Extra-terrestrial craft propulsion

I hadn't heard of this story up until now. It's one of the more interesting stories I have read:
www.michiganufos.com...

I certainly prefer this explanation for UFO propulsion over Bob Lazar's unstable element 115 (ununpentium). It explains that the entire process of time distortion/anti-gravity is electrodynamic principles tranduced into the mechanical world.

A summary of what he claims to be told about their craft:

They use vacuum chambers to construct the craft resulting in a seamless design. They use crystals as a means of converting matter into different forms, as a means of creating and receiving light (piezoelectric principles). Their propulsion further consists of positively and negatively charged meshes suspended in a vacuum and rotated at opposite directions.

It also seems to offer some explanation as to why people suffer radiation poisoning when exposed to the craft. It's not because of nuclear radiations, it's more like exposure to microwave radiation.

Those of you who are familiar with Lifters, Ionic wind propulsion, The Hutchison Effect, and Bill Ramsey's accidental time travel might note that our current physics may be on the verge of understanding such phenomena. In which case this story does add up in alot of ways.

Sounds like the story could be true, but who would be willing to construct one? Diamonds are costly and so would the craft be, perhaps there is a more feasable craft. Has anyone researched david hamels work? It looks vary conclusive and he freely gives blueprints to the vehicles, and various devices.

the Germans in WW2 already knew just about everything to know about disk propulsion, it was pretty much magnetic waves pushing it from the ground, my friend know about everything there is to no about it, and he also says that some "mercury" is actualy involved with it.
for more on the german ufos go to my site:
www.Alexs-paradox.tk
go to "aliens" then into "german ufos"

That's probably one of the best and believeable UFO encounters I have read yet. Thanks very much for the link.

I also agree that is way more believable then the element 115 "story". Is there anyone here that could tell if the propulsion in this article could actually be legit?

In essence, it's actually very similar to Lazar's account, other than the reactor. Not to mention, Lazar mentioned seeing 9 different craft. Just as a Toyota engine differs from a Ford... The model is strikingly similar to the Testor model of Lazar's Sport craft (at least the interior).

Anyhoo, I'm sure some of our resident physicists will find this, and we'll see what they say.

At least they admit the photos are of a model, was about to call them on that, hehe....

this is partially just to bump this thread and get a real physicist to take a look.

also: I was skeptical at first of the helium plasma simply because there's not that much helium in the atmosphere (about 0.0005% by volume, according to www.physicalgeography.net...) and because helium's stable enough that it ddn't seem a good candidate to make a plasma out of -- it's harder to ionize than most gases.

It turns out that there's something to be said for helium plasmas, however; the following is advertising but apparently a helium plasma is about as stable as you can get at pressure levels near the ambient atmospheric pressure:

www.praxair.com...

The vacuum chamber at the center sounds like a modified version of the reactor core of a fusor; fusor.net... has the basics.

Taken together this suggests that what's happening in this saucer is actually something like this: at the center you have a fusor-style fusion reactor (the central vacuum chamber in this account) that powers whatever the propulsion system actually is. to get the fusor to work (ie, provide energy surplus) positive hydrogen ions are accellerated to high velocity then channelled into the central reactor, where they fuse and power the rotating plates.

the rotating electric plates then ionize the surrounding atmosphere, and a simpler version of the fusor-core style system of stacked plates that alternate in charge is used to run air through the 4 "thrusters" underneath the saucer. this provides your initial liftoff in basically the same way a harrier or jump jet can take off vertically then start flying like a plane; the only difference is that ionized air is directed electrically to get your thrust, as opposed to a jet engine using a temperature and pressure differential to generate the same effect.

one side effect of the rotating plates is that they'd increase the saucer's stability; whatever other functions they may have, they're basically acting like a gyroscope, unless i'm missing something.

i'm not sure at this point what'd happen with the negative ions (which according to this account aren't getting used for propulsion). the helium plasma is probably made from some combination of stored helium and helium outputted from the fusion reaction; it may have some use in the other propulsion mechanism or have some additional purpose, but for now it's not clear what having a shell of helium plasma around the craft is good for (other than sounding cool, of course).

this gets us to the lift off stage; past that point the writeup is much more vague on the propulsion mechanism used, and I can't really come up with anything useful from what's there. i'm reasonably certain that given a sufficiently lightweight-yet-high-output power source one could make a self-lifting device that essentially ionized the air below it and then electrostatically propelled it, but I also don't think you'd ever be able to get ufo-style performance out of a system like that; such a system would also not be a workable spaceship, for obvious reasons.

a question: when people have seen ufo's up close and near to the ground (ie, where they'd be probably using the secondary propulsion method I just outlined) have they noticed air currents/"smells like rain"/other signs of moving air or lots of ionization?

by sisonek

also: I was skeptical at first of the helium plasma simply because there's not that much helium in the atmosphere ...

