# Prototypes



## Creator (Sep 11, 2007)

Hi I am looking for some prototype military vehicles or maybe prototype technology that could change the world.

So far the only ones I can find are 

*Airships* being used like Star Destroyers.... well as aerial aircraft carriers.
*Lasers* may not be handheld but can be used for wind scale damage
*Fuel cells* may reduce oil purchases from Middle East.

Let discuss away!!!!


----------



## Delvo (Sep 11, 2007)

Airships or airborne aircraft carriers have practical, as well as technological, problems that will keep them from being made. Lighter-than-air vehicles (like blimps and hot-air balloons) of such great size are too slow and large, making them very easy to shoot and too inefficient and hard to manage for commercial uses. Heavier-than-air vehicles require constant energy use to stay up (as in thousands of pounds of fuel even for a normal-sized jet to fly for just a few hours), and it's worse the bigger the vehicle is. Militarily, a regular aircraft carrier or weapon-ship (frigate, cruiser, destroyer, battleship) has no disadvantage compared to a flying version so there'd no point in bothering even if it could be done.

Lasers are being worked on for possible future use in airplanes such as the F-35 because of their long range and instantaneous delivery. The same features would also probably make them good for anti-aircraft defense of ground facilites and major sea ships, which could handle the mass and power requirements better than an airplane could. So far, it hasn't yet been possible to make one small enough that's also powerful enough. What is "wind scale damage"?

Hydrogen fuel cells are not a power source but a power storage medium; you still have to charge them up somehow, whereas oil in the ground is already charged for you. So using them takes us straight to the question of how to generate electricity. And without building new dams, the best way to do that for now is nuclear fission. It's proven, it's safe despite the propaganda to the contrary from environmentalists who seem bent on working AGAINST the environment, new techniques can actually use old waste as fuel again to extract 20 times as much power from it and suck out almost all of the radioactivity, and the known fuel supply is enough to sustain current consumption rates for at least a hundred centuries (if not thousands of them).


----------



## Overread (Sep 11, 2007)

Con't remember much now but I rememeber that there was a prototype cat built which ran on sea water. the problems with the design were that the car cost around £5 million to produce (though I think reasearch time was also added) and there was a complication with explosions in the event of a crash as they were more powerful than regular petrol cars. I think I saw this on Top Gear


----------



## Creator (Sep 12, 2007)

Sorry I mean Wide Scale Damage... Well since we cannot have the power to shrink the lasers to blaster size so it might be more practical to use it as a wide area damage weapon

Well about Fuel cells they need to be charged?? and I thought we can be free from a oil-based economy for good and we better do it soon... *The more oil we buy from Mid East the more terror we fuel*. If you know what I mean

Hey what about ammonia fuel look in this site... but I am still skeptical..."The Ammonia Economy," ME Online Web Exclusive, July 10, 2003
Ammonia Cracker for Fuel Cell Hydrogen Supply

And about lighter than air gases, is Nitrogen at room temp or even heated up a better choice as a gas subsitute to hydrogen since you know about the hindenberg blimp that crashed..


----------



## Overread (Sep 12, 2007)

They actually proved that the Hindenberg caught fire not because of tje hydrogen but because they used a new form of protective paint on the outside of the ship = the new paint was like coating it in paraphin - high combustable. They attribute the initial spark which started the fire to be caused by isolated sections of the hull fabric building up electrical charge and jumping (Sparking) to another section - ignighting the outside - the hydrogen inside just added to the fire ball.
(I think I might have invented some new words in that!)
On another note there is a move to bring back ariships as a tourist attraction.


----------



## Creator (Sep 12, 2007)

Ok... this is something new....

Hey I wonder if it's possible to attach a ultrasonic vibrator to an blade of a sword... I heard that bone saws or blade are like that...


----------



## woodsman (Sep 17, 2007)

I think the saws they use to remove plaster casts work like this in some way. So they won't cut the patient should a slip occur, but couldn't swear to it! 
Surely it would vibrate somewhat through the handle though? I mean a chainsaw vibrate like hell. 
*wanders out side to experiment with batery powered motor an jo*


----------



## Creator (Sep 18, 2007)

That's means if it attached to a sword, it would be nearly as deadly as a lightsaber right?


----------



## woodsman (Sep 18, 2007)

Um no. At least I dont think so. It would have to a saw toothed blade to really get the tear and then cut. However it might increase to cutting power. Contrare to popular opinion most swordfighting forms are aiming to Poke 'em with the short pointy end. 
A laser is basically what a light saber would be and they are used in industry as part of CADCAM and to cut through sheet steel.

