TR-3B nuclear powered flying triangle

Originally posted by Larryman
Why is this TR-3B discussion thread located under 'Aircraft Projects'? The TR-3B should be capable of space travel. It is therefore a 'spacecraft' - not just an aircraft.

[edit on 12/10/2009 by Larryman]

Because flying triangle aircraft have been sighted within the Earths atmosphere, and flying triangle aircraft are regarded by most as secret aircraft. Generally, the space exploration forum is about space itself or exploring space, not the actual equipment that they are or will be using. Personally, I think this forum should be renamed Advanced Aerospace Projects.

[edit on 10/12/2009 by C0bzz]

EVEN IF the electromagnetic field resulting from synchrotron acceleration of plasma(that is, accelerating plasma in a circular path through a ring shaped chamber)were to cause a reduction of the objects mass that STILL wouldn't be enough in itself generate LIFT(a force on an object that is in the opposite direction as the gravitational pull on that object) which is necessary for an aircraft to get off the ground! If you could reduce the mass of a 5-ton airplane to only 10 pounds that wouldnt make it fly. Seems to me that the proponents of the existence of the TR-3B Astra are lack a complete understanding of Newtonian physics. There are cosmic objects which are not only massive and gravitationally strong, but have intense electromagnetic fields which do not repel other objects with lesser mass! Electromagnetic fields DO NOT affect that mass of the object generating them. What IS true is that a magnetic field can be used to levitate an objects if the magnetic field is strong enough AND the object is made from magnetic material, or by means of the Meissner effect if the the object is superconductive. But in such cases it is the repulsive force between MORE than one magnetic field that results in a force on the object that opposes gravity.

Hello,
I think your information on the TR-3B is good and it's very affective but I don't mean to say your wrong but the government has posted up a lot of fake information to keep it secret. I have seen the TR up close. It cruised over my house I'll tell the story another time but I'll finish this first. I'm doing reasearch on it and it's possible that some TR's are government owned and others are from space. The TR's with red lights are human and the TR's with white lights are in-human. I've also seen it use some sort of teleportation device that starts off small then covers the whole ship and vanishes. I've also seen it scan with a thin red lazer. I live in Ireland by the way and it flew over my house very slowly as if it were just cruising. I live near the ocean so I believe there may by a rondevou point were they meet up. I have seen the master ship/mother ship unfortunately not in person. I wish I did Well thats it for know I'm going up to were they always go in a few days and I'll report my sightings. Please do not hesitate to reply,
Ghost!

I've seen the TR-3B in person. I was sitting on my bed plating my guitar and I seen a white light in the sky. At first I thought it was a plane or something then I looked again and noticed it was way to bright to be a plane and as it got closer it had an unusual shape. I called my two brothers out to see it. It flew right over us and it was extremely low, maybe to avoid being caught on radar. It was amazing. It was a black triangle with 3 white lights on each corner and 1 large light in the centre. I had no idea what it was but I had to remain scepticle to remain sane so I just thought it was a fighter jet but then I realised why would something that shape fly so low in Ireland. Besides theirs no fighter jets like that in Europe. A few months later my brother and I thought it would be funny to go on YouTube and see what kind of UFO sightings we could find. Of course the typical low detailed flying saucer popped up but as if We then clicked on a video and the TR-3B came up. I had completely forgotten about my sighting until this point. As I watched it I quickly jumped up and went as white as a ghost. I couldn't believe that what I saw wasn't normal. Goosebumps were all over me I called my other to brothers in who were with me that day and they were shocked. I went on more videos and they were as affective as the last. Later I found a name for it. The TR-3B. After we had drained the internet off all its TR info we went outside for a laugh. We seen something flashin very far away. I got a telescope we had just bought recently to see was it the TR. It was. We made light signals with our outdoor light and it stopped and flew backwards. Then unexpectingly another apeared. We noticed that they were flying in the same direction as the one I seen up close at least 3 months ago around septemder/october 2009. I cant remember the exact date. But anyway I live near the ocean and it apears that they always fly towards the cliffs. So I have started my own private investigation of the TR-3B and I will get my own pictures and video footage of my findings and report my findings up on this site. for anyone who is interested in personal questions on my findings email me at This is more than just the government playing aroun with new tech. They obviously have interesting secrets. How I know that it's more than the government is because they are trying to hide it with un simmilar pictures of the TR although all the evidence provided by normal people is the same. So if the gorvernment is telling the truth about what they say well then this fact shoul be the other way around. Thanks for reading. Wish me look on my findings,
Ghost!

