Merged Antigravity, engine and experiments with a flying saucer.

[Reality Check]

Three deluded and abysmally ignorant videos about Frizbees and a glider

...

12 November 2019 MasterOgon:Three deluded and abysmally ignorant videos about Frizbees and a glider!

MasterOgon does not know how Frizbees or gliders work ! It is basic aerodynamics. Simple put, the flow of air over a wing shape creates lift.

"Технологии НЛО. Летающая тарелка. Антигравитация. UFO technology. Flying saucer. Antigravity 2018" is 16 seconds of an idiot throwing a Frizbee in what looks like their bedroom and labeling the video "Flying saucer" and "Antigravity".

"Новый антигравитационный двигатель для летающей тарелки" (New anti-gravity flying saucer engine) is 1:34 of an idiot throwing a Frizbee in a field lots of time, it hitting the ground, and labeling the video "anti-gravity flying saucer engine".

"Антигравитация!!! Технология НЛО в действии. Antigravity! UFO technology in action." is 16 seconds ... of an idiot throwing a glider (looks like a cut-down Frisbee) and labeling the video "antigravity", etc. !

 

[The Man]

It is generally accepted that asymmetric oscillations can lead to a movement in the direction of a slow pulse, since in this direction the resistance should be less. There is a patent for an aircraft in the shape of an umbrella, which should raise the umbrella slowly and quickly lower it. Here is a brief summary of this
http://puti.dp.ua/nepoznannoe/3585.html
It really works like surface tension.But in practice it turned out that when the umbrella compresses the air above itself, it does not expand backward, like a spring, but continues to fly further by inertia and leaves a lower pressure above the umbrella. The air under the umbrella tends to fill this space and pushes from below. The video shows that when the saucer stops at the top, the ring vortex under it continues to move upward and flows around the saucer. This is the force that pushes. https://youtu.be/6uP2JjZLNro?list=PLrm6nkD3lMdHSAobaACNeqzMncPxXzddI&t=65

Yes, pushing from below is how buoyancy works. Higher density air weighs more and falls, lower density air weighs less and rises because falling higher density air pushes it up.

ETA: To try to put it in terms of your description for you the higher density air above the umbrella (created by the umbrella's motion up) doesn't "fly further" anywhere. It just falls over the umbrella, increasing the air density below it while reducing the density above.

A phenomenon is known when a sharp decrease in a helicopter leads to a strong loss of altitude. This happens for the same reason. The helicopter pushes a mass of air down, and this mass moves by inertia together with the helicopter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_ring_state

That's not what your own citation says. The vortex ring state noted there is the formation of a secondary (to the normal blade tip vortex pushing down) vortex of upward moving air in the inner blade section. Lowering rotor efficacy and reducing air destiny below the rotor while increasing it above (loss of lift).

 

[MasterOgon]

Do not tell me about aerodynamics. It remains at the level of the century before last until now. In accordance with the proposed theory, the pressure difference, leading to the formation of the lifting force of the wing, arises due to the action of the forces of attraction and repulsion of air molecules in the boundary layer. In the picture, the flow around the wing by the boundary layer. Vortices formed behind the wing as a result of the release of thermal energy lead to the movement of air from the upper to the lower, creating a pressure difference. The layer of air indicated in the figure is very thin. It can be seen in a viscous liquid, where its thickness becomes larger.
When a wing crashes into air, squeezing it in front of itself, the distance between the molecules decreases and they repel each other due to their thermal energy. Part is pushed forward and this creates drag. And most of them are pushed up, and scattering forms rarefied air. Further, attraction begins to act between them, and the molecules tend to collapse back. Due to the fact that when they hit the leading edge, they received an impulse leading to the release of repulsive and attractive forces, their energy is greater than that of molecules under the wing. And so they bend around the trailing edge and move there against flight reaching the leading edge, where they are cut off by repelling molecules. Because of this collision, a stream of smoke blowing the wing in the wind tunnel to the last tends to go over the upper part of the wing even if it is moved strongly down. Thus, the forces of attraction act on the wing from above and the forces of repulsion of air molecules from below. Molecules continue to be repelled and attracted like a spring even after they are left behind the wing. This is turbulence. This process occurs rhythmically, and not evenly, as aerodynamics believes. This rhythm is clearly visible in the video with the vaper and is the cause of flutter.

