Merged Antigravity, engine and experiments with a flying saucer.

Complete nonsense
A spate of ignorance, gibberish, delusions and lies from MasterOgon starting from 22 October 2019 is the ignorance, delusions, or some lies about science in your posts.

That is an incomplete list. There are more to be added. If you do not want an ongoing record of posts continuing ignorance, delusion, or lies for the world to see, then do not post them, MasterOgon. Think about what your posts before writing them. Learn about the science you are supposed to be writing about. Back your posts up with that science.
 
Last edited:
The albatross is an interesting example. The reason that they are able to
spend most of their lives aloft is because their wings have evolved to an astonishing level of aerodynamic efficiency.

The (undeniable and astonishing) aerodynamic efficiency of Albatross' wing is only a part of the story. These smart buggers are cleverly exploiting the wind speed gradient above water gaining energy for an infinite soaring seemingly from nowhere.
https://teara.govt.nz/en/diagram/7068/energy-efficient-flight
I think they know much more about aerodynamic than Master Ogon :-).
 
The albatross is an interesting example. The reason that they are able to
spend most of their lives aloft is because their wings have evolved to an astonishing level of aerodynamic efficiency.

They are not so good at that take off and landing thing. Videos of it are a good laugh.

I did see a pair on land in the Galapagos. The were just meeting up and the greeting was interesting to watch.
 
They are not so good at that take off and landing thing. Videos of it are a good laugh.

I did see a pair on land in the Galapagos. The were just meeting up and the greeting was interesting to watch.

Ha! Yeah, those parts are comically clumsy. But it is not like they have to do it very often. IIRC, they mate for life
 
There's a reason, I guess, why albatross are nicknamed "gooney birds."

In the places I've seen them nesting, though, they often go for windy promontories and cliffs, where it's possible for them to get aloft pretty easily without a lot of fuss, and they do so with some frequency, not having to flap much to get airborne.

This seems to be the case for many colonial birds, which tend to nest on cliffs and peaks. You don't have to do much flapping if jumping off your nest puts you 50 feet above the water.
 
Flying saucer acoustic drive.
https://youtu.be/IyzIT2atqw0

It would appear that you have reinvented the frisbee, by screwing up the aerodynamics and adding a useless motor. Much like reinventing the wheel, by making it triangular.

The styrofoam thing on the water sort of works, because your rotating weights are rocking it and causing it to "swim" in the water. OTOH, a propeller would be a hell of a lot more efficient. I'm not too impressed with either "invention".

If you imagine either of those demonstrates anything remotely resembling antigravity, you are badly mistaken.
 
Last edited:
A deluded and lying video by maybe MasterOgon

Flying saucer acoustic drive.
4 December 2019 MasterOgon : A deluded and lying video by maybe MasterOgon.
Starts with a lying "Anti-gravity Principle" delusion. Insanity of a boat "rowing" in water. Throwing a Frisbee and not very well with a "drive off". Throwing a Frisbee still not very well with a "drive on". Thus a Frisbee is a flying saucer insanity, a delusion that he has shown antigravity working, and a "acoustic drive" delusion :jaw-dropp!
 
I just got back from a long trip to the southern hemisphere in which I got to see a lot of albatrosses and got some lecturing about them as well. They are fascinating critters. For those who do not know I will mention that the wandering albatross is at this time at least the largest bird in the world, with a huge wingspan, often in the ten foot range. They are so well designed for aerodynamic efficiency (and for sensing their environment) that they spend their entire lives at sea except when they come ashore to breed. They tend to fly very low, right above the waves even occasionally dipping a wing into the water, taking advantage of the lifting currents produced by the waves themselves. Their wings are evolved to lock horizontally, and they rarely if ever flap them when flying, but instead they bank to catch currents and get lift, and make micro-adjustments to trim. They are so efficient that their heart rate is slower when flying than it is when not flying. Albatross are fascinating to watch anyway (as are other big birds such as giant petrels). They stay aloft with apparent ease not by some physics-defying tricks or magical theorems, but by impressively fine aerodynamics which, though we poor clumsy landlubbers cannot duplicate them, those whose business it is to understand such things can explain.

I've never had the pleasure of observing albatrosses. I have, however, watched turkey vultures, who are also phenomenally good gliders. I remember watching one at the rim of the Grand Canyon, using a very light breeze blowing into the rim, gain a couple hundred feet of altitude, without flapping its wings at all; just banking to catch the right air currents.
 
Flying saucer and unexplored aerodynamic phenomenon

EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH OF FLAPPING FLIGHT, NOT EXPLORED PHENOMENON IN AERODYNAMICS AND THE QUESTION OF FLYING SAUCER EFFICIENCY
http://sci-article.ru/stat.php?i=1601957819

Kandyba Pavel Yurievich

Annotation:

As a result of experiments with the motion of asymmetrically oscillating bodies in a viscous medium, it was found that the generally accepted idea of such a principle of motion is not correct. A description of the experiments and the observed effect is given, as well as its interpretation.

Abstract:

As a result of experiments with the motion of asmmetscillating bodies in a viscous medium, it was found that the generally accepted idea of such a principle of motion is not correct. A description of the experiments and the observed effect is given, as well as its interpretation.

Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 4 and rule 5.

Article available here:- https://www.scienceforums.com/topic...tion-of-the-effectiveness-of-a-flying-saucer/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's almost unsporting to reply to this, but the linked paper is clearly wrong, right from the start.

" With dry friction, the resistance to slow movement exceeds the resistance to fast movement"

This is a garbled statement of the fact that stationary objects which contact a surface will demonstrate greater friction ("static friction", or stiction) than moving objects ("dynamic friction"), and ignores the fact that the effect does not occur in gas (such as air). Instead, drag in air is proportional to the square of velocity.

So, all of the experiments and discussions in the paper miss the point, in that they have nothing at all to do with "dry friction".
 
We've all seen footage of stingrays wibbling over the sea bottom with their margins flapping complicatedly. Why couldn't the advanced beings on a nother plannit make a frying saucer that wibbled scientifically through the aether?

Well? It could might be! Lessee you prove it ain't!
 
We've all seen footage of stingrays wibbling over the sea bottom with their margins flapping complicatedly. Why couldn't the advanced beings on a nother plannit make a frying saucer that wibbled scientifically through the aether?

Well? It could might be! Lessee you prove it ain't!

Needs more diodes.
 

Back
Top Bottom