No, thats the TR-3C Deathstar, and the TR-3D interstellar star cruiser, followed by the TR-3E warp drive transmogrifier, and the TR-3F fighter version used to fight the Cylons

these things are real. i've seen sitting on a beach in Myrtle Beach, S.C. with 4 of my best friends. We all saw it. Exactly as it is described and looks like it just glides overheard with no noise.

it makes no difference to me if you believe or not. they are real.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Well, I would like to see that too.. notice the scientist didn't answer some questions like about the mercury being in a plasma state that was below 0 degrees F and was this a type of cold plasma we were talking about.. I do not understand this at all.. and they could not shed light or at least didn't answer that point.

I don't see where anybody really addressed this so let me comment on it. To re-state the claim:

A circular, plasma filled accelerator ring called the Magnetic Field Disrupter, surrounds the rotatable crew compartment and is far ahead of any imaginable technology... The plasma, mercury based, is pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at a temperature of 150 degrees Kelvin, and accelerated to 50,000 rpm to create a super-conductive plasma with the resulting gravity disruption.

Note that the four phases of matter are, in order of increasing energy, solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. As a general rule, lowering the temperature of a plasma makes a gas, lowering the temperature of a gas makes a liquid, lowering the temperature of a liquid makes a solid, but there are exceptions to this, such as CO2 for example, where at atmospheric conditions it condenses directly from a gas to a solid, but you get the general idea.

Note that plasma and solids are at extreme opposites of this energy scale. Therefore the idea of a low temperature plasma is a contradiction.

So you may ask, what about the pressure? Can that affect the state? Yes it can, but in this case, it's in the opposite direction of what this claim asserts.

Again there are exceptions, but generally speaking, higher pressure tends to force materials more toward the solid state, and lower pressures tend to force them more toward the gaseous or plasma state. To prove this point here is a paper showing how mercury transitions from a liquid to a solid state under pressure:

www.springerlink.com...

So look at the claim:

Mercury at 150 deg K

The melting point of mercury is 234.32 deg K

Which means that below that temperature, at 1 atmosphere, mercury is a solid.

Now add the effect of pressure. If you wanted to change the phase of mercury at 150 K from a solid, you's need a lower pressure, not a higher one. Increasing the pressure from standard to 250,000 times standard won't change the phase from solid to even liquid or gas, much less plasma, it will instead compress the mercury even more.

Now this analysis is based on elemental mercury, but the claim is the plasma is mercury based, what does this mean? Elemental mercury, or some other element mixed in to mostly mercury? Well first you'd need to find out what the other elements compositions are to analyze that claim fully, but because mercury has one of the lowest melting points of materials it combines with, we can actually still get a good grip on what is possible when it's combined with other compatible elements, which tend to have higher melting points.

Look for example at this phase diagram of a mixture of Cd (Cadmium)and Hg (mercury). The 100% mercury is at the left, where the melting point is 236K, and the 100% Cd is at the right where the melting point is higher. So just about anything compatible with mercury you mix with it like Cd takes you in the wrong direction as you would need to lower the melting point of Hg from 236K, not raise it.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Dereks, in the same vein, science is only a philosophy and one way of looking at a problem. It depends very much on which model you use and how you test and interpret your data. When ever new variables are introduced time and time again, current theories fail to explain certain outcomes. I have a great thread on this same subject here that basically says science is Not set in stone called String Theory - Science or Philosophy ? www.scienceforums.net...