 

[MasterOgon]

Image

 

[curious cat]

[qimg]https://lenr.su/forum/index.php?attachments/t-jpg.1935/[/qimg]
Do not tell me about aerodynamics. It remains at the level of the century before last until now. In accordance with the proposed theory, the pressure difference, leading to the formation of the lifting force of the wing, arises due to the action of the forces of attraction and repulsion of air molecules in the boundary layer. In the picture, the flow around the wing by the boundary layer. Vortices formed behind the wing as a result of the release of thermal energy lead to the movement of air from the upper to the lower, creating a pressure difference. The layer of air indicated in the figure is very thin. It can be seen in a viscous liquid, where its thickness becomes larger.
When a wing crashes into air, squeezing it in front of itself, the distance between the molecules decreases and they repel each other due to their thermal energy. Part is pushed forward and this creates drag. And most of them are pushed up, and scattering forms rarefied air. Further, attraction begins to act between them, and the molecules tend to collapse back. Due to the fact that when they hit the leading edge, they received an impulse leading to the release of repulsive and attractive forces, their energy is greater than that of molecules under the wing. And so they bend around the trailing edge and move there against flight reaching the leading edge, where they are cut off by repelling molecules. Because of this collision, a stream of smoke blowing the wing in the wind tunnel to the last tends to go over the upper part of the wing even if it is moved strongly down. Thus, the forces of attraction act on the wing from above and the forces of repulsion of air molecules from below. Molecules continue to be repelled and attracted like a spring even after they are left behind the wing. This is turbulence. This process occurs rhythmically, and not evenly, as aerodynamics believes. This rhythm is clearly visible in the video with the vaper and is the cause of flutter.

Scary stuff

 

[The Man]

Do not tell me about aerodynamics.

Well then stop showing us that you need to be told about aerodynamics.

[qimg]https://lenr.su/forum/index.php?attachments/t-jpg.1935/[/qimg]
It remains at the level of the century before last until now. In accordance with the proposed theory, the pressure difference, leading to the formation of the lifting force of the wing, arises due to the action of the forces of attraction and repulsion of air molecules in the boundary layer. In the picture, the flow around the wing by the boundary layer. Vortices formed behind the wing as a result of the release of thermal energy lead to the movement of air from the upper to the lower, creating a pressure difference. The layer of air indicated in the figure is very thin. It can be seen in a viscous liquid, where its thickness becomes larger.

Nope, air simply takes longer to travel over the wing then under. Making the air under the wing a higher pressure than over, hence lift.

The "Vortices formed behind the wing" produce drag on the wing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

When a wing crashes into air, squeezing it in front of itself, the distance between the molecules decreases and they repel each other due to their thermal energy. Part is pushed forward and this creates drag. And most of them are pushed up, and scattering forms rarefied air. Further, attraction begins to act between them, and the molecules tend to collapse back. Due to the fact that when they hit the leading edge, they received an impulse leading to the release of repulsive and attractive forces, their energy is greater than that of molecules under the wing. And so they bend around the trailing edge and move there against flight reaching the leading edge, where they are cut off by repelling molecules. Because of this collision, a stream of smoke blowing the wing in the wind tunnel to the last tends to go over the upper part of the wing even if it is moved strongly down. Thus, the forces of attraction act on the wing from above and the forces of repulsion of air molecules from below. Molecules continue to be repelled and attracted like a spring even after they are left behind the wing. This is turbulence. This process occurs rhythmically, and not evenly, as aerodynamics believes. This rhythm is clearly visible in the video with the vaper and is the cause of flutter.

By its very definition turbulence isn't something that happens "evenly". Your simple characterization of "aerodynamics" is trivially and demonstrably wrong.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/turbulence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbulence

For the lower portion of your image the angle of attack puts the airfoil in a stall condition. The air path difference between over and under the airfoil is significantly reduced, thus significantly reducing lift, and causing high drag from the increased turbulence. In such a high angle of attack your flight dynamics go from aircraft to brick.

 

[Reality Check]

Lies and delusions about aerodynamics

Do not tell me about aerodynamics. ...

13 November 2019 MasterOgon: Lies and delusions about aerodynamics

A lie of aerodynamics being "at the level of the century before last"..
A delusion that his ignorant gibberish is aerodynamics.
A delusion that his antigravity stupidity is aerodynamics !

