[ATTACH=CONFIG]248182[/ATTACH]
. If he is too lazy to find that from AWST , or that https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/combat-ready-53125/ , or that… http://www.senat.fr/rap/a13-158-8/a13-158-814.html, or that… http://www.defesanet.com.br/rafale/noticia/10893/Shooting-Down-an-Aggressor-on-My-Six–Vive-la-difference-/ or those…

So after all that screaming, crying , finger pointing, that the best you come up with? and you tell me that iam too lazy to read the links? did you read the link i gave at all?
That article has been brought up in the link i posted, not once but many times, i even brought the quote here in the post right above yours. Here is an honorable mention

Really? I’m not like you. But here are some descriptions of how the FCS work, and examples from the Rafale test on FCS control laws. Hopefully I’m not wasting my time explaining this.

This is why these new digital FCS are considered carefree handling. The system limits pitch, yaw, and roll within the load factors and departure limits. The allowable limits are based on configuration (AtA, AtG), loads (CG), or asymmetric loads. The control laws can limit pitch, roll, the allowable AoA, and keeping the g’s (sometimes because of AoA limit) within the safety margins. Changes in the aircraft’s CG (based on loadout) affect the maneuver envelope of the aircraft to prevent loss of stability or overstress.
This is an overview of the development of Digital FCS

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA398738
(you may have to cut and paste this)

Now as far as control limits- the system on the Rafale (like all DFCS). The CAT III limiter on the F-16, when on it limits the pitch onset, roll, and the AoA (effectively limiting G at higher speeds) The Rafale has a similar stores settings for air to ground configurations limiting it to 5.5 G. That does not mean that the Rafale can reach that max allowable 5.5G based on the loads.
In the piece Hopsalot posted you can see several examples of how the FCS limits the envelope based on the load: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/combat-ready-53125/
Read: Slamming the throttle to maximum reheat and rolling quickly into a full stick-back hard turn to simulate a break away from a threat gave a rapid response, automatically limited initially to 18.8º alpha and 4g. As the turn progressed, the FCS allowed the incidence to increase to 19.2¼ alpha as the airspeed decayed.

Here the FCS limited the aircraft AoA to 18.8 keeping the rafale under control limit. As you read on you will see the FCS allow more AoA and G:
Once level, it was accelerated to M0.88 for a hard turn using full reheat to the FCS g limit. Although I entered the turn quickly, the voice warning (female) informed me that I had slightly exceeded the configuration limit of M0.9 (it was M0.91). The FCS limited the aircraft to 5.2g.
at 330kt, the FCS transitioned from the g to the alpha limit of 20.8º, an incidence that was maintained until I rolled out at 200kt. Finally, to give the FCS a further hard test, I made full-stick rapid rolls with the stick held fully back. At the incidence limit, the aircraft took 6s for a 360º roll and 5.5s at the g limit of 5.4g.
In the two above pieces, the FCS limited the aircraft to 5.2g. In the lower part you see, as speed decreased the limiting factor was not G but the AoA. The FCS allowed the aircraft to reach 5.4g at the lower speed.
Lastly, the FCS does not just limit “g” nor is the configuration limit of 5.5g allowable at all speeds and loads:
Four full-stick rapid rolls through 360º were made at 1g and 2g at 300kt. The roll acceleration was good and, in each case, the roll was completed in 3.5-4s. The peak roll rate was about 150º/s. Without the heavy external stores, the FCS would have allowed a higher roll rate of 250-270º/s. The aircraft was inverted briefly in level flight – something only a test pilot would attempt with two large cruise missiles and three external tanks on board – and remained easy to fly accurately. The FCS limits negative g as well as positive g, although I did not bring in the g limiter during this test point.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dv8sr9dudblqq7j/12918_resize_800_600_false_true_null.jpg?dl=0 and https://www.dropbox.com/s/iqkar66xwfggyl7/12920_resize_620_380_true_false_null.jpg?dl=0

Again, i already mentioned this as well, and i even brought the quote here

” Rafale achieves 1.090 km combat radius in low-level penetration w/ 12×250 kg bombs, 4 MICA, 3×380 US gal tanks”
there no source for that number , and not even F-15E or F-111 fly that far with that kind of load out , heck according to Dassault a Rafale with 3 2000L external fuel tank and no bomb, fly at hi-hi profile can barely reach 1700 km radius , with 6 AASM still in hi-hi profile , combat radius already reduced to 1389 km , but some how with 12 250 kg bombs, low altitude the Rafale can suddently reach combat radius of 1090 km ? how ? it can some how break physics now ?