Well the problem with your statement is that the very example you give of Newton's gravity, as being proven false, really holds true in most "normal" experimental conditions and it's only at relativistic velocities or in cases where measurements need to be to the billionth of a second that we notice the relativistic effects, as you point out. Most of the gravity experiments you can perform at home will be consistent with Newton's model so I don't think you've really proven your point too well about science being "only a philosophy" since we can still replicate his results today and they are largely intact at non-relativistic conditions.

Likewise you can perform phase change tests yourself at home on water or carbon dioxide and see what happens at different temperatures or pressures, these phase states can be repeated in independent experiments so it seems less like philosophy and more like experimental evidence. I don't recommend performing any experiments on mercury at home due to its toxic nature, but instead study thermodynamics and phase changes and you won't have to study it very long before you learn how the basic principles of thermodynamics completely contradict the claims made for a low temperature, high pressure mercury plasma.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
All of this "science" has been debunked by real science. The paper above is a hoax. None of it is true.

The paper I posted above is also a Hoax

If this craft does exist, the above is NOT the science it is based on.

Here is the full thread: www.scienceforums.net... called, " TR-3B reduces mass ? "

As you can see I tried to do everything I could to get some validity out of this from the scientists.. Nada, nope, Zip.

When I got to this part of your post, I was pretty impressed with you, as you took more effort than most non-scientists to look into the science. Too bad you didn't quit while you were ahead and started clouding the issue with "science is only a philosophy". I would concede that some theories today are undoubtedly false and will be proven so by future discoveries, the history of science shows this has happened over and over again, and it will happen again, but you stretch this truth too far. Why?

Because no matter what new theories pop up, we will still find water freezing around 0C and boiling around 100C (at 1atm) tomorrow, and the boiling point of mercury will still be 236K at 1 atm tomorrow, those aren't philosophies, they are empirical observations which can be duplicated, and whatever new theories might pop up are going to have to deal with that, kind of like Einstein's gravity doesn't invalidate Newton's gravity at non-relativistic conditions. So there may be a new theory tomorrow that disproves an existing theory, but what it WON'T do is change the melting point of mercury.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Look for example at this phase diagram of a mixture of Cd (Cadmium)and Hg (mercury). The 100% mercury is at the left, where the melting point is 236K, and the 100% Cd is at the right where the melting point is higher. So just about anything compatible with mercury you mix with it like Cd takes you in the wrong direction as you would need to lower the melting point of Hg from 236K, not raise it.

Here's the link I forgot to include in my last post, showing even compounds of mercury will have higher melting temperatures, such as this one:

www.factsage.cn...

reply to post by Arbitrageur


G'day Arbitrageur

Just a brief note.....

You wrote:

Note that plasma and solids are at extreme opposites of this energy scale. Therefore the idea of a low temperature plasma is a contradiction.

Are you saying there is no such thing as a low temperature plasma?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

From the web I have read that the TR3B doesn't have "Anti" gravity but reduced gravity of some 70% and propulsion is by way of PDE or Pulse Detonation Engine.

The means of reducing the gravity is up for conjecture but I think its done by utilizing the "rareified air" property of High Voltage DC coils on the outer skin of the craft hence the bluish glow = corona ( not the beer ) at night.

The "Donut on a Rope" contrail is its signature and seismic activity created by its pulsed jet engine has shown up on Earthquake Measuring devices on a routine timeline.

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

G'day Arbitrageur
Just a brief note.....
You wrote:

Note that plasma and solids are at extreme opposites of this energy scale. Therefore the idea of a low temperature plasma is a contradiction.

Are you saying there is no such thing as a low temperature plasma?

Greetings Maybe...maybe not

If you had quoted the next few sentences you would see the answer, so let me repeat:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Note that plasma and solids are at extreme opposites of this energy scale. Therefore the idea of a low temperature plasma is a contradiction.

So you may ask, what about the pressure? Can that affect the state? Yes it can, but in this case, it's in the opposite direction of what this claim asserts.

Again there are exceptions, but generally speaking, higher pressure tends to force materials more toward the solid state, and lower pressures tend to force them more toward the gaseous or plasma state.

