An interesting comment on stealth wrt UFOs


by Ivan Seeking
Tags: comment, interesting, stealth, ufos
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#1
Apr3-06, 06:22 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
...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.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur
Hackathon team's GoogolPlex gives Siri extra powers
Bright points in Sun's atmosphere mark patterns deep in its interior
gareth
gareth is offline
#2
Nov4-08, 11:57 AM
P: 169
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
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
mgb_phys
mgb_phys is offline
#3
Nov4-08, 12:17 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 8,961
A radar blocking stealth system that also emitted a huge amount of RF noise in every direction might have certain drawbacks.

Proton Soup
Proton Soup is offline
#4
Nov4-08, 02:06 PM
P: 1,070

An interesting comment on stealth wrt UFOs


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?
mgb_phys
mgb_phys is offline
#5
Nov4-08, 05:17 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 8,961
Quote Quote by Proton Soup View Post
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.
Proton Soup
Proton Soup is offline
#6
Nov4-08, 05:24 PM
P: 1,070
Quote Quote by mgb_phys View Post
Generating a plasma is pretty mnuch the definition of arcing.
not sure i agree. it's a necessary part of arcing, tho.
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#7
Nov4-08, 09:22 PM
Mentor
P: 21,999
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.
michinobu
michinobu is offline
#8
Nov21-08, 04:19 PM
P: 53
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
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.
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#9
Nov21-08, 05:01 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
Quote Quote by michinobu View Post
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.
michinobu
michinobu is offline
#10
Nov21-08, 09:25 PM
P: 53
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
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.
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#11
Nov21-08, 10:32 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
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.
flatmaster
flatmaster is offline
#12
Dec1-08, 07:11 PM
P: 502
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?
mgb_phys
mgb_phys is offline
#13
Dec1-08, 07:22 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 8,961
A perfect conductor would be the worst possible stealth material - it would be like making your UFO out of an antenea


Register to reply

Related Discussions
stealth technology Engineering, Comp Sci, & Technology Homework 6
stealth characteristics Mechanical Engineering 2
Stealth Technology Classical Physics 9
Anyone know how does the stealth technology work? Computing & Technology 4