Interesting article about plasma and ECM.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Good point !

 

I don't think so. Humidity is the reason for pressurization of waveguides. Humidity will cause condensed water which will cause overheating and damages the waveguide (called arcing). Actually, a drop of water can cause the electromagnetic waves travelling along the inner surface of a waveguide (skin-effect) to burn holes into the metal. To overcome this, the waveguides will be filled with pressurized dryed air or another gas, pressurized because then no humidity will enter the waveguide if a leakage occurs.

And this not only affects high altitude aircraft, but any radar set, even ground based.

 

Nope, the waveguide also has a dessicant bottle attached to take care of the moisture. Moisture IS a problem at lower temperatures and pressures but its not the biggest reason for pressurizing the waveguide in a high-altitude aircraft (by "high-altitude" I actually mean anything that regularly flies above 18,000' ;) ). The low-pressure air can actually be ionized by the emissions from the maggie, creating conductive plasma. ;) There are many aircraft that don't require a pressurized waveguide, such as the C-47s I have under my care. Those are very simple, no waveguide seals, and no RF windows to worry about losing. :D

[golfsierra2]

Yup, many of the details shown in the Philadelphia Experiment were real events.

 

How do you know ?

[golfsierra2]

Nope, the waveguide also has a dessicant bottle attached to take care of the moisture. Moisture IS a problem at lower temperatures and pressures but its not the biggest reason for pressurizing the waveguide in a high-altitude aircraft (by "high-altitude" I actually mean anything that regularly flies above 18,000' ;) ). The low-pressure air can actually be ionized by the emissions from the maggie, creating conductive plasma. ;) There are many aircraft that don't require a pressurized waveguide, such as the C-47s I have under my care. Those are very simple, no waveguide seals, and no RF windows to worry about losing. :D

 

OK, didn't know that. I was referring to my knowledge about ground based radars (HAWK: AN/MPQ-55, AN/MPQ-57, AN/MPQ-50 and AN/MPQ-37, Patriot: AN/MPQ-65, ASACS: Thomson CSF MPR, GE RRP 117, Hughes HADR) which I worked with as an operator in recent years or better decades by now :D

[golfsierra2]

It actually happened except for the 2 guys going into the future bit(those guys disappeared). Some of the crazy things that happened included a guy whos body was halfway through a wall when the ship reappeared.

 

You are not serious about this, are you ?

What is your source of knowledge then ?

[SUBS17]

A friend of mines uncle was an ex USNavy pilot told me that he knew a guy who witnessed the ship disappear in the harbour. Thats about all I know about it, the USN are even more secretive than the USAF so not much information is available about it except for a few books and a documentary. The crazy thing about the whole incident was that they new it would be harmful to people after the 1st test with animals but went and did it anyway with people onboard with disasterous results.

[golfsierra2]

A friend of mines uncle was an ex USNavy pilot told me that he knew a guy who witnessed the ship disappear in the harbour. Thats about all I know about it, the USN are even more secretive than the USAF so not much information is available about it except for a few books and a documentary. The crazy thing about the whole incident was that they new it would be harmful to people after the 1st test with animals but went and did it anyway with people onboard with disasterous results.

 

I occasionally have looked into this story for about 20 years now, and I found that 99% of all sources are hearsay like yours: Typical "I know somebody who knows somebody who claimed that..."

 

Forget about it. It's nonsense....

Stick to Lock-On and FC - This is "real" virtuality - whatever that means :D

[nscode]

The crazy thing about the whole incident was that they new it would be harmful to people after the 1st test with animals but went and did it anyway with people onboard with disasterous results.

 

this part I belive

[Guest IguanaKing]

How do you know ?

 

There was a documentary about it on the history channel. No personal experience though. :D

[SUBS17]

I occasionally have looked into this story for about 20 years now, and I found that 99% of all sources are hearsay like yours: Typical "I know somebody who knows somebody who claimed that..."

 

Forget about it. It's nonsense....

Stick to Lock-On and FC - This is "real" virtuality - whatever that means :D

 

Well it was an ex USN fighter pilot who told me and it was his friend who saw the ship disappear. Its not like I was talking to someone without credibility.