.

. I ONLY GAVE HINTS SO AS WHERE TO FIND RELEVANT AND VERIFIED INFO.

So you gave me hints where to find relevant information even though susch info were mentioned by me already?

.

So someone explaining that when a heavy point is used the FCS limits to 5g Rafale and trying to be taken seriously? FCS is constantly automatically updated considering present loads. And in heaviest config, limit is 5.5g.

The G limit by FCS is not, in any ways, shapes or forms similar to G limits due to lack of lift. To put it in simple term, when you put weapons on Rafale heavy AG station, the FCS limit the maximum G you allowed to pull from 9G down to 5.4G, and that limit will be there regardless of the altitude where Rafale flying at. But that does not mean the Rafale will generate enough lift to make such turn at all altitude. Why? because air density change with altitude.
Lift = CL * ( v^2 ) * d * A * 0.5
As the d factor change dramatically along with altitude

unless Rafale has a different way of generating lift ( namely anti gravity devices or magic) , it’s maximum g limit will not be the same 5.4G at all altitude.
And it even more nonsense to say such limit is the sustain turn rate limit, because to have a sustain turn, not only the wing-body need to generate enough lift, the engine need to generate enough thrust to counter the drag too.
Moreover, Picard exact statement was : ” In fact, Rafale can achieve 5,5-6 g sustained turn with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles. F-35A can only sustain 4,6 g when in clean configuration.
which mean he need to compare them in the same condition which is 15K feet , mach 0.8 . If he take the sustain turn performance of Rafale at sea level then compare it with the F-35 at 15K feet then he is even more of a moron because that would be similar to me compare the speed of the F-35 at 30K feet with speed of the Mig-25 at sea level then declare F-35 is a much faster aircraft .

Btw Rafale structural limit was tested up to 17 or 18g. THIS IS an assertion…

structure G limit isnot the same when different load are used, when the Rafale carry 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles, it won’t be able to turn as hard or roll as hard compare to when it is equipped with only 2 Mica

You SAID that it’s BS, you didn’t prove anything.

I did, and if you spend at least a second to look through the link i posted in last page, the whole explanation is there, you claim that i refused to look at the source but you are the one who didn’t look at the source, even though it is a specific topic, not a general forum like the one provided by Halloween
here are my post, and some posts of others from last thread about BS claims from Picard
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137788-F-35-News-and-discussion-(2016)-take-III/page29

Let start with Picard shall we
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/why-red-flag-exercises-are-not-indicative-of-aircraft-performance/
”Taking into account cost and sortie rate, 12 F-22 would be expected to face 102 F-16Cs”
do i have to explain why this is ridiculous ?
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/dassault-rafale-vs-f-35/comment-page-1/#comments
” Rafale achieves 1.090 km combat radius in low-level penetration w/ 12×250 kg bombs, 4 MICA, 3×380 US gal tanks”
there no source for that number , and not even F-15E or F-111 fly that far with that kind of load out , heck according to Dassault a Rafale with 3 2000L external fuel tank and no bomb, fly at hi-hi profile can barely reach 1700 km radius , with 6 AASM still in hi-hi profile , combat radius already reduced to 1389 km , but some how with 12 250 kg bombs, low altitude the Rafale can suddently reach combat radius of 1090 km ? how ? it can some how break physics now ?

