The B2 Must have Anti Gravity Propulsion

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by minkey53
reply to post by hawk123

 

Does that mean we have officially caught a "debunker" in the act so to speak?

The guy who said he built the wings but there was no such thing and the other people who swear no anti grav???

No, it doesn't. How do you figure that it does?

The article posted by hawk123:
www.wpafb.af.mil...
is about plasma actuators. It has nothing at all to do with anti-grav.

An actuator is the device that moves a plane's control surfaces (flaps, etc.). A modern jet's computer is constantly make many tiny corrections in these control surafces every second to keep a plane flying. Without this computer correction, a modern jet would be uncontrollable -- a human pilot is not able to make the constant and continuous corrections necessary to keep the plane in a controlled flight.

The actuator is the motorized device that actually moves those flaps based commands from the computer (and the pilot). Presently, these actuators are mechanical devices. Plasma actuators would be non-mechanical (i.e., no moving parts).

Plasma actuators have absolutely nothing at all to do with anti-gravity propulsion.

Here's more information about plasma actuators. These can someday replace the mechanical actuators planes use today:
aarls.eng.ohio-state.edu...
shyylab.engin.umich.edu...

Aerodynamic Plasma Actuator can be optimized as an
Electrohydrodynamic (EHD) Electrical Device.

pdf.aiaa.org...

See above article of: John Reece Roth and Xin Dai

pulse2.com...

John Reece Roth is a former plasma physicist that is sentenced for four years. The former physicist professor was charged with 18 counts of conspiracy, wire fraud, and violation of the Arms Export Control Act. The professor allowed a Chinese and an Irani grad student see sensitive information about unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones

Now why is he sentenced?
Was it the use of a plasma actuator as EHD device?

At least EHD works on this B-2 model.
jnaudin.free.fr...

reply to post by hawk123


And electrohydrodynamics has nothing to do with the fabled anti-grav technology, either.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by hawk123

 

And electrohydrodynamics has nothing to do with the fabled anti-grav technology, either.

I agree if you exactly use the definition of electrohydrodynamics (EHD) in combination with the weight of the B-2 bomber.
But 10 years ago I have seen in the evening (already dark) a B-2 bomber with on each wing 2 charged plasma corona 's. It was just hovering in the air, but disappeared in a few seconds behind the horizon.

There must be something else, which reduces the gravity forces of the earth. Another observatoin is that there was no sonic boom, which I would have expected.

B2 technology seems more like using magnetohydrodynamics (which is also using plasma)...

Jean Pierre Petit, french scientist and also ufo searcher claims that B2 use a more powerful technology than people think. He also describes how a MHD turbine will work.

I haven't found out the same movie in english, but movie speak enough. Actually the USAF said the B2 is a subsonic bomber, so why can we see the B2 "passing the sound barrier" ?
You can see some other pics about the B2 and supersonic flight, just google it. !
www.dailymotion.com...


By the way MHD allow speed arround mach 7 and even more according to Jean Pierre Petit and tis theory sound credible.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Terviseks
B2 technology seems more like using magnetohydrodynamics (which is also using plasma)...

Jean Pierre Petit, french scientist and also ufo searcher claims that B2 use a more powerful technology than people think. He also describes how a MHD turbine will work.

I haven't found out the same movie in english, but movie speak enough. Actually the USAF said the B2 is a subsonic bomber, so why can we see the B2 "passing the sound barrier" ?
You can see some other pics about the B2 and supersonic flight, just google it. !
www.dailymotion.com...


By the way MHD allow speed arround mach 7 and even more according to Jean Pierre Petit and tis theory sound credible.
en.wikipedia.org...

The B-2 is absolutely not a subsonic bomber.
The speed I have seen (with plasma enabled) that the B-2 just hovering in the air, but disappeared in a few seconds behind the horizon.



[edit on 31-1-2010 by hawk123]

Originally posted by hawk123
The speed I have seen (with plasma enabled) that the B-2 just hovering in the air, but disappeared in a few seconds behind the horizon.
[edit on 31-1-2010 by hawk123]

That's not a B2. B2's don't hover.

