TR-3B nuclear powered flying triangle

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
I don't know if we are taking about the same triangle here but
to get anti gravity you do not need nuclear power but atomic power
is definitely in as well a ordinary mechanical power carbon fuel
sourced as long as it generates the required electrical pulses for lift.

What, precisely, do you think 'atomic power' is?

Hint - atomic and nuclear are two terms for the same thing.

Atomic is using the atom not the nuclei.
Atomic gases such as noble gases and mono atomic Hydrogen.
The Papp engine used helium for sure as Lyne as indicated might
run motors as Papp has shown.
Something like 4,000 cal/mole of heat/pressure/light from sparking
helium is indicated by Lyne.
Lyne has a Hydrogen furnace based upon the Langmuir GE process
of H2 + 103 cal/mole => going to mono atomic hydrogen 2H
which recombines exhausts heat in the thousands of calories.
Atomic might also use alpha and electron decay, natural or
induced by UV rays, to generate electricity as Radium has even
been addressed as a power plant source since it has never been
used as a nuclear process.

That type of things I'd say are atomic.
Using radiant or ether energy in metal traps might be another
using coils and such of over unity generators.

ED: But the UFO or Tesla craft expends less energy than say
airliners to fly because of the electrical control of momentum some how
and not some special free energy invented by ETs.
ED+: Using an atomic process should use the renewable ability
of atoms to acquire electrons and become whole again.

edit on 10/28/2010 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry, but your differentiation is not one that exists in the field of energy generation.

Some years back, the USAF was actively engaged in the development of a lighter than air vehicle primarily for use as a long-term real-time surveillence platform.

The craft would have been unmanned, and capable of lingering over a designated target at extremely high altitudes (in excess of 80,000FT) for days at a time.

A lighter than air platform was chosen to allow for an extended "loiter"" capability: large fuel capacities would not be required to maintain the craft's altitude, fuel could be utilized to provide extended station-keeping over the target while the craft's "natural bourancy" kept it aloft.

Of course, the physics of lighter than air craft tend to ensure that they are rather large when compared to heavier than air vehicles. Compare a blimp to a Gulfstream business jet, for example.


The the Air Force project was, in fact, triangular (or, mor precisely, V-shaped). This was to enhance the craft's aerodynamic maneuverability; a weakness with typally "cigar-shaped" LAV's of the time.


Kind of fits the bill, wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
I don't know if we are taking about the same triangle here but
to get anti gravity you do not need nuclear power but atomic power
is definitely in as well a ordinary mechanical power carbon fuel
sourced as long as it generates the required electrical pulses for lift.

What, precisely, do you think 'atomic power' is?

Hint - atomic and nuclear are two terms for the same thing.

Atomic is using the atom not the nuclei.
Atomic gases such as noble gases and mono atomic Hydrogen.
The Papp engine used helium for sure as Lyne as indicated might
run motors as Papp has shown.
Something like 4,000 cal/mole of heat/pressure/light from sparking
helium is indicated by Lyne.
Lyne has a Hydrogen furnace based upon the Langmuir GE process
of H2 + 103 cal/mole => going to mono atomic hydrogen 2H
which recombines exhausts heat in the thousands of calories.
Atomic might also use alpha and electron decay, natural or
induced by UV rays, to generate electricity as Radium has even
been addressed as a power plant source since it has never been
used as a nuclear process.

That type of things I'd say are atomic.
Using radiant or ether energy in metal traps might be another
using coils and such of over unity generators.

ED: But the UFO or Tesla craft expends less energy than say
airliners to fly because of the electrical control of momentum some how
and not some special free energy invented by ETs.
ED+: Using an atomic process should use the renewable ability
of atoms to acquire electrons and become whole again.

edit on 10/28/2010 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry, but your differentiation is not one that exists in the field of energy generation.

Like I care.
ED: The water buggy. The Papp engine. Are you serious?
There was nothing like them before.
New wave killers are only around with built in definitions.
Who writes the definitions.
These ideas were known just as the UFO uses free momentum and
not free energy.
ED: You should know the unbreakable electrical atomic structure
is the only building block for renewable energy that by way of suppression
in a scientific dictatorship dictates your knowledge.
They already knew what was not to be instructed to you and made it quite
impossible for you to understand. Sorry if you can't understand the situation.

reply to post by Bhadhidar


To provide the hover capability of the UFO can't be used.
So some other project is put together using normal equipment.
This is done over and over again and perhaps confuses a few.