So I said lower pressures tend to move materials more toward the plasma or gaseous state. One way to get a low temperature plasma is to reduce the density to near vacuum levels, like those in orbit around the Earth or in outer space. So at extremely low pressure or in a near vacuum, a low temperature plasma is possible, the earth is surrounded by such a plasma.

And in fact the common fluorescent lamp is actually a low-pressure mercury arc lamp. But even with the low pressure inside those bulbs, if you have ever tried to operate such lamps in freezing conditions, you will find that the colder the ambient temperature, the harder it is to get the mercury plasma to form, meaning the bulbs can be hard to start when it's really, really, cold. I learned this from personal experience with these bulbs in an unheated garage in Ohio.

There are also mercury plasma lamps that are pressurized, which operate at much higher temperatures than the low pressure mercury.

www.nordson.com...

There are several types of lamps suitable for generating these wavelengths, the main ones being high-pressure mercury arc lamps, electrodeless lamps and medium pressure mercury arc lamps

That pressurized mercury plasma lamp operates at 600-800C or 873-1073 degrees K, and they have to make the body of the lamp from quartz because that's hot enough to melt glass.

This one will burn your skin, even with the UV filter installed:

Maxablaster Flashlight Burns Skin, Clouds, Vampires
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9b5fe061b994.jpg[/atsimg]

The Maxablaster is a 38-million-candlepower flashlight that was made at home by (mad?) optics engineer Ralf Ottow. Replacing a commercial flashlight's bulb with a plasma-powered mercury arc bulb, the Maxablaster creates a highly focused beam of light with a high UV content not so different from a star.

So UV-filtering glass was added to block the potentially harmful rays—though evidently this thing is still plenty bright enough to burn skin, as it has Ottow's on at least one occasion.

Originally posted by mazzroth
The means of reducing the gravity is up for conjecture but I think its done by utilizing the "rareified air" property of High Voltage DC coils on the outer skin of the craft hence the bluish glow = corona ( not the beer ) at night.

Well this at least is different than the mercury plasma claim but it shares the same problem, and that is the claim that some type of electromagnetic effect cancels the force of gravity, when this hasn't been demonstrated in a peer-reviewed paper that I'm aware of.

If by rarified air you mean some kind of lift generating capability, then I guess you could say a helicopter works by "anti-gravity" because it has "rarified air", or low pressure air above the helicopter that allows the higher pressure air underneath it to push it up.

But generating lift is not the same thing as anti-gravity. The term anti-gravity would refer to something canceling to some degree the effects of gravity.

If there is a means of reducing gravity, and I'm neither convinced there is or is not, the most you can say is that " The means of reducing the gravity is up for conjecture" which you said so maybe we should just stop there, because it would only be known in secret labs and not by the larger scientific community.

Cold plasma:

www.physorg.com...

Quote from the article:

"Researchers have developed a new hand-held device that can produce room-temperature plasmas for diverse applications, most important for biomedical applications......

.....A good low-temperature plasma source must be able to work at room temperature and atmospheric pressure. Moreover, it should be hand-held and must not "arc" and heat up while operating. The new device developed by Laroussi and Lu consists of two electrodes, each made of a thin copper ring attached to the surface of a glass disk: the disk is about 2.5 centimetres across and has a small hole at its centre. These electrodes are then inserted into a dielectric tube and are separated by a gap that can be varied between 0.5 and 1 centimeter."

Originally posted by mrwiffler
Cold plasma:

www.physorg.com...

Quote from the article:

"Researchers have developed a new hand-held device that can produce room-temperature plasmas for diverse applications, most important for biomedical applications......

.....A good low-temperature plasma source must be able to work at room temperature and atmospheric pressure.

You see, this is why the term "cold" is almost meaningless to scientists. Cold compared to what? It's a relative term. In this case they are talking about room temperature helium which is cold compared to thousands of degrees:

At atmospheric pressure, most plasmas are so hot (thousands of degrees centigrade) that they would immediately kill any living cells they come into contact with.

