Russian Fifth-Generation Fighter to Exceed Rivals

[amalakas]

The design of the F-117 is obviously better for stealth as the F-117 is much larger than the F-22 yet the RCS cross sections are almost equivalent.

The F-22 was built more for aerodynamics rather than pure stealth as a shrunken F-117 to the size of the F-22 would have a smaller cross section.

However the F-22 gets a smaller RCS because of metamaterials and better RAM paint.

Righttttttttttttt !!!!!!!

okkkkk

F 117 size
# Length: 65 ft 11 in (20.09 m)
# Wingspan: 43 ft 4 in (13.20 m)
# Height: 12 ft 9.5 in (3.78 m)
# Wing area: 780 ft² (73 m²)

F 22 size

# Length: 62 ft 1 in (18.90 m)
# Wingspan: 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)
# Height: 16 ft 8 in (5.08 m)
# Wing area: 840 ft² (78.04 m²)


You were telling us how the F 22 is a much smaller plane than the F117 ..!!!!

may I ask in which dimension it is much smaller ??

 

[no_name]

Radar absorbent materials are available on market. What is more difficult is to make such material have the equivalent permittivity and permeability of air at the frequency range of interest so that reflections at the boundary between the paint and air is eliminated or reduced as much as possible.

This is why in anechoic chambers the radiation absorbent materials are in bulky triangular shapes because although they are lossy they still reflect signals at boundaries so it must be shaped so that they reflect inward rather than outwards.

Designing a RAM paint for stealth aircraft is difficult because the paint would have to appear transparent yet lossy for a large frequency range as modern radars are wideband. The paint would have to be thin and not too heavy. They have to attenuate signals rapidly before it hit the underlying plane surface and reflect/scatter back out again. The paint would also have to be polarisation and incidence angle independent.

chinaowns, to each his own way. We don't need to prove or argue who is better than what. Let the result speak. Currently Russia have already unveiled their prototype. China may also have one but so far there has been no infos on it.

 

[gambit]

Nope the basic rule is that the more spherical the more easily you show up on radar. Without a doubt it has been proven that a flat angled plate has the best deflection.

More 'spherical'. A sphere, depending on its diameter, can have as small an RCS return as ANY angled surface with respect to incident signal.

Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creeping waves greatly extend the ground wave propagation of long wavelength (low frequency) radio. They also cause both of a person's ears to hear a sound, rather than only the ear on the side of the head facing the origin of the sound. In radar ranging, the creeping wave return appears to come from behind the target.

In other words, because of the 'creeping wave' behavior, the surface of the sphere is called the 'electrical path' or 'propagation path', depending on the incident signal's wavelength, the sphere can be dimensionally much larger, its surface area much greater, and still can have the same or even smaller RCS return. If the sphere is small enough, the creeping wave can return back to incident direction, creating an RCS return larger than the angled plate.

Your argument is also based upon a perfectly smooth surface, which we know is impossible...

If there is a perfectly smooth surface, the angled surface would be truly invisible to radar. But then apply this perfectly smooth surface to a sphere, IT would also be invisible to radar. That is why absorber integrity is important to the F-117.

RCS of bent rectangular shape

Compared to RCS of curved rectangular shape

Here you go RCS comparisons between the F-22 and F-117

Aircrafts are complex bodies and the fact that the F-22's RCS is comparable to the F-117's RCS and with superior overall performance and capabilities tells us that angled faceting as an RCS control method has reached its limit with the F-117.

The design of the F-117 is obviously better for stealth as the F-117 is much larger than the F-22 yet the RCS cross sections are almost equivalent.

Righttttttttttttt !!!!!!!

okkkkk

F 117 size
# Length: 65 ft 11 in (20.09 m)
# Wingspan: 43 ft 4 in (13.20 m)
# Height: 12 ft 9.5 in (3.78 m)
# Wing area: 780 ft² (73 m²)

F 22 size

# Length: 62 ft 1 in (18.90 m)
# Wingspan: 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)
# Height: 16 ft 8 in (5.08 m)
# Wing area: 840 ft² (78.04 m²)


You were telling us how the F 22 is a much smaller plane than the F117 ..!!!!

may I ask in which dimension it is much smaller ??

