A TR3B topic on Military.com?

a reply to: AthlonSavage

I "believe" in Black Triangles that "act like UFO's" however when you have a Buoyant, Gaseous, Fluidic, Charged environment like our Atmosphere ; Anti Gravity/Anti Anything is not required.

It would be like developing a submarine that creates artificial negative buoyancy via the high speed collision of heavy elements - when you can just use the freely available natural action employed in a ballast system.


IF and its a massive IF these silent triangle craft exist- any talk of anti-gravity serves to undermine the very obvious lack of tactical Airship type platforms evident.

ETA:

@ Aholic: Even though both seemingly incorrect terms: I dont think anyone thinks the "Aurora" is the "Astra" do they?
If someone says Aurora to me I think SR71 replacement and it's derivatives as covered on several threads here on ATS. Quick and High.
If someone says Astra I think black silent triangle that looks like it uses Anti grav.- as named by the ever unreliable Mr Fouche.

a reply to: Xcouncil=wisdom

Well for starter's, it wasn't posted BY military.com, it was posted ON military.com.

Anyone can signup and post stuff on their site, and the video in question was posted by an obviously fake profile used for hoaxing. For crying out loud, his name is John Smith, LOL!

Interesting, found this article regarding early patent applications for WEAV.

Funny, even though it's only an artist's depiction, I couldn't help but giggle at the color choice surrounding the vehicle.

Especially considering the color that certain engines emit when burning ;-)

a reply to: Jukiodone

I see at least part of the campaign worked. Heh

a reply to: parad0x122

Yeah WEAV is some pretty cool stuff. A very promising program a bunch of years back that suddenly disappeared, which is telling.

a reply to: Jukiodone

@ Aholic: Even though both seemingly incorrect terms: I dont think anyone thinks the "Aurora" is the "Astra" do they?

And as far as names, Aurora is a fake name too so to me it doesn't really matter at all what we are calling these things. But yeah certain fake names definitely ring of certain real programs.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jukiodone

I see at least part of the campaign worked. Heh

Tell command I'm ready to see the hangar where they keep the "special stuff" now please


a reply to: aholic

You eluded to a sighting- was it of the silent, hovering variety or was it just a conventional triangle?

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Zaphod58

Don't forget about Boca Chica

en.wikipedia.org...

we gotta be more specific now when using the words boca chica. lol. Boca Chicka beach here in south texas is 20 miles from me and is now the official site of some of SpaceX commerical space launches in the future

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: grey580

Crazy that a guy working in the airforce dealing with top secret airplanes never sees a magical triangle with freaky glowing lights that makes no noise, uses some sort of novel form of propulsion and is super fast. But, some hapless putz sulking home from KFC after work hating his boring fruitless life, in his own urban neighborhood, does and fairly close up. Life is wacky.

Well just because ive never seen something like that come up to the boom doesn't mean it dont exist. My opinion is that there isn't a black triangle that defies gravity, however there is an aircraft that is extremely fast flying around as we speak. Even this article talks about a journalist possibly seeing an SR-72 like aircraft in the hanger at skunkworks:

Over the past year Skunk Works has invited a few journalists to its most secure facilities, including Palmdale, a site in the high desert 60 miles (100 km) from Los Angeles, where new products range from next-generation unmanned systems to a hypersonic aircraft twice as fast as its Blackbird SR-71 spy plane that could fly across country in just over an hour.

So who knows. Do i think you saw what you did? Yeah i do. For the simple fact that you've posted quite a bit on here about it and your story has never changed. Have i seen it come up to the boom for fuel? nope

originally posted by: usafage
I want to be clear I am not saying disclose if they are experimental and their are only working prototypes out there. My big stink is if this stuff has been around since 9-11 then we have a problem. If we have a fully functional squadron not getting in the game then we have a problem...congressional hearing type problems.

That we have had some very bad moments since then and people were left out hanging makes me think they don't do nearly what is imagined or they have just recently really got off the ground. The sightings seem to go pretty far back though makes me question some of these options.


All the flightlines I was on I never seen anything like this stuff.

Were you at Al Udeid AB in February-April 2003 by chance? Just curious, cause there were some interesting things on the flightline during that time.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: aholic


Anybody mentioning TR3B should just say a Black Triangle that is silent and can hover then theres no need for 2 pages of Aviation folks pointing out the error in nomenclature.

agreed

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Zaphod58

Don't forget about Boca Chica

en.wikipedia.org...

we gotta be more specific now when using the words boca chica. lol. Boca Chicka beach here in south texas is 20 miles from me and is now the official site of some of SpaceX commerical space launches in the future

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: grey580

Crazy that a guy working in the airforce dealing with top secret airplanes never sees a magical triangle with freaky glowing lights that makes no noise, uses some sort of novel form of propulsion and is super fast. But, some hapless putz sulking home from KFC after work hating his boring fruitless life, in his own urban neighborhood, does and fairly close up. Life is wacky.

Well just because ive never seen something like that come up to the boom doesn't mean it dont exist. My opinion is that there isn't a black triangle that defies gravity, however there is an aircraft that is extremely fast flying around as we speak. Even this article talks about a journalist possibly seeing an SR-72 like aircraft in the hanger at skunkworks:

Over the past year Skunk Works has invited a few journalists to its most secure facilities, including Palmdale, a site in the high desert 60 miles (100 km) from Los Angeles, where new products range from next-generation unmanned systems to a hypersonic aircraft twice as fast as its Blackbird SR-71 spy plane that could fly across country in just over an hour.

