvering.html

see with my design there is ion wind propulsion that is different than the lifters. kind of reverse of them actualy. instead of the wind "blowing" down... its current direction will be in the direction you want to travel... this way the particles will hit the surface of the plane at high velocities. instead of a "fan" onboard the aircraft, it will be like there is an external fan blowing on the plane from the rear. or blowing from underneath to produce lift... depending on the electrode charging cycle being used. i'm working on some animations to show this effect. its kind of hard to explain with words only... hope to have that done soon... the Biefeld Brown effect will also be in opperation with this design.
be sure to read my entire build thread...
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=476590&pp=15

-uriah

[BMatthews]

I was more or less assuming that you would be using this effect for thrust as well. Sort of a self propelled lifting wing. I would imagine some testing will be needed to see how well it works with a passing airflow as opposed to the stationary airflow used in the testing.

Even if the radio is not located within the corona envelope it's likely that the corona will generate a lot of radio noise. If this is true then I'm afraid you're dead before you even start.

[space_case]

Agreed, this is of course fascinating technology but I believe interference will be a big problem. I'm not an RF guy, but perhaps one of the new spread spectrum radios would function where others may not.

[BMatthews]

Hard to say. COrona and arc discharges create a super wide spectrum noise of high power Spread spectrum is good but in the end it is still subject to interference of such a wide bandspread.

But then I've never tried to see if my radio works while near a Tesla coil.....

Don't get me wrong. I know my posts so far are more negative than encouraging. But in truth I find this a fascinating topic but the RF side of my training suspects strongly that it won't work on a radio controlled model. Oddly enough generating the high voltage in a relatively lightweight package is not that hard if it's of a high frequency and uses something like lightweight flyback transformer technology.

Basically you end up with an airborne Tesla coil that feeds a diode string so it's got the DC it requires.

[space_case]

I stumbled across this site (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifterb.htm) some time ago. Check out the video! Your site is coming across nicely as well, Uriah.

[uriah]

yes yes! i've read and whatched almost every thing on his site, anyone interested in advanced technologies should do the same... Jean L. Naudin (JLN Labs) is an amazing experimentalist! I've e-mail with him a few times, quite the busy person i'm guessing.
i'm working on a lifter of my own design.
to build on go here-----> http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lftbld.htm !!!

My research will advance as follows:

1) Get a "lifter" working with my current 50kV PSU (EHD)
2) Work on an ElectroHydroDynamics RC plane while learning to fly on my trainer plane
3) Test and fly the EHD RC plane and subsystems. Collect data.
4) Build and add High K dielectric wings, test and fly. Collect data.
5) Build EHD/ Electrogravitic flying saucer like on JLN's site. test and fly. Collect data.

Most of my work with the electrogravitic design will not be talked about in detail. Infact there are some things I can not even show here or on my site untill i obtain a patent. I will post vidios of the finished opperational flights. After patenting I can share more info.

my plane might actualy share the design of the X-43B.
Take a look at its design!!! :p http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/mh/dti0206/index.php?startpage=10

[uriah]

Here is a design I'm considering. Its like the X-43B, but the airfoil shape is ment for much lower speeds. If I could build two or three pulse jet engines I could obtain a very good thrust to weight ratio! I left out verticle stabilizors for a reason. I intend to integrate an EHD system after I get it flying. The thrust from the pulse jets will get the craft up to a high enough speed were they can be turned off and the ionization can be turned on.

[BMatthews]

Uriah, you're apparently relatively new to this flying hobby or you used the wrong term. The pulse jets you mentioned are incredably noisy to operate, can't be muffled, respond very poorly to attempts to throttle them and run cherry red hot in operation even with air flowing over them.

The noise is the biggest issue though. The closest thing I can think of to compare it to is a jet fighter at an airshow going by in a high speed pass with the after burner fully cut in.... and even that does not fully describe the volume when you're leaning over it to start the thing.

If you meant TURBOJETS then that's a different story. THose are not that noisey what with sounding a lot more like a Hoover on steroids.

As a guide to flying more or less normal models it may help in your design efforts if you know that you need to look at about a 50% thrust to weight ratio for more or less acceptable performance in climb and speed.

Based on the websites linked to in the previous threads I'm wondering if your X-43 is the ideal planform. First off with it's extremly low aspect ratio it will not be very efficient at typical model airspeeds. Also considering that the most thrust from the EHD comes from maximising the wire and collector lengths I would guess that making the overall wings the collector and putting a wire cathode out front of the surfaces on booms would be the preffered method of setting this up. Here again a higher aspect form would enhance the linear distance available for the ion field.

[uriah]

what are typical model speeds? 200-300 mph? three of these units could be housed in a location with lots of air flowing around them. at these high speeds this plane will get preatty hot, but i might end up using a ceramic combustion chamber for each.

i have found a ceramic for this application with the following properties:

* Is ablative (redirects heat) like tiles on re-entry space vehicles.
* Floats on water because of its light weight.
* Can be nailed, drilled and sawed with convential tools.
* I more than 3 times stronger than cement.
* does not crack or split from freezing and thawing water.
* Is very strong - high impact strength - sharp impacts do not cause
chipping or cracking.
* Very durable.
* Anti-fungal, non-toxic, non-porous.
* Excellent weatherability.
* Cost effective.

if this material can be lathed and or cut to form parts for the interior and exterior of the craft, it will greatly reduce the the overall weight. AS STRONG AS STEEL, but WEIGHS MUCH LESS! i would buy 1/4 inch thick sheets and cut all the pieces for fusalage frame and the wing struts/ ribs. those will be covered in "Bi-directional E-glass" which is applied like fiber glass, but made lightweight and strong exactly for the Aerospace industry. the REPLACEABLE control surfaces will be made of aluminum and a faraday cage will protect the electronics. as much of the weight can be gotten rid of, i'm estimating the 70 inch by 22 inch model will weight approximatly 3 lbs without any other parts. each of the two to three pulse jets will put out 3 lbs of thrust, which will all exit out of the same nozzle for 6-9 lbs of thrust.

another 1 lb for each jet engine. and another 2 for the fuel tank. so we are at 6 now, approximatly. then i'm guessing another full 2-3 lbs of electronics and various other parts. once assembaled the thrust to weight ratio must be no worse than 1:1. that weight will include the EHD/ Electrogravitics parts, which will be providing a large amount of excess thrust as this is a Hybrid design. (double the thrust effect for the same amount of energy input)
radio control problems may become a problem, as little is known in that area, tests will have to be carried out to get around any compliations.
anyway, if 2 lbs of excess thrust can be produced i will call the plane a success. so that is my goal...

as i said earlier, these are the steps in which my projects are planned to advance:

LC-90:
1) Get a "lifter" working with my current 50kV PSU (EHD)
2) Work on an ElectroHydroDynamics RC plane while learning to fly on my trainer plane
3) Test and fly the EHD RC plane and subsystems. Collect data.
4) Build and add High K dielectric wings, test and fly. Collect data.