Yes...Am curious about how much 'much larger' is larger'.

The F-22 was built more for aerodynamics rather than pure stealth as a shrunken F-117 to the size of the F-22 would have a smaller cross section.

The F-22, as an RCS primary body, is superior to the F-117. There is no such animal as 'pure stealth' because the word 'stealth' is a contrived idea for PR purposes. The proper phrasings are 'low radar observability' or 'low radar reflectivity'. The fact that you use 'pure stealth' tells me you do not know what you are talking about.

However the F-22 gets a smaller RCS because of metamaterials and better RAM paint.

The F-22 has far lower absorber than the F-117. The F-22 has absorbers mostly on the leading edges such as flight control surfaces and intake. There are no metamaterials on the F-22. You are making an absurd assumption based upon your flawed understanding of radar detection of complex bodies.

And please learn what metamaterial is before making claims about it

As if we have learned anything from you about it. You cannot provide a source that says the F-22 has any 'metamaterials'.

Your arguments are mostly irrelevant, your jargon impresses nobody. You can't understand simple mathematical proofs. You don't seem to understand propagation of electromagnetic radiation.

Stick to your area of expertise washing toilets for the USA navy instead of trying to talk physics when you probably don't have a high school degree.

Sure...Everything I posted came from engineers' trash can as I make my nightly cleaning rounds. Now all you have to do is show us at least a couple of sources that says the F-22 is installed with 'metamaterials'.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

More 'spherical'. A sphere, depending on its diameter, can have as small an RCS return as ANY angled surface with respect to incident signal.

Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, because of the 'creeping wave' behavior, the surface of the sphere is called the 'electrical path' or 'propagation path', depending on the incident signal's wavelength, the sphere can be dimensionally much larger, its surface area much greater, and still can have the same or even smaller RCS return. If the sphere is small enough, the creeping wave can return back to incident direction, creating an RCS return larger than the angled plate.

Your argument is also based upon a perfectly smooth surface, which we know is impossible...

If there is a perfectly smooth surface, the angled surface would be truly invisible to radar. But then apply this perfectly smooth surface to a sphere, IT would also be invisible to radar. That is why absorber integrity is important to the F-117.


Aircrafts are complex bodies and the fact that the F-22's RCS is comparable to the F-117's RCS and with superior overall performance and capabilities tells us that angled faceting as an RCS control method has reached its limit with the F-117.

You have NO understanding of creeping waves, or radar. You are spouting gibberish just like in that DF-21 thread.

When you fire radiation at a angled plane and at a perfect sphere, the perfect sphere will always deflect back more radiation towards the source than the angled plane. All creeping wave radiation does is that some of the radiation fired at it gets bent around the sphere and gets sent back to the source. So it is doubly worse due to sending back more information.

This is a well known FACT amongst any engineer. Smoothness has nothing to do with it, a perfectly smooth sphere will still send back radiation towards the source while a perfectly smooth plane will not.

Fire radiation at the center of a perfect sphere and it will come right back at you, however fire at every part of a perfectly smooth angled plate and nothing will come back.

Yes...Am curious about how much 'much larger' is larger'.


The F-22, as an RCS primary body, is superior to the F-117. There is no such animal as 'pure stealth' because the word 'stealth' is a contrived idea for PR purposes. The proper phrasings are 'low radar observability' or 'low radar reflectivity'. The fact that you use 'pure stealth' tells me you do not know what you are talking about.

Again look at the two images I posted earlier

Look at the Black shape in the center for XOY in both of them, the F-117 is bigger than the F-22 in every plane. Giving a bunch of lengths is meaningless. Clearly the F-117 is 3 times the size of the F-22.