I want to experiment a little though this sounds like quite good fun.


----------



## thecommabandit (Sep 18, 2007)

Delvo said:


> Hydrogen fuel cells are not a power source but a power storage medium; you still have to charge them up somehow, whereas oil in the ground is already charged for you. So using them takes us straight to the question of how to generate electricity. And without building new dams, the best way to do that for now is nuclear fission. It's proven, it's safe despite the propaganda to the contrary from environmentalists who seem bent on working AGAINST the environment, new techniques can actually use old waste as fuel again to extract 20 times as much power from it and suck out almost all of the radioactivity, and the known fuel supply is enough to sustain current consumption rates for at least a hundred centuries (if not thousands of them).



I have to disagree with you there on nuclear fission. People treat it like it's going to solve all our problems, when it will only add to it really. We may have enough uranium to sustain our current consumption rates, but most of the world's power comes from oil. To make the same amount of energy with fission power we'd have to vastly increase the amount of uranium ore being dug up and enriched and I think the estimates put the timeframe on depleting the Earth's supply of it at about a few decades rather than a few millennia. Now fusion, that might be the answer, should we manage to get it working to a viable degree. It leaves no radioactive waste (I think, not sure if the helium it produces is a different isotope to normal stuff) and the components are easily available (deuterium can be extracted from seawater and so can tritium I think). Short of that, we can always have an economic and ecological apocalypse and go back to subsistence-level production =P


On the topic of lasers, I believe the American army have to done some R&D into it and are testing a bunch of them - COIL and deuterium fluoride. COILs would be what you want for anti-aircraft weaponry, since metals absorb it's wavelengths very well, and hence bears the brunt of the heat. Deuterium fluoride ones are a bit less practical for man-portable weapons, since one of the reactants is nitrogen trifluoride (the oxidizer I think) which is rather poisonous. Still, could replace conventional large guns on ships if they manage to get the production, maintenance and running costs lower than regular guns. That's the main problem with lasers though - what they can do, conventional lead exploded out of a barrel can do better and cheaper.


----------



## Delvo (Sep 19, 2007)

thecommabandit said:


> We may have enough uranium to sustain our current consumption rates, but most of the world's power comes from oil.


I was talking about power consumption rates, not fissile metal consumption rates. That's if fission were to take over all power production in the world.



thecommabandit said:


> Now fusion, that might be the answer, should we manage to get it working to a viable degree. It leaves no radioactive waste (I think, not sure if the helium it produces is a different isotope to normal stuff) and the components are easily available (deuterium can be extracted from seawater and so can tritium I think).


No radioactive waste, and fuel available from any water source. (Only a tiny fraction of hydrogen is one of the heavier isotopes that human-made fusion requires, but a bucket holds lots and lots and lots of hydrogen atoms.) The only obstacle is that we can't actually do it.  A site was recently chosen for a large facility to be built in southern France, for a multi-national cooperational group to conduct experiments in fusion. If successful, this lab would, after finding a way to make it work, switch from experimental mode to application mode and go online as the world's first fusion power plant. And although it's a multi-national effort, the location just happens to be in a country that's almost all run on fission right now. It's probably under construction by now, actually.



thecommabandit said:


> On the topic of lasers... could replace conventional large guns on ships if they manage to get the production, maintenance and running costs lower than regular guns. That's the main problem with lasers though - what they can do, conventional lead exploded out of a barrel can do better and cheaper.


Ships no longer have those big guns anymore anyway. But keep in mind that lasers can't fall in an arched path over the horizon to a target on the surface. That's why I specified aircraft-carried and anti-aircraft applications (which is not what the big guns were ever used for); they're so high up  that they can see and be seen in a straight line from a much longer distance away so you don't need your projectiles to follow a path that curves down to get to them as you would with surface targets beyond the horizon.


----------



## Creator (Sep 19, 2007)

OK... this place is getting a little more lively....

Hey you guys heard of aerogel? I have seen demo of this material, it's amazing.


----------



## thecommabandit (Sep 19, 2007)

Yeah, found an article or something on aerogel a while ago and was in awe of it. Not only does it have incredible properties (seen the pictures with an unharmed flower on a block of aerogel above a bunsen flame?) but the name sounds really cool and it looks all space-age. Perfect if you're writing some sci-fi =D I actually used it in a (now redundant) concept for a laser rifle as the cooling apparatus - I used its porousity (is that even a word?) to hold liquid nitrogen, since this kind of laser generated craploads of heat.


