Let's Have A Nuts And Bolts UFO Discussion

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Blackfinger

The EM drive has a bunch of profound problems. The main one is how an awful lot of what we know as scientific fact would need to be modified. One of the most straightforward and honest articles is on Forbes of all places. Who knew?

How Physics Falls Apart If The EMdrive Works.

Some of the UFO reports suggest these objects have been constructed for action in atmospheres and oceans. At least, that's how I'd interpret the aerodynamics of discs which also goes some way to affirming the Laws of Physics. It's something that's been studied since at least Hermann Oberth in the early 1950s and NASA in the 1960s. They looked at lift, drag and thrust for 'flying saucers.' To be fair, they didn't find a whole lot of success, but they were reliant on conventional propulsion and who really knows what might become normal in the future? Chemical engines can't avoid sonic booms and I can't think of one report ever where a witness noted the *BOOM.* Quite a few with utter silence (Oz Effect)...

Field effects are another little aspect that used to be reported. They blipped in and out of the noise of UFO reports from 1945 and on through to the early 80s. Stochastic. Pop. Gone.

Speculating like a mofo today.

The problem with the article is that it's poorly thought out and researched. The astrophysicist author appears to have dismissed Shawyer's theories offhand. Note that he does not present Shawyer's own defense of Newtonian physics in his article, nor attempt to debunk it, though this data is easily available at Shawyer's own website.
emdrive.com...
He does demonstrate a lack of understanding or attempt to review Shawyer's theories with statements such as

It's the ultimate defiance of Isaac Newton: claiming to have an action without an equal and opposite reaction. And yet, inventor of the EMdrive, Roger Shawyer, claims to do exactly that.

and

But if the EMdrive is truly reactionless, then Newton is wrong. Also, Einstein is wrong, Maxwell is wrong and all of quantum physics is wrong.

Then there's this gem:

The problem isn't that these laws couldn't be overturned by experiment; of course they could. The problem is that physicists have performed so many experiments in so many different ways, so carefully and with such precision verifying them. These conservation laws have been confirmed for every gravitational, mechanical, electromagnetic and quantum interaction ever observed. And now, it's claimed that an engine, one that relies on nothing more than a simple electromagnetic power source, overthrows all of physics. And the NASA Eagleworks test confirms, in a peer-reviewed paper, that thrust is produced with no discernible reaction for the action observed.

If he'd read the material, he would know that the reactionless drive is only called reactionless because it doesn't eject a propellant. It's not truly reactionless.

Now, there are some possibilities out there that can save the conservation of momentum. That can save the action/reaction laws. That can save physics as we know it. They include:

That there is exhaust that simply isn't being measured, including in the form of electromagnetic radiation. This would mean there is a reaction after all.

Well duh. Yeah, that's it man. If you had read up on the theory you're trashing you'd know this.

Not only does he say that his device works, he claims that anyone can build one and verify it for themselves. At Eagleworks laboratory, NASA scientists attempted to do exactly that, and just published their findings in a peer-reviewed journal. The results? They verify that the EMdrive works as advertised.

He did get this part right.

Last X-37b flight I thought they were testing the Em Drive during its record stay in orbit.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I'd say it's a fair article that offers several sides in a small word count. It isn't disputing the reported successes and it's simultaneously pointing to the conflicts with conventional, established Laws of Physics. The jury is out as far as I can tell.

It's fair game to speculate and what else is there to do here?

a reply to: TheBadCabbie


There are models on the table right now of both fission and fusion rocket engines. Boeing even has a patent on a combination fission-fusion engine that made the rounds a couple years ago.

Pushing out radio active particles seems rather crude. Either method probably works just fine. Ion thrust, or like you said, a working EM drive would be more elegant of a solution. Then your reactor just makes electricity (if a fusion reactor, there waste products. Fission could just be small modular reactor where it is sealed and used until spent). Heat becomes a problem but that can be engineered.

Plasma jet engines could be your workhorse going from ground to near earth orbit. What Space-X is doing is burning a kerosene (J8?, I forget) in liquid oxygen. That gets you heavy lift but creates lots of CO2. There was this thread I made in the Aircraft Projects when it was announced. You might even use that for short-ish trips.