The F-22 has far lower absorber than the F-117. The F-22 has absorbers mostly on the leading edges such as flight control surfaces and intake. There are no metamaterials on the F-22. You are making an absurd assumption based upon your flawed understanding of radar detection of complex bodies.

Again the RCS is showed you is the RCS formed from ONLY THE SHAPE of the object and assuming that both the F-117 and F-22 were made out of pure steel.

The F-22 needs extremely advanced RAM material if it is to live up to its marble sized RCS since the low RCS is clearly not coming from the plane shape.

Sure...Everything I posted came from engineers' trash can as I make my nightly cleaning rounds. Now all you have to do is show us at least a couple of sources that says the F-22 is installed with 'metamaterials'.

They have been using metamaterials in stealth ships since the 1990's

History of metamaterials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Invention of the metamaterial

Historically, and conventionally, the function or behavior of materials can be altered through their chemistry. This has long been known. For example, adding lead changes the color or hardness of glass. However, at the end of the 20th century this definition was about to be expanded.[9]

In the 1990s Sir John Pendry, a physicist from Imperial College in London who was consulting for a British company, Marconi Materials Technology, as a condensed matter physics expert. The company manufactured a stealth technology, a radiation-absorbing carbon, for naval vessels. However, the company did not understand the physics of the material. The company asked Pendry if he could figure it out.

The company manufactured a stealth technology, a radiation-absorbing carbon, for naval vessels. However, the company did not understand the physics of the material.

 

[ptldM3]

You showed a handful of Russian papers on metamaterials. Which is not proof of anything, Russia's metamaterials industry and the amount of papers that Russia produces regarding the subject are a tiny fraction of China and the USA's

First you claimed that Russia has not broken into the field of metamaterials and now your argument has shifted to Russia has not published as much articles on metamaterial as China, this is after I called you out and proved you wrong, btw, I want a source showing how many papers have been published by said countries in regards to metamaterials.

In Summary, I made the claim that China has better computers.

You replied with if China has better computer why do their radars suck?

I then replied that computers are not radar.

Which you then claimed that computers are radar

I then answered that just because a radar is connected to a computer does not mean that radar is a computer

Holly mother of god, when did I say a radar was a computer?


This I what I said about radars:

a radar is made up of many components, here's a few: antenna, transmitter modules, and of course the radar computer.

Can you see the list of radar components I listed? Can you see that a radar computer is one of the things on that list? Can you see that I never even remotely implied that a radar is a computer?


You told me that a radar was not a computer after you boasted about China having more advanced computers, I than gave you a hypothetical question, asking why Russian radars are better than Chinese ones--you than told me that a radar is not a computer.

Clearly I never said a radar was a computer, instead I implied that whosever’s radar has the better electronics/computers will ultimately have the better radar.

No **** sherlock, I never claimed that AESA had no computers

This is what you said:

If I took a sensor connected it to a bunch of resistors and capacitors and then to a motor and designed the circuit so that when say the sensor hit 100 volts that the voltage to the motor would be 0. Would you say that is a computer?

So why would you say that a radiation sensor sending voltages to a pad that lights up to form pictures a computer?

Clearly you tried to imply that a radar is not a computer or has no computers, either way, before that post, I established that a radar is not a computer, but rather that a radar uses computers, so the only other thing I can take away from your above quote is that radars have no computers. If this is not the case than please take some English writing classes so you can write a coherent and fluent sentence that makes sense and doesn't get misinterpreted.

Read the post before this one, critical stealth components are nanomaterials and metamaterials which China is clearly ahead in based on the size of the industry and numbers of papers written on each field.

What is China's size in the industry? Do you know Russia’s size? Have you ever considered things other than lousy papers written?


Russia has an enormous nanotechnology industry, this has little to do with papers written., instead it's funding.


Rusnano: Fostering Nanotechnology Innovation in Russia | MIT World

With a budget of up to $10 billion (USD) in government funds, RUSNANO co-invests in nanotechnology projects in areas such as solar energy, composite materials, nano-biotechnology, and mechanical engineering that have high potential for commercial or social benefit. RUSNANO stipulates that all companies that win funding must operate in Russia. Its goal is to ensure the production of the value of Russia’s nanotechnology industry reaches $30 billion by 2015.

