science the nsa dont want you to study

Originally posted by mbkennel

Dugway?

Gesundheit.

What exactly do you mean: shaped charges of chemical explosives to initiate implosion of nuclear fuels? Weren't shaped charges known in WW2?

Nope - nuclear shaped charges. A nuke that squirts the bang in a preferred direction, or with a particularly formed shock wavefront.

Everyone tries to figure out how to make it happen, when you see the insides it's always a "well, crap" moment. It's obvious, but not intuitive, sort of like a Chrysler limited slip differential.

The point being, some things people don't tend to think of on their own, it might be better to not let the shoe drop if it's not out, which is in opposition to most posters on the thread.

Originally posted by roguetechieThey have a pretty good idea of how it works since they purposely released the paper that directly lead to the f117's development.

I'd say the release was more accident than on purpose. "Method of Edge Waves" isn't an obvious, immediate leap to "...and so this is stealth technology". You have to read the thing in the right frame of mind. Legend has it that the guy that did was on the crapper at the time.

The good thing is that we've got Ufimtsev here at UCLA, where he then proceeded to update the theory and abstract it to curved surfaces, which is one reason the later designed craft didn't look so facet-y.

There are other things that go into stealth aircraft as well as the shape, although that's a lot of it. At one time they glowed in the dark.

And of course, since 2004 or so, things are a bit different. There's stuff that isn't common knowledge and stuff that's not fielded yet that'll blow your mind.

Originally posted by roguetechie

Celldar announced in 2001 to be able to detect stealth aircraft by the british

april 22 2008 f-117 retired as celldar is being publically talked about in Iran as well...

Well, don't let that be the linchpin of whatever you're trying to come up with - it's ALWAYS been known that you could detect stealth with bistatic radar. Always. "Celldar" is just a twist on bistatic radar - there's nothing new about it other than you're using cell towers. "Celldar" doesn't give you speed, altitude, vector or anything like a PPI radar. You get "hey, there's something here" and that's it. You can't use it for fire direction or nighttime search radar on a fighter.

We've got a way to turn other people's stealth into a nice picture of what sort of craft it was and which way it was heading when it crossed the bistatic picket line (clever twist on SAR imaging) but it still won't tell you where they went.

Now, there ARE ways to defeat the stealth on a craft designed with Ufimtsev shape-based/RAM/other stealth that we used on, say, the B117 and B2: the public edition, but it requires you to be fairly close before you can use it as a search radar, or you have to have some really new and as yet not-widely-discussed radar technology.

The "later upgrades" are a bit tougher to 'burn through'.

Many people believe that the f117's only secrets are related to it's stealth technology... maybe that's what the chinese believed at the time too...

They'd be right - the "other secrets" you're probably alluding to won't fit on an B117. B2, yep.

I have slowly but surely been assembling a set of data that looks like the Russians accidentally ON PURPOSE released the math paper that resulted in the f117 .

But they released it in 1962, where it lay unread and unappreciated until the '70s. Long LONG before cell phones.

Especially when one considers that If I remember my lore correctly the first real talk about stealth being detectable by cellular broadcasting equipment came from a university team in a former soviet Bloc nation... (the article I'm looking for seems to have vaporized go figure lol)

Ignore the "celldar"-ness of it, what you're pondering about is bistatic radar and low-observables, which is old news. Go google for those.

Now this line of research I'm pursuing stems all the way back to penemunde and the dark days of world war 2 when there were known to be groups working at trying to find a way to defeat radar... depending on who you ask this got anywhere from NOWHERE to a retrofitted glider mockup. The interesting thing is the scientists involved in that side of the project were scooped up by the russians... who have been VERY GOOD at missiles compared to us...

Peenemunde had nothing to do with radar. The Germans were never all that good at radar in WW2. The Brits were the guys that pulled off the magic, then we did a lot to get the engineering bits right. As a weird sideline, developing good microwave detectors is what sparked the development of the transistor, through a twisted path.

There were groups that were working to defeat radar, though. By standard means like chaff and jamming, for one.

Originally posted by Bedlam
Nope - nuclear shaped charges. A nuke that squirts the bang in a preferred direction, or with a particularly formed shock wavefront.

Everyone tries to figure out how to make it happen, when you see the insides it's always a "well, crap" moment. It's obvious, but not intuitive, sort of like a Chrysler limited slip differential.

!

I see what you mean. I haven't a clue how to nuke in a general direction. Seems as though it's really hard to apply any directionality to fission or fusion products---like making radioactive decay all come out "left".

The point being, some things people don't tend to think of on their own, it might be better to not let the shoe drop if it's not out, which is in opposition to most posters on the thread.

Covering up nastier nukes, I'm down with that.

Obsoleting petroleum or building warp drive? No. Figure out something but get it going.

just to make it clear for those that don't know you set off a nuke by having a ball of plutonium suspended directly in the center of a very carefully machined geodetic ball of explosives (imagine a hollow soccer ball made out of precision shaped pieces of explosive rather than fabric ... with the plutonium ball EXACTLY in the center...)

Now you get your wires and detonators each wire EXACTLY THE SAME LENGTH etc... (the explosion needs to uniformly push inwards on all sides to create a supercritical cascade reaction) and very very precision timed detonation circuits. the early ones were even more sketchy and quite honestly the most surprising thing is little boy and fat man both actually detonated

Originally posted by roguetechie...in the center of a very carefully machined geodetic ball of explosives (imagine a hollow soccer ball made out of precision shaped pieces of explosive rather than fabric ... with the plutonium ball EXACTLY in the center...)

It's worse than you think - the blocks themselves were not just pieces of explosive, but were precision machined combinations of different types of explosives that re-shaped the blast wave to a concave sphere to match the pit.

We generally do things a bit differently now but Navy weapons still do it something like that, as well as the newer Sandia crop.

what if your thinking of it all wrong... what if you dont use the magnet to power the device physically like a piston, but instead use the magnet field as the power source.. convert the magnetic field to usable electricity

I was aware of that bedlam ...

that is why I put the Basically at the beginning...

I am not interested in building a nuclear weapon nor do I want to accidentally give anyone else the info they'd need to build one lol... you could say I'm anti proliferation.

OP, where do you buy your lodestone from?

I can't find a source that I would consider "reliable" or a source which would supply big enough cuts.

I've had an idea for a free energy, magnetised generator for years, since High School. It came to be me one day whilst we were working with magnetics in class. I've got drawn plans and everything. I totally forgot about it for years until I found my old school books again before moving.

It seems plenty of people have had the same idea over the years. I think it'd work, and could easily be the basis for many various machines.

It needs to be made, and working properly.