----------



## Overread (Sep 19, 2007)

Saw arogel on the show done by Hamster Hammond(top gear) - guy held his hand over a naked bunson flame with the gel on - no burns - mirical stuff though it is scarily closer to the fire proof houses of Faranheit  - so lock up your books for safty.


----------



## woodsman (Sep 19, 2007)

Could someone explain aerogel? please I'm an ignoramus it seems.


----------



## Overread (Sep 19, 2007)

Woodsman - if its the same stuff I am thinking of then it was developed by a man in shed (I kid you not) and is a chemical which is extreamly fire resistant to the point that when covering a surface the obect will not catch fire. That is not to say that it will not be damaged by the fire, but it will not combust itself, thus containing the fire and minimising the damages.


----------



## woodsman (Sep 19, 2007)

Wow. Pity I don't have a shed, who knows? 

I heard of some stuff that is so light it almost floats in air and yet that also has pretty good insulation qualities it was in GBoR I believe....

I'm just waiting untill they can process Spiders silk into woven farbics of quality and ropes of useable size and length. This is somat thats always intruiged me.


----------



## Creator (Sep 20, 2007)

Aerogel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey maybe it can fill the inside of a *hybrid airship*... Maybe it's pumped with either helium or nitrogen for buoyancy then using aerogel as a gas storage. 

Errr... but it won't be good for the accounts..... and is nitrogen lighter than air?


----------



## woodsman (Sep 20, 2007)

Air is roughly 78% Nitrogen 20% being oxygen 
RAM N = 14, O = 16 So nitrogen would be about level in air possible slightly lighter. I.e a balloon filled with Nitrogen would stay at whatever level you placed it and should neither rise or fall. Although it will do due to the weight of the balloon. 
Lighter than air; Helium is your best bet by some way.


----------



## Creator (Sep 21, 2007)

How about Steam.....! O_O


----------



## Overread (Sep 21, 2007)

Creator said:


> How about Steam.....! O_O


Next it will be mist  (nb if you don't get this head over to the FF thread and ask about thier mist powered airships!)

Seriously though steam could never be kept as steam - it would most likley condence - also the boiling point of water changes with changes in pressure as well.


----------



## Creator (Sep 21, 2007)

Hmm ah well but helium is rare on earth..... but I have discovered this site...

Ingenious Applications of Steam Power


----------



## woodsman (Sep 21, 2007)

LOL 
steam cigar boat

Steam land torpedo??

Um helium is rare on this planet but elsewhere it may well exist in huge quantities. 
Hydrogen which is exceptionally common could be used - and is lighter RMM = 1 - if you could make it flame/heat proof H being exceptionally explosive, perhaps aero gel could come in here?


----------



## Overread (Sep 21, 2007)

Out of shear interest have you read the Reality Dysfunction by Peter F. Hamilton -your posts about gases and thier availbility on other planets triggored this semi random quesion


----------



## chrispenycate (Sep 21, 2007)

Iwas thinking we could go back to hydrogen in dirigibles, if we could make an aerogel skin (light, strong, fireproof and a good enough insulator that if the outside did catch fire it would probably not set off the hydrogen, but it seems the stuff's hydroscopic, like the silica gel it was made from, and would probably get soggy and dissolve in the rain. Still, hydrogen's always going to give the most lift, and it's cheap and easy to produce, so perhaps an outer, waterproof and hydrogen proof (tiny little molecules have a tendency to leak through most substances) coating, and an inner structure of hydrogen gel, like aerogel but replacing the water with hydrogen instead of air, so you don't tend to get leaking gas giving you a localised explosive mixture.

As for personal weapons, how about masers? Microwave cooking at a distance. Relatively high effeciency, invisible (except in fog) and a decent range. Needs a good power pack, though, and anything containing that much potential energy could explode, if conditions were right.


----------



## Creator (Sep 22, 2007)

Masers....? hmmm...


----------



## woodsman (Sep 22, 2007)

No I'm afraid not but it's something thats been put forward as a use of space and a reason for colinisation of other planets etc. Hence my interest.

Hydrogen does have that problem in that as it's so small it's more difficult to contain within membranes. Perhaps the Aerogel could be covered with a waterproof layer of something like....... I don't reall know.


----------



## Creator (Sep 22, 2007)

Maybe A hybrid airship should have only 50% buoyancy power and 50% by the heavier than air systems...

