A TR3B topic on Military.com?

a reply to: AutOmatIc

Something can be "grown" and be organic in nature but not be "alive" or conscious.

a reply to: Jukiodone

Do you have any references how ultrasound would create a substantial low pressure corridor for aerospace applications?

I don't understand the physics of this. Or do you have another mechanisim in mind?

a reply to: mbkennel

In terms of Ultrasound: No I do not.

I was tabling the theory based on a thread (which you were involved in) where claims were made: www.abovetopsecret.com...; mainly because I wanted to hear Aholic's take based on his Sonics experience and his proximity to a BT.

I did a bit of research and there does seem to be mileage in using some sort of directed energy (in this example laser) to reduce drag in upstream airflow (admittedly hypersonic in the paper) for aircraft:

Paper

Interestingly the paper suggests that by altering the power of the energy beam you can control the characteristics of how quickly drag is reduced..which would be great if you had a system controlling multiple energy emitters in unison as this would provide fine tuned levels of boundary control (- lots of possible areas of interest in terms of shapes of crafts that would provide a stable aerodynamic platform and (pound for pound in terms of energy economy) optimum "field of vision" around the object TRIANGLE ALERT!! TRIANGLE ALERT!!)



I took the original assertion to mean a distant corridor (i.e a line away into the distance from the craft) but multiple corridors (or boundaries ) that repeatedly open and collapse around the ship's (energised) hull based on the direction it wants to travel might be less fanciful based on the article.

Good to hear clarifications from Zaphod and Aholic as well...obviously leaves more questions than answers but there you go ( Aholic drop some science on what you think you saw please)


BTW : Mystic are you talking about Meta-Crystals?

If memory serves right partially grown was mentioned before in some other threads...fascinating. I feel like I am a day late and a dollar short when it comes to this. I remember picking up on reports of these from time to time and simply just wrote it off for some reason.

a reply to: Jukiodone
The link (paper) you supplied is a good read, country of origin is noted. I just wonder if there is any video of any experiments tied to the theory. I also wonder if there are any other nation states getting close to cracking the machine that we seem to have. Worrisome if a couple others out there are alot farther along on the same exact thing.

originally posted by: usafage
If memory serves right partially grown was mentioned before in some other threads...fascinating. I feel like I am a day late and a dollar short when it comes to this. I remember picking up on reports of these from time to time and simply just wrote it off for some reason.

If I remember correctly I mentioned the growing part in Zaphods weird california sighting thread.

a reply to: yuppa

Care to elaborate on that much or maybe I need to hop back over there and reread that portion.

a reply to: usafage

A good read here.

Can anyone say,"gravitational spin resonance drive".
Or did I dream about that?

a reply to: Zaphod58


Thanks I appreciate that.

originally posted by: Nickn3
Can anyone say,"gravitational spin resonance drive".
Or did I dream about that?

Think it was mentioned....sent me off on a tangent as there is at least one guy (John Searl) who claims to have invented a variant, had to dig up some "artefacts" for use in his machine and was helped to do so via "dreams" - you can find his stuff on YT.

There's also something that sounds similar in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: usafage
a reply to: Zaphod58


Thanks I appreciate that.

Funnily enough this thread (also by same ATS member as other link to Gravitational Drive) also makes for interesting reading on the subject

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lots of similarities in terms of tech and conjecture- wonder where Bigfatfurrytexan is ??? - this entire topic seems right down his street (BEC's Optics, nanomaterials, Graphene, Plasmonics, etc etc).

Posted in 2008- that was a long time ago- hope he hasnt lost interest as there seems to be enough public domain research papers on the subject now to validate some of his suggestions of application.

Might as well try and track down Mike Muuss's "Paint the night" now- all the links seem to be dead.

a reply to: Jukiodone

'Been meaning to post for days, the triangles never seize to intrigue me. Has anyone experienced ionization in conjunction with these craft? I'm trying to track down if they use some sort of magnetoplasmadynamic thruster or [MPD]. NASA has done extensive research on in the 80s which more or less dissipated...until recently.

I was told to look into the WEAV program, funded by DoD and NASA, for some insight. Check this out. It seems to have worked and was also quickly taken away. This was only 2 years ago.

If this tech is being trickled down into the university level [which is where I reside, when I'm not on base ] then I think we have some exciting times ahead of us.

a reply to: aholic

The last time I properly looked into that area is was when "lifters" were all the rage.
I guess your question is relating to the lorentz force or hall effect where a craft employing might leave behind a sense of air ionisation ( similar to post lightening strike)?

Didnt like lifters as a possible military application because the power required to lift Balsa and aluminum foil was too high to be portable but it does make you wonder.....

