The clearest J-20 pictures.

[gambit]

It is you who failed to answer and bring evidence of your own claim

Why cant you answer blackdragon's and my question about how 120 degree corner will behave as a corner reflector as questioned above?

But I did answered the question. It is not my fault if the two of you have a false understanding of what is a corner reflector and based your arguments upon false premises.

Your consistency in refusing to tell us what was your area of 'study' in aviation will only secure what everyone suspected: You are a fraud.

 

[antonius123]

Look at his avatar 77th Fighter Squadron, that means he has the engine experience anyways.

Oooh... that avatar is the evidence?

OK, then it mean the 1st possibility for him : clueless maintenance guy who is daring to talk beyond his capability

 

[gambit]

Look at his avatar 77th Fighter Squadron, that means he has the engine experience anyways.

He ain't that smart to figure that out. But not engine for me.

Oooh... that avatar is the evidence?

OK, then it mean the 1st possibility for him : clueless maintenance guy who is daring to talk beyond his capability

Fine. Then you should have no problems telling us what was your area of 'study' in aviation.

 

[antonius123]

But I did answered the question. It is not my fault if the two of you have a false understanding of what is a corner reflector and based your arguments upon false premises.

Your consistency in refusing to tell us what was your area of 'study' in aviation will only secure what everyone suspected: You are a fraud.

Nope you dont!

In fact you ignore blackdragon and my question about the ray trace on the 120 degree corner.

While your cant/fail to defend your claimed your side angle of the hexagonal corner as the meant corner reflector.

He ain't that smart to figure that out. But not engine for me.


Fine. Then you should have no problems telling us what was your area of 'study' in aviation.

As I said I dont see any relevance of this kind question of yours, except as your effort to derail us from the topic since you fail to defend your clueless.

OK??

Now let me sleep in serene with beautiful sleeping
Bye, see you tomorrow

 

[gambit]

Nope you dont!

In fact you ignore blackdragon and my question about the ray trace on the 120 degree corner.

While your cant/fail to defend your claimed your side angle of the hexagonal corner as the meant corner reflector.

Yeah...Just as we know: You are a liar about your aviation experience.

I toyed with you enough just for giggles. What you think of me is irrelevant because there are plenty people here who are far smarter than you who understood what I said and who now see you for what you are: A clueless teenager.

 

[Esc8781]

Hey I rather listen to the guy who served in the air force, not a random guy from the internet.

 

[gambit]

Hey I rather listen to the guy who served in the air force, not a random guy from the internet.

Ultimately, we are just a bunch of 'random guys' from the Internet. But if you are going to debate in a highly technical area, it would behoove you to have relevant experience in said area. Either that or come out from the start and say you know nothing and are just here to ask questions and learn. People are very tolerant of that kind of honesty and will be helpful to uninformed questions.

This guy is completely the opposite. He started out by claiming he has aviation experience and tried to shut the Indians up with that claim. Then when challenged on what is that experience, he backed down to 'study' and refuses to tell us what is that 'study'. It is a hole he cannot get out. He has no choice but to continue to maintain that fraud. On the technical front, his understanding of basic principles in this subject is nonexistent but he has no problems making assumptions, then refuses to consider the possibility that those assumptions could be wrong. This guy is definitely a 'head case'.

 

[Esc8781]

Ultimately, we are just a bunch of 'random guys' from the Internet. But if you are going to debate in a highly technical area, it would behoove you to have relevant experience in said area. Either that or come out from the start and say you know nothing and are just here to ask questions and learn. People are very tolerant of that kind of honesty and will be helpful to uninformed questions.

This guy is completely the opposite. He started out by claiming he has aviation experience and tried to shut the Indians up with that claim. Then when challenged on what is that experience, he backed down to 'study' and refuses to tell us what is that 'study'. It is a hole he cannot get out. He has no choice but to continue to maintain that fraud. On the technical front, his understanding of basic principles in this subject is nonexistent but he has no problems making assumptions, then refuses to consider the possibility that those assumptions could be wrong. This guy is definitely a 'head case'.

That is me I want to learn I know nothing, but I am learning something new everyday.

 

[lordwedggie]

What is epic for amusement is a bunch of conscript rejects, literally no experience in the subjects they engages in, are demanding their words to be taken seriously.

READ WHAT YOU WROTE. Why would ANYONE take you seriously???

 

[gambit]

READ WHAT YOU WROTE. Why would ANYONE take you seriously???

You Chinese boys do. What you know about 'stealth' came from me.