Originally posted by zorgon

2) Black Ops craft... your right it makes no sense to let them be seen over big cities (even though they DO test stealth planes over Dryden/Edwards area) because as you say why would they show them if the purpose is stealth? To 'scare' the populace to show we got them? Well then why not just go on CNN and show the fleet? Maybe do a few test runs popping in and out of the ether and zap some targets with beam weapons. That ought to scare em

Stealth technologies:

a) radar stealth
b) infrared stealth
c) optical stealth
d) cognitive stealth

If steps (a), (b) and (c) fail (low observability technologies), then it is advantageous if the commander of the opposing air defense believes that your craft are extraterrestrial, instead of being their terrestrial enemy (low identiability technology).

Hypothetically one could make this more probable with an unusual test program which results in occasional and odd civilian sightings outside of traditional military practice.

This is theorizing. I have no factual knowledge.

The triangles or UFOs or any anti gravity vehicle uses force from voltage
the Tesla way.
The Tesla ship

And the power can be an ordinary lawnmower engine.
Go ahead they will tell you.
You don't need nuclear or atomic or mercury or magnetic vortex or zero point
energy except a good motor generator and some wire.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by M43

 

Its real, and they have better one's than the Antique you speak of.The newer TR-3C-D Chameleon and dragonfly are Transparent, Plasma adaptive camofladge, Tri repell Craft Repell Mass, gravity, Friction. The newer TR-3C-D are Mach-50+ craft, they will police this once fine planet. The reason for NWO is that there are just too many of us on this planet. When the planets pop gets too big,you must police from the air. A transparent police car would be right in the thick of it, you could catch anyone you wish to

.
Edgar fouch has no clue. The TR-3Boomerang is the U.S. made Ark, its 1100ft long on each side, looks like the letter V, not a solid triangle like the TR-3A, its not made of wood, its BARRELLIUM. The TR-3boo leaves this planet in worst case scenarois( comet impact) (Nuclear Winter)( astroid impact), the Boo returns when planet is stablized. The Boo left 4 months ago, hopefully just testing, best wishes to you all.

Anonymous ATS,

how do you know all this? can you say how you know?

Why do you say Edgar Fouche has no clue? please elaborate how you know all you claim too in detail, if you can!

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
Some years back, the USAF was actively engaged in the development of a lighter than air vehicle primarily for use as a long-term real-time surveillence platform.

The craft would have been unmanned, and capable of lingering over a designated target at extremely high altitudes (in excess of 80,000FT) for days at a time.

A lighter than air platform was chosen to allow for an extended "loiter"" capability: large fuel capacities would not be required to maintain the craft's altitude, fuel could be utilized to provide extended station-keeping over the target while the craft's "natural bourancy" kept it aloft.

Of course, the physics of lighter than air craft tend to ensure that they are rather large when compared to heavier than air vehicles. Compare a blimp to a Gulfstream business jet, for example.


The the Air Force project was, in fact, triangular (or, mor precisely, V-shaped). This was to enhance the craft's aerodynamic maneuverability; a weakness with typally "cigar-shaped" LAV's of the time.


Kind of fits the bill, wouldn't you say?

Have you any links to this information?

reply to post by NIGHTHAWK2


Here's one:

www.spacedaily.com...


There are others.

Try a search for the phrase "Near Space Maneuvering Vehicle".


The military says it gave up on the project in 2005, but, Who Knows?

They got this thing out there and it is using the invisability cloak
and that is what's causing all these rumblings everyone is talking about.
Just a thought,that's all.
Any takers on this?

This is my first post on this subject and whilst I will admit that I have not read every single posted reply, I get the gist of whats happening, but I do apologise if I appear to be oblivious to some things that may have already been discussed.