Asymmetric Capacitor propulsion on a saucer like airframe:
5) Build EHD/ Electrogravitic flying saucer using previos data. test and fly. Collect more data.

[uriah]

Hech, i could even buy this turbine!!! if i'm gonna go all out i might as well get an engine with 18lbs of thrust!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.microjeteng.com/hf15.html

this way i could build a much more complex and heavier model, i think i'de keep the size about the same on the airframe though.

[raptor22]

no, typical model speeds are not 200-300 mph. They are more like 80. But regardless, the only time you get a big effeciency boost from lower aspect rations is transonic...more like 500+ mph.

this is a very interesting project, but you may want to spend soem more time with traditional models before you try to build a 200 mph jet. Take a look into the high performance electric forum for some transitional ideas.

--Alex

[ozzie111]

This is all very interesting. I wish you the best. I would recommend
that you get considerably more experience flying before attempting to fly something
as unorthodox as a lifting body. Or, better yet, recruit a fellow RC pilot to help test
the vehicle. I really love what you are trying to do. Don't get discouraged.

[BMatthews]

....this way i could build a much more complex and heavier model, i think i'de keep the size about the same on the airframe though.

This is where your lack of model building and flying comes in. Heavy models do not fly well. There's something we have to deal with all the time as model designers called the "scale effect". This effect shows up in various ways. One common such factor is the Reynolds number effect that provides a way to analyze how airfoils respond at typical model speeds and sizes versus the airfoils on airliners at their speeds and sizes. This is why a typical 3 foot span model requires a wing loading in the 8 to 10 oz/sq foot region while a jumbo gas engine model of around 8 or 9 foot span can get away with a wing loading of 35 to 45 oz/sq foot and full sized airliners can fly well with loadings of a80 to 100 lbs/sq foot.

There's a LOT of material to learn before you can design in your EHD drive even if you don't do the flying yourself but get a skilled modeler to do that for you. And what is the point of buying a turbojet and using that if the goal is to fly with the EHD? Either it's going to work or it's not.

[Lon Enloe]

Uriah,

There's some good--and non-sensational--information out there if you can get by a nearby university library. Take a look, for example, in the latest issue of Aerospace America, the bulletin of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). There's mention of electric discharge (plasma) thrusters, but for use at extremely high altitudes.

As poor as they are as thrusters near sea level, electric discharges are showing great promise as flow control devices. They can do amazing things like allowing airfoils to operate at twice their normal stall angle. Again, there's some good information in the AIAA Journal, one of the scholarly journals of the AIAA. Not something your local public library would have, but something the reference librarian at most any university library could direct you to.

Be aware, though, that even in the scholarly literature there's some professional disagreement about how these devices work, so read whatever you get your hands on critically.

But then, that's always a good idea! :)

Lon

[uriah]

yes!
i have heard of some of those.
they have to fly at high altitudes because if they didn't their E field would knock out power along its path.

i'm worried my e-field may be large enough @ 100kV to mess with electronics that are not protected thoroughly. so everything like that will need a faraday cage over it. also the body of the plane will need to confine the e-field as well. better. radio control may even become impossible! who knows. laser signals could control the craft, but then expensive tracking units needs to be bough to keep the laser locked on the recieving solar cell on the craft. the solar cells "produce electricity" in the form of the sent pulses of laser light.
you can hook up such a device by connecting a lasers energy source to a audio output... the audio pulses are turned into laser pulses, which can be recieved by a solar cell and converted back to audio. i'm sure with a good enough laser tracker this method of control could be possible. with a contraint in which a device would turn off all power onboard the craft and disscharge the capacitors in the event of a laser transmitter failing. that way if the signal is broken off the craft doesn't go flying away into space etc... etc.. etc.

[uriah]

Uriah, i say forget what the others are saying.....if you want to try to build this, go for it. I dont see any harm in trying.

I'm sure when the Wright brothers started work on their little project, they got grilled too...glad they didnt give up imo..

Who knows, may be this kid will stumble across soemthing big.

But soem advice, dont make it fly...keep it bench mounted, you'll be better off as you can monitor its parameters adn vitals much easier...tuning will be easier, weight wont matter, and you cant crash and break it.

ash

in reply;

Ya ash!!! But I need to build skills before I can do anything. A lot of what people are saying is true. I have little to no experiance with the airplane design and fabrication. That's why I have to do this in stages.

EDF, (flying propulsion tests...)

Pulse Jet, (flying propulsion tests...)

Turbine, (flying propulsion tests...)

Hydrostatics
(electric methods for air flow control to reduce turbulence),

Aerodynamic R&D,
TESTING: Fluid Flow Vishualization "Fluid & Ink method in a "Water Tunnel".
Aerodynamic R&D, (flying Turbine propelled testing w/ turbulance reduced...)

EHD to produce areas of higher preasure on saucer surface or airplane wings, and not interfear with the air flow over the wing.

Electrogravitics, Solid Dielectric Ceramic High Potential "Capacitorized" wings! :)

Integrated Plane Design:
Electrogravitic/ EHD LC-90 - LFSC; Liquid (H2) Fuelled Scram Jet for Hypersonic flight testing and demonstration of large amounts excess electric thrust.

[J.L. Frusha]

Basically, you might try having copper rod with a sharpened end and a copper ball threaded on the head.

Center this in a duct, with a circullar electrode at the exhaust nozzle.

For lighter power, try frequency generation (AC), through a diode/capacitor voltage multiplier.

Main probs. are insulation, 'throttling', R.F. interference and efficiency.

If NASA can do it, why not someone else?

If I remember My basic electricity, from some 25 yrs ago, Negative flows to Positive. Think of an arrow (primitive flint type), point(-) leads, fletching(+) follows. Or, Negative 'out,' Positive 'in.'

As for other forms of jet-power, have you considered the Gluhareff Pressure-jet? Static thrust is low, but uses ram-air to increase output, with increased speed... Fuel? Liquified Propane. Exhaust temps? Can hold your hand in the flow, about 4 ft away...

