Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 11/7/2002 4:06:19 PM EDT
Found this interesting website: [url]http://www.aeronautics.ru/plasmamain.htm[/url] We are playing with one too, but are not as far along. First a small laser that can shoot down artillery shells, now this comes up. Do you suppose its also significant that the B-52's you see on the news today no longer have their Gatlings in the tail? Wonder what is/will be replacing them?
Link Posted: 11/7/2002 4:25:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/7/2002 4:29:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/7/2002 4:33:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: You haven't read Dale Brown, have you?
View Quote
I have, hes interesting, a little far fetched, but interesting.
Link Posted: 11/7/2002 4:34:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Paul: I didn't read though the whole paper but I would assume that any active stealth process will generate energy that can be detected some how. Our stealth technology uses passive methods to absorb energy directed at it and to cover as much of the developed (IR) energy.
View Quote
Yes it glows blue at night and gives of a higher IR temperature. However it works just as well at Beyond Visual range as our passive stealth and imposes less of a penalty in airframe design. Even better, it can be retrofitted to older airframes. A B-52 could be fitted with this and, to long range radar, would be as invisable as a B-2.
Link Posted: 11/7/2002 4:38:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MadProfessor:
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: You haven't read Dale Brown, have you?
View Quote
I have, hes interesting, a little far fetched, but interesting.
View Quote
I have read [i]Flight of the Old Dog[/i] and [/i]Silver Tower[/i] but some of his later stuff I didn't like so much. Some of the technology stuff seems to be coming to pass though. I am really serious about wonder what the B-52H's are carrying in the tail now in place of the gatling. Could they have a laser back there?
Link Posted: 11/7/2002 5:03:43 PM EDT
Big deal..I have had a stealth plasma post technology on my computer for a few years....[rolleyes]
Link Posted: 11/7/2002 5:04:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/7/2002 5:04:56 PM EDT
See it worked! [:D]
Link Posted: 11/7/2002 5:09:37 PM EDT
me thinks if this thing was as good as it sounds (flock of invisable B52s) the russians would keep it for them selves, and not export is, as it appears they are offering.
Link Posted: 11/7/2002 5:14:50 PM EDT
Can I get one for my car???[8D] Think about it - a reduction in the effectiveness of state tax collecting equipment (radar) and that bling-bling`en blue glow.... No crappy neon accents for me!
Link Posted: 11/7/2002 8:01:30 PM EDT
My black lab has developed a gaseous stealth technology based on methane. The cloaking device ejects a large cloud of methane and all observers then disperse to distant locales, rendering the dog effectively invisible. [:D]
Link Posted: 11/7/2002 8:08:40 PM EDT
[white] Testing testing 1....2....3.... testing. [/white]
Link Posted: 11/7/2002 8:18:03 PM EDT
their Gatlings in the tail? Wonder what is/will be replacing them?
View Quote
umm i think they were taken out a long time ago
Link Posted: 11/7/2002 8:22:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U: See it worked! [:D]
View Quote
... Oh shit LMFAO, good one [b]M4_Aiming_at_U[/b]
Link Posted: 11/7/2002 8:26:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By marvl: My black lab has developed a gaseous stealth technology based on methane. The cloaking device ejects a large cloud of methane and all observers then disperse to distant locales, rendering the dog effectively invisible. [:D]
View Quote
hehe.. yes... i have seen that effect.
Link Posted: 11/7/2002 8:28:32 PM EDT
Mine worked better [:D]
Link Posted: 11/7/2002 8:48:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/7/2002 9:09:50 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
This part is pretty interesting too.
So, one proposal is to charge leading and trailing edges of an aircraft. Russians have an interesting and very advanced project for a hypersonic plane called "AJAX." This particular aircraft is supposed to create plasma at the leading and trailing edges of its body using electrostatic charges. This aircraft design is directly related to those described in recent issues of Scientific American and Air International. This type of an aircraft uses electrostatic charges to ionize air near the surface of its body. This is done for several reasons: first, is to create a protective plasma shield to separate the aircraft from superheated air at hypersonic speed. Second reason to ionize air is to achieve smoother air flow across the fuselage of the aircraft. Another reason for creating plasma is to used in conjunction with magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) propulsion system for hypersonic travel.