[golfsierra2]

Well it was an ex USN fighter pilot who told me and it was his friend who saw the ship disappear. Its not like I was talking to someone without credibility.

 

So an USN fighter pilot career is the same as credibility itself ? I don't say that this person is not credible or that he was telling B*** on purpose, but what makes you think that he was right ?

 

According to your own words, which career or job makes people credible ? Politicians ? Priests ? Officers ? Lawyers? Construction workers ? Truck Drivers ? Whores ? Teachers? Banktellers ? You see the point ?

 

I beg you pardon, but your assessment that a certain job implies that all this one person tells is the truth an set in stone as fact is just pure nonsense an just plain naive....

 

You can't even go that far to take as fact that this pilot's friend was telling the truth, so how can you tell this pilot did ?

 

This becomes totally OT as of here, but hey, it might be usefull in some way...

[golfsierra2]

this part I belive

 

Fine, but believing is for people going to church, I prefer to know or to find out it's all nonsense.

 

And worse: Many people 'believe' but when chatting with others they put it like their assumptions are facts....

 

Likely SUBS17's pilot friend came to that story that way....

[Guest IguanaKing]

GolfSierra2, enough already, dude. :D Who cares if it actually happened or if it was BS. Are any of us going to die if we don't know whether its true or false? At this point in time, does it really matter? :helpsmilie:

[Pilotasso]

Yeah its a GW Shrub conspiracy ... he tried to hide secret naval plasma technology but ended up glueing sailors to walls and let a few rats escape to tell the story. Perfect plan. :D

[zare]

I heard stories of US Army using massive electromagnetic fields to cloak an battletank in late '50s.

 

Bullshit story, of course. To get back on-topic, i still believe that active-stealth technology is the way to go. Maybe not with plasma, with radiation of different kind...who knows.

 

In theory, uniform electromagnetic field around, for the sake of example, a fighter, could completely absorb radar emmited energy. However, that's still in the "theory domain", the magnitude of the field would be huge, and the field would have to be so precise, in other case, somebody would invent home-on-em AAMs very fast, and locking up to that amount energy wouldnt be a problem.

 

The other problem is secondary-emmited energy from the "fielded" fighter. It would be difficult to get anything out, be it radar beam or simple analog communications channel.

 

However, i still believe that this is the way to go. Take a look at the AAM technology. There are certain advantages of both passive and active homing. I would draw parallel here on stealth. Maybe an active-something around an fighter could be detected from an shorter range, but, it could be designed so that radar cannot lock to the source of emmisons (alike ECM tehniques). I mean, your RWR senses active-homing missile flying at you, but if that missile was fired from right envelope and right geomety conditions, you can't do a shit about it except hoping that it will run into your countermeasures. So, i see a first-batch of activestealth like that. If you manage to get close, near visual range, you'll detect something. But you can't get a firing solution. In a great BVR-theory, you wont get close to a stealth aircraft just that easy.

 

One thing crossed my mind too...F22 resembles the heaviest digital technology flying around. For instance, Raytheon's radar-control processors are two times slower than Intel's E6700 in terms of MIPS in arithmetic processing. I know those chips are dedicated controllers, and Core II is general purpose CPU, but you get the point. Figher aircraft is a complex system, with a 10 to 15 year interval from production blueprints to service. What's on that production blueprints, that's how it's gonna be. And in those 10 years, technology can evolve on a huge basis. That timespan is just too much for rapid implementation of cutting-edge tehnologies.

[golfsierra2]

GolfSierra2, enough already, dude. :D Who cares if it actually happened or if it was BS. Are any of us going to die if we don't know whether its true or false? At this point in time, does it really matter? :helpsmilie:

 

Well, in the end it doesn't matter at all. :D

 

I only was amazed by the way SUBS17 tried to seriously argument that a profession is directly linked to a certain degree of credibility which we all know is not. Billy Clinton for example: Highest "rank" so far and not honest at all...

You can extend that list infinite....