PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Mystery UAV...


SubNanoDreamer
May 23, 2007, 06:03 PM
Alright - I'm not the credulous type (far be it from me to take anything posted on a Whitley Streiber site without a grain of salt!)

- but I do read a few 'fringe science' type websites from time to time and stumbled across this:

"Weird aerial object haunts California"

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/7886/stranger11wy6.jpg

...basically supposed to be pics of some bizarre new electrostatic-propulsion craft that's been photographed a few times in different places. Just thought I'd share this with you UAV enthusiasts and see what your take is on this thing.

Here's what an anonymous engineer was alleged to have written about it (from the 2nd link at the bottom of this post):

"May 16, 2007 Albuquerque, NM -

"I worked in communications for many years, and finished up a career at Honeywell in hardware design. I also worked with the Navy for a number of years (enlisted), and saw many things in the area of communications. Your ring-drone posted to the site was interesting on a few counts.

Beyond aerodynamics (which I don't know much about other than to say this is a strange design and appears that there is a front to this - the long probe that is sectional, 3 pieces is my guess), I'll throw in my .02 as follows. Please note my comments are limited to what I see primarily about the antenna and the element array arrangement.

The circular design of the body with the antenna bent in an almost 'candle-like' fashion, combined with the 360 degree array, permit for a possible phased array with a directional sensing ability. This is due to the signal being able to strike the antenna array from one direction and then back scattering across what would be the inside of the ring. From this, a differential can be made and direction calculated based in part on signal strength among other things. It should be noted, too, that the angle of the bend on each element permits a nearly vertical aperture perspective, enabling higher flying craft (or lower flying, as the case may be) to be able to communicate with this ring-drone; a sort of look-down-look-up communicating ability with no loss of sight. The bend also enables a variety of frequencies to be 'sniffed'; they are not uniform in the sense of being a straight rod as we see commonly as in a television antenna. This is bent and bent for good reason. Without knowing the diameter of the ring I can't guess accurately what the frequency range would be that this ring-drone would be designed to transceive. If I got it right, there are 14 elements, evenly spaced about the ring body, each being approximately 25.7 degrees apart. Length, spacing, forward element, rear element, all come into play to figuring out the detail and without some sense of dimension I'd hesitate to offer anything. Once this is known, the operating frequency range can be more accurately known. No doubt it is millimeter.

The body (ring-like) makes sense; lightweight, low drag, combined with enabling a circular, millimeter wave transceiver to be placed within the ring. The circle itself is the same principle applied to supercomputing as its half the distance as compared to a buss type architecture.

I'd also say that having worked on spacecraft for a number of years, the trick of keeping unintended interference down to an acceptable level is to place it further away from the noise source. So on our spacecraft - say Voyager, for example, which is well known and has been seen many times, it has extended arms for this function. One arm is for the nuclear power device; we don't want that next to the scientific instruments so they are kept at opposite ends or hidden behind the body or shielded as design permits. In this ring-drone, my guess would be the same thing is being applied; you see three sections of the extended 'front-arm,' as I called it, each with rod-like pins separating the section. Each section appears to have one or more sensors, so the same principle of Voyager may be being applied here. It would be quite easy to run fiber optic down the rods separating the sections. The long arm itself probably houses the navigational aid would also be my guess as it would be the 'bow-wave' sensor for this ring-drone. So to be clear, the power source itself is probably incorporated into the ring body itself, with the sensors out- board, the most sensitive being the furthest from the ring body.

Does it rotate? How large is it (dimension)? It would be interesting to know rotational rate, as that too, combined with the length of the arms (or blades as they might be), would also be instrumental in determining speed."

http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1252&category=Environment

http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1248&category=Environment

http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=6225

kd7ost
May 23, 2007, 06:22 PM
Alright - I'm not the credulous type (far be it from me to take anything posted on a Whitley Streiber site without a grain of salt!)

- but I do read a few 'fringe science' type websites from time to time and stumbled across this:



Hmmm,

Interesting. I wonder what Art Bell would say about that. :D

Dan

typicalaimster
May 23, 2007, 06:31 PM
That looks like something out of Photoshop, but that's my personal opinion..

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread283514/pg1

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread281345/pg1

Oh and if you look up the markings on the craft...

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t215/Razro/S7-Klingon1.jpg

SubNanoDreamer
May 23, 2007, 06:41 PM
I'm sure Art Bell could make a whole show outta this one... ;)

As for Photoshopping, the Streiber article does mention that possibility and cites this as a source for how-to:

http://www.max-realms.com/modules/tutorials/guide_to_hdri_lighting.php

re: Klingon markings - NICE! That's hilarious.

lvspark
May 23, 2007, 07:49 PM
It's REAL!