So who knows. Do i think you saw what you did? Yeah i do. For the simple fact that you've posted quite a bit on here about it and your story has never changed. Have i seen it come up to the boom for fuel? nope

originally posted by: usafage
I want to be clear I am not saying disclose if they are experimental and their are only working prototypes out there. My big stink is if this stuff has been around since 9-11 then we have a problem. If we have a fully functional squadron not getting in the game then we have a problem...congressional hearing type problems.

That we have had some very bad moments since then and people were left out hanging makes me think they don't do nearly what is imagined or they have just recently really got off the ground. The sightings seem to go pretty far back though makes me question some of these options.


All the flightlines I was on I never seen anything like this stuff.

Were you at Al Udeid AB in February-April 2003 by chance? Just curious, cause there were some interesting things on the flightline during that time.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: aholic


Anybody mentioning TR3B should just say a Black Triangle that is silent and can hover then theres no need for 2 pages of Aviation folks pointing out the error in nomenclature.

agreed

sorry for double post...noticed it too late.

a reply to: Jukiodone

yeah backwoods of NH in the late 90's. it was the silent type.

a reply to: aholic

Do you think it was a WEAV?

Looking thorough the available papers online it seems the limiting factor is the proposed required power consumption and the assumed weight of the power source.

Graphene/Monoatomic materials need a shout out here as they have some interesting properties in terms of lightweight energy storage and their ability to act as virtual capacitors/conductors.

Obviously if you could offset the weight of the power source in something that can float via atmospheric buoyancy you wouldnt need overly exotic power/discharge systems.

Or

You could energise the vehicle from afar.....there was an interesting discussion about using Directed Energy to power aerial craft a while ago...tied in nicely with Graphene via the use of directed energy ( think the example was meson beam) ....but I still dont like the look of the SBX-1

a reply to: Jukiodone

Power not a problem for craft like these. Check out Victor Klimov at Los Alamos. He had an interesting discovery a few years back. Generating "virtual" electrons (read real) from the quantum sea. 1 electron becomes 7 using some quantum trick. Needs very little input to achieve.

a reply to: Jukiodone

Can't really speculate. Didn't feel any charge in the atmosphere, no glow or lights visible anywhere or pressure difference. No jet plume or exhaust either. Just a very very black angled triangle, slightly acute of equilateral moving slowly across the night sky.

I would assume a WEAV engine would activate free electrons in the atmosphere?

I've been stumped on my sighting since it occurred.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I dont claim to fully understand Victor Klimov's work but is he not maximising the photo-electric effect by creating virtual photons ( i.e Phonons from Quasi Crystal Lattices - awe inspiring technology but not the same as electron multiplication).

I can't see anything peer reviewed where he is saying he can multiply "useable" electrons (the holy grail) but would happily stand corrected as he seems like he's got the right kind of credentials to do it....!

@Aholic.
Not sure there are enough free electrons in the Troposphere to provide the proposed required energy ( unless it's atmospherically buoyant and has low power requirements or is charged during passage through the ionosphere!!)

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: BASSPLYR
@Aholic.
Not sure there are enough free electrons in the Troposphere to provide the proposed required energy ( unless it's atmospherically buoyant and has low power requirements or is charged during passage through the ionosphere!!)

Yeah it has me too.

a reply to: Jukiodone

As far as I could tell (feel free to jump in mb) his work utilizes any additional energy from an incoming photon which is above the bandgap, instead of losing it. Yes, this occurs because excitons transform into electrons (well, hole pairs), but the "over 100%" efficiency line is in relation to the fact that the solar cells without the technique only put out a maximum of ~40% of the power they receive. So if you send in a photon that is 3 times over the gap energy you can create one direct electron-hole pair and 2 excitons, which ends up as 3 electron hole pairs which is "120%" efficiency for one photon at the band energy.

Feel free to point me to any papers you think I've missed Bass.

Now, where this gets interesting is the concept of taking those excitons and feeding them back into the solar cell. But unless you can create N+1 excitons from a photon that is N energy steps above the gap then you are going to lose one gap of energy from every feedback loop and run yourself down to 0. Unless you can create N+1 excitons

a reply to: framedragged

Link me that paper please as I've re-read his work/ been through the criticisms and the issue does seem to be extracting useful electrons.

a reply to: Jukiodone

I pretty much just went through these two abstracts (pay wall) and this paper, none of which suggest anything other than conservation of energy to me. But a certain response to a question of Bassplayer's at least led me to throwing out the idea of producing an extra exciton/electron.

a reply to: framedragged

No probs it was worth looking at anyway.

His work is very interesting .. just because they cant work out a way to make the virtual hole stay around long enough to fill up with energy today- doesn't mean they wont tomorrow.

It could also be that his earth grown quasi crystals/nano-spheres lack the required perfection that might be achievable in microgravity manufacturing conditions.

A sort of watered down version of what is possible.

a reply to: Jukiodone

No doubt. Who can say what tomorrow holds? Or even today for that matter. I definitely have no problem believing that not all of his research is published.

And it's always nice to have additional experiments to picture our lil robot shuttle performing, real or not. He seems so lonely if he has nothing to do up there!