This is one company in Russia receiving government funds, there are many more companies and institutions that are in the business of nanotechnology.


Chinese professors may write theories on nanotechnology and conducts some experiments, and the same holds true in Russia, but Russia also spends billions on research and development.


Like I mentioned before, most scientific papers do not apply to the military. Growing greener vegetables and making better tooth paste is worthless when you are trying to construct an aircraft. Moreover, Engineers and scientist do their own experiments, meaning someone's journal article is of little importance.


If the Russia military has a requirement for a piece of technology, in this case lets say a new engine with a long service life, than Russian companies will conduct research.

This is one example of nanotechnology making it into Russian engines:


Ðîññèéñêàÿ êîðïîðàöèÿ íàíîòåõíîëîãèé

Rhenium - a rare metal is of strategic importance. On this basis, make a strong heat-resistant alloys and structural materials for the manufacture of aircraft engines and spacecraft, blades of turbine engines and power plants, the platinum-rhenium catalysts for oil refining, as well as for the nuclear and electronic industries. On this basis, make a strong heat-resistant alloys and structural materials for the manufacture of aircraft engines and spacecraft, blades of turbine engines and power plants.

This is the work of RUSNANO. There has been many nanotechnology products that have came from Russia and many articles that have been written, in fact there is a such thing a socks made from nanotechnology but in the context of building a better engine, those nano sox are good as garbage.


When Russian engineers and scientists want to built a long lasting engine with 4000 hours of service life than they will conduct their own research, they do not care too much about scientific journals.

Theres a lot of evidence that China is ahead of Russia in stealth due to critical stealth components being nanotechnology and metamaterials. Fields that China is #2 in after the USA.

Give me a source that says China is #2 in nanotechnology and metamaterials.

China and the USA both have large metamaterials industry and large metamaterials research (in terms of papers published). While Russia does not have either of these.

I'm fed up with your stupidity, I gave you Russian journal articals describing Russia's metamaterials, yet you still have the audacity to write that crap. Your tactics are cheap, no matter what proof I give you, you are still in utter denial......how can one need get? Your clear goal is to put China on a Pedestal and at the same time make Russia look like crap.


And your 'stealth' theories about the F-22 and F-117 are so stoopid i'm not even going to bother.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

First you claimed that Russia has not broken into the field of metamaterials and now your argument has shifted to Russia has not published as much articles on metamaterial as China, this is after I called you out and proved you wrong, btw, I want a source showing how many papers have been published by said countries in regards to metamaterials.

Metamaterials falls under the category of nanomaterials which falls under the category of nanotechnology which falls under the category of material science (I have shown beforehand that China leads in material science) (you can also go to international scientific databases like worldwidescience.com and by searching metamaterials you will see a lot more from china than russia)

If China leads in nanomaterials it is likely that they will have a good advantage in metamaterials since fields are so close I will show China leads in the lower post

Can you see the list of radar components I listed? Can you see that a radar computer is one of the things on that list? Can you see that I never even remotely implied that a radar is a computer?


You told me that a radar was not a computer after you boasted about China having more advanced computers, I than gave you a hypothetical question, asking why Russian radars are better than Chinese ones--you than told me that a radar is not a computer.

Clearly I never said a radar was a computer, instead I implied that whosever’s radar has the better electronics/computers will ultimately have the better radar.

I have no wish to continue this He said, she said, he meant, she meant argument.

Lets go back to computers, I have proven that China has better computers

Russia Lags In Supercomputers, Medvedev Warns -- Supercomputers -- InformationWeek

Straight from Medvedev's mouth

Russia ranks 15th on the list of countries with the most powerful supercomputers, he noted, and 95 percent of the machines are manufactured in the U.S.