View Quote
Using plasma to reduce skin friction would allow Mach 3+ flight without the exotic materials and construction that the SR-71 has to employ. And for new space shuttles, they could eliminate the ceramic tiles and go to a lighter and less fragile metal shielding. The Russians probably will export it, they don't have much choice if they wish to keep exporting fighters. Soviet/Russian built fighters are 0 vs 116 against American built fighters since the end of the Yom Kippur War. THIRTY years ago.
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 10:38:48 AM EDT
Soviet/Russian built fighters are 0 vs 116 against American built fighters since the end of the Yom Kippur War. THIRTY years ago.
View Quote
That's a great stat, do you have a cite for it?
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 11:12:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Stealth: Mine worked better [:D]
View Quote
[b]No it didn't![/b] [img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SwDeAgoYx65Hazsk6o6uG9JrmA5FQ9vBARbNMmRG*k!a­6FHz01zD41GygXbC7N3agA!D2LEaoJ5gRXl8!mGvs*4cY­iFkycrucgowLP6EePQAPPb*BUTzjg/testing.jpg?dc=4675396189063233746[/img] Bang!
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 11:15:40 AM EDT
For a long time, I have wondered if it would be possible to project some type of resistance field around a vehicle. This could make cars low-drag! Imagine a bullet shaped field surrounding your Jeep Wrangler. Bye-Bye wind noise, Hello 15 extra Miles per gallon!
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 11:21:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/8/2002 11:39:04 AM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Not in one place. And I may have left a couple out. 0 to 84 against IDF F15/16/F4 in Bekkah Valley Turkey Shoot against Syria in 1980 0 to 4 by Lybia against USN F14's in 1981 and 86. 0 to 32 against US F15/16/18/EF111 by Iraq in 1991. (A Sparkvark got credit for a Mig that flew into a hill trying to catch it! Tomcats, oddly, got shut out.) No US teen series fighter has ever been shot down in air to air combat regardless of user. Only to SAMs and AAA. And none of the US Air Forces have lost a plane of any type to Air to Air combat since the end of air strikes on Vietnam at the end of 1972. The F15 alone is 104 to 0 in the hands of all users in AAC but that includes Mirages as well as Migs and SUs [url]http://www.af.mil/news/Jul2002/801026.shtml[/url] The F16 has a record of 71-0 in ACM by all users but again this includes Mirages. [url]http://www.lmaeronautics.com/products/combat_air/f-16/f16_record.html[/url]
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 11:30:20 AM EDT
The Russians probably have alot more neat stuff due to Tesla.
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 11:36:15 AM EDT
So that's where the Klingons and Romulans got the technology.