” Rafale can achieve 5,5-6 g sustained turn with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles”
another great invention from Picard , did you read that 2 SCALP , 3* 2000 L fuel tank , and the Rafale can somehow sustain 6 g clearly the aircraft have some anti gravity device , and ofcourse he provide no source ( obviously because the source doesnot exist )

”Dassault Rafale has corner speed of 330 kts for 11 g instantaneous turn, and 360 kts for 9 g sustained turn. This gives it instantaneous turn rate of 36,4 deg/s and sustained turn rate of 27,3 deg/s. Sustained turn rate is achieved at >25.000 ft.”
This is more complex to an untrained eyes so i will explain it with more detail :
basic aerodynamic 101 :
Lift = CL * ( v^2 ) * d * A * 0.5
air density at 25k feet is 0.548981519715 kg/m3
Velocity as he said is 360kts or 185 meter/second
wing area of Rafale is 45.7 m2
CL = lift coefficient
to pull a certain amount of g , then lift must be equal weight * g-load ( mass*9.81*9 )

so to pull ( not even sustain ) 9g at 185 meter/second , 25k feet , the aircraft must generate amount of lift equal :
(9,850 + 4,700 ) *9.81*9
to generate that much lift , CL = { (9850 + 4700 ) *9.81 *9 }/ { 0.5* 0.548* ( 185^2 )* 45.7 }
CL= 3
have you read that carefully ? CL= 3 , even transport aircraft with subsonic airfoil and full flap deploy at landing doesnot achieve that value , what the heck does Rafale wing made of ? magic dust ? ( and dont even bother to take body lift as an argument because it already included in CL value ) and you should remember that he said it a sustain turn too , so unless Rafale’s engine somehow magically lose no thrust at high altitude ( which is not possible because jet engine need air ), even if it’s wing can generate such lift , it wont be able to sustain such turn
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/dassault-rafale-vs-f-22/
”top speed limit is caused by air intake design, leaving excess thrust for maneuvering even at maximum speed”
clearly he dont understand a thing about engine or air intake

Need i say more ? these are the most obvious example , i wont even go further about these nonsense he talked about the F-35 or Radar warning receive or the fact that he just pull number out of no where for every single things he said ( like literally he made up every number just to fit his agenda ) , and that is just 3 articles alone, it not for no reason that people consider him a joke.

You really don’t make much sense. Firstly, how can I disprove Picard578’s figures when he provided no proof for his figures in the first place? He listed off arbitrary performance numbers without providing any sources. And how does this relate to the F-35? You’re the one who used Picard578’s blog as a source in the first place, and you’re blatantly ignoring or dismissing our reasons for questioning his credibility. On the other hand you seem to readily dismiss any positive news about the F-35 as paid comments. You don’t see the hypocrisy? If you insist on making blanket assumptions about news regarding the F-35 without any regard for the credibility of the source beyond “if it’s positive then it’s paid for by LM” then I don’t know what to say. It’s like talking to a creationist.

:

Picard has no sources. Nobody needs to prove him wrong. If he can’t support it then it isn’t our job to disprove it.

Even so…

With regard to this claim of his:
“In fact, Rafale can achieve 5,5-6 g sustained turn with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles. F-35A can only sustain 4,6 g when in clean configuration.”

Official information :
“The test configuration included three 2,000litre (530USgal) fuel tanks, two SCALP cruise missiles weighing 1,300kg (2,860lb) each and four Mica fire-and-forget air-to-air missiles. For a small aircraft such as the Rafale, this is a heavy load – but one that promises to allow a thorough evaluation of the aircraft’s flight control system and performance.

…

At top of climb, the autopilot levelled the aircraft smoothly at the pre-set altitude of 25,000ft. Visibility through the canopy across southern France was superb. The canopy is covered by a gold film to make it opaque to radar energy (and thereby reduce the aircraft’s radar signature). This coating gave the effect of looking at the world through pale sunglasses.

At a typical cruise speed of M0.82/347kt, the aircraft could sustain a 60º banked turn at maximum dry power. Slamming the throttle to maximum reheat and rolling quickly into a full stick-back hard turn to simulate a break away from a threat gave a rapid response, automatically limited initially to 18.8º alpha and 4g. As the turn progressed, the FCS allowed the incidence to increase to 19.2¼ alpha as the airspeed decayed. Again, I was impressed with how easy it was to extract the maximum performance from this heavily loaded aircraft.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/combat-ready-53125/

So here we see conclusively that a Rafale with the exact same load, was not only limited to a 4G turn by the flight control system, but even then the airspeed was decaying proving beyond a doubt that a 4G turn was not a “sustained” turn.