It may not be abundant in Earth's atmosphere but it's certainly abundant in space. I don't think these craft would be designed to travel only within the Earth's atmosphere.

by sisonek

i'm reasonably certain that given a sufficiently lightweight-yet-high-output power source one could make a self-lifting device that essentially ionized the air below it and then electrostatically propelled it, but I also don't think you'd ever be able to get ufo-style performance out of a system like that; such a system would also not be a workable spaceship, for obvious reasons.

If the transducers exhibit anti-gravitic properties then the amount of power comming from the thrust is negligible. You're always operating at zero G, even when close to a large mass.

The fact that they can transmit and receive pure light through transducers means that they would have oscillators more advanced than what we currently have. This is going to make it difficult to verify if the craft would actually work.

by sisonek

a question: when people have seen ufo's up close and near to the ground (ie, where they'd be probably using the secondary propulsion method I just outlined) have they noticed air currents/"smells like rain"/other signs of moving air or lots of ionization?

The most common smell reported by abductees while inside the craft is sulfur dioxide. I can't remember reading any reports of the smell of ionization of the air when observing a UFO, but many reports have come with people noticing quick formation of nimbostratus and stratocumulus clouds if the craft seems to be below an altitude of around ~5,000ft. This could just be coincidental though.

Here's one on mercury plasma, and get this, it's already in use by the US Gov't in Black Triangles TR- Series BUT IGNORE THE LINKS WITHIN THIS the first one in particular leads just to spamware, this article is several years old -- interesting physics though, whaddya think eh?: www.mufonla.com...



[edit on 6-9-2004 by Collin]

So then, how the hell can they travel faster than light?

BeMoreCynical: It's a good question but I don't think anything on this page is claiming faster-than-light transportation. Just to clear up a misperception, though: the inability to travel faster-than-light is only valid locally, not globally....for an example, let's say space is 2-dimensional, ok, and we've got a path like this:


A ========== B

(10 units long) and another path from A to B that looks like this:

A ========================================================== B

(a lot longer, say 100000 units long). If you need help imagining why there'd be two paths between A and B that are so different in length, take some scissors and cut out a semi-circle from the piece of paper; ie, you draw a line

------------------------

and then cut out the line and half of the circle around that line (it should look like a filled-in D has been cut out of the paper if you've done this right). If A and B are the tips of the line, then one path from A to B is a long the diameter of the circle (ie, the line) and one path is along the circumference. Clearly, the path along the circumference is longer.

Now, let's go back to our scenariou in which one path from A to B is 10 units long and one is 100000 units long; if everyone only knows about the 100000 unit path, they'd be like

"you can't travel from A to B in less than the time that it takes light to travel 100,000 units" (if 1 unit = 1 light year, then this'd be 100000 light years, for example)....

but if you went 1/10th the speed of light along the shorter path, you'd wind up finishing the short path in 100 years, say, which is still 1000 times faster than anyone thinks you could have. Did you travel faster than light? You say no, because you only traveled 0.1 of the speed of light the whole time; everyone else says yes, because as far as they know you went way, way faster than the speed of light.

So, it's not theoretically impossible to travel at rates seemingly faster than the speed of light if you just look at where you start and where you stop; it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light at any particular point in time, however....the ability to "go faster than light" between A and B depends on whether there's a "shortcut" from A to B...some physicists and science fiction writers have speculated that black holes, for example, would be able to distort the structure of space enough to make such a shortcut appear, and allow for (apparently) faster-than-light travel...but it's still very much an open question as to whether any such shortcuts exist (none have been found so far) and even if they did exist it's even more of an open question as to whether or not it'd be possible to travel through them (currently, it looks bad).

On this thread we're just speculating about whether the "propulsion mechanism" linked to in the first post is at all plausible; my take is that the pieces described could be used to make a "lift-off-the-ground" stage of propulsion but that the link doesn't explain how the primary propulsion system would work...others here have differing opinions, and probably know much more about this than i do.

I'd like to point out that many scientists and mathematicians invent certain limitations, or sometimes particles, to make their equations work. The speed of light limitations, imposed by Einstein, may not turn out to be true.

That goes without saying that the true nature of light is not well understood, and that is why the light wave/paticle duality experiments continue to this day.

As more people get their hands on digital cameras, the number of UFO photos are increasing. It seems most of the photos taken these days are of craft that morph and are actually made from light. As bizarre as it may sound to us, possibly these craft are made from light or they oscillate at light frequencies. Something that is made of light should have no problem traveling at light speed.