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 11:58:30 AM EDT
B52's now carry an extensive jammer/sensor suite in the tail as well as more chaff/flare countermeasures. Although it looked cool, and maybe on bombers like the Soviet Tu-16s gun emplacements have their place, anything the B-52 is up against wouldnt realy be worried about a quad fifty or a M61A1 in the tail. As for Soviet VS US equiptment- its the pilot, not the machine, dummy. Stick the Iraqis in our best stuff and give us the Soviet stuff and they'd still have gotten their asses sand-blasted. Mikoyans and Suhkoi's are fine aircraft, the later model MiG29s and Su35s are outstanding ACM aircraft and given a good pilot could whip anything in production today, the Russians are STILL ahead of us in missile technology, although they only have a handfull of their best ones ("best" is the enemy of "good enough"). Aircraft like the Su-37 are incredible ACM platforms, and the Su-34s are better carrier-borne bombers than our F18s, but they dont have the money to produce them, nor the pilots to take advantage of their abilities. At one time the USAF was looking into purchasing the rights to build the Su-27 here in the US as a replacement for the aging F-15. One of my buddies who builds models professionaly has an airbase in his living-room using 1/72nd scale models. On the flightline there is a squadron of light and dark grey camo pained Su-27s in US markings :) He even was so detailed as to include on each aircraft the changes that would be requested (better avionics, some minor airframe changes..). The remaining MiG-21s in Indian and Egyptian service all have had total avionics and engine rebuilds in the US in the mid 1990s and all fly with cockpits that would be familiar to any early-model F-16 jock, and use G.E. engines. RG
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 12:36:44 PM EDT
Good catch. [white]You guys are just too damned quick at finding my stealth notes. I think I'll put a stealth note in all my threads from now on. Heh heh [/white]
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 1:20:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/8/2002 1:27:52 PM EDT by DarkFuture]
Future war is here! Neat story, and in keeping with the theme, here is a stealth smiley. [IMG]http://jeeptalk.org/crack/smilies/cwm/cwm/eyemouth.gif[/IMG]
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 3:03:55 PM EDT
RebelGray The rebuilt MiG's were modified in Israel, not the US. The Su-27 stuff is someone's fantasy. Unlike airliners, you don't just stuff a different engine into a fighter without major modifications; like a new fuselage at the very minumum [this is essentially required of every US design when a truly new (not close derivative) engine is installed], not to mention the subsystem changes that are required - you don't run a gas line to the carburator and go fly. The prop bone is connected to the rudder bone ... I agree that discounting the effectiveness and quality of Russian aircraft is dangerous - they still tend to have single mission, specialized aircraft.
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 3:14:36 PM EDT
AeroE- Thats strange, I wonder what the thirty Egyptian marked MiG-21s were doing in Southern California all those years ago. I was still in high school when I chaparoned a field trip to the NASA Aimes (sp?) research center in California for my kid brother's class. We toured several facilities including one shared with a major aerospace conglomerate, Northrop or some such. Anyhow, on the tarmack were two rows of fifteen late-model MiG21s in Egyptian colors. I asked one of the guides for our tour what they were there for, and was told they were being refit by the US with American avionics and powerplants. As for the Su-27s. Nope, it was in Aviation Leak. There was an entire research program that went on for better than eight months on the benefits and drawbacks of producing the Su27 in the US as a replacement for the F15. It may have been someone's fantasy, but your and my tax dollars payed for the research...
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 3:27:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/8/2002 3:27:34 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Tracor Aviation in Santa Barbara, CA does a lot of work putting modern US electronics into former ComBlock aircraft. Their may be others. They can put a FLIR ball, R-73 Vampier or Python 4 with Helmet Mounted Sight, and a good RHWS on a Mig 21, and have done so for India. Dogfigting with one would be a dangerous prospect if the pilot knew what he was doing-and Indian AF pilots generally do. Their training was started by the RAF. But there is no real hope on the radar side with that open nose. Neither APG-65 or APG-66 will fit. They usually use one of the small Thompson CSF radars like used on Export versions of the Mirage F1. Better than what they had but no match for any of our small sets. It would be interesting what they could do with a Mig 23 though. That has nose space for a good radar.
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 4:05:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Stealth: Good catch. [white]You guys are just too damned quick at finding my stealth notes. I think I'll put a stealth note in all my threads from now on. Heh heh [/white]
View Quote
>? All of your stealth post are belong to [u]ME[/u][:D]
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 4:41:23 PM EDT
B-52's haven't had the tail guns for almost 30 years now. They took them out because the figured out that they wouldn't help against fighters with air-to-air missiles.
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 4:52:03 PM EDT
Tesla wasn't Russian. He was born in Croatia(now part of the former Yugoslavia)He lived and did most of his work in New York
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 5:08:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By matt5646: B-52's haven't had the tail guns for almost 30 years now. They took them out because the figured out that they wouldn't help against fighters with air-to-air missiles.