We could go on forever, but of course that is what you would like isn’t it? Anything to try to distract from the many many credible positive reports that have been coming out about the F-35. Much better to cite the sourceless wordpress blog of some French fanboy. :highly_amused:

No Msphere, your absolutely wrong. You don’t need to have the Rafale’s “envelope map”. The Rafale is limited to 5.5 g with heavy stores are fitted to the AtG stations. The aircraft, like all modern fighters with an advanced FCS, constantly adjusts available g and AoA to the weight of the aircraft. So once the 2000L tanks are fitted, the aircraft is limited to 5.5g max, and goes down from there based on weight. The idea of carefree handling allows the pilot to use full control imput without worrying about “breaking: the aircraft. Ex. full lateral stick input will give max roll rate at a particular weight. These FCS are more advanced that the F-16 CAT I/III limiters.

Most anyone with a conception of aircraft design and flight control grasps that, you and Picard seemingly do not. BTW, he was on here before, and could not defend his blog posts to the forum as they were, as people have said, fiction. You can go ahead support the postings on that particular blog, no one has to provide you with evidence. Most of us know better, because we have a basis of understanding on which to discard his conclusions.

Really? I’m not like you. But here are some descriptions of how the FCS work, and examples from the Rafale test on FCS control laws. Hopefully I’m not wasting my time explaining this.

This is why these new digital FCS are considered carefree handling. The system limits pitch, yaw, and roll within the load factors and departure limits. The allowable limits are based on configuration (AtA, AtG), loads (CG), or asymmetric loads. The control laws can limit pitch, roll, the allowable AoA, and keeping the g’s (sometimes because of AoA limit) within the safety margins. Changes in the aircraft’s CG (based on loadout) affect the maneuver envelope of the aircraft to prevent loss of stability or overstress.
This is an overview of the development of Digital FCS

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA398738
(you may have to cut and paste this)

Now as far as control limits- the system on the Rafale (like all DFCS). The CAT III limiter on the F-16, when on it limits the pitch onset, roll, and the AoA (effectively limiting G at higher speeds) The Rafale has a similar stores settings for air to ground configurations limiting it to 5.5 G. That does not mean that the Rafale can reach that max allowable 5.5G based on the loads.
In the piece Hopsalot posted you can see several examples of how the FCS limits the envelope based on the load: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/combat-ready-53125/
Read: Slamming the throttle to maximum reheat and rolling quickly into a full stick-back hard turn to simulate a break away from a threat gave a rapid response, automatically limited initially to 18.8º alpha and 4g. As the turn progressed, the FCS allowed the incidence to increase to 19.2¼ alpha as the airspeed decayed.

Here the FCS limited the aircraft AoA to 18.8 keeping the rafale under control limit. As you read on you will see the FCS allow more AoA and G:
Once level, it was accelerated to M0.88 for a hard turn using full reheat to the FCS g limit. Although I entered the turn quickly, the voice warning (female) informed me that I had slightly exceeded the configuration limit of M0.9 (it was M0.91). The FCS limited the aircraft to 5.2g.
at 330kt, the FCS transitioned from the g to the alpha limit of 20.8º, an incidence that was maintained until I rolled out at 200kt. Finally, to give the FCS a further hard test, I made full-stick rapid rolls with the stick held fully back. At the incidence limit, the aircraft took 6s for a 360º roll and 5.5s at the g limit of 5.4g.
In the two above pieces, the FCS limited the aircraft to 5.2g. In the lower part you see, as speed decreased the limiting factor was not G but the AoA. The FCS allowed the aircraft to reach 5.4g at the lower speed.
Lastly, the FCS does not just limit “g” nor is the configuration limit of 5.5g allowable at all speeds and loads:
Four full-stick rapid rolls through 360º were made at 1g and 2g at 300kt. The roll acceleration was good and, in each case, the roll was completed in 3.5-4s. The peak roll rate was about 150º/s. Without the heavy external stores, the FCS would have allowed a higher roll rate of 250-270º/s. The aircraft was inverted briefly in level flight – something only a test pilot would attempt with two large cruise missiles and three external tanks on board – and remained easy to fly accurately. The FCS limits negative g as well as positive g, although I did not bring in the g limiter during this test point.