But room temperature is downright hot compared to the melting point of helium which is a mere 0.95 degrees Kelvin, in fact it has the lowest melting point of any element.

Room temperature of just under 300 degrees Kelvin is also hot compared to 150 degrees Kelvin, the claimed temperature for the TR-3B propulsion. So the term "cold" really doesn't mean much and in the strictest scientific sense of the term, it's about different amounts of heat or "internal energy".

The way I personally use the terms "hot" and "cold" in discussions with laymen is relative to room temperature, so the way I use the terms normally, I wouldn't characterize a room temperature plasma as hot or cold compared to room temperature, it's about the same, right? But I don't disagree that room temperature is colder than thousands of degrees as the term was used in this case, which as they correctly say is the temperature of most plasmas, but I would say it's a confusing use of the term cold, as I don't normally think of room temperature as cold.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Interesting videos on this subject.

TR-3B ?

TR-3B ?

TR-3B ?

Amazing quality on the first one.

Second video has OK quality.

Third is from a news cast.

They all seam very similar to be faked do they not?

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Smell The Roses]

reply to post by Smell The Roses

The first two videos are CG fakes as you suggest.

The third shows 3 lights in the sky, really not enough detail to tell much about it.

And why shouldn't the fakes look similar? The fakers all have the blueprint for what it's supposed to look like:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dd079d5c6bc4.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]

It is elementary my dear readers, the mercury accelerator ring has specific goals and therefore we can work backwards from those goals to determine how the ring works.

It is my view that the TR-3B and the McCandlish ARV work off of the Alcubierre Warp Drive Effect on a macro level (creating a dent in spacetime at the front of the craft and a hill in spacetime at the back of the craft to move spacetime) and Extended Heim Theory on a micro level (generating gravitophoton pairs, gravitational force and expansion force, with the gravitational force photons being absorbed by the mercury accelerator ring).

A fast rotating mass near a strong magnetic field will generate the gravitophoton pairs and the gravitational force photons will be absorbed by the rotating mass.

The goal would be to create as strong a magnetic field as physically possible as well as rotate as much mass as physically possible as fast as physically possible.

Moving charged particles create magnetic fields. A plasma is a group of atoms that has been stripped of all its electrons and therefore a mercury plasma would be a group of charged particles whose motion would create a magnetic field.

Plasmas are normally gases but we can see that having a gas inside the accelerator ring would be detrimental to maximizing the dent in spacetime. The goal would be to have the entire accelerator ring filled with a liquid mercury plasma thereby increasing the amount of mercury that could be inside the accelerator ring compared to a gas plasma.


I would guess that a substance such as Nitinol (memory metal found at the Roswell crash that also has tremendous elasticity and tensile strength) would be used to contain the mercury and if possible graphene conductors (also having incredible elasticity and tensile strength as well as the highest ampacity of any known material) would be layered onto the Nitinol to be used to create a toroidal magnetic field which could accelerate the liquid mercury plasma around the accelerator ring.


Thus you end up with a liquid mercury plasma (charged particles that behave as a liquid because of the cooling and pressure) that can be rotated around the accelerator ring at incredibly high speeds, supposedly at 50000 rpm or higher. Thus creating a very powerful dent in spacetime.


Expansion force photons are attracted to electrons and the ARV used multilayered capacitors on the bottom of the craft to attract the expansion force particles and create the hill in spacetime completing the alcubierre warp drive effect.

It is unclear what the TR-3B uses, capacitors perhaps just like the ARV, or possibly some other way of concentrating a very large number of electrons at the back of the craft, probably in the center and in the corners where the lights are seen if I had to guess.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Bobbox1980]

Originally posted by Bobbox1980
It is elementary my dear readers, the mercury accelerator ring has specific goals and therefore we can work backwards from those goals to determine how the ring works.

It is my view that the TR-3B and the McCandlish ARV work off of the Alcubierre Warp Drive Effect on a macro level (creating a dent in spacetime at the front of the craft and a hill in spacetime at the back of the craft to move spacetime) and Extended Heim Theory on a micro level (generating gravitophoton pairs, gravitational force and expansion force, with the gravitational force photons being absorbed by the mercury accelerator ring).