View Quote
Now that is not true. The last airshow I was at, Point Mugu NAS 94' the B-52H that came still had the Gatling. The G models that had the quad .50 mount in the tail are all gone, victims of the START treaty. The H models are all thats left. Never could figure out why they didn't upgrade the FCS for the H's gatling so it could shoot down incoming missiles. the M61 is the same gun as in the Phalanx CIWS. They should have been able to adapt the same technology. The B-52 certainly has the volume and the lifting capacity. A small laser, but powerful enough to destroy a AAM, would fit.
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 8:15:20 PM EDT
Using plasma to reduce skin friction would allow Mach 3+ flight without the exotic materials and construction that the SR-71 has to employ.
View Quote
Yeah, until the power supply fails. Can you imagine what happens to a sub-sonic airframe that's suddenly exposed to Mach 3+ airflow?
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 9:07:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Skibane:
Using plasma to reduce skin friction would allow Mach 3+ flight without the exotic materials and construction that the SR-71 has to employ.
View Quote
Yeah, until the power supply fails. Can you imagine what happens to a sub-sonic airframe that's suddenly exposed to Mach 3+ airflow?
View Quote
Yeah but that would be primarily a problem for spacecraft on reentry using this as a shield-they cant slow down any faster than they are. They are the only things with basicly sub sonic shapes that could hit this kind of speed. You could only get a aircraft with hypersonic aerodynamics to hypersonic speeds even with plasma aerodynamic sheilding. Surface friction and boundry layer drag are only one component. However, by not letting the high speed air actually touch the skin of the aircraft the surface temperature stays lower and you don't have to worry about the skin melting. In a aircraft-which has a chance to slow down- a fault with the sheild would cause the airbrakes to deploy and the engine to throttle down automaticly.
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 9:38:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/8/2002 9:44:00 PM EDT by Benjamin0001]
The system developed by the Russians is also based on electromagnetic wave-plasma interactions, but in a very different way. Russian stealth plasma device creates a plasma field around an aircraft. This field partially consumes electromagnetic energy of a hostile radar or causes it to bend around the aircraft, reducing the aircraft RCS by up to 100 times. Sounds fantastic? Not really: effects of dissipation and bending of electromagnetic signals in presence of plasma field have been observed for decades. If there is anything new about the system developed by the Russians it certainly is not the theoretical part but technical aspects of the plasma generator. Keldysh Research Center claims to have developed, built and tested a plasma shield generator that weighs only 100 kg
View Quote
Hmmm the story is bullshit. I am not saying it can't be done, because it can. I am saying the russians can't do it. Sure you might be able to design and build a 220lb plasma generator. That is not hard, in fact that is easy by comparison..... Where the story fails is this. You would have to shape the plasma. Actually use eltro magnets to put it into the proper shape. That is why it takes superconductors and magnets and generators the size of a 10 story buildings to shape the plasma field generated inside the TAKOMAK fussion reactors. TESLA's we are talking TESLA's of magnetic strength to do this. You are not going to generate a plasma field and shape it into a sphere without HUGE magnets. From another perspective, Plasma is what you get with lightening. Lightening passes straight through airplane wings... Lightening turns the AIR into a plasma around the charge and is not effected by slipstreams as stated by the article. So that is bullshit. You would have to control the shape of the plasma with the magnets, meaning that you would have to produce a magnetic field around the aircraft with a specific shape and size. No can do , not yet... You can using magnets fields to produce a sphere, or a toriod because those two objects are easy to make with magnetic fields. Plus another fact, without knowing the energies involved , I don't know..... That is a shitload of electrons to make a plasma out of.... That is a huge charge overall... Nah..
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 9:43:27 PM EDT
Oh, there are magnetic coils. Embeded in the leading edge of the wings and tailplanes. Originally this was concieved as a aerodynamic enhancement, so they wanted the plasma to stay close to the skin of the airframe.