The real winner would be a vehicle that somehow reduces its mass footprint. Then you side step the E=mc^2 limit. Here is what I think in general terms on that topic. You wrap around yourself a material that allows you to convert 3D (4D, actually) down to the 2D surface, let all those interactions with the universe roll off you back like a bead of water. Your inertial frame stays intact. You probably begin to float. Since light is not reflecting off the surface as it normally would, it would look like the sky reflecting off the hot highway in the distance. How to actually do this is beyond my pay grade but this is my approach (or at least what I would experiment with). I could be completely full of beans on this one. If an normal mouth breather like myself can imagine this, then chances are that people a lot smarter than I have already thought along the same lines.

They know, we don't. And they are probably LMAO over what I just posted (which is OK, I've been wrong before).

AdAstraRocket.com - VASMIR Plasma rocket engine.
Wikipedia - Small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor.
(GE has a new model that is even smaller which might be better for space travel).

I think it would be difficult for any nuts and bolts UFO seen in our skies what isn't the size of the Sears Building to have come from any great distance.

By default, that means wherever these little saucers or spheres or triangles come from or disappear to has to be somewhere close by. I know we're kind of off-handedly looking for motherships floating around within our solar system, but it's a lot of territory to search, and it wouldn't be all that hard for a reasonably stealthy ship of significant size to tuck themselves away from our telescopes.

The key to finding them, then, would probably be looking for how they communicate with each other. But if this turns out to be some kind of energy we're not familiar with (psi?), then that's going to be a tall order.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I think it would be difficult for any nuts and bolts UFO seen in our skies what isn't the size of the Sears Building to have come from any great distance.

Disagree. I think we could have that capability with something the size of a large yacht. A "cruiser" if you will. Solar system wide transit capability at least. You might do a longer trip with something that size, but I'd imagine it might get a little cramped after a few months, if we're talking conventional spaceflight(no folding). Something bigger would mostly be better then for longer trips, with that I agree. Small craft, agree, its unlikely they're going very far, though technically possible. If you can provide power and propulsion in a compact enough arrangement, then it becomes all about your food, water, and other life support systems. Also living space. Small craft wouldn't be desirable for a long trip even if they could do it, just because you'd be apt to go stir crazy.

By default, that means wherever these little saucers or spheres or triangles come from or disappear to has to be somewhere close by. I know we're kind of off-handedly looking for motherships floating around within our solar system, but it's a lot of territory to search, and it wouldn't be all that hard for a reasonably stealthy ship of significant size to tuck themselves away from our telescopes.

Agreed, wouldn't be hard to hide black project stuff or alien craft. Something like that might be big in your back yard but it's gonna look pretty tiny in a scope when it's farther out than the moon. Any government scopes are going to usually have those kinds of returns shipped off to the right people to analyze, whether they're ours or someone else's, not broadcast to the world.

The key to finding them, then, would probably be looking for how they communicate with each other. But if this turns out to be some kind of energy we're not familiar with (psi?), then that's going to be a tall order.

Perhaps...I've always suspected there's something that's the next really versatile thing like radio, but I wouldn't know what it is. No confirmation of that or anything, although I'm sure there are plenty of theories out there. It could just be confirmation bias on my part though too, you'd expect there to be something like that in a Star Trek world. There's probably something. Quantum radio? I don't know.

better to have a larger ship which could carry a few smaller scout ships for once on station. the current ones have a max ability of 122.7 days to nearest star. and they're probably not going to the nearest star. so that's a lot of food storage. 8 months round trip without considering what you need to do once on station. and the method used is big and bulky drive core wise , and very very expensive so you need a sizeable ship. and maybe have only made one or two ever. where they hide it is anyone's guess. but not on earth.

the smaller ones don't do FTL (due to a different, cheaper although until recently more dangerous method of propulsion) and stay in system or purely atmospheric.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Something with zero albedo and stationary would be practically invisible to current technology. If it was highly intelligent, zero albedo and didn't want to be found it could be totally invisible to us. "Don't look at me!" Also there's the Oort Clouds out on the edge of town and the asteroid belt right over thar awhiles.