Replace Balsa with Graphene, make the shell superconductive and power your "Meta-Lifter or WEAV" via bouncing a ground generated, focused beam of meson particles off the Ionisphere or support craft/satellite depending where your vehicle needs to go....

Youd probably need stuff on the sea to provide global coverage... unlikely as it's not like there are any mobile, floating, exotic, directed energy platforms for such craft to use

a reply to: Jukiodone

I don't know physics so I'm throwing this out there as something I wonder about.

what if you used a left handed meta material skin on the shell that doesn't let certain energies pass through it and it creates a force against the craft. Might make the energy required to supply lift less. Need more energy? Make it a phased conjugate set up so that the energy gets bottled up slowly to very high levels creating even more force. Instead of bouncing the beam off the ground. Make your own ionosphere bubble somehow around the craft and bounce the energy around inside of that. Control the net force vector by controlling the shape of the bubble. Might fry the occupant though. But maybe not. That way no need for massive power plants or support craft.

a reply to: aholic

The three lights on the bottom look a whole lot like embedded MPD devices. The color (the pale baby blue) is the exact same color as half the photos of operating MPD devices. The other half are of a purple color. Which I also saw faint traces of in a haze that lasted briefly around the craft.

I feel, but have no other proof other than my uneducated observations I made during the sightings, that the craft is using the MPD (the three lights) in conjunction somehow with a field it generates around the craft. I say this because it looked like something similar to the color of the MPD devices on the bottom was caught up in a field the craft was generating. But the field looked slightly fuzzy/hazy at the time. I've heard others say that optical cloaking when turned on looks briefly looks shimmery as it's powering up or down. In reflection the haze I saw around the craft was slightly shimmery. So maybe all of that is an effect of it's (if it has one) optical cloaking tech. I dunno. it's pretty cool whatever it's doing to cause that.

the three lights on the bottom although are not bright they are intense enough that you can clearly see them from some distance away. (work on this Govt folk reading this, seriously It's the only thing except for maybe monitoring certain frequencies that would give this thing away-maybe you can find a way to bottle all of the frequency emissions too, cause I really want you guys to perfect this thing it's awesome) They would probably want to hide that. Maybe they create a optical cloaking bubble around the craft to hide all of that, and when I saw it it just wasn't using it.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Yeah that's exactly what I was speculating. Three MPDs surrounding and Lorentz/WEAV type generator. Utilizing bi-polar plasma junction emitter [as seen on the B-2] to increase lift along the top of the body and maybe your on to something.

I not only believe that the TR-3B exists, but I've long bemoaned the fact that its "gravity cancelling" technology has NOT been passed on to NASA, especially, for space launches. Well, lookee here ...

theweek.com...
THE MILITARY'S NEXT-GEN "F-35" FIGHTER JET CAN "FLOAT" IN MID-AIR
Lockheed Martin calls it a Rolls Royce "LiftFan" for near-vertical takeoffs. But in the video, I see none of the bobbing and jerking associated with helicopters and "lift-fans".

God Forbid they call it "hovering" instead of "floating", since that hints at anti-gravity or gravity-cancelling technology. Either way - I'm THRILLED!

a reply to: MKMoniker

And that's no different than the Harrier could do, just using a different method. It's also VERY old news, and has nothing to do with "gravity cancelling". It's a simple fan, powered by a jet engine in the front, and the jet exhaust in the back.

a reply to: Zaphod58

This is still a HIGHLY-advanced fighter jet,that can even fly in close formation while performing a short takeoff/vertical landing:

www.lockheedmartin.com...
(Feb.2014) F-35B CAN TAKEOFF/LAND IN CLOSE FORMATION
"The F-35 Lightning II is a 5th generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. Three distinct variants of the F-35 will replace the A-10 and F-16 for the U.S. Air Force, the F/A-18 for the U.S. Navy, the F/A-18 and AV-8B Harrier for the U.S. Marine Corps, and a variety of fighters for at least 10 other countries."

(THREE distinct variants, huh? Methinks the "B" model might be a little more than just "lift-fans," which is why it was chosen for the side-by-side lift-off/landing Demo.)

a reply to: MKMoniker

No, the B model is the only one WITH a lift fan, that's the entire point of the B model. And yes, three distinct variants. The A model is for the Air Force, and takes off and lands on a regular runway. The B model has the lift fan, and can't take off with any useful load vertically, but can land vertically, or use the lift fan for a short take off. The C model is for the Navy and lands and takes off on a carrier, but is a conventional aircraft.

Sorry, but no, the B model only uses a lift fan, and it's well documented.