Topic: Helicopters are a Government Deception (Read 1396 times)

I notice the hoverboard doesn't have a massive rotary wing.  I don't even know why you linked the video.

I don't see anyone commenting on the hoverboard and how it is impossible for such a thing to work.

Soon we are going to have practical hoverboards all over the place. It will be the new way that kids will get to school. You won't need parking lots for them. You simply program your hoverboard to float in the air up 200 feet until you get out of school (or the store), and then you radio-call it down to you so you can go home.

The big problem will be when the teachers overload the kids with homework. Their hoverboards may not be able to take the weight of all those books.

 

Quite right. Ask him about chemtrails or common law if you need some fun reading.  

Btw, the first time I saw this thread title, I thought it said "Helicopters are a government decepticon" and I thought, "now that's going to be an entertaining thread!" In retrospect, that thread might have made more sense than this one.

BADecker is an attention seeking troll. Nothing to see here.

I am trying to understand what is going on? can anyone understand his point?

My dear friend, you are free to start a company manufacturing flying machines which are better and cheaper than helicopters, but don't underestimate the difficulty. It's quite easy to build a machine which will perform nicely in your backyard on a sunny day without wind, but it's a very different story to put in regular production a machine which will fly regularly any day without killing the people inside.

These "government deception" theories are nearly always bullshit, and you don't even need to understand the tech to realize why:

We live in an age where the consumer tech market is incredibly rich and powerful - gone are the days when esoteric technology had to be researched in secret labs funded by NASA et al. Now it is researched by multi-national tech companies like Google and Samsung, and they want to make as much money as possible by bringing the newest tech to the market, as quickly as possible. Capitalism is a bitch, but it's fucking fast.

Because the market is so lucrative, a really good idea WILL be tested by a consumer tech company, and the simpler the idea, the more likely that a tech company will research it.

Because the market is global, no single government can effectively suppress any secret technology, especially if said technology can make major profit in the tech market.

BADecker, unless you are an aeronautical expert (I'm talking at least PhD level), then you have NO authority to comment on technology such as this in the way that you are. Helicopters are designed to be maneuverable and to have VTOL capabilities. They do this at the expense of lateral speed and weight. Your insinuation that helicopter tech is purposefully archaic is laughable, and as I have shown above, makes no logical sense.

The main reasons that everyone doesn't have a personal flying machine are:

A. They're pretty hard for the average person to build, and very expensive to buy.
B. There is a huge amount of red tape that you need to get through before being authorised to pilot any personal flying machine. Just look at flying cars: They exist, but the market for them is very small because you need a pilots license/driving license/suitable landing strip next to your house.

The reason we don't see everyone flying around is because it would be a total fucking disaster, not because the gov is suppressing any "Large Rotary Wing" technology.

 

Don't bother trying to explain it to him, it's way way way beyond his level of understanding.

oh i thought that thing was water powered! ;-) * let's hook up some bitcoin miners to it ~will be good to go!!

And the high pressure beneath the wing is also pushing the bottom of the enclosure down with equal force. You can't violate conservation of momentum in a closed system. Wings work only because they are not a closed system: there is a constant flow incoming and outgoing air, and these flows are moving in different directions. The outgoing air is redirected downwards by the wing, and the reaction force pushes the wing upwards, conserving momentum.

If you don't understand conservation of momentum and Newton's third law, please read up on elementary physics before trying to wrestle with more advanced concepts.

Don't worry, Fluffer. It'll be a long time before any amateurs fly any cows over your house.

 

The thrust would only be confined to inside the enclosed area. Outside you would just have an enclosure doing nothing but making lots of noise and vibration.

Out-in-the-open ones work.

Training for what?

Why wouldn't a completely enclosed rotary wing produce lift? After all, theoretically it is the low pressure of the air across the top of the wing that allows for the high pressure beneath the wing to push the wing up into the low air pressure area. What advantage does out-in-the-open have over totally-enclosed?

If somebody did this, we could have space flight that worked on the wing design.

You forgot the ability for vertical landing and takeoff. That saves a lot of money on building landing strips. Also like others have said the propellers are designed to promote stability over efficiency.

If you want a real scandal check out how Maxwell's models for energy were modified to leave out longitudinal wave energy in order to promote a less efficient and wasteful economy because it is more profitable.

All right. Now that we have the hovercraft part part settled, all that is needed is speed over, say, 50 or 60 mph. This should be able to be accomplished using a small housing of the right shape over part of two counter spinning rotors.

Straight-up lift isn't a problem. It's the forward motion that creates the problem. The problem is easily overcome by using stubby wings in conjunction with the rotor. As more forward motion is applied, the wings do more work and the rotor does less.

Come on. Use your imagination. Do you think the guy in the videos just sat around and let his hoverboard bring itself into existence? He used a lot of imagination, and then built around the things that he imagined until he had something that worked.

This helicopter thing smells suspiciously like the water power car BS thing. Probably from the same website.  

Anyway, I wouldn't want some amateur home mechanic who doesn't know how to use a torque wrench building a helicopter kit in his garage, then flying it over my house.

You won't be travelling at hundreds of mph with a big slow rotor. If you actually thought for two seconds about what I said, you would see that the slower the rotor is turning, the slower the aircraft can travel before dissymmetric lift becomes a problem.

I didn't catch the explanation. So, since I don't see it, would you mind explaining it again? And explain just how your explanation relates to what I said? After all, to start, we are only talking about lift, not about traveling at speeds of hundreds of mph.

Thanks.

I just explained why you can't do this. Dissymmetry of lift in helicopters isn't a problem you can "imagine" your way out of, it's an immutable law of physics. It doesn't matter one bit whether government or big business wants you to.

This is the Politics & Society forum. The point isn't meant to be a comparison. The point is meant to be government deception. Really, big business moves the deception as well.


Your understanding of aerodynamics, if any, is seriously flawed. A plane's propeller does not direct air across the wing to produce lift. The propeller merely propels the plane forwards (hence the name), and the wing's forward motion through the air produces lift. A wing can produce lift without a propeller, as long as the plane is moving forward.