Understanding Fundamentals of Modern Stealth and Exploring Potential Vulnerabilities
In unraveling a mystery concerning why America can never make another F-22 Raptor again if they wanted to, I have drawn certain conclusions about the mechanisms through which stealth may be achieved, stealth being defined as the ability to absorb or reflect EM energy to evade RADAR detection.
According to multiple sources, after manufacture of the F-22 Raptor was completed to contract, the “machine tools” used in building the aircraft were disassembled and destroyed. The idea was to help to prevent anyone from discovering the secrets of the aircraft. Secret machine tools? What’s going on?
Modern stealth is predicated upon the ability to absorb electromagnetic energy as completely as possible, and the best way we know how to do this is with something called a copper-wire mesh, preferably in a hexagonal configuration. There is a similar mesh in the door of your microwave oven. The aperture size of each mesh, if it is going to resonate with EM of a particular frequency, must exactly match its wavelength. One mesh buys you stealth against a single wavelength, with a small margin for error. By overlapping very fine mesh layers, progressively more frequencies of EM may be absorbed. The limit is the number of layers that may fit in the aircraft’s skin. With advanced machine tools, as they call them, extraordinarily thin wires may be manufactured, layered on top of the previous layer, separated only by a few hundred atoms of radar-absorbing material, and adhered by a layer of the liquid form of the material, which is allowed to dry before another mesh layer is added. In this way, an aircraft can have protection from anywhere from 80 or so bands of radar to, with the most advanced tooling, 345 unique bands, making certain assumptions about mesh thickness and hull thickness.
Hey I feel like this should be right in /sci/'s wheelhouse. If I have some data that is following a logarithmic curve, how do I remove the log to show just how it's moving above/below?
Hello, can any enlightened /sci/ browser help me with some textbooks?
I am a chemistry student which just finished first year. Our calc 2 course was bad - the teacher did not know how to teach, dragged the course, and most of the concepts were not taught and we were simply shown equations to memorize.
I'd like to open up a textbook and learn through the concepts, since I learn much better from text than video - but can you recommend me one? there are so many, and I don't know which is 'good'.
im looking for one which will teach me the concepts well, and give me intuitive understanding of calc 2. I don't care much about the proofs - I'll work through them to show myself that what is said is right, but after I see them a few times I discard them and just use the concept - im a chemist, not a mathematician. That said, I am willing to tackle high level concepts or confusing proofs and ideas, so don't be afraid to throw dense books at me - if you think they are good.
Roughly how much greater protection do you receive from spacing the second pfizer shot from 3 weeks to 6 or more? I'd normally space it as long as it can, the drawback is i'll be less protected when cases will be climbing exponentially
What are some good "pop-sci" resources on anthropology besides PBS?
It`s so easy to find high-quality content about physics (e.g. Cosmos) but I find human evolution much more interesting.
Is it true because;
a.all natural nums are divisible by 1
b.all algorithms converge towards a multiple of 2
c.all even numbers are a summation of prime numbers
d. It is written...