Recent calculations have you needing the equivalent mass of Jupiter being converted into energy & that's for something that's only 10m in length. A craft could be 2/3/4/5 times this. Even if the black-project scientists could scale those numbers back, your still gonna be talking about the mass of a planet at worst or at best a moon sized object.

So do you actually think even if they could do that, that they would be using it to go a few thousand miles to the other side of the Earth, then wasting the exact same amount of energy to get back again. All to spy on another nation or whatever.

If that isn't nonsensical enough, how is it that people see these supposed craft flying through the air at speed. If you could warp space, you would take-off from a secret base far away from prying eyes, jump to your target destination. Complete the mission, then warp back to base. Nobody would see crap!

Alcubierre Drive is way, way, way, way, way, way beyond anything we'll have for the forseeable future (if ever for that matter). If on the miracle that it does ever get developed, because of the sheer amount of energy that's required. It will be for long-haul jumps to other solar systems, not jumping in a few thousand miles to peek at China, Russia, Iran, N.Korea or whoever.

The TR-3B is not "Star Trek" technology - no warp nacelles.

The Alcubierre drive principal may be ruled out due to required energy consumption, and an internal warp envelope temperature hotter than a star. But I believe the Burkhard Heim anti-gravity principle could still apply. And it may also use these reactionless engines for lateral propulsion:

"The EmDrive"
emdrive.com...

And it might be supplemented with some kind of Tesla field, to provide that 'disappearing while in sky' function. Seems akin to the "Philadelphia Experiment".

The TR-3B is "Forbidden Planet" and "Lost In Space" flying saucer technology - albeit triangular rather than circular , in my opinion.


[edit on 3/7/2010 by Larryman]

Originally posted by Larryman
The TR-3B is not "Star Trek" technology - no warp nacelles.

The Alcubierre drive principal may be ruled out due to required energy consumption, and an internal warp envelope temperature hotter than a star. But I believe the Burkhard Heim anti-gravity principle could still apply. And it may also use these reactionless engines for lateral propulsion:

"The EmDrive"
emdrive.com...

And it might be supplemented with some kind of Tesla field, to provide that 'disappearing while in sky' function. Seems akin to the "Philadelphia Experiment".

The TR-3B is "Forbidden Planet" and "Lost In Space" flying saucer technology

- albeit triangular rather than circular

, in my opinion.

Finally someone posts something based on real science! I'm still not convinced the TR-3B exists, at least not based on the descriptions of people who have called it the TR-3B. However there could be another craft using some advanced propulsion technology.

I agree the Alcubierre drive principal may be ruled out for various reasons.
Note that the EM drive faq does say it needs auxiliary propulsion "to provide the kinetic energy to accelerate the vehicle" for terrestrial applications.

emdrive.com...

Note however, because the EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy, this thrust/power ratio rapidly decreases if the EmDrive is used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector. (See Equation 16 of the theory paper). Whilst the EmDrive can provide lift to counter gravity, (and is therefore not losing kinetic energy), auxiliary propulsion is required to provide the kinetic energy to accelerate the vehicle.

If you try to use the EM drive to move the craft the thrust falls off too rapidly, hence the need for auxiliary propulsion.

But it makes a lot more sense than the cold mercury plasma claimed by TR-3B proponents.

Also note that the EM drive is not "anti-gravity" any more than a helicopter is "anti-gravity", gravity is still in full force with both the EM drive and the helicopter, they both merely provide thrust or lift to counter gravity, not to negate the effects of gravity or inertia as TR-3B proponents claim the TR-3B does. So if the EM drive is used, it would not be in what people are calling the TR-3B with the inertia-canceling properties of the TR-3B. But it might be used in something else.

When we look at 50 year old secret projects to see how advanced they were for the time, we can speculate that 50 years later there must be some really advanced technology, but it still has to obey the laws of physics.