X-files stuff - which I don't buy. However, for the sake of argument some refer to it as the "TR-3B"



and





[edit on 31-1-2010 by crisko]

I guess their is a misunderstanding between plasma technology and MHD.
actually (in the real world of common science), plasma are used to reduce radar signature.

hypotheticaly, MHD allows to flight at speed arround mach 7 and more but only in atmosphere as you need a fluid like air. not working in the vacuum.

Nasa worked on plasma engine to travel until Mars at constant speed but it will still require usual chemical boosters to put the starship in space.

I don't really thing USAF or any forces in the world will use plasma technology to flight at top speed, just to reduce radar signature. But they still can use MHD to flight at top speed, it works in theory.. just wait the next big war to see how efficient is the actual technology !

reply to post by hawk123


I doubt that very much indeed. Eye witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence. It's a hair's breadth away from conjecture. You're going to have to do better than "A few years ago I saw..." in order to demonstrate a point, sorry.

There are many groups working on gravity engines, as well as governments. Maybe one of them made it. Check out the presentation labeled "TIME CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND METHODS" at:


www.andersoninstitute.com...

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Ratkiller]

Originally posted by hawk123
The B-2 is absolutely not a subsonic bomber.
The speed I have seen (with plasma enabled) that the B-2 just hovering in the air, but disappeared in a few seconds behind the horizon.

Would you care to back up those claims?

Man some of the aircraft threads get quite comical, this one and the 'antigrav' Hind spring to mind (the one with the stroboscopic effect on the main roter.

So the B2 is supersonic huh? Couple of things there, 1 why would you want a supersonic long range STEALTH bomber, seeing that supersonic flight and stealth are not exactly compatible, sonic booms tend to get noticed for one.

Have you ever nociced how slender and pointy ALL supersonic aircraft are? See where I'm going with this one?

You have seen a B2 hover? - Yhea OK, did Elvis wave back?

And last but not least priceless - with 'plasma enabled'... Would you care to expand on this at all?

reply to post by crisko


That first vid was a model designed for a competition. It was discussed to death on here about 18 months/2 years ago.

Not sure about the second video, the Belgian sightings were a pretty big deal and quite a famous case though.

Originally posted by Now_Then

Originally posted by hawk123
The B-2 is absolutely not a subsonic bomber.
The speed I have seen (with plasma enabled) that the B-2 just hovering in the air, but disappeared in a few seconds behind the horizon.

Would you care to back up those claims?

Man some of the aircraft threads get quite comical, this one and the 'antigrav' Hind spring to mind (the one with the stroboscopic effect on the main roter.

So the B2 is supersonic huh? Couple of things there, 1 why would you want a supersonic long range STEALTH bomber, seeing that supersonic flight and stealth are not exactly compatible, sonic booms tend to get noticed for one.

Have you ever nociced how slender and pointy ALL supersonic aircraft are? See where I'm going with this one?

You have seen a B2 hover? - Yhea OK, did Elvis wave back?

And last but not least priceless - with 'plasma enabled'... Would you care to expand on this at all?

Have you ever noticed how slender and pointy ALL supersonic aircraft are? See where I'm going with this one?
That also suprised me so my impression is that it must be related to the two plasma coronas on each wing. But maybe there is something else.

There is enough evidence on:
Sonic booms: Shock wave annihilation
www.patentstorm.us...
www.patentstorm.us...

www.mhdprospects.com...
www.mhdprospects.com...
www.mhdprospects.com...

You have seen a B2 hover?
Yes, and I could not hear any sound of the engines. In the beginnig I thought that the B2 would crash. but it stays on the same location for about 2 minutes.

There were 2 plasma coronas (light green colour) on each wing.
About twice as high as the cockpit.
After staying in the air for about 2 minutes, it suddenly disappeared within a few seconds behind the horizon.

Maybe this could explain everything, but it is all in French language.
www.jp-petit.org...



[edit on 2-2-2010 by hawk123]

reply to post by minkey53


post by minkey53

This anti-grav would be activated once at altitude or above the ocean / away from prying eyes so what normal fuel is on board can be used conventionally when required?

Because Anti-Gravitational waves can be seen? Hmm....

Probably better phrased "away from prying ears" since you hear jet propulsion..