But Russia has only one airplane created on a supercomputer, Medvedev said. "Everything else is done on Whatman's drawing paper like in the 1920s and 30s using the old approaches. It's obvious that here only a digital approach can have a breakthrough effect, lead to dramatic improvements in quality, and reduce the cost of the product."

What is China's size in the industry? Do you know Russia’s size? Have you ever considered things other than lousy papers written?


Russia has an enormous nanotechnology industry, this has little to do with papers written., instead it's funding.


Rusnano: Fostering Nanotechnology Innovation in Russia | MIT World





This is one company in Russia receiving government funds, there are many more companies and institutions that are in the business of nanotechnology.


Chinese professors may write theories on nanotechnology and conducts some experiments, and the same holds true in Russia, but Russia also spends billions on research and development.


Like I mentioned before, most scientific papers do not apply to the military. Growing greener vegetables and making better tooth paste is worthless when you are trying to construct an aircraft. Moreover, Engineers and scientist do their own experiments, meaning someone's journal article is of little importance.


If the Russia military has a requirement for a piece of technology, in this case lets say a new engine with a long service life, than Russian companies will conduct research.

This is one example of nanotechnology making it into Russian engines:


Ðîññèéñêàÿ êîðïîðàöèÿ íàíîòåõíîëîãèé




This is the work of RUSNANO. There has been many nanotechnology products that have came from Russia and many articles that have been written, in fact there is a such thing a socks made from nanotechnology but in the context of building a better engine, those nano sox are good as garbage.


When Russian engineers and scientists want to built a long lasting engine with 4000 hours of service life than they will conduct their own research, they do not care too much about scientific journals.

This is a presentation made to USA congress I will post some select quotes (Russia has almost no mention in this article)

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34493.pdf

China ranks second in public nanotechnology
spending in 2006 at $906 million, behind only the United States; Japan drops to third
as its PPP-adjusted investment falls to $889 million.28 Comparative international
public funding for nanotechnology R&D is provided in Table 1.

As with public R&D investments, on a PPP comparison basis, the United States
led the world in 2006 in private sector R&D investments in nanotechnology with an
estimated $1.9 billion investment, led by companies such as Hewlett-Packard, Intel,
DuPont, General Electric, and IBM. Japan’s $1.7 billion in private investments in
nanotechnology R&D — led by companies such as Mitsubishi, NEC, and Hitachi —
ranks a close second behind the United States. The private investments of companies
headquartered in these two nations account for nearly three-fourths of corporate
investment in nanotechnology R&D in 2006. In contrast to its high PPP ranking in
public R&D investment, China ranks fifth in corporate investment, accounting for
only about 3% of global private R&D investments in nanotechnology.30

Output of Peer-Reviewed Papers. The United States leads all other
nations in peer-reviewed nanotechnology papers published in scientific journals. A
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) analysis reported that the United
States’ 24% share of global publication output was more than double that of the next
most prolific nation, China.33 However, this share represents a decline from the early
1990s when the United States accounted for approximately 40% of nanotechnology
papers.

Using
a fractional count of papers,36 the United States maintained about a 22% share of
papers from 2000 to 2005. The EU27’s37 share of papers fell from 32% to 25%
during this period, while China’s share rose from 11% to 20%. Viewed from this
perspective, the EU27 led the United States in output of nanotechnology-related
scientific papers, but the EU27 share has been in decline. China’s share is
approaching that of both the United States and the EU27

Using an integer count, with each paper assigned to the nation of the lead
author’s address, yields similar results. By this method, the EU27 led the world in
2006 with approximately 29% of all papers, followed by the United States with 25%,and China with approximately 23%. Evaluametrics’ analysis of preliminary data
shows that China may have surpassed the United States in share of papers in 2007.3

Evaluametrics’ analysis of the papers by scientific disciplines reveals regional
differences. The United States’ articles were more heavily weighted toward the
biological and medical fields, China’s toward chemistry and engineering, and the
EU27’s toward the biological and medical fields, similar to the United States, but
with a greater emphasis on physics and less on chemistry.