[bigrockcrasher]

hello I am new to the R/C world. I have been reading some of this disscusion not all of it. I am a physics major. and I have a sugestion. what happens if you put magnets near the ion engine so that the b field is orthogonal to the motion of the ions. this would increase thrust I think

[uriah]

YOU GUYS ARE REALLY STARTING TO GET IT!!! :)

bigrockcrasher, what you speak of is MHD correct? Magneto Hydro Dynamics...

what would be the magnet array for propelling the electrons aft of the aircraft? i don't think it would work with the setup i am currently considering. because the electron flow is in many directions. i would have to set it up so that there was a negative plate and a positive plate perallel to each other, the electron flow would then be only in one direction. magnets would then be placed on either side of this setup with poles facing in the same direction. i will look into this more, as i have considered it, but never integrated it into my design. as you are a physics major, help in this area would be nice! :p

J.L. Frusha, yes that is what i'm thinking, your just about one the dot too!

by the way, how did the both of you find this thread? as you each have 3 posts on this forum it does not appear you're regulars...

Anyway, attached is the design of the wind tunnel i'm building for a "show and tell" demonstration at an upcoming RC event in Washougal WA hosted by Fern Prairie Modelers, May 6th-7th. contact Jerry Holcomb for more info if your in the area... jholcomb@pacifier.com

[bigrockcrasher]

you are right my idea will not work.
how are you going to get enough voltage with out making it to heavy. the sattilite is space anly make about 0.03N of force and that is not much.

[uriah]

that is "classified" till i get a patent or patent pending. i'm sorry, but you gotta understand i'm going in that direction and some design features can't be reveild yet. but don't worry, i plan on selling (fairly safe) EHD RC planes to fund my research. i say "fairly safe" because the voltages required are going to produce gamma rays, and on the UAV version most of those can be effectivly shielded before they leave the ionization chamber. these planes would be high elevation UAVs. powered by highly preasurized gas untill such time as the EHD can be turned on. tests must be done so that no danger is possible to life.
the wind tunnel test section i'm building consists of quarter inch plexi-glass. no one is allowed to be in the direction of the air entrance/exit flows. the case will effectivly shield nearly all the rays projected from the HV device in the direction of the viewers. but, i will conduct tests before i expose others to potentialy dangerous energy. just to be sure.
anyway, a camera could be placed to view inside at some very spacific angles. i have a Samsung digital camera, but i do not think its frame rate is high enough for the quality i need.
i'll probably be able to bring all of the following to the Fern Peraire Modelers RC event:

1) X-43B type "EHD/ Beifeld-Brown plane" (50-100kV)
2) EHD Thrustor, (seperate to plane) with an entrance cone (larger diameter end towards the air flow, catching more air) to "ram" air through the ionization chamber.
3) HIGH SPEED (!!!) Wind tunnel with flow vishualization and lift/drag balences. for testing EHD/ ElectroAeroDynamics (EAD) or better known as turbulence/drag reduction!
4) A small TV of mine with pre-recorded Vishualization tests...

Here are a few screen shots from Gmax... :) a free downloadable, easy to use 3D modeling program comparable with 3dMax but made for game designers to use for free. its only a 19megabyte download from Turbosquid.com

Enjoy! ;)

-Uriah

[wjbite]

It is my opinion that ion propulsion is veeeeerrrrrryyyyyyy low thrust.
Only appropriate where you have years to accelerlate - like on a long space trip.
I am too impatient for that system - I like things that are faster - like grass growing :)

[Lon Enloe]

There are probably as many ways of generating thrust with electric and magnetic fields as there are ways of orienting these fields. There was an article in Scientific American a few years back that was a pretty reasonable review of these approaches. It's probably worth a trip to the library to check this out, especially since this is some of the best information on the subject that's likely to be found in a public library.

A more serious reference that I've found useful, which is fairly readable for a textbook, is Physics of Electric Propulsion by Robert G. Jahn. It covers the waterfront of the various approaches to generating electric thrust. It's been out of print for a while, but interestingly enough, amazon.com is pre-selling a new paperback edition for $12.95. That's a good deal, because used hardcopy editions are going for $195. You may also be able to find this on a college library's shelves.

Electric propulsion research was going great guns in the 1960's, fell out of favor for about 30 years, and has recently (say, within the last decade) had a renaissance in the space business. (Maybe this is why Jahn's book is being re-published.) Notice that it's been the space community, not the aeronautics community, that has been driving these efforts. As wjbite points out, these technologies are much more suitable for space applications that for in-atmosphere use.

What I'm saying is that there have been a lot of reputable scientists and engineers who have spent lots of time, and government and corporate bodies that have spent lots of money, on this topic over the years. Their results appear in textbooks and in the scientific literature, not on Web sites. Thinking outside the box is an activity to be encouraged, not discouraged, but along with that goes knowing where the edges of the box are in the first place.

[uriah]

I FINALY GOT MY NEW POWER SUPPLY!!! here are some pictures of it below... :D

SPECIFICATIONS:

54 watts max...
weight: (Without black boxes) 128 grams
input: 12-Volts @ 4.5 Amps max
output: 50kV max

[uriah]

I'm working on a design for the X-43B airframe... it so far consists of ribs and a platform they are attached to, to form the top and bottem curves of the main airfoil. the wings will slide into slots (were some of the platform is missing between the ribs), and fastened to the ribs. the canards will rotate (manualy) to test for different turning manouvers such as; rolls, dives, climbs, etc...

I will be using copper foil as the negative (e-) electrode... and a copper rod, sharpend on one side, for the leading positive (p+ collector) edge.

Here are a few pictures of the airframe design for my first X-43B model. Using Gmax as always... I had nothing to go by, as the X-43"B" is the newest of new Hyper sonic scram-jet planes. all thats left to model now are the airfoil ribs... :)

[uriah]

I just got an e-mail from a company called Century Aviation... they invited me to tour their facility, and want to help me with the construction of the X-43B (18" WING SPAN)!!! :p

i'll post some pictures of the model ASAP...

UNG

P.S. below is a picture i thought you guys might like of the flying saucer i plan on building... with a futuristic fighter w/ suit and helmet i'm designing...

[uriah]

Below is the final version of my wind tunnel design... on the real tunnel lots of bracing will be used around the inlet bell, plexiglass test section, and diffuser.

:) Construction begins tommarow!

Should be done by early May... hopefully in time for the RC (May 6th-7th) event i want to demonstrate it at.

[BMatthews]

It's been quite a while since I did up my own reading about wind tunnels but I recall that there was some information that said the model needs to be at some distance from the sides to avoid disturbances at the tips and "ground effects" due to proximity of the walls and such. I'd suggest that this means that the floor and cieling needs to be two wing chords away from the model at a minimum and that the tips should be a 1/4 span from the walls. As such your model as shown in these nicely done drawings is probably two times bigger than it should be for accurate measurements of any sort. There's a few folks around here that have done wind tunnel work at their jobs. Hopefullly someone will post up with the proper spacing requirements.

