The B2 Must have Anti Gravity Propulsion

Yes, and that was the 777-300ER which can hold 47,890 US gal in the wings / wing-box. The 777-200LR can hold even more at 53,515 US gal with additional fuel tanks. By wing-box I mean wing-box. i.e. Integral tank(s). Boeing hasn't built an airplane with a bladder tank since the early 737 classics. 777-200 (baseline) has a dry wing-box.



[edit on 27/1/2010 by C0bzz]

Hmmm they are watching huh...I will accept all high power laser diodes, high power mosfet mosfets, low voltage high wattage DC motors and female engineers your willing to donate. A few companys that may be involved in stuff like this are Raytheon (lasers), EG&G (nuclear bomb triggers), Honeywell, boeing.

It would figure that you don't make something AG and have it do missions anywhere near the enemy. AG would be the end all be all, aside from teleporting, timestopping, dimensional shifting, you wouldn't give your enemy an edge like that. You would always want to have a slight edge though. Its like selling computers, they would lose alot of money if they just came out with a computer that works with holographic quantum cubes read by 10nm lasers and could map every atom on earth and didn't make us buy everything inbetween.

If there was an AG craft, no one would claim ownership or even say they have it.

reply to post by Now_Then


Just to throw this idea out there.

Wouldn't nuclear reactors be fine in an unmanned aircraft? The radiation shouldn't be a problem for a computer. At least I think it wouldn't be a problem.



[edit on 27/1/10 by MikeboydUS]

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
The radiation shouldn't be a problem for a computer. At least I think it wouldn't be a problem.

actually it is a major problem
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by minkey53


All aircraft have positive charges, I know this from personal experience. When helicopters engage on operations on oil tankers or gas carriers, a earth line must be dropped to prevent us and the helicopter going boom

Static electricity is everywhere, from cars to helicopters to B2 bombers

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Yep - It's off topic so I will keep it brief.

If you look up the 2 designs for the engines, General Electric's Direct Air Cycle and Pratt & Whitney's Indirect Air Cycle you can get an idea for the problems.

The direct air cycle was the really dirty one, the air came in the engine, passed right over an EXPOSED!! reactor core of course the air was super heated and also now very very radioactive.

The other one had a complicated way of keeping the air and the reactor separated... Difficult and heavy and still not guaranteed to contain the radiation.

So yep an unmanned vehicle would be no problem - nowadays... Back in the 40's and 50's it was not a viable option because the computer simply did not exist, they HAD to have people on board, there fore they either sent them out to die glowing some time after they got back, or they put all the required shielding in.

So both side went ahead and developed the other various launch methods, now they have nuke powered subs that go go for years and years without refuelling and ICBM's for the strike... Development of any nuke powered aircraft wouldn't be a priority any more. Now tech has come the path it has, clearly the yanks thought stealth was where you spend your money.

And that is why you have the dino juice powered (in no way anti grav, pixie dust or peddle powered ) B2.

[edit on 27/1/2010 by Now_Then]

reply to post by MikeboydUS


The major issue is if they crash. Most folks don't want radioactive fireballs smashing into the ground near them. That's why the amount of nuclear material blasted into space is so low - a fully-functioning nuclear reactor would be a great idea in space. Again, the real issue is if the launch fails, and what to do with the reactor once the life of whatever it's powering is up.

reply to post by JOINTHERESISTANCE


I knew I had read it somewhere, several sources actually.

My mate Robert Brady, a retired US Colenol (spelin, sorry) in the US Air Force flew out of Nellis and Groom in the 70's and 80's, Lakenheath in F1-11's (lead pilot hitting Gadiffi in Libya) etc. and he told me the same about 4 years ago. I have known him for about 10 years and also agrees with John Lear on a lot of things. I knew him as a friend first and it took a while for him to tell me anything so he didn't just make it up on the spot to impress me etc.

reply to post by JOINTHERESISTANCE


No, it's not a legitimate website. Dr Boylan is a "Behavioral Scientist, Anthropologist (Star Cultures specialization), emeritus University Professor of Psychology, Certified Clinical Hypnotherapist, and Registered Social Worker". NOT a scientist.

He's nuts. He's making stuff up, or being deceived.

reply to post by minkey53


Pilots are not engineers.

Originally posted by antideceit
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..

As I stated, the last that I heard from anybody in authority, the construction process for most of the aircraft's components was classified. Since I haven't worked in the industry since 1990, my information might be dated, but, until I hear otherwise, I'll stand by what I have said.