 

[ptldM3]

Either you are idiot or did not pass elementary math.
Should I bring cylinder picture infront of your face so that you recognize the cylinder shape?

Let me explain this in a way that even the most feeble minded individuals can understand. Below is a photo of the J-20. Note, the red outline on the lower chin, it is a perfect circle, and not just curvature. A cylinder is also a perfect circle. Furthermore, the J-20’s chin a long tubular like structure, so is a cylinder.

Than again you brought this on yourself by claiming the pak-fa is full of rounder/cylinder shapes.

Why dont you claim that PAKFA chin is also cylinder .....

Because it isn’t, the pak-fa has a flat chin, J-20 has a round chin, do you understand the difference?

Why dont you claim that F-22 chin is also cylinder...
Why dont you claim that F-35 chin is also cylinder...

Because neither of those are.

Idiot

Come up with something better.

Then who / where is the real low observability expert that denounce his statement .... Idiot

This is what any reasonable person would call unreasonable. Do you expect real people that have real experience in the field to go on television, or create a webpage dedicated to denounce anyone; specifically Copp. I guess all those claims where ‘experts’ made statements about the J-20 being a poor aircraft must be true because no one denounced them.

Your evidence is a joke just like the above

Ouch, good playground comeback, but in the intellectual world we provide intelligent counter claims, other than empty one liners.

Then how come you mentioned that equation that you yourself dont understand to debate me?

Amalakas just drag equation that he himself cannot explain the connection with my arguments. I've challenge him and he cant answer.

If you dont understand either, then better shut up.

Don’t bring me into this, you were asked what the equation was because you claimed to have aviation experience. Don’t try to sneak around the subject.

Where is you evidence about the expert that denounce kopp's suggestion about J-20?

Where is the expert statement denouncing Richard Aboulafia’s statement on the J-20. You see where this is going? Your tactics are cheap.

Then prove to us that J-20 chin indeed is cylinder shape

Already have.

See post #48

Like I said where is the credibility, post 48 cited Kopp and his flawed methods.

Why should we use physical optics just in order to see the deficiency of PAKFA's shape like the exposed fan blade, and how round is the PAKFA's nacelle + corner reflector of the tunnel??

Caught in your own web, how is a tunnel a corner reflector when you claimed a corner reflector has to be 90 degrees, and please explain for everyone how a tunnel is any different than an Intake? If you claim a tunnel to be detrimental than the same principle applies to an intake. Both channel and direct airflow.

Corner reflector do not only refer to reflecting, but returning!

Wow, please enlighten everyone what is the difference between the two. A corner reflector, will always create a return, the degree of the corner reflector will determine how strong the return is.

A 90 degree corner reflector behaves like this.

That is how all corner reflectors behave regardless of the degree, as I stated the degree of the corner will determine how strong a return is. The adjacent inter structures of a corner reflector will determine how much EM energy is harnessed and concentrated and how much is dissipated outwards, but eliminating all returns is not possible since you still have a corner, key word is corner.

Now I want someone to do a ray trace for this 120 degree corner reflector. I don't care who does it. Someone step up to the plate.

Or we can just demonstrate this:

 

[j20blackdragon]

Or we can just demonstrate this:

The only thing you've demonstrated is how much of a fraud you are.

Question: does anyone see a problem with ptldM3's ray trace?

 

[baqai]

wow

/me distributes popcorn to everyone ...

and everyone goes JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY !!!!

 

[ptldM3]

The only thing you've demonstrated is how much of a fraud you are.

Question: does anyone see a problem with ptldM3's ray trace?

The problem is that you are posting photographs of things you have no understanding in , so why don’t you explain what the problem is instead of asking others. The only thing those photos show is how various ‘incident’ angles create various reflective angles.


Here is one of the photos you have posted:





So, are you now telling everyone that you were a fraud when you posted the above image? Which of course you are, but now explain for everyone what the problem is and how it relates to your photos.


If you were on to something and you actually knew i was wrong you would just have shut me up instead of asking other to find what was wrong, so the real fraud is you

 

[j20blackdragon]

The problem is that you are posting photographs of things you have no understanding in , so why don’t you explain what the problem is instead of asking others. The only thing those photos show is how various ‘incident’ angles create various reflective angles.


Here is one of the photos you have posted:





So, are you now telling everyone that you were a fraud when you posted the above image? Which of course you are, but now explain for everyone what the problem is and how it relates to your photos.


If you were on to something and you actually knew i was wrong you would just have shut me up instead of asking other to find what was wrong, so the real fraud is you

This is hilarious.

If you want me to toy with you some more, I'll gladly do it.