I also suspect that you may need a longer straight portion between the test area and the front reducer with a second flow straightener in it. Some other low speed tricks are using a fine mesh just at the end of the last straightener to break up an final turbulent vortices into micro vortices that damp out easier . Something like fly screen.

[uriah]

so i should build my model w/ a 10" wing span...?

the Contraction Cone has what is called a cubic curve... i didn't take the time to calculate such a curve for my 3d model...

yes there are two screen sections behind the honeycomb grid in the section called the "Settling Chamber"...

"As the air passes through the screens, the resulting drop in pressure across the screen creates constant air speed in the tunnel. The two screens will be approximately 6" apart from each other and will be placed 6" behind the honeycomb. All three of the flow straighteners will be removable for easy cleaning and maintenance."

Wandering Wind Tunnel (http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/WindTunnel/wandering_windtunnel.htm)

i got a fan today!!! its a 6 blade and 26" in diameter... i'll post a pic later...

[BMatthews]

OK, if you did the research and got all the straightening and settling down pat then good on ya!

That size of model to test cross section looks a lot better. But here agian it's been years since I did my reading of only a few tech books on wind tunnel design. But the wall effects were a big part of the tunnel design considerations so the materiel should be available.

Looks like your grass is going to need cutting soon too.... :D

If you can find a copy of Michel Selig's Soartech 8 report there's a highly detailed chapter on the tunnel calibrating and instrumentation. It really emphasized how important sensitive measuring techniques are to work at our typical model reynolds numbers. I got the impression that making the tunnel is just the thin edge of the wedge. But in for a penny, in for a pound eh?

[uriah]

For my first tests I will be using a "Smoke Rake" like in the picture below... just for flow visualization and such... Then I'll find some strain guages and rigg myself a measurment sting... I'm guessing that will cost around $200-300.

I'm preatty sure I can make a "Smoke Rake" by injecting smoke into a tube with the other end sealled off... have like 30-40 pin holes along the trailling edge of the tube (or should it be the leading edge?) ... suggestions???

I can also use lasers to show smoke density of a flat "slice" of the test section.

What do you think about the fan I found...? It is steel and needs some cleening up... rust, dirt, bent edges, etc... but I think it will work really good... I'll add cones to the front and back of the fan like they do in real wind tunnels for higher air velocity...

I'll try and find that book too... ;)

[BMatthews]

I'd give the blade a try but in the end you may find that you get better performance from something custom made that uses 6 half blades from some of the larger model engines. I suspect that with the better airfoils of the model prop blades there will be less drag so it'll take less power to make the same airspeed. Or alternately more airspeed from the same power.

What motor are you planning on? FOr simplicity I'd suggest a heavy duty router motor with a belt or gear reduction. Being a brushed type universal motor you can use a high wattage lamp dimmer as a cheap speed control. At least for the first part of the work.

[uriah]

were can i get a fan such as you are talking about?

[BMatthews]

http://www.zingerpropeller.com/Products.htm

Check out under Products>3 and 4 blade props and Products>replacement blades.

You can see from the 4 blade background picture that it would not be that hard to make up a hub from sheet aluminium and spacers to accept a 6 or even 8 blade prop. But a 5 or 7 may be even better. I think there was something about 3 and 5 blade cieling fans that seem to resist harmonics better.

Also APC props at www.apcprop.com sells a component hub and separate large blades. Same deal where you'd want to buy the blades and make your own hub to support the 5, 6 or 7 blade fan instead of the 3 or 4 blade options they offer.

I'm guessing here that the more blades the better in that it would tend to pull more of a solid column of air instead of more of a vortex... (?)

Because you would be using the fan in a duct I suspect some efficiency would be gained by trimming the tips to provide a close fit to the diameter of the duct. Something like 1/32 inch or so. If it gets much larger than you loose the extra efficiency of the wall effect. Look at axial compressors. The end gaps are very small I'd imagine. The smaller the better unless it scuffs... :D

[uriah]

yeah! i can just use a fixed sanding block and spinn the fan to do that!!!

[BMatthews]

yeah! i can just use a fixed sanding block and spinn the fan to do that!!!

Very carefully and with a light touch..... :D

[uriah]

Last thing on the list... the honeycomb grid!

Well,
I could buy a very expensive Aluminum Hexagonal “Honeycomb” grid… but my budget is low and I need money for other things…

It needs to be strong and inexpensive to make, any suggestions….???

I was thinking of “tack welding” together a bunch of 1 inch long Aluminum tubes… Attached is an image of how this would be done…

[reinking]

[QUOTE=uriah]Last thing on the list... the honeycomb grid!

...It needs to be strong and inexpensive to make, any suggestions….???]

Plastic pipe assembled with epoxy?


Rink Reinking

[uriah]

PVC pipe is very strong... why didn't I think of that...? :rolleyes:
Epoxy is an adhesive glue... I would want to use a cohesive glue in order to "weld" the tubes to each other, increasing the strength.

remember, straws of hay have been known to penetrate trees during a tornado... this grid can't break or the results would be disastrous or even lethal...

[reinking]

[I would want to use a cohesive glue in order to "weld" the tubes to each other, increasing the strength.]

If you wish to use PVC then I suggest PVC primer and cement.

How thick is your diffuser (i.e., how long are the tubes)? As a test, glue seven tubes together, support the outer six the try to push the center tube out.

Or, model the frontal area and (lengthwise) drag for the expected wind speed, and calculate the force.

Rink Reinking

[HoverBovver]

why not use plumbers ABS waste pipes and solvent weld paste.

[uriah]

great ideas guys!!! :)

keep em' coming... :rolleyes:

[BMatthews]

As I understand the honeycomb bit the material needs to be very thin so the edges do not introduce additional turbulence more than can be avoided.

So I'd suggest aluminium roof flashing cut in strips and then bent to a zig zag pattern like....

_/-\_/-\_/-\_

but with the -'s up at the top. Then flip every other one and glue the whole mess together so they form a honeycomb pattern. Even the glued areas will be less than 1/32 thick this way and you get a pure honeycomb. Making it up from tubes will leave the tight little areas that they intersect and you'll get a lot of turbulence and flow blockage from those that will not mix well coming out the other side.

Some flat sticks of wood either side of the glued surfaces and clamped can be used as clamps. Or use contact cement and just be careful to line it up well.

[uriah]

GREAT IDEA!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p
THATS WHAT I'LL DO!

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

Do you have MSN or Yahoo! messenger??? PM ME ABOUT THAT...