Insanity of a lifting force from "attraction and repulsion of air molecules in the boundary layer", etc. on a wing !. The physics is that there has to be a mismatch in forces to give a net lifting force. These mostly imaginary forces are equal in the small layer next top a wing. Imaginary because air molecules do not attract or repel - they basically bounce off each other. Mostly imaginary because there are short range forces between air molecules during those collisions.

 

[Reality Check]

Stupidity of argument by cartoon drawn to confirm his delusions

Image

13 November 2019 MasterOgon: Stupidity of argument by cartoon drawn to confirm his delusions!

Lies and delusions about aerodynamics is not supported by him drawing what he imagines to happen around a wing. We have thousands (maybe millions?) of actual images of the flow of air around wings.

Especially when the cartoon obviously lies - see how he changed the length of arrows for the flow of air in the boundary layer .
If he accepted the textbook physics of aerodynamics, that would be correct. The air has a longer distance to go and so has to move faster in order to conserve quantities - this is part of Bernoulli's principle.

 

[Myriad]

Yes, these are my experiments. Indeed, it’s almost impossible to understand from the video that this works. The effect that I got is that in the free flow, the lift of the aerodynamic profile grows faster. The same effect without an engine can be obtained by reducing weight or increasing the speed of the throw. Only by some signs can we understand that this works. The first is slow motion. Frisbee spins faster. Secondly, this is the sound of the engine. When the engine starts to repel, the speed decreases. Here you can clearly see how a sharp increase in lift is accompanied by a deceleration of the motor. https://youtu.be/Y3JwBJ4iaho The biggest problem that I cannot solve myself is sustainability. Similar light forms can fly well and soar in the wind. But the more I increased the engine power, the earlier the overturning took place. In this video, the first two throws with the engine turned off, in the third throw, the motor rotates by inertia, then the motor is turned on and the saucer tilts more, trying to turn over https://youtu.be/OLseBWrmX_g To make the effect visual, I put the engine on the plane. Despite his perfect alignment, he began to nod excessively, somewhat reminiscent of a dolphin. You can see that at first it flies normally, until the pressure under the wing accumulates. It moves as rhythmically as the foam in the water that I posted earlier https://youtu.be/XLvvcr6mRYY
All my attempts to compare the free fall of the saucer with the engine turned off and on were unsuccessful, because it turned over with the engine turned on, and as a result, it fell faster. Now I am stuck in a dead end, as increasing the engine power, I just can not make the saucer fly stably.

Jellyfish undulations can propel a jellyfish through water, but there are several different factors that make that effect difficult to apply to an aircraft in air. Jellyfish are neutrally buoyant, while most aircraft (excepting balloons and dirigibles) are not. Has anyone tested the actual lifting force of jellyfish, such as by suspending weights from them to see at what weight they can no longer rise through the water? Second, water is a lot denser than air. If you put wheels on a kayak set on a smooth surface, you still couldn't paddle it through the air very well, even if you made the paddles larger and designed the paddle to fold up on the return stroke. Producing force by pushing on air requires much higher speeds and/or much larger contact areas; think of airplane wings, propellers, and jet engines.

So, before testing your saucer's ability to fly, why not start out with static tests? Suspend it from a sensitive balance and see how much if any force it's producing when powered on. That's what the Wright Brothers did. They tried to test kites based on the best existing theories about how much lift they should produce, and found they didn't perform as expected. So they did their own wind tunnel tests on small models of wing shapes to find out how much lift they would actually get. That showed them that they wouldn't be able to fly without a lighter-weight engine of sufficient power, which they had to build. They didn't just decide "wings should produce lift" and build any old wings they felt like and power it with whatever engine was available off the shelf. That's what other aviation pioneers were doing at the time, which is why the Wrights got there first.

If you're going to try to prove your propulsion system's effectiveness by comparing falling times rather than achieving actual flight, then you need to launch them in some consistent way rather than just tossing them into the air and announcing your subjective perception of how well you think they did. What about wind? A static test is a lot easier to control and make comparisons. If actually falling through the air is necessary, then do a drop test from a specific height (after, if necessary, imparting a controlled consistent spin). If the saucer must be hurled skyward, then build a mechanical launcher so you can launch consistently and make valid comparisons. Use consistent launches, and an actual timer or video frame counts, to compare how much lift was achieved.

 

[MasterOgon]

For the lower portion of your image the angle of attack puts the airfoil in a stall condition. The air path difference between over and under the airfoil is significantly reduced, thus significantly reducing lift, and causing high drag from the increased turbulence. In such a high angle of attack your flight dynamics go from aircraft to brick.