Gary Mortimer
May 24, 2007, 12:40 AM
I'll buy a beer for the person that finds the building or tower thats connected.

But if it is a UAV then I hope they all the permissions in place to take pics ;-)

G

Mark Harris
May 24, 2007, 01:36 AM
Hehe.. you see this sort of thing on worth1000.com :) Looks photoshopped to me, not hard to do. Its colour saturation doesnt really seem to match the rest of the picture.. shadows are the wrong colour and such.

SubNanoDreamer
May 30, 2007, 08:23 PM
Here's a short video of the thing taking off. This is definitely man-made; the question is, how's it flying?

http://disclose.tv/viewvideo/777/Chad_Capitola_UFO_drone_C2C/

RaptorAP
May 30, 2007, 08:49 PM
Youre kidding, right?

Mark Harris
May 30, 2007, 11:29 PM
SubNanoDreamer, you do realise just how bad the 3d render is in that video dont you?

you can see where the circular part isnt quite circular... the lighting is very very wrong and gas that classic "icbf doing proper lighting" cg feel to it.

SubNanoDreamer
May 31, 2007, 03:33 PM
Heh - I'm not exactly kidding, but I'm not suggesting it be taken seriously either. More one of those "how'd they do that?" things. The Klingon markings were enough to make me laugh and realize this was being hoaxed somehow, but the design is interesting.

My video res. wasn't really high enough to see rendering glitches, but the lack of ground shadows was pretty conspicuous to me.

dalbert02
May 31, 2007, 03:44 PM
Just a thought, when I was in hight school I was doing research for a science fair project on powering a small electric helicopter using microwaves. Essentially, a microwave oven tube shot a 2.4Ghz beam to a rectifying diode array on the bottom of the aircraft which powered the brushed motors. If this thing is real, maybe they are using a similar system to power an anti gravity generator? http://www.amazing1.com/grav.htm

-dave

Mark Harris
May 31, 2007, 09:18 PM
Heh - I'm not exactly kidding, but I'm not suggesting it be taken seriously either. More one of those "how'd they do that?" things. The Klingon markings were enough to make me laugh and realize this was being hoaxed somehow, but the design is interesting.

My video res. wasn't really high enough to see rendering glitches, but the lack of ground shadows was pretty conspicuous to me.

I've done a fair bit of rendering in my time, and that video is more than enough to see a poor quality model. The lighting they used is terrible on the thing, as are the materials they used for the surface. There is a shadow you will notice, but it is very very hazy and blurred like a "drop shadow" effect in aftereffects. A real shadow would be much more distinct. The sound effects on the video sound an awful lot like the ones you get on Stargate SG-1 of their ships travelling through hyperspace/general space from a wide panning shot lol.

SubNanoDreamer
Jun 08, 2007, 03:39 PM
Just a thought, when I was in hight school I was doing research for a science fair project on powering a small electric helicopter using microwaves. Essentially, a microwave oven tube shot a 2.4Ghz beam to a rectifying diode array on the bottom of the aircraft which powered the brushed motors. If this thing is real, maybe they are using a similar system to power an anti gravity generator? http://www.amazing1.com/grav.htm

-dave

Recent developments on that very topic here:

http://physorg.com/news100445957.html

A team from MIT’s Department of Physics, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN) has experimentally demonstrated an important step toward accomplishing this vision of the future. The team members are Andre Kurs, Aristeidis Karalis, Robert Moffatt, Prof. Peter Fisher, and Prof. John Joannopoulos (Francis Wright Davis Chair and director of ISN), led by Prof. Marin Soljacic. Realizing their recent theoretical prediction, they were able to light a 60W light bulb from a power source seven feet (more than two meters) away; there was no physical connection between the source and the appliance. The MIT team refers to its concept as “WiTricity” (as in wireless electricity). The work will be reported in the June 7 issue of Science Express, the advance online publication of the journal Science.

The story starts one late night a few years ago, with Soljacic (pronounced Soul-ya-cheech) standing in his pajamas, staring at his cell phone on the kitchen counter. “It was probably the sixth time that month that I was awakened by my cell phone beeping to let me know that I had forgotten to charge it. It occurred to me that it would be so great if the thing took care of its own charging.” To make this possible, one would have to have a way to transmit power wirelessly, so Soljacic started thinking about which physical phenomena could help make this wish a reality.