[HELModels]

I dont know how fine a mesh you need, but what about tearing open a catalytic converter or 2 or 3 from a junk yard. The ceramic material has a mesh of 1 mm open squares with very thin walls between them.

[BMatthews]

You're welcome... :D

While I still have lots of misgivings about the little double delta design for typical model speeds I can see that you're having a lot of fun with this whole area. I have to keep telling myself that hobbies come in all shapes and sizes and that they are all valuable to the folks that practice them. If nothing else you're going to end up with a helluva nice wind tunnel if this all comes together.

[BMatthews]

I dont know how fine a mesh you need, but what about tearing open a catalytic converter or 2 or 3 from a junk yard. The ceramic material has a mesh of 1 mm open squares with very thin walls between them.

That's actuallly a sweet idea but the sections are quite small compared to what uriah needs. He'd need about 20 to 30 mufflers worth at least of cat sections and then have to carve them up to fit each other. But it would be nice as the small size of the hex pattern would form the flow straightener as well as the turbulence screen quite possibly.

But it would be a messy bit of work to get enough of them and carve 'em up and then join all the bits together.

[mharms]

Uriah,

For the flow straightener: How about soda straws -- or those larger diameter straws used for the tapioca "Pearl" drinks. Trick would be how to cut them all to a uniform length. Maybe hot wire them? Then you could spray/coat the sides of the cut straws with an adhesive and put them in some sort of frame to line them all up while the adhesive cures.

Given the large area at entrance of the tunnel, and the fact that the straws would only be an inch or two long long, I would think they would be strong enough to handle the air flow. I guess you could use screen material on the front and back of the straws to help hold them in place.

Also, I've seen "egg-crate" light diffuser panels (used for fluorescent lighting) suggested as flow straghteners. Two panels glued on top of each other would give around an inch of cell length. Any discontinuity at the glue joint might cause flow turbulence though.

A while back, I secured a zillion plastic soda straws at the local dollar store's going-out-of-business sale (reeeeeeeal cheap!). If I can figure out how to cut them all to 1 inch lengths, maybe I'll build that prop-testing (benchtop size) wind tunnel I have been wanting to build.

Good luck with your project.

Mark

[uriah]

Originally sent to me by BMatthews
If you're going ahead with the wind tunnel a large part of it will be dealing with our model specific speeds and sizes. As I said in another post Micheal Selig of the airfoil fame wrote up a bit on how he set up his instrumentation for low speed work. I'll see if I can scan or photocopy that part and get back to you. It basically set down that the tunnel turbulence was critical to being set low enough if the results were to be valid at "our" speeds.

And it's been a while but I seem to remember that the honeycomb needs to be a good 2 to 3 times longer than the cell width is. With that in mind I woudl suggest that you're looking at a hex cell pattern of perhaps 1/2 to 3/4 wide by 1.5 to 3 inches long.

That would be helpfull! as this tunnel will eventualy be used to design the "perfect" EHD craft.
for now i'm not gonna worry about getting the thing working... w/ flow visualization that is, using a "smoke rake"... later a very complicated Sting will have to be made, with accurate sensors for drag and lift.
but please, scan and send that!!! the more info i have to start with, the better!!! :)

i've talked with a retired guy who worked in the Boeing wind tunnels. he gave me a lot of great advice for flow visualization methods using florecent oils. he also lent me a small booklet describing the Edmund T. Allen Memorial Labs... which has been a great help!

something interesting i noted from that booklet...

"The sting carries instrumentation cables for control of the model components and for readout of data on pressure and forces. Data is taken from strain gage balences inside the model. A 300 psi air supply is available to be used as a simulated jet thrust or for boundary layer control systems."

Why are the gages inside the model???

also... I should have no problem running engines (EHD Thrustor) inside the wind tunnel... right? :confused:

[uriah]

mharms, i talked to some people about the straw idea... as that is what they used in the Wandering Windtunnel... i could do it... the major benifit would be that is reduces the amount of metal used in the wind tunnels construction. when i test my EHD propulsion there are going to be voltages up to 100kV inside the test section... I DO NOT WANT THIS CHARGE TO JUMP AROUND OR "STICK" TO METAL LIKE A FARADAY CAGE!!!
I'll ponder all this during the next couple weeks... but i really need to talk to a certain NASA scientist who has been ignoring me... (for some reason)... and is and expert in the High Voltage area... :(

[uriah]

I found an interesting pdf document called "Boundary Layer Flow Control With a One Atmosphere Uniform Glow Discharge Surface Plasma"...

EHD... by AIAA??? :eek:

I found it by searching for EHD, MHD and other related terms on the following site...

http://library-dspace.larc.nasa.gov/dspace/jsp/simple-search?query

there is lots more that i probably havn't found yet... and its all from NASA, AIAA, etc...

believe me now??? ;)

also... attached are some pictures from NASA of the X-43D... take a look at the frame they use... and compare it to the one i designed for the X-43B... quite similar... ay? :o

[BMatthews]

When they call them gages they don't mean the things with needles that you read the numbers from. The strain gages they are reffering to are the actual sensors that alter their electrical current when bent or pressured or otherwise distorted in the manner intended. This change in resistance is then communicated to readout guages in the instrumentation panel.

Some are in the model itself to measure how the airflow is "deforming" the model and others can be in the probe itself to measure lift, drag or yaw as required.

[uriah]

When they call them gages they don't mean the things with needles that you read the numbers from

i know they wern't that kind... lol ;)

it makes sense now... and is what i asumed... i just couldn't figure out why the gages would be inside the model and not inside the sting... but you have explained that...

were can i get some???

[uriah]

Check the attachment out!!! ;)

[Accu157]

Have you built much of anything more yet? I want to see something, just "something" if at all possible. I'm pretty sure that something can be accomplished with this type of propulsion (Ion wind stuff), but, not to a very high degree just yet, if ever. I looked at the graphs in the acrobat document you found... it seems the plasma increased the drag on the airframe, so, it must have been for something other than efficiency. Just one tip, try to avoid being too artistic about the aircraft design. You'd be surprised how visually unimpressive some bleeding-edge physics research experiments are, yet they get really significant data. :)

[uriah]

I have build an EAD wing and a plane and a saucer using the same effect... all to be tested in the wind tunnel i'm working on... so far i've only finished the test section made of a wooden frame and 1/4th inch plexi glass... but design is 95% of the process... i'll take some pics of my models ASAP... just need to get some new AA batteries...

as to the chart.. i don't know which one you looked at.. but look at the one below... ;)

as to the other graphs... look closer... the one i've posted was done in still air... the other were done with increasing air velocity... drag should go up with air velocity... but it doesn't, it seams to level out a bit...

also... they are using relatively low voltages and frequency... i'll be using 50-100kV @ 50-70Hz... they only go up to like 6kV at the highest with 3Hz as the highest frequency...

take a look at jean l. naudin's experiments with Glow Discharge Plasma
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/plasma/index.htm

infact... read every word under the following page...
http://jnaudin.free.fr/advpmnu.htm

[HoverBovver]

At least my saucer actually flys (http://media.putfile.com/RCHoverDisc-tail-view)

[uriah]

not impressed...
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/gfsuav/index.htm

[BMatthews]

Actually I'm quite impressed with the Coanda saucer. It appears to be decently controllable and fairly stable in moderate winds. Some stability augmentation to make the platform more stable for camera work and it would be a winner.