You are confusing between “available” G and structure G limit
Available G = how much lift can the wing and body of the aircraft generated , it depending on AoA, weight, and airspeed
Structure G limit refers to structural g limit , the FCS of Rafale need to put a limit of 5 G when weapon are carried on heavy A-G station because otherwise the wing will fall of when aircraft turning too hard .
Now you can argue that the pilot can override the FCS ( or for some reason the FCS shut down and let the pilot do what ever he want ) , and then he can fly the Rafale at maximum speed to generate enough lift for 5,5-6 g sustained turn with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles , and we ignore the structure limit ,there are still several problems:
1) the Rafale wont be able to fly much faster than mach 0.8 with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles, the drag in that configuration would be enomours
2) Turn rate is affected by speed , so while 5G turn at mach 0.8 is still decent , a 5G turn at mach 1.8 is almost like not turnning ( as the turn rate reduced to 1-2 degrees/second)
3)instantaneous turn rate is different from sustained turn rate , while going faster can help improve instantaneous turn rate because more lift will be available through speed, it a different story with sustained turn rate , because in a sustain turn the engine have to overcome drag to maintain speed of aircraft , and as you go faster there will be more drag.
4)Last but not least , Picard exact statement was : ” In fact, Rafale can achieve 5,5-6 g sustained turn with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles. F-35A can only sustain 4,6 g when in clean configuration.”
which mean he need to compare them in the same condition which is 15K feet , mach 0.8 . If he take the sustain turn performance of Rafale at sea level then compare it with the F-35 at 15K feet then he is even more of a moron because that would be similar to me compare the speed of the F-35 at 30K feet with speed of the Mig-25 at sea level then declare F-35 is a much faster aircraft .

I will take this at face value and assume you are actually trying here.

A max instantaneous turn is the maximum g turn that an aircraft can achieve (typically limited by lift/mass) or that is allowable (structural or flight control limited). An aircraft performing a max instantaneous turn will typically be bleeding energy, either losing speed or altitude, but there are some specific cases, typically when the limiting factor is structural that the aircraft might not be losing energy.

A “doghouse plot” is an expression of a fighter’s instantaneous turn performance. The peak of the plot represents the fighter’s maximum achievable turn rate under the conditions of the plot, it is the lowest speed where the fighter is capable of achieving its structural load limit. To the right of the peak (faster) the limiting factor is loads, and to the left (slower) the limiting factor is lift.

Just because a fighter is hypothetically capable of achieving 9gs at a certain altitude does not mean it can do so at all speeds, only if it is at or above its corner speed.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]245045[/ATTACH]

Here you can see a pair of overlaid doghouse plots, one for an aircraft with slightly higher maximum speed and G-load performance and another for an aircraft with a lower g-limit, but a lower corner velocity as well, which allows a greater peak turn rate despite its lower g limit. (the blue aircraft here would be the more F-16-like, the multi-colored aircraft would be more F-18-like) This is why if you look at the corner velocity requirement for the F-35 the threshold was listed as F-16, and the objective was listed as F-18… all else held equal a lower corner velocity is an advantage.

The F-35 and Rafale have the same structural max-G, 9gs. Both aircraft can presumably exceed that structural limit under certain circumstances without encountering a catastrophic failure (the Rafale has demonstrated this in air show routines, and the F-35 has been tested to at least 9.9g) but in normal operation 9gs is the limit.

If the Rafale is carrying heavy air to ground stores, it is limited to .9 mach and 5.5gs, but the limit could actually be lower depending on the aircraft’s weight, etc. (as illustrated in the article where the FCS limited the reporter to 4gs.)

The F-35 also presumable has limits when heavily loaded but they aren’t public so far as I know.

