An interesting comment on stealth wrt UFOs

  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Interesting
In summary, the conversation discusses the use of plasmas on aircraft to reduce drag and radar signature. It is suggested that this technology has been tested and may have been seen by UFO researchers. The idea that it could also alter the appearance of the aircraft is mentioned, but there are questions about its feasibility and practicality. The use of bright lights to camouflage aircraft during the day is also brought up. It is noted that this plasma is different from radar absorbent material, as it ionizes the air near the surface of the craft to reduce drag and alter the radar signal, while the absorbent paint dissipates the radar energy as heat. The potential drawbacks of using this technology, such as blocking all communications and radar, are also discussed.
  • #1
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,142
1,756
...I leave it to those who compile statistics on flying saucers to say how many glowing UFOs were sighted under these conditions and how many appeared to be luminous on their own account. Note also the wording in Patent 3,713,157 which says that the plasma cloud produces a combination of ‘absorbtion, reflection, refraction and diffraction’ across frequencies including visible spectrum, which would certainly alter the appearance of an aircraft, perhaps to the point of making it an unrecognisable blob. [continued]
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002286.html

This comes from the concept discussed - using plasmas on the skin of aircraft to reduce drag and to reduce the RADAR signature - which is an idea known to serious UFO researchers for some years now. I think it is likely that this technology has been developed or at least tested at some level, and this is seen from time to time. However, the idea that this might be used to distort the appearance of an object is new to me. That is a fascinating idea... I wonder if it is possible [and practical] to do this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Ivan Seeking said:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002286.html

This comes from the concept discussed - using plasmas on the skin of aircraft to reduce drag and to reduce the RADAR signature - which is an idea known to serious UFO researchers for some years now. I think it is likely that this technology has been developed or at least tested at some level, and this is seen from time to time. However, the idea that this might be used to distort the appearance of an object is new to me. That is a fascinating idea... I wonder if it is possible [and practical] to do this.

I suppose for a plasma to exist on the outside of an aircraft you need one of the following;

a) Extreme heat, localised in gas around the aircraft for it have an effect it ,ust be a pretty dense plasma which needs a lot of heat. Were talking on the order of 100,000K or thereabouts.

b) Extreme electric fields which ionise the air around the craft, again, to get a good effect you need a very strong field.

c) Ionising radiation, emitted at such a frequency and intensity as to completely ionise the air surrounding the craft, that would be a lot of dangerous radiation.

It seems possible that one (or another) scheme might be employed, but there are two main problems here, the power supply would have to be HUGE and kepping the plasma localised around the craft would be tricky. Mainly the power supply though.

They are my thoughts
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
A radar blocking stealth system that also emitted a huge amount of RF noise in every direction might have certain drawbacks.
 
  • #4
wrt high voltage aircraft, has anyone ever shown thrust effects from a T. Townsend Brown type device that was NOT TETHERED ?

and wrt to the radar blocking, does high voltage DC emit RF noise if it's not arcing?
 
  • #5
Proton Soup said:
and wrt to the radar blocking, does high voltage DC emit RF noise if it's not arcing?
Generating a plasma is pretty mnuch the definition of arcing.
 
  • #6
mgb_phys said:
Generating a plasma is pretty mnuch the definition of arcing.

not sure i agree. it's a necessary part of arcing, tho.
 
  • #7
Necropost anyone? Must be contageous these days...

Anyway, the article talks about painting the U-2 black to reduce reflections from the sun. That would only make a difference at sunrise and sunset, when the sun is below the U-2. All other times, you'd want it to be silver. In fact, experiments were done with bright lights underneath aircraft to help camoflauge them during the day as they are darker than the sky otherwise.
 
  • #8
Ivan Seeking said:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002286.html

This comes from the concept discussed - using plasmas on the skin of aircraft to reduce drag and to reduce the RADAR signature - which is an idea known to serious UFO researchers for some years now. I think it is likely that this technology has been developed or at least tested at some level, and this is seen from time to time. However, the idea that this might be used to distort the appearance of an object is new to me. That is a fascinating idea... I wonder if it is possible [and practical] to do this.

Isn't plasma matter going at a very fast rate, so fast that it generates heat and light? Wouldn't something like that melt the aircraft?