The only other parameter of intrest is the watts per pound required to fly it.

[uriah]

i'm telling ya, this jean naudin guy has got some sweet stuff... ;)

[Pook]

Uriah,

Have you built or flown anything yet ?

You seem to have been talking about these exotic propulsion methods for the best part of a year and yet not a single photo or video of anything of note.

hmm,

Piers

[uriah]

i'd like to see you try................? no? hmm... well i'm nearly done with my wind tunnel (pics soon)... and i'm working on the testing model of the x-43...

design is everything... anyone can build a model... :cool:

[HoverBovver]

...and note that his coanda saucer uses bland ordinary prop/motor and aerodynamics to fly rather than any magneto-anti-gravity-space-time-warping technique.

[Stef]

I have been working on "Flying Saucers" for several years with varying amounts of success. I have investigated and built a "coanda saucer' and can tell you that you need a thrust to weight ratio of at least 1:1.1 for acceptable performance just like any other vtol craft.

[BMatthews]

I have been working on "Flying Saucers" for several years with varying amounts of success. I have investigated and built a "coanda saucer' and can tell you that you need a thrust to weight ratio of at least 1:1.1 for acceptable performance just like any other vtol craft.

But did you find that the Coanda effect allowed you to develop the same thrust with less power from the motor? Obviously for a VTOL style of flying the thrust must be more than the weight but it's how much thrust per watt of input power I was wondering about.

[Stef]

The "coanda effect" contrary to propaganda DOES NOT PRODUCE ANY LIFT all it does is bend the airflow around the crafts body. There are actualy loses atributed to the flow around the body. You are better from the stand point of power with a regular ducted prop blowing downward. If you put your motor/prop/battery combo on a test stand and measure static thrust if you don't get a value greater than the crafts total weight then it will not fly.

[Pook]

To the same extent anyone can do a little 3d graphics - this is all we have seen from you. There seems to be no actual progression.

Piers

[BMatthews]

Easy guys! Obviously Uriah is more into the research side of all this than the actual flying. But it's HIS hobby. Let him enjoy it in the manner he wants. And let's not foget that many of the ideas discussed here by lots of folks never see the light of day either.


And who knows, one day he may be providing us with wind tunnel data to make some of our models fly better.

I've noted before in this thread that I personally have a lot of doubts about the directions he's going in but it's variety that makes this hobby so interesting.

[allanflowers]

Much of the fascination with the Coanda effect stems from a series of aero tests done at Illinois Institute of Technology (my alma mater, by the way) back in or around the 1950’s, in which the author of the tests made claims about the high efficiencies he measured on Coanda bodies. I have read a detailed article on that test and found his aero procedures were highly suspect and apparently very unscientific. The “great” efficiencies were achieved by means of a shroud form which was used around the body being drag tested. The shroud form was apparently not attached to the form so any drag that it experienced was not measured. In other words, the test was completely bogus and did not reflect any scientific reality.
The fact is the Coanda effect when applied to flying vehicles is an appealing pipedream that has been misleading naïve folks for generations. One of these bright but gullible folks was the one who proudly showed me the IIT test report in the first place.
The whole essence of this lengthy “discussion” is the same thing – science fiction, not valid engineering or real science. I think it is negative to any serious discussion and I have to disagree with BMatthews on its value. The reason that the originator of this thread has produced no actual results, and will never – is because this is a juvenile search for some mythical holy grail.
Building a wind tunnel, should it ever actually come to pass, will bear no fruit if the person doing so has no clue about setting up and evaluating a valid aero experiment. I’m sure that they would simply make even greater mistakes than that in the IIT tests.
All in all it is worse than a waste of time and bandwidth.
Allan

[uriah]

listen, if research into these areas isn't even disscussed, will it ever come to light? No...

about the coanda effect... you don't understand the way it will be used. no aerodynamics involved the arrangment of certain aspects of the propulsion system fit, and that is why it will work.

a OAUGDP panel (One Atmousphere Uniform Discharge Plasma) will be the aspect in which the desgn fits... not to mention drag reduction over a bending surface will produce a near vacume on the upper surface of the saucer. maybe there will be trouble getting manouvering down, but i'm sure some magnets will take care of that. its like a wing using hydrostatic preasure to lift instead of motion through a fluid...

still like... :mad: :confused: ?

well i don't see why you are griping in the first place, you obviously havn't read much of what i'm doing...

waste of bandwidth...

[Stef]

You cannot creat a vacuum above a lifting surface no matter what you do to it, our atmosphere will fill it in no matter how fast you remove it or blow it away. The coanda effect is well understood you will come to understand it well also. I hope to see some positive results from your work. I also expect you to report negative results.

[uriah]

you have no clue what you are talking about.

[Stef]

How do you like your crow?

Mark my words you will be eating a large portion quite soon. I 'll bet you don't have the stones to admit when it happens!

[Lewist]

Uriah

I wish you the best of luck with your project, and i think that there are some interesting concepts... but give us something other than talk.

Get something together that shows some of your ideas actually working.

[uriah]

crow... medium rare... but they only serve that in Midle River.

i'm aiming towards getting some tests done with in a months time. power supply is the only problem still...

[xterarc]

I spend ~4000$ a month as a training scientist for reagents and still my results are not that good really
Theoretically speaking it is possible that strong electromagnetic fields could interact with gravity fields
Obviously if I am spending that much for bad results I can only guess what physicists in CERN spend monthly, but I am afraid that their budget is many figures bigger
Don't worry, relax, NASA and other scientists re-descovered from old books that "NEW" propulsion possibilities, but my other wild guess is that we won't anything flying for the next 40 years :D
Still I like talking with friends about the possibility the universe we see and its boundaries are just the event of horizon of a black hole, where our universe just lies, and yet I don't expect to claim the Nobel prize for that even if true ( no offence to people that had the same idea :D )
Blue skyes uriah!!!