Nanotechnology: Tom Mackenzie on China's giant step into nanotech | Technology | The Guardian

China now produces more papers on nanotech than any other nation.

Also compared to the figures you gave for Russia's nano tech industries

Nanotechnology Now - Press Release: "Nanotechnology In China Is Focusing On Innovations And New Products. Strong Growth"

The markets in china for nanotechnology products and systems is 5.4 billion us dollar in 2006 and will increase to 31.4 bn us $ by 2010 and 144.9 bn us $ by 2015.

I'm fed up with your stupidity, I gave you Russian journal articals describing Russia's metamaterials, yet you still have the audacity to write that crap. Your tactics are cheap, no matter what proof I give you, you are still in utter denial......how can one need get? Your clear goal is to put China on a Pedestal and at the same time make Russia look like crap.

Utter denial? I have shown plenty of evidence that China has a better r & D base and a better handle on emerging technologies.

My goal was not meant to put China on a pedestal or make Russia look like crap. My goal was just to convince people that China had a fighting chance, My goal was to show that China had advantages other than MORE FUNDS.

Which hopefully, I have succeeded in swaying some disbelievers.

 

[gambit]

You have NO understanding of creeping waves, or radar. You are spouting gibberish just like in that DF-21 thread.

When you fire radiation at a angled plane and at a perfect sphere, the perfect sphere will always deflect back more radiation towards the source than the angled plane. All creeping wave radiation does is that some of the radiation fired at it gets bent around the sphere and gets sent back to the source. So it is doubly worse due to sending back more information.

Aaaannnd...You are wrong. In radar detection, a sphere is called an 'isotropic' reflective body, meaning no matter the direction of the incident signal, the reflective energy is always the same. The initial reflection is called 'specular', that is a portion of the signal that bounce off the sphere's surface because there is always a tiny flat area on the sphere's surface where it impact the body. The rest of the signal became surface wave, of which the creeping wave is a component. The sphere's surface area is called the 'electrical path' or the 'propagation path' for surface wave behaviors. The only time the creeping wave will travel all around the body and return to source direction is IF the circumference of the sphere equals to wavelength. If the sphere's circumference is greater than wavelength, then as the creeping wave travels on this 'electrical path', it continues to radiate energy in the 'shadow zone' which usually is not visible to the seeking radar. That is why this blanket statement by you...

Nope the basic rule is that the more spherical the more easily you show up on radar. Without a doubt it has been proven that a flat angled plate has the best deflection.

...Is factually INCORRECT. The relationship between sphere diameter and incident wavelength to produce a certain RCS figure is well known. That mean the larger the sphere, the lower its RCS, especially for centimetric and millimetric freqs......To the point where the only indication of the sphere's radar reflectivity is that initial 'specular reflection'. That is why certain millimetric bands are vulnerable to atmospheric loss, meaning the wavelength is the same as a raindrop's diameter, giving the radar rain echoes instead of the aircraft's. Increase the wavelength and there is sufficient energy to 'wrap around' the raindrops and travels onto the aircraft.

Missile Defense Radars

One of the major disadvantages to operations at millimeter waves is the increased atmospheric attenuation, particularly from water vapor and oxygen. The atmospheric attenuation characteristics in the 10-300 GHz range vary widely and influence the choice of frequency bands.

Most aircrafts' radar operate in the X-band, which is...

Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

8–12 GHz 2.5–3.75 cm Missile guidance, marine radar, weather, medium-resolution mapping and ground surveillance; in the USA the narrow range 10.525 GHz ±25 MHz is used for airport radar; short range tracking. Named X band because the frequency was a secret during WW2.

See that...??? Centimetric radar, baby...!!! The X-band is good enough to provide reasonably accurate target resolutions from large complex bodies and can get around near-spherical bodies like raindrops.

The one who is spouting gibberish here is YOU.

Again look at the two images I posted earlier

Look at the Black shape in the center for XOY in both of them, the F-117 is bigger than the F-22 in every plane. Giving a bunch of lengths is meaningless. Clearly the F-117 is 3 times the size of the F-22.