Oh yah..... and even Mach Travel attachments that can be attached in the hangar so that it can travel at supersonic speed!

Airliners.net Photos: Lockheed Lockheed Martin P-791


----------



## Delvo (Sep 22, 2007)

I don't understand your 50-50 split. If it's lighter than air, it's lighter than air. If it's heavier, it's heavier. In heavier-than-air vehicles, there is an effort to build them light, but not for buoyancy; as long as it's heavier than air it just won't be buoyant. In lighter-than-air vehicles, there can be different degrees of buoyancy (some vehicles being more buoyant than others), but going for more weight means going for less buoyancy, which has no benefit. Sure, the weight could be because you've added cargo rather than because you've made the vehicle heavier, but if you want to carry so much cargo that it affects the vehicle's weight like that, then heavier-than-air vehicles are the way to go, because you can move so much more stuff so much faster. (And possibly with more fuel efficiency, due to momentum and a sleeker, non-bulbous shape helping you keep going forward and cut through the air instead of constantly having the air push back at your blimp and trying to stop it.)


----------



## Creator (Sep 24, 2007)

Yah I think the era of airships is gone for good.......

Oh yah lets talk about laser weaponry..... excluding hand-size blasters.....


----------



## Overread (Sep 24, 2007)

just to jump in at the end of the airships section, but there are plans to reuse airships again as a tourist attraction, however they have yet to get off the ground (bad pun of the year)


----------



## chrispenycate (Sep 24, 2007)

Delvo said:


> I don't understand your 50-50 split. If it's lighter than air, it's lighter than air. If it's heavier, it's heavier. In heavier-than-air vehicles, there is an effort to build them light, but not for buoyancy; as long as it's heavier than air it just won't be buoyant. In lighter-than-air vehicles, there can be different degrees of buoyancy (some vehicles being more buoyant than others), but going for more weight means going for less buoyancy, which has no benefit. Sure, the weight could be because you've added cargo rather than because you've made the vehicle heavier, but if you want to carry so much cargo that it affects the vehicle's weight like that, then heavier-than-air vehicles are the way to go, because you can move so much more stuff so much faster. (And possibly with more fuel efficiency, due to momentum and a sleeker, non-bulbous shape helping you keep going forward and cut through the air instead of constantly having the air push back at your blimp and trying to stop it.)


How about a hot hydrogen balloon? Rigid structure, limp envelope contains  roughly half the gas needed to inflate it. Start the motor, waste heat expands the hydrogen and the bag becomes smooth and aerodynamic. Turbo-jet engines with minimum of metal (some lightweight ceramics, mostly carbon fibre protected from the heat by aerogel) pushes it forward, adding lift and taking you to the fringes of the stratosphere, where you've got almost no lift left from the gasbag, but friction has dropped down to reasonable levels, too. Low flying satellite hooks onto the top (elastic monofilament, so the shock isn't too excessive) and pulls you up to LEO.
Slowing down (assuming you've not gone through the last sentence) reduced motor power producing less lift  drops you into denser atmosphere and the cooling gas (I'm hoping windchill will outweigh frictional heating; we're not going that fast, are we?) gasbag becomes flaccid, and starts generating enormous drag, and less lift. now you're heavier than air again, so don't need to drag the thing down (though not much heavier, and wind is going to complicate this stage considerably)
Hardly supersonic, and on the edge of materials scienge, but quite energy efficient.


----------



## woodsman (Sep 24, 2007)

I think that should work well actually Chris, although not sure about cooling versus frictinal heat generation, which would require some testing. 

People use small blimps for advertising -Highly visible, Attract attention, more unusual.
I dont see why small airships, carrying passenger on leisurely low-altitude trips e.g. London-Paris where time is not an essence couldn't function. The advertising potential is far greater than 'planes due to slower speeds increasing the likelihood that people will see them. Thus advertising could be used to offset some startup/operating costs. Although the service would probably be expensive luxury champaigne inclusive. etc type service.


----------



## Delvo (Sep 25, 2007)

chrispenycate said:


> How about a hot hydrogen balloon?


I don’t understand what you’re saying about the gas bag/envelope. Does the vehicle change size by folding up and unfolding? Do you mean for the gas container to be shaped like a giant wing instead of bulbous? Other than the satellite thing, it sounds like you’re describing a heavier-than-air vehicle’s mode of generating lift at all times, so where does the gas come into the picture?

But there were other parts that I can react to...