[HoverBovver]

I like the theory that gravity is just atomic level expansion. Everything is expanding but we don't see it because everything around us is expanding at the same rate including the atoms in our bodies. But when you get enough atoms grouped together...ie. a planet...the expansion produces an acceleration effect which is gravity. Therefore like Einsteins space elevator gravity IS just acceleration and nothing to do with electromagnetic fields. When things appear to get attracted to large objects the large objects surface is actually just accelerating towards the smaller object. Newtons apple didn't fall out of the tree...the apple stayed still and the ground caught up to it. Heheh.
'Course this means that there is no chance of finding the Higgs-Boson and no chance of electromagnetic antigravity drive and no chance of this thread ever going anywhere.

[Tom Harper]

uriah,

Don't stand too close to that power supply!

[downunder]

Therefore like Einsteins space elevator gravity IS just acceleration and nothing to do with electromagnetic fields.
Actually Einstein was just showing that acceleration (in that elevator) was only the equivalent to gravity, not the same. His point was that if you were in an elevator accelerating at 9.8 m/sec/sec then you couldn't tell the difference between it and being in a closed room at the surface of the Earth. But it's only a loose equivalent and not exact because a gravitational field has a tidal effect (your feet feel more gravitational acceleration than your head) whereas an elevator has no tidal effect.

[HoverBovver]

The point is you can't tell the difference between acceleration and gravity because perhaps it is the same thing. Maybe Newton was mistaken. I dunno...its not my idea...I know nothing about physics....someone wrote a book which was actually a fun read considering....turned physics on its head....no gravity, no electromagnetic forces etc etc. It suggested every force we experience can be explained by a simple mechanical process of expanding atoms. But I usually get shouted down by science boffins when ever I mention it so feel free.
Don't worry I've already referred myself to this (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5475951&postcount=76) post.
Anyway...it screws up Uriah and his electromagnetic flying photon decombobulator big time :D

[uriah]

first of all, i would like to point out to any moderators who may read the recent posts... this thread (my research) is stalled at the moment. so we are not going off topic, and i would like to keep this thread open for a very long time...

hey, at least people are being respectfull and intelligent... :)

about gravity. i think it is electromagnetic in nature. you may want to take a look at the Vedic way of knowledge has to say on the subject.

gravity is not an acceleration of perspective force. it is like every atom is a small black hole, constantly sucking a certain kind of energy into it. all objects in a gravitational field fall into it with KENETIC energy.

lets say you have two perfect lead spheres on a compleatly level surface. there is Earth's gravity effecting both the balls to stay on the table, and there is also that very weak gravity link between the two balls. depending on the mass of the balls they may or may not have enough gravity between them to roll together.

as i see it there is some kind of energy exchange going on between these two balls. they are both KENETICALY effecting one another using some kind of energy and are neither getting larger nor smaller in mass or nuclear energy capacity.

now you have two lead balls in the same situation but one is much smaller then the other. excluding earth's gravity what would be going on between them?

the larger would effect the smaller with more gravitational force, and would have more inertia making it impossible for the smaller one to budge it. there is still an energy transfer between them but the smaller one gains some kenetic energy and will roll towards the bigger one given that the distance between is close enough. the larger one just GAVE the smaller energy. there is no question about it, gravity is a force which GIVES matter energy. the weak and strong force are most likey just gravity and given a close enough distance have enough force to keep opppsingly charged protons together.

is this zero point energy or so called Aether at work? OR what if it is a transfer of quarks or smaller pieces of matter? who knows...

what about the fact that when any material spun fast enough between two masses will partialy and under the right circumstances totaly cut the gravity connection between the two masses...?

POKLINDOV ;)

take a look at this page of my site...
http://www.butseriouslynow.com/fused/secrets2flight/?page=rndde

i'll get more in depth on the subject once i have some spare time. right now i'm just working on re-abilitating my arm which i recently cut to the bone on a snowboard... :D

peace...

-Uriah N. George

[uriah]

First draft version of what I think about gravity and defeating it...

I was guessing Electrogravitics has nothing to do with gravity and everything to do with internal thrust created by electric fields within the dielectric matter. Air, as used as the dielectric in a lifter, is a fluid, this is Electrohydrodynamics and although very similar to Electrogravitics in electrode arrangement, it generates its thrust in a completely different manner, more like a jet. When you have a solid dielectric there are no ion winds and the thrust is within the dielectric. The only truly realistic educated guess I can make is based off the effect of the electric field of this electrode arrangement on the electrons within the dielectric, which in the charged dielectric of an asymmetrical solid dielectric capacitor are warped towards the side of the positive electrode. This effect happens because the large negative field repels all the electrons to a warped state on the other side of the nucleus. These electrons are also under the force of attraction to the small positive electrode. Based on Thomas Townsend Brown’s work, the higher the density of the dielectric the higher the thrust will be. Based off this information I had another idea, which could lead to the conclusion that this does in fact effect gravity.
I have this theory about atoms and gravity. An atom has mass (the nucleus (p+)) in the middle of an electron shell of no mass but the same charge (an electron (e-) is approximately 1/2000 the mass of a proton). An atom produces a miniscule amount of gravity, but in a hyper-sphere sort of way (which is like a 4-th dimensional hyper-cube) where the atom never ends it just specifically exists on this one point. Ever heard the Quantum Mechanical saying that an electron only exists around an atom 90% of the time, the other 10% its location is unknown? This is why in chemistry the electron shell is called a probability sphere.
Let’s say that you have a circle of atoms around an atom in the center, in this case the center atom will effect all the others with an equal gravitational force. What if the center atom’s electron shell is warped to one side as I’ve been discussing, would it only effect the gravity in that direction and create this phenomenon many have observed? These are questions I have scratched my head over for countless hours. If I am right it makes so much sense that the density (mass per unit of volume) would effect the internal thrust generated. The higher weight and atomic numbers of the elements within the dielectric, the more gravity by weight of mass you have to potentially pull you through space. It would go to say that the heavier your craft, the more powerful it would be. This would surely flip upside down the way we travel. These ships could be massive and run off of environmentally clean electricity to propel us around the globe and to other galaxies.
Under my theory, Einstein’s gravity theory might even still hold true. I know science probably went on the wrong path with Newton and Einstein, but the conclusions of chemistry should still be mostly correct.

still don't know what gravity actualy is, but i'm hoping to find out some day...