As far as all of this charged surfaces stuff is concerned, what is generating the power for all of this? Where is the generator that is supplying all of this electricity? Wouldn't any increase in range be offset by the increase in weight of this system. As far as using this in a civilian aircraft is concerned forget it. Do you know how many lawsuits there are right now over cell phone radiation? What would happen when they found out that the wing of their airliner was emitting charged particles?

reply to post by JIMC5499


Exactly. The charge generators would have to be taking power from the engines.

This whole anti-gravity/charged wings idea is absolute nonsense. There's no evidence to suggest either, and yet we're here, discussing it. Another sad day for ATS.

Like I said I had an equilateral triangle fly right over our garage -- no fuselage -- balls of light on each corner -- making a humming noise -- and they've been tracked with almost instantaneous acceleration.

So there is definitely some top secret military propulsion tech that goes beyond this stuff -- it's not just a high voltage charge for radar or drag.

It could be connected to ion thrust as well:

nmp.nasa.gov...

reply to post by davesidious

Exactly. The charge generators would have to be taking power from the engines.

This whole anti-gravity/charged wings idea is absolute nonsense. There's no evidence to suggest either, and yet we're here, discussing it. Another sad day for ATS.

It still might be more efficient to use some power from the engines to generate a charge on the leading edge if the wind resistance is sufficiently reduced.

It would also increase the stealth capabilities of the craft.

I don't believe the B2 uses any kind of anti-gravity though. I used to think from the little evidence I found, that the Biefeld Brown effect (separation of charges, ie positive charged leading edge, negative charged trailing edge) might be good for more than just ion wind propulsion and be capable of anti-gravity, but I have since moved on to Extended Heim Theory and its gravitational propulsion possibilities.

reply to post by drew hempel

Like I said I had an equilateral triangle fly right over our garage -- no fuselage -- balls of light on each corner -- making a humming noise -- and they've been tracked with almost instantaneous acceleration.

I think the TR-3B flying triangle does use gravitational propulsion technology derived from Extended Heim theory, namely a powerful electromagnetic coil with a rotating mass or flywheel above that coil that results in propulsion up.

I imagine the TR-3B with the 3 points of light, 1 on each corner, has one of those engines in each corner for steering and possibly one large engine in the middle. If EHT is correct such an engine would play tricks with light near the engine as light is transformed into gravitational energy by such an engine.

reply to post by Bobbox1980


The issue with using the Biefeld-Brown effect is the shape of the B-2 Spirit's wings. For the best results, for each centimetre of wing, there is a 10kV potential difference between the two electrodes (one being the leading edge of the wing, and the other being the trailing edge). The shape of the wing means that the voltage along the front electrode will have to vary, requiring multiple electrodes, but then that means the ion flow will not be in line with direction of travel. From my back-of-a-napkin calculations, the potential difference would vary from 5.6 megavolts at the leading edge of the shallowest part of the wing, to 15.2 megavolts at the deepest part of the true wing. If the Biefeld-Brown effect is used across the entire wing (the craft being a flying wing), then the potential difference from the nose of the craft to the very back would be over 20 megavolts. There's another issue, that as the density of the air decreases, the effectiveness of the effect decreases substantially. With a service ceiling of 50,000 ft, that's not much air to play with.

Also, I don't see how spewing ions out the back of something would help with its stealth characteristics.

you have a point....which is probably why all Beifeld Brown experiments where (maybe different these days) with a saucer shaped metals. They found that the charges were able to be evenly distributed over the surface area.

However, that is not to say that our wonderful military and aerospace scientists haven't come up with ways around this issue since the 50's and 60's.

reply to post by Bobbox1980


Interesting idea - what evidence did you base it on?

reply to post by nsaeyes


True, but that is not to say they have ways round this issue. Rational thinking demands we not go that far

The B2 being a stealth air craft is most likely utilizing an active RAM stealth system vs reliance upon a primarily passive RAM & RAS (faceted design) stealth system employed by the first generation stealth , the F-117 for example.

The mention of charged surfaces most likely has more to do with active RAM (Radar Absorbant Material) radar signal absorbency than anti gravity.

The active Radar Absorbant Material uses a charge to absorb and redirect the radar waves in another direction, thus reducing the overall radar cross section. And also most likely why the B-2 cross section was half that of the F-117 even though it is physically(*) a much larger aircraft.

Now if we were discussing the TR3B, I would definitely agree in the utilization of anti gravity systems.

*F117 wingspan of 43' versus B2 wingspan of 173'.

reply to post by davesidious

Interesting idea - what evidence did you base it on?

What idea are you referring to?

reply to post by Bobbox1980


The one I linked to - your TR-3B hypothesis.