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 9:53:58 PM EDT
I am still not buying it... Huge Energies, HUGE... Look at what you are suggesting ARMDLBRL. You are asking a flying machine that might produce 24/48volts to run all the systems on the aircraft even with a huge magneto it would produce maybe a couple of hundred volts and maybe 100 amps of power, to produce in addition whith the aircrafts normal systems. A plasma, which is millions of electon volts for a small one, and in the case of lightening TeraWatts. PLus the containment field which usually has to be much larger (current and strength wise) then the plasma itself....... You are asking for the most efficiency which would have to be superconducting to fight Hysteresis (loss due to impedance) within the sytem especially magnetic fields generated by electro-magnets (plus the fact that they don't get very efficient because of the lack of highly efficient materials)... I am not saying it can't be done because some day it will be done... You might be able to do it with just generating a plasma add hock and let it just do whatever the hell it is going to do trying to interfere with radar. But even then I don't think it would be successfull because then all you have t do is tune a radar and direction finder to the frequency that the plasma field is generating , and it would be huge.... I don't know how narrow a band that is, but an Amplitude modulation is effected in the extreme by lightening.
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 10:01:56 PM EDT
Hey Benjamin, what's your credentials on this stuff? I'm just curious. That kind of science might as well be magic to me, but you sound *really sure*, so either you're just giving us your own BS, or you know a hell of a lot more about this than most of us. As with anything, what the Russians say is best taken with a grain of salt. I was told a few years back that every year another crackpot claims cold fusion and tries to sell it to the Russian Government. Its gotten so that they round-file the incoming junk mail rathar than read it anymore, and the international science community jokes about "Russian Cold Fusion".
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 10:05:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/8/2002 10:13:13 PM EDT by Benjamin0001]
I have NO Credentials... I am just saying what I do know... That it takes HUGE amounts of energy to form a plasma and Huge amounts of energy to control one. And the assertion that it is indetectable at long range is bogus... Because everything in the world gives off some sort of footprint in the ElectroMagnetic field. Be it visible light or Infra Red or Xray, or RF, or gamma rays. Something. The only credentials I have are two or three physics courses, lots of reading and a little understanding of electronics. They said stealth will not show up on radar but the US has radar that can see our planes. Even the article itself says that the RADAR IS BENT AROOUND THE PLASMA. That is false because that implies the Plasma would have to be shaped and that implies some sort of magnetic field. I am sure of what I know, and I can't be blamed for healthy scientific skepticism, as that is inherent in the scientific process. I merely ask what the energies are???
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 10:21:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/8/2002 10:32:34 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
This is the one PDF file I have found from these guys. It is about using plasma to modifiy the airflow in the air inlet of a hypersonic ramjet engine. But it also gives details of how they generate the plasma and control it along the surface of the airfoil. [url]http://hypersonic2002.aaaf.asso.fr/papers/17_5209.pdf[/url] it is a low energy plasma, they are not trying for nuclear fusion here, nor are they trying to contain it. As for the principal of the plasma blocking microwaves, that is proven every time a Space Shuttle or Soyuze capsule returns to earth. The craft hits the charged gases in the upper atmosphere and compresses them as the flow around the airframe. Part of that gas becomes a plasma and creates the radio signal blackout that is a part of every re-entry. This goes away as the craft both slows down and enters cooler, denser air that is harder to excite. The plasma either bends or scatters the RF energy, but either way it does not get through.
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 10:24:21 PM EDT
But I am just going from definition. They could be generating some kind of field that is NOT a plasma, and that has the effect of rendering a plane invisible to radar. But if they are using the word Plasma (which is a fundamental state of nature , not naturally occuring outside of the Fussion of stars and lightening (terawatts) than I am highly dubius. The scientists here in the US and EUROPE have spent billions and billions of dollars experimenting with High energy Physics (multi-megawatt stuff and above). They built the TAKOMAKs as expirements trying to develop fussion.. That is some huge huge laboratory equiptment. They produce a plasma that is shaped and bent around a toriod. And the energies that are used are magnificient. Hughmongus. If they said what levels of energies are produced in this plasma stealth device then you could arrive at some amount of energy consumed by it and also some amount of total energy needed to control it.