Now, shifting gears completely…

A sustained turn is a turn during which an aircraft either retains or gains energy (speed/altitude). A maximum sustained turn is the hardest turn a fighter can maintain without losing energy. This is a totally different metric than a max instantaneous turn in almost all cases. Like an instantaneous turn, it is dependent on speed, altitude, and the aircraft’s load.

Just because an F-35 can sustain 5gs at some speed/altitude doesn’t mean it can’t also achieve 9gs in an instantaneous turn. (in almost all cases an aircraft can achieve higher loads in an instantaneous turn than a sustained turn)

At sea level and while lightly loaded most fighters can actually sustain a 9g turn… but that falls away as you climb. You can’t compare a sustained turn at one speed/altitude to an instantaneous or sustained turn at another speed/altitude.

2. Why is the F-35 limited to 4.6g sustained, even when clean?

It just depends on flight conditions. At high enough altitude a fighter’s sustained turn capability will drop to 0gs. (all lift needed to maintain altitude) This same fighter might sustain 9gs near sea level. Without knowing the specifics of what that 4.6 (actually more like ~5gs) refers to we really don’t know much. The F-35 won’t be a strong performer relative to other fighters in sustained turning performance as the F-16 was, but then neither was the F-18 or Mirage 2000 and nobody doubts that they are fighters.

Jo is a well known schizophrenic who sees a bunch of made up things that don’t exist, and post a million different documents he doesn’t understand, thats why most of the russians laugh at him like JSR and KGB

there are no s-ducts on there. its straight through

To be fair, while most of the time Jo is very angry and arrogant, I think he still much better than JSR, his posts have contents in them while talking to JSR is like talking to a wall

Do you really need to ask? Picard made it up. On the last claim: first, the g-demand system limits the Rafale to 5.5g 20′ AoA in ST1 or ST2 carrying heavy loads. The heavier the load, the g demand system will only allow so much AoA or available g. That, besides the fact that Picard’s claim is laughable on the face of it when compared to known aircraft performance while carrying such a heavy load out.

I know it is laughable, but i want to see how far would he go, trying to justify his made up figures

About range, configuration and flight profile, infos are available on Defesanet, given by a test pilot (JR Vianney Riller) who flew it for two complete weeks (one in Istres and one in St Dizier). About the sustained turning rate, there is an old test from Mike Yeoh i think, giving interesting data. Whowever, it was not strictly speaking sustained turn rate as speed declined a bit (and i stand corrected about that on that very forum). Sry, i’m very far from home and my computer file, cant give proper infos and links.

So you are picard?
If yes then let’s make it simple, did Vianney Riller claim any of this

Rafale achieves 1.090 km combat radius in low-level penetration w/ 12×250 kg bombs, 4 MICA, 3×380 US gal tanks,

or this

Dassault Rafale has corner speed of 330 kts for 11 g instantaneous turn, and 360 kts for 9 g sustained turn. This gives it instantaneous turn rate of 36,4 deg/s and sustained turn rate of 27,3 deg/s. Sustained turn rate is achieved at >25.000 ft.

or this

Rafale can achieve 5,5-6 g sustained turn with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles

I want a straight and direct answer

msphere has said a few times in the past, him and picard are the same

You mean they are the same person?

Ffs, people still quote that moron Picard?

And i thought they actually learned something after this thread : http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137788-F-35-News-and-discussion-(2016)-take-III/page29

Not only recently. Pod “Carbone was very succesfully tested during MACE xxx exercise https://books.google.com/books?id=Y8kePYFK1L8C&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=pod+thal%C3%A8s+carbone&source=bl&ots=hOG9DHr8qa&sig=LAVNhXmQnDpmRTVpo172SCB0MjY&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdnKn8s4rPAhXFVRoKHd6CA-IQ6AEIKzAC#v=onepage&q=pod%20thal%C3%A8s%20carbone&f=false

Where does it said Carbone is active cancellation system?

Not really. Active cancellation is used by a UK acoustics company for example in order to cancel electrical noise on USB cables (which is otherwise nearly impossible using linear systems that would require near as much energy as USB can power, if not more)

Last time you posted that, it has been debunked as BS, i dont understand why you bothered to repeat the same thing again?
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?134900-Rafale-news-amp-discussion-part-XVI/page69