Also, 10k kms = 6k miles. Commercial jets have ranges of 10k miles. Granted their design might intuitively seem to have more (fuel) capacity. But is 6k miles really that outrageous that we need to come up with such an unconventional explanation? I don't think so.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
reply to post by minkey53

 

post by minkey53

 

This anti-grav would be activated once at altitude or above the ocean / away from prying eyes so what normal fuel is on board can be used conventionally when required?

Also, 10k kms = 6k miles. Commercial jets have ranges of 10k miles. Granted their design might intuitively seem to have more (fuel) capacity. But is 6k miles really that outrageous that we need to come up with such an unconventional explanation? I don't think so.

An unconventional explanation is needed.

The B-2 program costs were $45 billion. With 21 aircraft built, which is for one B-2 about $2.14 billion each.

Bying gold with the same weight of a B-2 is cheaper as the B-2 itself.


[edit on 3-2-2010 by hawk123]

Originally posted by hawk123Bying gold with the same weight of a B-2 is cheaper as the B-2 itself.

CNN Money says that the current price of gold is $1,064.00 per Troy ounce.
There are 14.58333 Troy ounces in a pound.
$1,064.00 * 14.58333 = $15,516.66 for a pound of gold.
$15,516.66 * 158,000lb (empty weight of a B-2) = $2,451,632,280 (weight of B-2 in gold, as of now)

reply to post by Phage


At the altitude these jets fly the temp is a constant -65 degrees.

The thin air is above the weather and consistently very dry in relative

humidity.

Contrails are a mystery, the moisture is likely condensation from

incomplete combustion. They are likely formed when the upper

atmosphere is moving as a stable block with no turbulence at the

flight level of the jet moving through relatively stable air.

reply to post by Now_Then


Guys,
Im a Pilot als as well as an engineer and inventor.
All wing design is the best shape for flight. So no probs getting it off the ground by simple aerodynamics. as for fuel carrying capacity, you will be amazed, there are tons of places you can carry fuel, in the fuselage alone.
The B2 does not have the vertical fin, which is why, it is unstable about the vertical axis, and they employ computers to manage tis unstability. whether it has anti gravity drive, I do not know, But anti gravity is perfectly possible and currently, I have a concept, and will build a prototype after I finsh the prototype on free energy.

Cheers

The "B2" is probably gliding and terraplaning to and from bases. Thus it might not need the amount of fuel that you're thinking. That 10,000 Km could have been flown at low velocity ? Or in the Jet Stream and thus literally blown along by the wind. At low velocity the B2 might be extremely efficient. If the fuselage is literally as light as a feather then that could explain its long range capability without having to invoke such far out Sci-Fi speculations such as "Anti Gravity" systems. However having said that I must admit that I was once very surprised by the directly over my head manouverings of a hypersonic "Black Bird". I saw it flying in at a slow velocity until it was directly over my head. It then stopped dead in mid air turned around by 180* on a single point in the air. Then shot off at high velocity making a thunderous amount of noise. Its movements would indicate that it was just floating in mid air by "Anti Gravity". I am informed that these "Black Bird" are no longer being operated. I wonder why I am not able to find it in my copy of Janes World Aircraft ?
The rotors of a helicopter are an anti gravity force. The thrust of a rocket is an anti gravity force. The hot air or hydrogen/helium in a balloon is an anti gravity force. The air passing over the wings of a bird or aircraft creates an anti gravity force. These anti gravity force are electromagnetic in nature and so anti gravity is not something that science cannot understand. In fact once you understand the radionic nature of all things then you begin to understand that creating a solid state [no moving parts] anti gravity system is actually well with in the realms of mundain science. Which is why I suggest to you that such anti gravity systems were probably invented literally back in the "stone age" and thus we today are living in a "dark age" in that our governments are hiding such "miracle" sciences from us so as to hold the advantage that such secrecy gives to them in power.
SHIMONO

[edit on 16/2/2010 by CAELENIUM]

reply to post by savvys84


Not sure why that reply was to me.... I am one of the proponents of the real laws of physics, not the ones to be found somewhere over the rainbow as some of the kiddies in this thread seem to favour.

Everybody knows all aircraft are held aloft by the collective will of the occupants, that's why they put mice in UAV's.

reply to post by Now_Then
Sorry, off topic- but in my mind far more important than the anti-gravity BS that is falling onto this thread.... Who is that in your HOT avatar, Now_Then?????