The B2 Must have Anti Gravity Propulsion

reply to post by RWM88


A simple Google search on people getting electric shocks off the B2 wings proves to me that the "positive charging" of them is correct.

Alright, anyone still talking about the anti-gravity angle on this thread.

Did you notice the breakdown of fuel consumption I posted on the first page.

reply to post by endisnighe

167,000 lbs / 6.7lbs/gal = 25,000 gallons/10,000km = 2.5 gallons/km or 16.75 lbs/km does not seem too bad a fuel burn per km, not much better than a tank!

Now for a time breakdown. Say a slow cruising speed of 700km/hr 10,000km/700km/hr=167,000lbs or 25,000gal/(14.25 hr trip time*60(determine fuel use per minute))=203lbs/min or 30gal/min

Sounds reasonable

The B2 flying wing design is as old as WW2. The Germans had the concept back then.

The lift the design gives is almost the perfect design for lift in regards to the overall design.

There is no anti grav. The ionic aspects or whatever I have no idea but the fuel usage is ABSOLUTELY a workable design.

Last post on this thread, taking off my list.

[edit on 1/26/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


So cruising at 600 km/hr for 10,000 kms works out at what, roughly 16 hours flying time?

30 gallons of fuel per minute X 16 hours, that's nearly 30,000 gallons of fuel.

As I said, NO WAY can the B2 hold 30,000 gallons of fuel in it's skinny wings.

reply to post by minkey53


All aircraft obtain electric charges while flying through air. That is why ALL aircraft are grounded (connected to Earth) before they try to refuel them. They don't want an arc to ignite the gas vapors.

Originally posted by minkey53
So cruising at 600 km/hr for 10,000 kms works out at what, roughly 16 hours flying time?

30 gallons of fuel per minute X 16 hours, that's nearly 30,000 gallons of fuel.

As I said, NO WAY can the B2 hold 30,000 gallons of fuel in it's skinny wings.

The wings don't look all that skinny to me...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/38796c64aea1.jpg[/atsimg]

And as you can see it's not exactly a small aircraft...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/72d30017f479.jpg[/atsimg]

A lot of people see the cockpit windows and try to get an idea of scale from them, well the B2 has actually very large windows...

Also who says that the wings are the only place fuel is stored? I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is very important in a B2 to shift the fuel about the aircraft to maintain the centre of gravity - it's even more important than with conventional aircraft.

I reckon there are central tanks above the bomb bay and maybe even a rear one... One more time! No anti gravity! Just loads of good old fashioned dino juice.

reply to post by minkey53


I was using the number someone else provided.

The actual internal fuel storage is 200,000 lbs. So the actual fuel usage would vary slightly.

As for not being able to contain that much fuel, what is your proof? Speculation?

Do you know what bladder tanks are? Any space open in a semi monocoque construction can be used as fuel storage.

A&P Mechanic here. By just looking at the plane, I would say they could easily find that much room.

And as I said before, the efficiency of a flying wing brings down the coefficient of drag to a very low number. I also have had courses in engineering and aerodynamics.

Please, if you want to hypothesyse on a subject, do it from an intelligent and well informed stance.

A couple if photos to add to your thread.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d5859a29b02f.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cf9a1b0235b4.jpg[/atsimg]

If they are using anti grav tech, why put air intakes on the aircraft? Wouldn't that increase the unnecessary drag?

Even if there was such a thing being used, why put two engine types in one vehicle?

What do you make of this source

Retired Air Force Colonel Donald Ware has passed on to me information from a three-star general he knows who revealed to him in July that "the new Lockheed-Martin space shuttle [National Space Plane] and the B-2 [Stealth bomber] both have electro-gravitic systems on board;" and that " this explains why our 21 Northrop B-2s cost about a billion dollars each." Thus, after taking off conventionally, the B-2 can switch to antigravity mode, and, I have heard, fly around the world without refueling.

www.drboylan.com...




Legitimate website, confession of anti grav on the b-2.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by JOINTHERESISTANCE]

Originally posted by JOINTHERESISTANCE
Legitimate website, confession of anti grav on the b-2.

I would not believe anything Boylan says, remember he was stripped off his license to practice psychology...

Not to get off subject but I read Violette's electrogravitic propulsion book and that was after I had an equilateral triangle with no fuselage fly right over the hill and then tree on the north end of our yard. It made a humming noise as it flew slowly. I had first seen balls of light, each a different color, doing bizarre formations on the horizon and then I saw the craft flying towards our house from over the woods of the neighbors. So there were lights in each corner. I could have hit it with a rock and I could triangulate its size and height.

This same sighting has occurred numerous times by others -- I saw the CRAFT -- not just the lights. And these craft are filmed on youtube doing acceleration that is almost instantaneous.

So no fuselage, instantaneous acceleration.

Then a local news reporter gave me the news clipping for a mass sighting in 1978 -- same triangle craft -- and she said we lived in a "military test flight corridor." I looked up the MUFON database and this same triangle had been seen in our area numerous times in the same years I saw it -- 1997.

So I'm just saying that there has to be antigravity technology in the black ops and I do think it was from Nazi technology which was from Tesla electromagnetic propulsion, plus Schauberger, etc.

