B2 - electrified hull claims

I'm not sure if this is the correct forum to post this in. I'm looking for any and all information relating to the claim that the b2 bomber had an electrified hull and exhaust plume in order to reduce fuel efficiency and ANY other related effects. The purpose of this is to examine the mechanics and principles involved in order to implement them into future aircraft designs that could take full advantage of this idea.

I am aware that this is related to the fields of electrogravitics, electrohydrodynamics, magnetohydrodynamics, however I am unsure of what this actual implementation is called or what I should begin searching for to know more about it.

Any related patents, books, any information in general would be greatly appreciated.

reply to post by angrysniper


I read this great book by Paul La Violette:

Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion:
Tesla, UFO's and Classified Aerospace Technology

It details his theory on the B-2 Bomber using anti-gravity tech by electrifying the hull.

can we move this thread to the aircraft forum? so that it can be given the appropriate focus and discussion by the knowledgeable members who frequent that wing of the ATS compound. thanks!

b2 bomber had an electrified hull

All aircraft become electrified when flying.
Its a static charge phenomenon.

Anyone that has worked with helicopters in the military carrying sling loads can tell you that they must ground before ground crews can approach them.
the ground crews that forget this gets knocked on there ass.

Many aircraft have static wicks to dissipate these charges
www.aerospaceweb.org...
www.forensicexp-vojvodina.org.rs...

The reason for charging the leading edge and exhaust is secret. But there is no shortage of ideas.

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...

hmm, if they wanted to reduce fuel efficiency they could have just tied a wall to the front of the plane


no idea here

Alls I'm saying is, careful where you tread. The USAF is real cautious of top secret info. IE Stealth. I would ask no more.

Originally posted by FantasmaTaans
Alls I'm saying is, careful where you tread. The USAF is real cautious of top secret info. IE Stealth. I would ask no more.

The USAF doesn't mind questions.

They mind giving out classified information to the public or to people who don't have the proper clearance.

Hmm the B2 is a beast up close...it's bigger than it looks. I the exhaust ports are pretty nice too, sadly no pictures allowed above the plane or in in the back of the plane. (So I don't mention specifics about those areas) I must say though the back of that bomber is incredible haven't ever seen anything like it.

The cockpit is tiny too, I swear you have to be thin as hell to fit in those seats...i've never seen as many buttons in my life though wow. I hope you find the information you are looking for, it's an amazing bomber, sadly though you get the hint not to ask questions about certain aspects of it.

Lol they also have a type of duct tape under the wings along some seams...hehe sweet 1 billion dollars of equipment with tape.

[edit on 2/23/2010 by Everwatcher33]

There seems to be a number of threads that come up every once in a while regarding the B2....always shrouded in mystery a little as well I might add. I have had the luxury of seeing quite a few technologies that were ahead of their time while working with a test and evaluation squadron.....BUT, those were smaller, more adapted technologies that were not a platform in and of itself. The B2 is conceptually totally different, and I have had more than a few curiosities myself, albeit none of those are regarding any reported claims of earth defying qualities.

What the B2 can is really capable of doing is top secret and in my opinion should remain so, this is what gives the U.S. a sustained technological advantage in this area. That being said, yeah man...I am still totally curious! But there is one other big difference that we sometimes miss. It is one thing to know WHAT something can do...it's an entirely different thing to know HOW something achieves that capability.......and that, is the real gem here I think.

It even serves a greater good to have many speculations going that claim this and that, it makes things harder to narrow down.....just my two cents.

Great aircraft, great topic, fun thread!!

Peace,
Mondo

Indeed that is interesting (and obvious once pointed out, although I hadn't made the connection) You don't see photos of the B2 from the rear very often and certainly never close enough to see any details of the exhaust. Thanks Everwatcher33.

where there's smoke there's fire! (or hopefully not from an IR signature reduction point of view)

To the OP there are many many B2 threads on ATS. It would be interesting to hear what your opinion is on this subject is in say.... 6 months time! enjoy

[edit on 24-2-2010 by Catalytic]

[edit on 24-2-2010 by Catalytic]

reply to post by Catalytic


Thanks, They do tell you that you can't take any pictures of the rear of the plane, within 5 feet of it, or above the plane in the rear. So probably why you don't see a lot of pictures of those areas. I must say though standing above the plane looking at the exhaust they are impressive when you see what's there.

reply to post by Mondogiwa


Indeed what the plane is capable of doing should stay that way. As far as I know we only share some of those secrets with one other country, and even then not all of them.

reply to post by Everwatcher33


You know I've spent 3 months trying to find photo's that peep into these bloody exhausts and at best, you see fairly innocuous looking 'channels' that direct the exhaust onto to rear of the wing.

I've not found one that shows any detail (just suspicious inky blackness) of what is present further up the exhaust flow i.e. in the covered tunnels which preceed the uncovered channels.

I'm expecting to see some kind of mixing system in this region, at the least we might expect some method of mixing cold air (gathered by the small boundary layer ducts below the main intakes) with the hot exhaust.

Some have speculated that we might hope to see equipment to inject electrons into the exhaust in this area. If this were the case, presumably some kind of pertrubrances are present to penetrate into the heart of the flow and not just the periphiary. My guess as to what this may look like is some kind of helical arrangement of vanes the purpose of which is to dump electrons and help mix the cold air collected by the previously mentioned auxillary inlets

any thoughts? what does industrial gas mixing / cooling equipment look like? might this be a good place to start.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by Catalytic]

[edit on 9-5-2010 by Catalytic]

reply to post by Phage

Of those three theories, I seriously doubt that it augments thrust very much, except if the third theory is true which seems more plausible that it reduces drag. I guess you could say that reducing drag increases the "net" thrust.

The theory about scattering radar reflections is also credible.

Maybe it does both, reduces drag and scatters radar reflections. But I'm not finding increased thrust very likely (aside from the reduced drag).

reply to post by Catalytic


You won't find any pics up the exhaust. When they allowed me to do a walkaround on a B-2, they said there were two areas I couldn't see. One was the cockpit, the other was the exhaust. The F-117 flew for most of its life before they allowed us to get on a stand above the tail and get a peek at the exhaust. There's a lot that goes on in there to spoof IR sensors that they don't want anyone that doesn't have clearance seeing.

I have kind of a random question- If the B2 really has an electrified hull, then couldn't you rig some kind of magnetic-tracking missile to take the B2 out of the sky?