[allanflowers]

The universe has an ether that is soliton based, like knots in a string. One can slide the knot along the string and, indeed the string has no friction so this sliding appears to be actual movement, rather than a wave phenomenon. Such is the nature of mass and matter AND movement itself. Of course the strings may have an absolute cosmic limit as to how much they can be distorted and stretched. When this limit is approached (it can't actually be reached within the confines of 4D spacetime) then distortions (frictional-like?) start to emerge. This results in inaccuracies (and even misssspellings) and tends to cause replication flaws and anomalies (see the pivotal work done by Dr. Sol Ton, U. of Nepal).
When one considers the practical ramifications of this true order, it is clear that all objects (living especially) have a "rest" state, established at their origination/birth/conception. As time goes on, the field lines (soliton strings) will get wrapped and knotted, starting the emergence of the above mentioned distortions. Any rotational movement will build up eventually and create the distortion issues. To an extent, the distortions can be undone by RE-rotation, to undo the twisting and knotting.
In practical terms, if you go through a day and CHART the movements your body experiences, you will find that the rotations build up in one direction or another, say 40 R's clockwise ( I am disregarding the rotation and movement of the earth through spacetime to simplify the example… although this movement is obviously an important factor in the knotting of the ether/soliton strings). So.. if you then RE-rotate 40 R's COUNTERCLOCKWISE, you will be unknotting your essence of soliton strings - and avoid AGING, which is the ultimate result of the knotting errors. This has real practical applications for mankind, and can probably explain why some people live much longer than others.
On the other hand, maybe this whole argument is just an obsessive/compulsive ranting and belongs over in the nutcase site in the "I am the next _______ (fill in your favorite >>. DaVinci, Einstein, Newton, Hubbard, Jesus, Elvis, etc)" thread. The advantage of moving the discussion over "there", is that one can easily surf through other key topics such as the proper pronunciation of those difficult Klingon proper nouns (fascinating) - or which Ork is the most powerful, and which is the best against which ArcDemon - since these topics will surely be found in the same place. Not that I have anything against adolescent acne sufferers, just because this where they are prevalent.

[Neil Walker]

Nobel Prize committee on standby.

[uriah]

i was actualy thinking the opposite, moving faster through space time will sustain life longer...

in theory if you travel at the speed of light to another star system and back to Earth you will be much younger... as the time in your space craft will be emensly slowed down and the universe around you will age quicker in comparison to you. basicaly you will be time traveling into the future... :)

p.s. i should be showing everyone some levitation vids soon...

[allanflowers]

"…. i recently cut to the bone on a snowboard..."
maybe there was also a … head injury?

- which might explain the naïve misinterpretation of relativity theory…
Either that or you just need to seriously RE-rotate, my friend (check out Prof. I. M. Kidd Ngh's treatis "Whirling Dervishes: Amazing health and longevity?" on Psychhic Psychience World > http://www.psychchicpsychience.com <
Try it! 
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/allanflowers/dervis4.jpg

[HoverBovver]

"I am the next _______"

Let me help you....

David Icke.

[raptor22]

i was actualy thinking the opposite, moving faster through space time will sustain life longer...

in theory if you travel at the speed of light to another star system and back to Earth you will be much younger... as the time in your space craft will be emensly slowed down and the universe around you will age quicker in comparison to you. basicaly you will be time traveling into the future... :)

Uhh...no. It is the exact opposite. As you approach the speed of light, two things happen: time slows in relation to you (everyhting seems to happen at a slower speed), and your mass increases exponentially. Mass si infinite at the speed of light. This is why einstein hypothesised that you could not travel faster than the speed of light; as you approach it, your mass increases at such a high rate that at some point, any finite amount of force with hit a wall where it can no longer accellerate matter.

Conveniently, this same hypothesis managed to, in einstien's mind, prevent you from travelling backwards in time by travelling faster than the speed of light, and helped confirm his view of what he thought the universe should be like.

The result of all of this is that if you somehow created an infinite force propulsion system, or otherwise achieved the speed of light through wormholes of similar, you could be travelling for years an years in relation to yourself while travelling nowhere in relation to everybody else. Product: instant old man

--Alex

[HoverBovver]

Don't think he's listening. Probably too busy levitating.
I wonder if he wears purple.

[HoverBovver]

still don't know what gravity actualy is, but i'm hoping to find out some day...

Hey, I already told you but no one ever listens (http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html)
:)

[Pook]

Im just suprised this hasnt been moved over to the Humor section yet...

Quote from Uriah's website

"a friend gave me a book called "Vimana, Aircraft of Ancient India & Atlantis". Reading the book brought an idea to my head: "If people thousands of years ago can build a so called Vimana or antigravity aircraft, why can't I?" So my challenge began."

Oh my freeeeekin god....

Piers

[downunder]

check out Prof. I. M. Kidd Ngh's treatis
:D LOL :D
I've mainly kept out of this because if someone has an idea and wants to experiment then good for them. If the experiment doesn't work then something has been learned anyway. But there's a few misconceptions starting to float around here. First, gravity is not electromagnetic and to quote an ancient Hindu text as though they knew more than the best modern theoretical physicist is grasping at straws. The modern idea of gravity is that it's a curvature in space itself caused by mass, no matter how small that mass is. The two lead balls will both curve space very very slightly and where that curvature overlaps is where the attraction between the two of them comes from.

The weak and strong forces have got nothing to do with gravity, in fact the strong force is totally the opposite to gravity because the greater the distance it has to work across the stronger it gets.

The speed of light thing. The faster you go (relative to where you started from, in other words you've been subjected to an acceleration) the slower your time passes. If you could go close to the speed of light you'd be able to watch planets spinning around stars and faster still you could watch galaxies turning. You don't get any younger of course but everything outside gets older very quickly. At the same time :) though your mass increases towards infinity (although I think it's more proper to say your inertia increases).

The exact same affect can be caused by gravity though. Gravity causes time to slow down. It passes slower at the bottom of a mountain or a building. In a huge gravity field it slows down enough to be noticeable, like on the surface of a neutron star. That's not much help though because you'd be squashed somewhat more than just flat :D but if you think about it, this means that time passes very slightly slower for your feet than it does for your head :)

[HoverBovver]

... but if you think about it, this means that time passes very slightly slower for your feet than it does for your head :)

Thats right. My mother in laws feet look like an 18 year olds but she's very tall. :D :D

[biber]

Hey, I already told you but no one ever listens (http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html)
:)Seems like that book isn`t anything more worth than a pile of used toilet paper.
Pure compressed popular science and deeply flawed.

Does anybody buy, read and believe such :censored: ?

biber

[HoverBovver]

Seems like that book isn`t anything more worth than a pile of used toilet paper.
Pure compressed popular science and deeply flawed.



You've read it then?
You certainly seem to know of its contents.

[HoverBovver]

Seems like that book isn`t anything more worth than a pile of used toilet paper. Pure compressed popular science...

Popular Science??? :confused: Isn't that what Richard Feynman & Stephen Hawking write about?