You must be either joking or incredibly gullible. The shapes of the illustrations are in no way to scale to each other with respect to their true dimensions. They are just to show the readers which graph belongs to which. This is 'Chinese physics' all over again.

Again the RCS is showed you is the RCS formed from ONLY THE SHAPE of the object and assuming that both the F-117 and F-22 were made out of pure steel.

Utter BS. There is nothing there that indicate those RCS figures can come from only 'pure steel'. What is 'pure' here is your BS.

The F-22 needs extremely advanced RAM material if it is to live up to its marble sized RCS since the low RCS is clearly not coming from the plane shape.

Hey, pal...If it matters any, the forum's admin staff can tell you that one of my IPs when I post here come from Las Vegas. That mean Nellis AFB where the F-22 is stationed. I got friends on the flightline here. Friends I know from 10yrs in the USAF. I even touched the F-22, may be sat in its cockpit...??? For what it is worth, absorbers on the F-22 is scarce. They are on the leading edges of the intakes and on the FLCS surfaces. The F-22 is not made out of metamaterials. You are making an erroneous assumption based from a flawed understanding of basic radar detection and are too proud to admit you are wrong.

They have been using metamaterials in stealth ships since the 1990's

History of metamaterials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do not care. I want to see a source that says the F-22 is made of metamaterials.

 

[amalakas]

Dude

I can't believe this is happening... I agree with Gambit... the end of the world is nigh...


Chinese dude, DROP IT, YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL IS WHAT

listen carefuly to what the man has taken the time to show you and accept your limited knowledge... for god's shake it's ok to be wrong...


Also dude, I don't know if it's ok to publish parts of the IEEE papers on this forum,

you have to be an affiliate to have access and not everyone in here is ...so you may be violating some rules here...

 

[Jigs]

Gambit stop it your destroying this mans engineering credentials .

 

[amalakas]

Gambit stop it your destroying this mans engineering credentials .

+1

 

[dbc]

Dude

I can't believe this is happening... I agree with Gambit... the end of the world is nigh...


Chinese dude, DROP IT, YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL IS WHAT

listen carefuly to what the man has taken the time to show you and accept your limited knowledge... for god's shake it's ok to be wrong...


Also dude, I don't know if it's ok to publish parts of the IEEE papers on this forum,

you have to be an affiliate to have access and not everyone in here is ...so you may be violating some rules here...

It's not, he is jeopardizing this forum his own institute and his future with the institute. Everything he's screen captured so far are theories the respective authors have attempted to prove or disprove with the aid of mathematical equations and controlled experiments using scale models. MODS please remove the screen captures taken from IEEE.

 

[Thomas]

It's not, he is jeopardizing this forum his own institute and his future with the institute. Everything he's screen captured so far are theories the respective authors have attempted to prove or disprove with the aid of mathematical equations and controlled experiments using scale models. MODS please remove the screen captures taken from IEEE.

What they should do is put a gag in his mouth for a bit. And let him reflect on what others with a lot more experience have tried to tell him here. Enough is enough!

 

[gambit]

Dude

I can't believe this is happening... I agree with Gambit... the end of the world is nigh...


Chinese dude, DROP IT, YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL IS WHAT

listen carefuly to what the man has taken the time to show you and accept your limited knowledge... for god's shake it's ok to be wrong...


Also dude, I don't know if it's ok to publish parts of the IEEE papers on this forum,

you have to be an affiliate to have access and not everyone in here is ...so you may be violating some rules here...

Purists probably gagged and gnash their teeth at some of the simplified explanations I had to give.

 

[gowthamraj]

^ finally you done it

 

[Devianz]

It's not, he is jeopardizing this forum his own institute and his future with the institute. Everything he's screen captured so far are theories the respective authors have attempted to prove or disprove with the aid of mathematical equations and controlled experiments using scale models. MODS please remove the screen captures taken from IEEE.

And that article costs $30.