Right. This image shows how stalling leads to stall. Vortices change position and now pressurize the upper part of the wing.

 

[MasterOgon]

Well then stop showing us that you need to be told about aerodynamics.



Nope, air simply takes longer to travel over the wing then under. Making the air under the wing a higher pressure than over, hence lift.

The "Vortices formed behind the wing" produce drag on the wing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)




By its very definition turbulence isn't something that happens "evenly". Your simple characterization of "aerodynamics" is trivially and demonstrably wrong.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/turbulence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbulence

For the lower portion of your image the angle of attack puts the airfoil in a stall condition. The air path difference between over and under the airfoil is significantly reduced, thus significantly reducing lift, and causing high drag from the increased turbulence. In such a high angle of attack your flight dynamics go from aircraft to brick.

13 November 2019 MasterOgon: Lies and delusions about aerodynamics

A lie of aerodynamics being "at the level of the century before last"..
A delusion that his ignorant gibberish is aerodynamics.
A delusion that his antigravity stupidity is aerodynamics !

Insanity of a lifting force from "attraction and repulsion of air molecules in the boundary layer", etc. on a wing !. The physics is that there has to be a mismatch in forces to give a net lifting force. These mostly imaginary forces are equal in the small layer next top a wing. Imaginary because air molecules do not attract or repel - they basically bounce off each other. Mostly imaginary because there are short range forces between air molecules during those collisions.

Yes, short range and long range. the difference in strength is given by the shape of the wing

 

[MasterOgon]

13 November 2019 MasterOgon: Stupidity of argument by cartoon drawn to confirm his delusions!

Lies and delusions about aerodynamics is not supported by him drawing what he imagines to happen around a wing. We have thousands (maybe millions?) of actual images of the flow of air around wings.

Especially when the cartoon obviously lies - see how he changed the length of arrows for the flow of air in the boundary layer .
If he accepted the textbook physics of aerodynamics, that would be correct. The air has a longer distance to go and so has to move faster in order to conserve quantities - this is part of Bernoulli's principle.

You did not carefully read my post. This layer is very thin in the air. Only in a viscous liquid does it become noticeable. I specifically exaggerated it. To see it, one must consider the flow around the wing under a microscope.

You did not carefully read my post. This layer is very thin in the air. Only in a viscous liquid does it become noticeable. I specifically exaggerated it. To see it, one must consider the flow around the wing under a microscope.
And tell me one thing. If rarefied air above the rear of the wing creates a reduced pressure, is it not equal to the increased pressure above the front of the wing, where the air is compressed and slowed down before it expands and accelerates?

 

[MasterOgon]

Myriad, you're right. But there are still birds using almost the same principle in the air. If you notice how the bird often flaps its wing before being assumed, you will see oscillations with a very small amplitude. I bet that with a very sharp and short blow in the air, more energy will be released than with slow oscillations with a large amplitude. In addition, no one forbids the use of light gas as fish.
A mechanical launcher is a good option, but I have nowhere to build it. And I don’t see much point. The dolphin plane works more than clearly and without it. Here https://youtu.be/aCAFfisXYa4 at 0.52 there is even access to the critical angle of attack without stalling, which only modern fighters can do.
But no matter how much I conduct experiments and prove to everyone that I am right, there will be nothing until I have a prototype that can be sold. Like the Wright brothers. After all, models of aircraft with a motor and the corresponding project existed long before them

 

[Orphia Nay]

Are we supposed to think this is a hypothetical, i.e. in Disneyland?

 

[curious cat]

Image

I really like the bottom part of your drawing. Why don't you try your luck as cartoonist? This one could give you a good start .

 

[Reality Check]

the cartoon he drew to confirm his "aerodynamics" delusions

...

14 November 2019 MasterOgon: Describes the cartoon he drew to confirm his "aerodynamics" delusions.

 

[Reality Check]

Confirms his delusions and ends with ignorance about how wings work

...

14 November 2019 MasterOgon: Confirms his delusions and ends with ignorance about how wings work.

I read the entire post. The stupidity about the boundary layer (however thick it is) is the first delusion in it so I wrote about that in Lies and delusions about aerodynamics.

The vortex insanity is another matter. Wings are deigned to minimize turbulence. There is laminar flow across the bottom of the wing (no vortexes) and laminar flow becoming turbulent across the top (vortexes along the top rear of the wing).