I wish it were true ... But, alas ...
No anti-grav conspiracy here. Just good ole aeronautical engineering prowess by the guy at Northrop Grumman.
Check out this article (scroll to the Wednesday, January 29, 2003 entry - near the bottom of the page).
He tells it in layman's terms everyone can understand.
Assume the position

The B-2, however, is a flying-wing (or flying-wing/lifting-body hybrid, if you prefer). Northrop built Flying Wing bombers in the late '40s. The YB-49 flown in 1947 (eight 4,000 lb thrust turbojets) and the photo-recon version YB-49A in flown in 1950 (six 5,000 lb thrust turbojets) both had a thrust to weight ratio of 0.15—even lower than the B-2's. So, the mysterious technology that lets the "seriously underpowered" B-2 fly supposedly in violation of "conventional aerodynamic means" is that it isn't a conventional airframe. It isn't underpowered for a flying-wing or lifting-body where the fuselage provides significant aerodynamic lift. There's no need (or real evidence) for any "enormous electrogravitic lift force" in the B-2.

Who knows? Maybe the Aurora is anti-grav, but the B-2 isn't.

I'm no aerospace engineer, but I'm in grad school and have a friend here who is working on his PhD for aeronautical engineering. I'm going to ask him about this, and I already know he's going to laugh in my face.

As I said, I'm no aerospace engineer. But I do have quite an expansive knowledge about military planes. I can say with a decent amount of certainty that the B2 Spirit uses no such "anti-gravity" device.

Go to 7 minutes and LaViollete cites Aviation Weekly Technology on the B-2 using voltage differentials

www.youtube.com...

The reason for charging the leading edge and exhaust is secret. There are certainly possibilities other than "electrogravitics".

For reasons not yet de-classified, the B-2 charges its leading edge to a very high electrical potential difference from its exhaust stream.
It has been suggested (by Jane's Defence) that it augments the B-2's low thrust main engines. It is also a well known phenomenon that an ionised gas (plasma) will scatter a radar beam far more effectively than a solid surface of any conceivable shape. This could be the purpose of the high voltage leading edge. Another possibility is that it is for the purpose of reducing drag, since the leading edge of the B-2 might then move through a partial vacuum of ionised air which may be ionised and repelled by the high voltage. In any case, it is however true that Northrop engineers conducted wind tunnel tests using high voltage on a testbed wing leading edge to reduce supersonic drag as far back as 1968. These tests were with a view to breaking up the airflow ahead of the wing using electrical forces in order to soften a sonic boom. How this applies (if indeed it does at all) to the B-2 after an interval of many years is uncertain.

en.allexperts.com...

[edit on 1/26/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by minkey53

 

All aircraft obtain electric charges while flying through air. That is why ALL aircraft are grounded (connected to Earth) before they try to refuel them. They don't want an arc to ignite the gas vapors.

right

The level of charge developed would be greater for an aircraft without sharp points - that would discharge PV into the air. The smoother the aircraft - the more it mimics a round plate... the higher the voltage it will be capable of holding.

ok so voltage differentials to increase aerodynamic performance are a proven technology... alot of people are angry it isn't being used in civilian craft... do I think they use this on the b2? ABSOLUTELY

is it antigravity? NOPE

is it proof that our military is probably pulling the legs of some people and/or purposefully not utilizing the b2 at it's full potential...?

I'd say yes to that one too. Right now we're fighting a non high tech enemy and every country in the world that might like a crack at us someday is watching very closely to see what our equipment can really do. In my opinion someone is being smart and keeping some aces up their sleeve.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I'm not saying a word about the construction. Last I heard that information was still classified.

Lol it isn't.. I worked on them.. The composite skins are made by a proprietary factory system that uses high pressure and high heat to compress the materials resulting in a much stronger and lighter material than ever before... That machine that makes this stuff IS classified still... but the assembly of the airplane is not classified at all..

I don't believe the wings are electrically charged on the B-2 for any type of electrogravitic propulsion system, and I think anyone who believes that to be the case is misinformed and living in a fantasy.

I can however think of other reasons why the wings could be charged, for reasons ranging from reducing friction to reducing the radar return. And if the wings are covered in composite as it appears they might be then they could likely be charged just from flying through the air without any active ionization system because composite wings unlike metal wings don't automatically redistribute electrical charges across the surface.

I listened to the video of the guy talking about electrogravitics and while he sounds smart, that doesn't mean he's right. Until I see some proof of electrogravitics, and I haven't yet, it's just pseudoscientific nonsense to me. Lots of apparently gullible people seem to believe it though, even the smart guy in the video.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Here's a picture I took of a Boeing 777-300ER.

i46.tinypic.com...

Them wings are far smaller than those on the B-2, yet they (and the wingbox) can hold 47,890 US gal (181,280 L). Enough to power them GE90-115B engines for over 15 hours at 900km/h.

[edit on 26/1/2010 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz
Here's a picture I took of a Boeing 777-300ER.

i46.tinypic.com...

Them wings are far smaller than those on the B-2, yet they (and the wingbox) can hold 47,890 US gal (181,280 L).

By 'wingbox' I assume you mean the fuel bladders in the fuselage?
And it can contain anywhere between 31,000 gallons (for the 777-200) and 47,890 gallons (for the 777-300ER).

Electricity build up on aircraft is fairly common and occurs when the plane flies through relatively dry air and builds up a static charge, much like how dry winds (like the "Santa Ana" winds in California and elsewhere) cause static charges to build up.
Even helicopters are known to build electrical charges from the downdraft of the main rotor. That is an effect that people have to deal with when building things such as radio and power transmission towers because the charge that can build up on items being carried by heli can be quite detrimental to people's health.