Having a satellite pull you up means pulling the satellite down... probably down farther than the distance by which you were pulled up, because the satellite is almost always going to be less massive, so you’re either destroying the satellite by dipping it into the air, making it unable to do its job anymore because you’ve shifted its orbit and it’s in the wrong orbit, or required it to be able to compensate by carrying its own fuel and engines (which you must supply for it). And it also means you can only launch at the right time and from the right place on Earth, when and where the satellite is going by. (And I don’t get why it’s needed if the vehicle has its own lift.)

Running a jet in thin air means having to move faster in order for the engine to get enough air, and that higher speed also means the resistance is high despite the air’s thinness, because the whole point in going that fast is to cancel out the air’s thinness so it’s somewhat as if you were down where the air’s thick anyway (for the jet engine). So being in thin air doesn’t get you lower friction unless you’re not going so fast, which means you must be using a propulsion system that doesn’t need to breathe like a jet does.

“Wind chill” doesn’t inherently mean a cooling effect. It means that whatever or heat exchange between something else and the air was going to happen anyway happens faster than it would in still air. We normally experience that as a chill because the normal energy flow is out from our bodies into our surroundings. If you were someplace that the air was hot enough to reverse that normal direction of flow (the limit for which is something above your body temperature because sweating complicates the story), then wind would feel hot because it would be pushing heat into you faster than still air does, just like wind under more normal circumstances pulls heat out of you faster than still air does. So in your scenario of descending through the troposphere, there would usually (unless you’re going through an inversion) be an overall warming effect because you’re going into warmer air. But you’d have to be moving extremely quickly, far beyond “dropping like a rock” even, for friction and bow shock to create the kind of dangerous heat levels you get from re-entry from space, so it’s not a problem for high-altitude airplanes or balloons.


----------



## Delvo (Sep 25, 2007)

Creator said:


> Yah I think the era of airships is gone for good.......
> 
> Oh yah lets talk about laser weaponry..... excluding hand-size blasters...


Well, none have been made that are considered usable yet, mainly because of two things:
1. The energy requirements for producing beams with enough power, especially repeatedly or for long duration, and the size and weight of the machinery to produce such powerful beams.
2. The lack of targets that could be hit this way but couldn't just as well be hit by missiles/bombs/bullets/knifes/clubs.

The first places they'd likely to become operational are bases on the land and ships on the surface of the water. The size and weight of the equipment isn't such a problem there, and they could be used to protect those big sitting targets against incoming missiles and enemy aircraft. Using them against missiles, in particular, might be perfect for their power issues, since shooting such a small object doesn't take as much power as shooting a bigger one (or one with more armor). It would also take advantage of one big superiority they have over projectile weapons: instantaneous delivery with no chance of missing or being dodged.

At least one has also been built into a modified cargo plane for testing and development. Other than pure research, I don't know the reason for this; it could only be fired from visual range, which is shorter than the range from which missiles can be fired, and the same plane can deliver more firepower in conventional explosives than its laser generator power source can store. Maybe they expect to develop a power supply system that can contain and put out enough energy to exceed the firepower of an equivalent weight/volume of conventional explosives, or maybe they see some tactical use for a weapon that cuts/heats/vaporizes/melts/burns targets instead of blowing them up, or maybe they're interested in lasers because those wouldn't give away the shooter's position when fired (because you can't see the beams in real life).

If reduced in size enough from there, one could instead be carried by a truck, making the kind of base-defense system I mentioned earlier somewhat more portable to defend other locations, or perhaps allowing them to be used on buildings by sneaking the laser into position on a harmless-looking vehicle. This reminds me of the fact that a big (non-disguisable) maser system has already been desigend for HMMWVs with the goal of dispersing crowds without killing. A similar-sized laser machine could also be light enough for carry by a fighter plane or some helicopters, but you'd have to take out something else important to make it fit the size and shape, and then you'd be increasing the vehicle's "dead weight", thus shortening its range and/or making it harder to fly.

No fighter or helicopter has been designed with a good place to fit the extra burden, except the F-35 light fighter jet, and even there it's essentially a coincidence. One of the design requirements was that at least one version of it be capable of vertical landings and vertical or very shortened takeoffs. The way this is done in an F-35 is very different from the way it's done in a Harrier; the jet exhaust is in the usual position in the back and normally points straight back for conventional flight, but can swivel down, and behind the cockpit is a powerful fan which points down, so the upward thrust from that in the front balances out the upward thrust from the jet in the rear. Because the "hole" where that fan goes was designed in from the start and the plane was designed to fly carrying dead weight in that spot from the start, it wouldn't be much trouble to put something else in there instead and just have the plane land and launch in the conventional way. And because the fan is powered (through gears and a clutch) by the jet engine through a spinning shaft that sticks forward from the jet engine into the fan's compartment, anything else you put in there would also have access to the same shaft, which can create 20 megawatts of electricity if used as a generator. However, they're not saying much publicly about their progress toward actually putting a usable laser device in there or even efforts to come up with one; it's just an intriguing  possibility that's been raised.


