55733f26   
   From: stealthman@iglou.com   
      
   On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:09:16 -0700 (PDT), "miso@sushi.com"   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Jul 18, 10:22 pm, obviouslydelusional   
   > wrote:   
   >> On Jul 18, 10:34 pm, Gosh Darn  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >       I read in one of the F-117 books   
   >> > by Sweetman or Ben Rich or somebody   
   >> > that Lockheed employees wanted to   
   >> > use curved or rounded fairings for   
   >> > better aerodynamics, but the Air Force   
   >> > specified -all flat surfaces-.   
   >>   
   >> Uh....no.  Per Ben Rich., the guys at Lockheed who were trying to make   
   >> the damn thing fly wanted to smooth out the shape, but the Lockheed   
   >> radar nerds said if they did so it would compromise the RCS value.   
   >> The AF couldn't care less about whether the surfaces were flat or not   
   >> as long as it didn't show on radar.  In general, the reason for the   
   >> flat facets was the program Lockheed was using for RCS modeling (ECHO   
   >> 1) was not sophisticated enough to handle anything other than plane   
   >> shapes.  By the time the B2 was being developed, that limitation had   
   >> been overcome, hence the sexy curves.   
   >>   
   >> >       From 1975 until 1995 I thought I   
   >> > was the sole inventor of stealth shapes,   
   >> > the read the cocky-mamie story about   
   >> > a Russian mathematician and Maxwell   
   >> > electromagnetic theory.   
   >>   
   >> Hardly cockamamie.  There's a lot more to stealth than just flat   
   >> surfaces.  At radar frequencies sharp edges will absorb the EM   
   >> radiation and reradiate unless properly dealt with.  And every facet   
   >> is surrounded by sharp edges.   
   >   
   >I'm don't think it is an accurate description to say a sharp edge   
   >absorbs EM radiation then reradiates it. An absorbed signal would be   
   >converted to some other form of energy (heat), and then it could not   
   >radiate again since the energy has already been converted. [Energy has   
   >to be conserved.]   
      
         A lot of the technology other than shapes (electronic   
   avoidance configurations) was known and published in   
   the Wintersdorff, et al in the early 1970s, that was the   
   patent the examiner used to object to my claims, but   
   it is evident that neither the Wintersdorff, et all patent   
   or the Lockheed F-117 "vehicle" patent exhibited any   
   of the well understood shaping theory that my patent   
   showed from the very start.   
      
         In the original Lockheed vehicle patent, the term   
   "forward scattering" clearly meant continuing on in   
   the direction away from the transmitter after deflecting   
   off surfaces at low angles.    And in the re-issue, the   
   term "forward scattering" seems to be confused,   
   I can't tell if they mean "forward relative to the motion   
   of the aircraft" or not.   
         My patent was referenced in the re-issue patent,   
   but could not have been known to Lockheed lawyers   
   when they filed the re-issue patent unless defense   
   agency people revealed it to Lockheed before issue.   
      
         I consider some of the claims in the re-issue   
   patent to be way different or beyond what was   
   disclosed in the original vehicle patent, and NO   
   new material is supposed to be in a re-issue patent.   
      
         I believe my claim number one being rejected   
   and an almost identical claim one in the vehicle   
   patent being allowed was improper.     I might   
   assume that the supervisors in the patent office   
   knew what the number one claim in the vehicle   
   patent was when my final office action was written   
   in 1988 and instructed the examiner to disallow   
   my claim one because the application I filed on   
   December 22, 1978 was incomplete and the   
   vehicle application filed in Feb. 1979 was   
   considered to be the "first filed".   
      
        But my application in December 1978 did   
   have the declaration or oath required, and did   
   contain a reference to the May 1977 paper in   
   the previous airfoil patent, which should have   
   given me priority for "all flat surface" concepts.   
      
         Also, my original application for stealth   
   shapes had claims for ships and vehicles or   
   craft other than aircraft, while the "vehicle"   
   patent only references a single aircraft.   
      
         I asked that my original application be   
   reviewed and I stated I considered it to be   
   national security related, but was told that   
   no secrecy order was warranted, and that   
   the paper number 11 had been in the   
   public domain since January 1978 and that   
   might have made the "all flat surface" concept   
   unpatentable.     They seemed to apply that   
   to me but not to the vehicle patent.   
      
         I really don't like the idea of going to   
   court over damages caused by 12 years   
   of secrecy orders or issues like I wrote   
   above, but perhaps I should.   
      
         I feel that a lot of what is written about   
   stealth technology is intentionally deceiving   
   for security reasons, but since I was never   
   privy to any government program, I can only   
   guess which is fact and what is baloney.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)