Various methods of transmitting power wirelessly have been known for centuries. Perhaps the best known example is electromagnetic radiation, such as radio waves. While such radiation is excellent for wireless transmission of information, it is not feasible to use it for power transmission. Since radiation spreads in all directions, a vast majority of power would end up being wasted into free space. One can envision using directed electromagnetic radiation, such as lasers, but this is not very practical and can even be dangerous. It requires an uninterrupted line of sight between the source and the device, as well as a sophisticated tracking mechanism when the device is mobile.

In contrast, WiTricity is based on using coupled resonant objects. Two resonant objects of the same resonant frequency tend to exchange energy efficiently, while interacting weakly with extraneous off-resonant objects. A child on a swing is a good example of this. A swing is a type of mechanical resonance, so only when the child pumps her legs at the natural frequency of the swing is she able to impart substantial energy. Another example involves acoustic resonances: Imagine a room with 100 identical wine glasses, each filled with wine up to a different level, so they all have different resonant frequencies. If an opera singer sings a sufficiently loud single note inside the room, a glass of the corresponding frequency might accumulate sufficient energy to even explode, while not influencing the other glasses. In any system of coupled resonators there often exists a so-called “strongly coupled” regime of operation. If one ensures to operate in that regime in a given system, the energy transfer can be very efficient.

While these considerations are universal, applying to all kinds of resonances (e.g., acoustic, mechanical, electromagnetic, etc.), the MIT team focused on one particular type: magnetically coupled resonators. The team explored a system of two electromagnetic resonators coupled mostly through their magnetic fields; they were able to identify the strongly coupled regime in this system, even when the distance between them was several times larger than the sizes of the resonant objects. This way, efficient power transfer was enabled. Magnetic coupling is particularly suitable for everyday applications because most common materials interact only very weakly with magnetic fields, so interactions with extraneous environmental objects are suppressed even further. “The fact that magnetic fields interact so weakly with biological organisms is also important for safety considerations,” Kurs, a graduate student in physics, points out.

The investigated design consists of two copper coils, each a self-resonant system. One of the coils, attached to the power source, is the sending unit. Instead of irradiating the environment with electromagnetic waves, it fills the space around it with a non-radiative magnetic field oscillating at MHz frequencies. The non-radiative field mediates the power exchange with the other coil (the receiving unit), which is specially designed to resonate with the field. The resonant nature of the process ensures the strong interaction between the sending unit and the receiving unit, while the interaction with the rest of the environment is weak. Moffatt, an MIT undergraduate in physics, explains: “The crucial advantage of using the non-radiative field lies in the fact that most of the power not picked up by the receiving coil remains bound to the vicinity of the sending unit, instead of being radiated into the environment and lost.” With such a design, power transfer has a limited range, and the range would be shorter for smaller-size receivers. Still, for laptop-sized coils, power levels more than sufficient to run a laptop can be transferred over room-sized distances nearly omni-directionally and efficiently, irrespective of the geometry of the surrounding space, even when environmental objects completely obstruct the line-of-sight between the two coils. Fisher points out: “As long as the laptop is in a room equipped with a source of such wireless power, it would charge automatically, without having to be plugged in. In fact, it would not even need a battery to operate inside of such a room.” In the long run, this could reduce our society’s dependence on batteries, which are currently heavy and expensive.

At first glance, such a power transfer is reminiscent of relatively commonplace magnetic induction, such as is used in power transformers, which contain coils that transmit power to each other over very short distances. An electric current running in a sending coil induces another current in a receiving coil. The two coils are very close, but they do not touch. However, this behavior changes dramatically when the distance between the coils is increased. As Karalis, a graduate student in electrical engineering and computer science, points out, “Here is where the magic of the resonant coupling comes about. The usual non-resonant magnetic induction would be almost 1 million times less efficient in this particular system.”

WiTricity is rooted in such well-known laws of physics that it makes one wonder why no one thought of it before. “In the past, there was no great demand for such a system, so people did not have a strong motivation to look into it,” points out Joannopoulos, adding, “Over the past several years, portable electronic devices, such as laptops, cell phones, iPods and even household robots have become widespread, all of which require batteries that need to be recharged often.”

As for what the future holds, Soljacic adds, “Once, when my son was about three years old, we visited his grandparents’ house. They had a 20-year-old phone and my son picked up the handset, asking, ‘Dad, why is this phone attached with a cord to the wall"’ That is the mindset of a child growing up in a wireless world. My best response was, ‘It is strange and awkward, isn’t it" Hopefully, we will be getting rid of some more wires, and also batteries, soon.’”

Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Also see:

http://www.unknowncountry.com/journal/?id=288
http://www.ufocasebook.com/bigbasin.html

Aeroflot
Jun 22, 2007, 09:22 PM
I think I'II stick to my rubber band models and wind up toy.