A sponge is an absorber and a conductor. You made the typical mistake of a scientifically ignorant who confused the application with the property (or behavior). A sponge cannot absorb liquids unless one of properties (or behaviors) is that of being conductive somehow to liquids. You confused one of the contexts of 'absorb', which is to draw in, to be a distinct behavior when the behavior is typical -- conduction.
A standard canopy is a pass-through material, which is another behavior made possible by conductivity, or little or no resistance. The result is that radar signals entered the cockpit well and with alternating destructive and constructive interferences, the cockpit become an EM resonating beacon. A treated canopy with an absorber or conductor film will not allow conductivity in one direction -- pass-through -- but conductivity on another direction -- surface traveling waves. Whether is is pass-through or surface waves, both are not possible unless there is conductivity. The issue is which direction do we want.
I find it interesting how you always divert attention away from your errors by posting tenuously related but ultimately contextually irrelevant factoids that slowly grow in message size to ridiculous dimensions. I remember the 30 page replies. LOL Read below for my response.
So what I said is contextually and technically correct, that an absorber is or rather
MUST BE a conductor and a conductor can be exploited in application to be an absorber.
Further...If my usage of 'absorber' is inappropriate, then those saw-tooth patterns we see cannot be called 'geometric absorber' because that is how they are called in the industry...
Convoluted (APC) | www.siepel.com
We were talking about the treated stealth coated canopy where I said it was "conductive" and you interjected and said it is both an "absorber" and "conductive". That is the context. Now you're trying to muddy the waters with semantic nonsense as if treated stealth canopies are "absorbers" of radar in the same sense as radar absorbent materials on the rest of a LO stealth airframe.
The treated stealth canopies of LO stealth aircraft like the F-22 and J-20 are thermomolded polycarbonate with conductive oxide coatings applied via deposition in between. The canopy of the F-22A iridium-tin oxide coating is so thin that it is almost completely transparent other than a tell-tale golden tint. Its thickness is said to measure in the microns. As a RAM, it absorbs next to zero radar energy. As I said, your claim that the canopy coating is an "absorber" is inappropriate and nonsense and your use of semantics is ridiculous. You might as well argue to an electrician that copper is an "absorber" rather than a conductor because it gets warm when electricity flows through it. Using your logic, almost everything in existence would then be an "absorber" since only supercooled superconductors have no resistance! LOL As I said, the canopy coating is conductive and allows the canopy to reflect radar and residual EM would travel along the conductive coating of the canopy with the same stealth shaping rules as the rest of the stealth airframe. It not that difficult to comprehend.
IEEE Xplore - Reduction of the radar cross section of a moderate cylindrical structure using central impedance loading
Notice the mention of a cylinder. Why a cylinder but not a plate? Because electrical absorber or passive cancellation works best against surface waves. This lead to the next debunking of your argument.
The phrasing 'continuous curvature' is something he made up. He is also grossly wrong about the cylinder because the source he brought on does not mention the 10 lambda rule, which comes into play whenever a radar signal encounters a curvature on a sphere or a cylinder. A cylinder does not have an 'edge on' perspective but an 'end on' perspective. At this point, we would be dealing with a plate.
I guess it wasn't that you willfully ignored the point about his use of the term "continuous curvature", it's that you didn't understand his point. It was concerning the
relatively large specular reflection NOT traveling waves, even though you agree with it without realizing it and have posted volumes of minutiae supporting the point. Looking from 1 end of a cyclinder to the other end will be a straight line "edge"...what Martian2 referred to as NOT have "continuous curvature". You and others can reference those signal strength graphs from the airports that you quoted and posted several times where by far the strongest signals came from the tail and wings...which just happen to be the shapes that appear closest to straight cyclinders and thus with a large area to illuminate from the perspective of those radar towers, notwithstanding the 90 degrees respective of the tail.
Second, good luck trying to use passive cancellation against an illuminating AESA radar in LPI mode.
Incorrect:
- (Specular) or (surface waves). This is your interpretation of my position.
Correct:
- (Specular) or (specular and surface waves). This is my true position.
Get it now, liar?
I will now put it into real world examples, see if you can grasp it...
...
...[innocuous contextually irrelevant factoids]...
...
This is the third time that I have explained to you the differences between the mono-static and bi-static configurations and why certain behaviors are prominent at which point. I cannot dumb it down further. I am not well versed in 'Chinese physics'. So looks like it is YOU who are par for the stupidity course.
I guess things aren't registering afterall since you're now simply repeating the same innocuous factoids in different words without actually saying anything contextually relevant. Speaking of liars, what I find interesting is a certain somebody with a chip on his shoulders looking for every opportunity to pursue a certain agenda pretending to be somebody he is not, know what I mean? Somebody who has publicly stated that he hangs out at
STORMFRONT and
AMREN, both well known
White Power racist websites and
has used these websites as his sources on several occasions all while
claiming to be a disgruntled Vietnamese-American. That sounds like an interesting case study for psychoanalysis don't you think? hmmmm....fascinating.
Btw, the F-117 was always vulnerable because even without multi-modal radars, as long as it was either maneuvering or there were several illuminating independent radars in the vicinity
(fighters, AWACs, ground radars), it was in danger of being detected. This is the same stealth weakness that is pointed out for canards, but on a much bigger scale because it is the entire aircraft.
No, it is not secondary. At least not to US. But I sincerely do hope that the Chinese engineers do take your position. It will make shooting down Chinese not-so-stealthy fighters that much easier.
On a LO stealth aircraft, the large majority of RCS is eliminated through reduction of specular reflections and RAM. The remaining EM that can potentially return even with optimal reinforcing constructive interference will on average be a small fraction of what was already eliminated. So, yes it is definitely secondary.
How you can claim a traditional canopy is a minor stealth issue is surprising given that RCS is now measured in the fractions of a sq/m2.
*** Message Post #228 ***
On any part of an aircraft, in one moment a complex structure may produce destructive interference and reduce the overall RCS, but at the next instance, the same complex structure may produce constructive interference that increases the overall RCS. The worst offenders are cavities (wells) and tubes, that mean cockpits and engine inlets tubes or tunnels.
Let's see, first you claim that the cockpit is a minor stealth issue, then you write post #228 and say a cockpit can cause constructive interfere to increase the RCS suddenly and yet you consider a non-stealthy canopy a minor issue...Nice! LOL