----------



## Creator (Sep 26, 2007)

Hmmm maybe several turrets on board a super-sized concorde will make an airborne aircraft carrier pack more punch.


----------



## Creator (Oct 2, 2007)

But hey is it possible to create a supersonic aerial aircraft carrier.?

and about lasers.... I am thinking maybe MAsers would be more possible.






Active Denial System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Delvo (Oct 5, 2007)

Creator said:


> But hey is it possible to create a supersonic aerial aircraft carrier.?


No. Too much mass to move and not enough power to move it... and no point in trying anyway because it wouldn't accomplish goal we can't reach already.

If it were to become possible to move such massive objects around at will with reasonable amounts of energy, it would require propulsion technology that isn't even theorized about right now (aside from gravitomagnetism, which most physicists don't agree with), and its best applications would still be for something else other than airborne aircraft carriers, like building vehicles that can go into space much more quickly and easily than today's rockets (possibly including really big ones) and making smaller in-atmosphere vehicles go faster and farther between two points on the Earth's surface. Aircraft carriers floating around in the air would be pointless because smaller vehicles could (as they pretty much already can) go the whole distance they needed to go without needing any stops along the way.


----------



## Creator (Oct 6, 2007)

Maybe the zepplin-type aircraft carriers might be a little slow but what's a zepplin's top speed?


----------



## Delvo (Oct 15, 2007)

Creator said:


> what's a zepplin's top speed?


Between 10 and 20 MPH.

I saw an article in a weapons magazine a few days ago about a less-than-lethal (or "less-lethal") weapon that is being developed. It was a projectile, like a slug fired from a shotgun, which would deliever an electrical shock on impact. And it wasn't attached to the gun by wires, so there was no need to wind it back in and nothing to keep the shooter from firing another shot at the same or another target. It reminded me of tranquilizer darts. The catch with both is dosage; the same amount of electricity or sedative could have the intended effect on one person, kill another, and not be effective enough on another. If a way to control dosages more effectively were developed, or a sedative were found that's harmless in higher dosages, that would make either one of these things practically like Star Trek's phasers on "stun" setting, without the light show. (Tranqulizer darts are much more usable with other animal species because there's a chemical that's pretty safe for them at high dosages, making the margin of error for calculating dosage much wider. Unfortunately, that chemical doesn't have quite the same effect on humans that it does on other animals; it's PCP!)

And if a sedative gas were found that was harmless at high concentrations, then clouds of that could safely be used for sedating crowds of people all at once. Truck-mounted maser devices can disperse crowds by making them feel like they're burning even though they're not being harmed, but sedating them with a gas would involve no pain and they'd stay where they were instead of running off in various directions. Another way they've thought of to deal with large crowds without harming them is with infrasonic sound (too low-pitched to hear, but you'd feel it in your guts), which can theoretically cause pain or make people feel ill. None of these have been perfected to do the intended job yet, but they might be sometime.


----------



## Creator (Oct 20, 2007)

Hey how about alternative energies....

I have heard of laser powered aircraft.... or maybe microwave powered aircraft.....


----------



## Overread (Oct 20, 2007)

Last I heard/thought, laser and microwave were not sources of energy, such as oil is, but more a transfer of energy from one place to another. Microwave could be linked, though to some form of decaying radioactive source on the plane, but I don't see how laser would work


----------



## Ursa major (Oct 20, 2007)

Isn't one problem with laser weaponry that it's line of sight? That's fine for a James-Bond-style orbiting platform (well, it is in the movies), but not so good for things flying closer to their targets.  Wouldn't it be better to use something guided, like a cruise missile (as suggested by Delvo).


----------



## Creator (Oct 21, 2007)

Hey wonder how will this work for an aircraft.... maybe the so-call airship can be using Lifter Technology

YouTube - LIFTER TECHNOLOGY: Demonstration & Explaination


----------



## Creator (Oct 23, 2007)

Hey guys check this out... HHO gas?? I never though this was possible..... Wait... can it fuel a F-22 perhaps..

YouTube - Water as Fuel!


----------