============================OK, I read the article, it'd appears that this "plasma" is radioactive? How is it different from radar absorbent material used since ww2? Don't they already do this to modern-day aircraft?

If this material blocks all communications and radar on the aircraft, then applying it on the surface of an aircraft to make it look like a "blob" seems retarded. Especially, when something really shiny and unidentifiable would get everyone's attention. That's probably why they painted the U2's black to begin with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
michinobu said:
Isn't plasma matter going at a very fast rate, so fast that it generates heat and light? Wouldn't something like that melt the aircraft?

============================


OK, I read the article, it'd appears that this "plasma" is radioactive? How is it different from radar absorbent material used since ww2? Don't they already do this to modern-day aircraft?

Not the same thing. The radioactive material would [in principle] ionize the air near the surface of the craft, thus reducing the drag. Also, changing the density of the air near the surface of the craft would cause the RADAR signal to refract.

The RADAR absorbent paints are designed to dissipate the RADAR energy as heat, in order to reduce the strength of the reflected signal.

If this material blocks all communications and radar on the aircraft, then applying it on the surface of an aircraft to make it look like a "blob" seems retarded. Especially, when something really shiny and unidentifiable would get everyone's attention. That's probably why they painted the U2's black to begin with.

AFAIK, the point is not to make it look like a blob, but that would allegedly be a possible result of the effort to make it more aerodynamic. But the point of your objection was one reason why they didn't continue with this approach.

The idea here is that some UFO reports of glowing blobs might be explained by this early testing.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Ivan Seeking said:
But the point of your objection was one reason why they didn't continue with this approach.

The idea here is that some UFO reports of glowing blobs might be explained by this early testing.

That and swamp gas, I suppose. lol. But, actually I really don't believe the whole UFO thing, mostly because if they were a highly advanced alien race, then not only should their aircraft be invisible to radar but their ships shouldn't be visible to begin with. For a race of beings who were so advanced as to travel many light-years to get here, you'd think that they'd find a way to bend light around their aircraft so as to remain invisible.
 
  • #11
I'm not saying that ET is here, but yes, I think we have to allow that any potential visitors would be advanced far beyond our level of knowledge. The same may apply to motives, and the logic of their actions. We may or may not be able to make sense of it. But again, clearly, there is no known proof that ET has been here. There are some compelling cases, IMO, but, proof? No.

Also, just fyi, the swamp gas bit was invented [first used] by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, who later became the father of modern Ufology, as it is called. For twenty years he was the chief scientist for the government, for Project Bluebook, which investigated the UFO phenomenon, under the control of the USAF. He was assigned to be the official debunker of the UFO claims, but later became a convert in that he believed there was a genuine and perplexing mystery. And he did believe in the end that a highly exotic explanation is required.

See the UFO Napster for details.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
I assume the radar-blocking effect is caused by the plasma acting like a perfect conductor around the craft. Would you be able to create a plasma dense enough to act like a perfect concuctor?
 
  • #13
A perfect conductor would be the worst possible stealth material - it would be like making your UFO out of an antenea
 

1. What is stealth technology in relation to UFOs?

Stealth technology refers to the ability of an aircraft or other object to evade detection by radar or other detection methods. In relation to UFOs, it is often discussed as a potential explanation for how these objects are able to remain undetected by our advanced military technology.

2. Why is there speculation about UFOs being equipped with stealth technology?

There is speculation about UFOs being equipped with stealth technology because of their reported ability to move at high speeds and change direction quickly without being detected by our radar systems. This suggests that they may have advanced technology that allows them to evade detection.

3. Is there any evidence to support the idea of UFOs using stealth technology?

There is no concrete evidence to support the idea of UFOs using stealth technology. However, there have been numerous reports from military personnel and civilians about UFOs exhibiting behaviors that suggest they have advanced technology, including the ability to evade detection.

4. How does stealth technology work?

Stealth technology works by reducing the radar cross-section of an object, making it less visible to radar systems. This is achieved through a combination of design features, such as smooth surfaces and angled edges, as well as the use of radar-absorbent materials.

5. Could UFOs be using a form of stealth technology that we are not familiar with?

It is possible that UFOs could be using a form of stealth technology that we are not familiar with. Given the advanced nature of their reported abilities, it is possible that they have developed technology that is beyond our current understanding and capabilities.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
30K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top