Aerodynamics
Lift in wings is not caused by his "rarefied air above the rear of the wing". it is caused by the difference in air flows above and below the wing.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Oookay. Let's jump back to your first post.

Since antiquity, it was believed that all world space is filled with ether - a subatomic substance from which all types of matter are formed and the whole surrounding world consists. Theories of scientists, including the theory of gravity, were based on this statement. And even Newton initially agreed that the transfer of energy from one body to another, such as the attraction of planets, can occur only through the medium. But later he changed his mind, and it became generally accepted thanks to his authority in scientific circles.

Since antiquity, it was believed that illness was caused by malign spirits, bad air, imbalanced humours, and any number of discredited ideas. You should keep that in mind when you open a discussion like this.

The first theory explaining gravity, the so-called screen theory, advanced in 1748 by Lomonosov. He suggested that the two bodies next to them were bombarded from all sides with particles of ether, and because of the fact that these bodies close each other, the pressure of the ether between them becomes less and they approach.

The least you can do is get your facts straight. The screen theory was first proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1688. It's also a theory which sounds interesting, but which collapses upon even a small amount of thought. The problem is that there must be a preferred frame of reference in which the net pressure is zero, and any motion with respect to this frame must be opposed by an equivalent of viscous drag. That planets continue to spin in their orbits is fatally inconsistent with this fact. Newton recognized this, and rejected the theory. Others, including Lord Kelvin, have rediscovered the idea, but it didn't work for them any better than it did for Duillier.

Additionally, the ether particles must be partially absorbed by the screening bodies at a rate proportional to their mass, rather than reflected. If this were not true, then a low-density object would screen the ether as well as a high-density object, and would have the same attraction. This would cause heating of the body, and it's easy to calculate that the amount of heat required would be very noticeable. Since such heating does not occur, the theory fails.

Further, in 1856, physicist Bjerknes advanced a pulsating theory, citing a simple experiment in which two balls vibrating freely on the water approached each other or repelled by the waves created by them depending on how they oscillated — in phase or semi-phase. The Englishman Cook conducted a similar experience with cylinders modeling electrical, magnetic and diamagnetic phenomena. The experimenter, Guthrie (1870) showed experiments on the attraction and repulsion of oscillating tuning forks. In 1958, Stanyukovich conducted an experiment on the theory of runoff from Schott. Air was blown into two hollow balls with many small holes. The outflow of air from the holes in the balls was the cause of the attraction of the balls. All these experiments beautifully illustrated the mechanism of gravity, provided that the ether is the medium through which interactions between bodies are transmitted.

And, since an ether-particle-based force of gravity is entirely inconsistent with the observed universe, all of those experiments are entirely beside the point.

 

[Reality Check]

Ignorant delusions about air, its forces and a wing

Yes, short range and long range. the difference in strength is given by the shape of the wing

14 November 2019 MasterOgon: Ignorant delusions about air, its forces and a wing !

Air is made of neutral molecules (ignore flying in the ionosphere!). There are no long range forces between neutral molecules (other than gravity - feel free to work out how big they are if you can ).
There are short range forces between them when the molecules collide because they can then see the effects of the individual electrons. That range is on the scale of the size of a molecule. An O2 molecule is 292 picometers (10^-12 meters) across. That range is ~10^-9 meters !

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

It can be assumed that in the same way atoms and other particles in the ether move.

Sure it can be assumed. Of course, justifying that assumption is something which you have failed to do.

An atom with a high electron rotation velocity is more repelled by other atoms,

And here we get into, shall we say, a different reality. If you accept the Rutherford model of the atom (and "electron rotation velocity" establishes that you do), then you must accept that the electron rotation velocity is c, the speed of light in a vacuum. Anyone with even a fairly basic knowledge of physics will recognize that this speed does not change with the temperature of an atom. Among other things, it would result in stimulated emission wavelengths varying with temperature - and they do not.

and this explains the expansion of matter when heated. Pushing away from other atoms and following the path of least resistance, the heated gas rises. At the same time, its ability to move in the direction of other atoms, to gravitate will be minimal. If the speed of rotation of the electron in orbit decreases, then the ability to repel oneself from obstacles decreases, and the ability to move in a homogeneous ether medium will increase. Adding electrons to the atomic orbit will reduce the asymmetry, and accordingly, the amplitude of its oscillations.

And, blah blah blah. "Electron rotation velocity" does not and cannot change with temperature, so none of this reasoning has any connection with reality.