Prior to getting onto the TR-3B; one thing that I personally consider when choosing to believe a particular article on any web site that cannot be verified with 'hard facts' is wether it passes my own 'plausibility' test. I also strongly believe, not only because it is plausible but because it has happened on many occasions, is that governments lie and keep things from their respective peoples as well as keeping secret technology from their enemies; percieved or indeed real. The purpose of the prior is to maintain control of the people and of course the latter, to maintain the 'edge' that they may technologically have over others. If you choose to make a technology public then you automatically create the situation where others will try to copy or indeed emulate it which takes away said edge.

Secondly, there are an inordinate amount of UFO sightings reported through pictures video and personal account (some hoaxed, some unexplained, some debunked) which contain alleged craft of various shapes and sizes from the cigar, to the saucer and of course, the black triangle.

With the two points in mind relating to the TR-3B, it is rare for a particular UFO to be identified as terrestrial in origin without proof to back it up plus when you add to this the secrecy that has surrounded many aviation projects in the past, that it is plausible that it IS one of ours. I cannot say where the designation of TR-3B came from (it might be called something else) and neither can I agree or disagree with how it is powered or indeed how it operates, but there is far too much in the way of corroberative witness testimonies, pictures and videos for this triangular craft to deny its existance.

I personally DO believe it is man made and that likely uses technology that is not in the public domain, wether that be from the backwards engineering of alien technology or just invented throught genuine human ingenuity and I also believe that the primary purpose of this craft is ariel surviellance in much the same way as many top secret planes we have had in the past (SR-71, U2 etc). But unlike the others mentioned, I do not see this being revealed to the general populous any time in teh near future because the technology suggested appears to be streets ahead of anything we have public at the moment; lets face it we are talking about a difference gap similar to that between the abacus and the laptop.

Originally posted by M43
Does anyone know if the the TR-3B is an actual functioning AF aircraft, a real working jet not just a plan or a skematic?

No, its something made up. There is ZERO evidence of anything "TR-3" related, except for a certain unreliable British sports car.

The person who came up with the TR-3A "Black Manta", did not understand when he heard "Tier-3" in regards to (UAV) sensor platforms, and then the UFO crowd took that and turned it into TR-3b spaceships.

The USAF did away with the TR designation following the end of the Cold War anyways. The only reason the U-2 was renamed the TR-1 was due to "baggage" of the U-2 name and they wanted to base them in the UK.

I would love to know the definite truth about the alleged TR 3B as many on here as well but I fear we will never get close to the truth

Originally posted by Dalbeck
I would love to know the definite truth about the alleged TR 3B as many on here as well but I fear we will never get close to the truth

I think firepilot just told you the truth

reply to post by waynos


Yeah I think I have to move on then

Lovely little car - nothing unreliable about it at all.....as far as 1950's technology goes...

This has been a most interesting discussion. I have no idea if there are aliens, seems crazy, but the world seems a bit crazy to me.
The TR3-B seems like technology way ahead of where we seem to be in science. I know the military can run about 10 years ahead of industry, and with the black budgets dumping many Billion in each year, big breakthroughs are possible. Don't know if that happened or not. Something is out there and the odds are its us. There are sighting all over the place, they can't be discounted any more, so we have to believe in aliens or government projects. I guess my money is on the government.
My problem with all this is the secrecy. Why not make things public, you don't have to tell how it works. This technology could greatly advance mankind. I guess I would be real mad if its available and they don't share.

Been writing a few blogs based on my interests that I wanted to share with people. I wrote one recently on the tr-3b if anybody is interested. I welcome feedback. seekyt.com...

Originally posted by M43
Does anyone know if the the TR-3B is an actual functioning AF aircraft, a real working jet not just a plan or a skematic?

This is a pretty old thread but I saw one of these silent triangle craft with a light at the 3 corners about a week ago drifting silently over the house about 5 am. People tell me it was either from Patricks AFB to the North of me of from Northrop Grumman to the South.
I got a good look at it and can say it looked just like the photos of a TR 3B but did not have the 4th center light in the body of the craft on.

Originally posted by JonStone
Been writing a few blogs based on my interests that I wanted to share with people. I wrote one recently on the tr-3b if anybody is interested. I welcome feedback. seekyt.com...

I notice you use the word supposed and alleged a lot in the page...if it is your page.
This TR 3B is real because I saw one. If it isn't then I saw an alien space craft drifting slowly and silently over the house.