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 10:39:07 PM EDT
A neon lightbulb contains plasma when its running. [url]http://sdphln.ucsd.edu/~kriesel/plasma.html[/url] [img]http://sdphln.ucsd.edu/~kriesel/images/Plasmas.GIF[/img]
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 10:48:41 PM EDT
From the PDF file. Interpreted from article. A plasma pulse of 50 to 100ms (.1 sec) was created in the rectangular area of 20x100mm (20mmx 3.x inches in length) used 1-3 AMPS and 1-10KWs 10 Kilo watts, 10,000 watts of power for .1 seconds of plasma at 200 torr they used 11,000 watts 700 volts that is 15amps. with Temperatures for this mm^2 size plasma of 6000 kelvin, that is 5727 degrees celsius or 10,340 degrees Fahrenheit that is almost hot enough to melt TUNGSTEN which is somewhere are 10,5k to 11,000 degrees fahrenheit.
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 10:48:45 PM EDT
Benjamin, wasnt attacking you, I was just curious. Something to think about with the Russians- they will field a lot of equiptment that is hazerdous to the operator and fradgile in combat situations (MiG25 anyone?) that we wouldnt think about. Besides the fact, does one know just exactly what WE have? I'll becha there is a lot of stuff in the US inventory that would give a lot of us a perma-grin if we knew. With the collapse of the Soviet Union they dont have the money to run coverups anymore, so a lot of their "Area 51" stuff is out and on the table. Who's to say this isnt one of those projects that the SU dumped billions and billions into and is just now bearing fruits? I havnt read anywhere where they state that its a combat ready system, only that they can do it. I too will agree that using a charged gas to hide an airplane would be troublesome at best as plasma by its very nature would dissipate in high G manouvers and whatnot. The Shuttle moves in a relatively straight line during landing and is enveloped in its plasma ball because its pushing (and thus creating) it. Still, plasmatic stealth aircraft might go a long way into explaining some UFO sightings- say a high-manouverability X-31 style technology demonstraitor using some kind of charged gas envelope around it flying at night would look pretty weird to someone who didnt know what it was. Just an idea. Dont ask me, I hate that stuff, I'd gladly go back to the day of bolt action rifles and rifle calibur machineguns in frontline fighters. R.G.
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 10:57:45 PM EDT
My dad worked on Radar in the military.. Over in Germany where he was stationed they had the radar going. Turning. There was a row of offices along the runway several hundred yards longs. As the radar would sweep down the length of the row of offices all the neon lights would light up where the radar was pointing. And so every time the radar swept down that lenth the lights would light up one after another on down the line. hahaha. Not a good idea for a stealth plane.
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 11:03:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/8/2002 11:14:54 PM EDT by Benjamin0001]
Rebel Gray , I know you wasn't. My interest in this was an article a ran across almost a year ago about this very fighter plane and the speculation surrounding it. It came up again on here and well I couldn't help myself... NEON lights are one thing, but that is a contained and controlled environment, a fighter plane isn't nor was the plasma generated by the expirements by the russians in the PDF article to shape airflow... they were using huge amounts of energy just to do a very little.. I don't know enough about this myself. But the original article I read sounded like so MUCH COLD FUSSION stuff or perpetual motion machine stuff. Just too good to be true... That is all.... I am highly doubtful about this kind of stuff. And PLASMASTEALTH has the same ring as cold fussion to me.
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 11:52:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/9/2002 12:19:19 AM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
They may be using something called One Atmosphere Glow Discharge Plasma. Its primary use to date in the West has been as a means of decontaminating water and sterilizing large batches of disposable medical instruments. Its aerodynamic properties are just being explored. [url]http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/1998/aiaa/NASA-aiaa-98-0328.pdf[/url] The USAF is funding research at the University of Tenessee, Knoxville [url]http://plasma.ee.utk.edu/~plasma/plasma/sponsors.htm[/url]
Project Title: An Investigation of Flow Acceleration and Electromagnetic Absorption Phenomena Induced by Paraelectric and Peristaltic Electrohydrodynamic Effects of the One Atmosphere Uniform Glow Discharge Plasma (OAUGDP). Source of Support: Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), under the Plasma Dynamics for Aerospace Technology theme area.
View Quote
Top Top