I'm not saying we live in Star Wars and have varmint ETs out there. Just making the point that, *if* something techy wanted to stay out of sight, it could do. Silent running.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

First and foremost, define "UFO."
UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object

Heck, a 737 could be a UFO as long as you cannot identify it.

a reply to: yws6afdf7bc789

Well in terms of discussion I'm trying to have here, I'd refer you back to the OP(original post). Was I unclear? If so, how? With this thread I'm interested in speculating on what makes craft work that resist conventional explanation as to their methods of flight and/or peculiar features.

I've been mostly speculating on stuff that's probably being discreetly used by some of humanity so far, but I'm really just getting warmed up. There's plenty of more far out speculation that I intend to get to, I was just trying to start with some of the simpler stuff.

I think aliens are in good moods as we would have the war already.
And if there is hell somewhere it's a prison on other universe. IMHO

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: yws6afdf7bc789

Well in terms of discussion I'm trying to have here, I'd refer you back to the OP(original post). Was I unclear? If so, how? With this thread I'm interested in speculating on what makes craft work that resist conventional explanation as to their methods of flight and/or peculiar features.

I've been mostly speculating on stuff that's probably being discreetly used by some of humanity so far, but I'm really just getting warmed up. There's plenty of more far out speculation that I intend to get to, I was just trying to start with some of the simpler stuff.

The UFO I and friends saw was a big ball of fire.

Not a meteor.

Slow and steady, west to east and dripping fire.

Low and close enough to see flames.

We even ran to where we thought the drip fell.

It was a round ball of colored flames.

No idea what nuts and bolts could do that but it was physical in appearance and movement.

Besides the fact it was on fire. lol.

Size? I'm going back 40+ yrs now.

Not huge, close enough to us to see detail so maybe 30-50 ft diameter? Could be twice that but not a lot bigger.

Didn't wobble or change course, slow and steady toward Boston.

I watched it for several minutes. So did my buds when I pointed it out to them.

I don't think anything on fire like that would stay in the air for so long.

No noise, just a big ball of colorful flames, dripping.


Not a clue how that would work.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Bass, I love you man, love your posts in the Aircraft forums as well. You have also put yourself forward as someone who knows more than you show or are allowed to share. That's fine, some of us in these forums have had to sign NDA's and secret acts that do not permit us to say more.

Is your extreme interest in this thread, particularly that highlighted by giving everyone a star etc, just another Bass Breadcrumb trail? I think you love getting people to speculate about it as you somewhat steer them in certain directions.

I ask that question with the greatest of respect to, unfortunately there is no context button in just reading text, so please read my response in the manner that I intended it

a reply to: pigsy2400

steering in a direction in this thread. trying to get people to think about alternatives to warping space and to understand that it's not gravity you need to be defying and that anti gravity, wormholes, negative energy or even zero point energy isn't necessarily how theyre doing the things they see them doing.

eventually, for readers to get a better understanding of the principles that allow them to do what they do. and to think out of the box to find the solution. how they work is actually simple enough of a principle to understand. engineering something to pull off the idea was the hard part. with ups and downs and a clear evolution that once understood will make a lot of ufo incidents, shapes and behavior a lot more clear and understandable. hopefully get people to review the classics like einstein, maxwell, mach, and others instead of trying to find junk science on the web and crackpot patents to explain it.

some people say I'm spewing technobabble woo and just pulling stuff out my ass. that's fine. I simply think they're not keeping up or astute enough to get what I'm saying. they should Google some of the terms I throw out, get an understanding of what the subjects are that I broach and then extrapolate potential applications once they get the gist...and then try and make connections to other stuff I wrote. maybe then, things will begin to click and maybe they can connect the dots. they might go "hey this all sort of hangs together and makes some sense" its better this way as im helping people to actually learn for themselves and be empowered by understanding things instead of going. "well, Hal putthoff or gary mccandlish says....so it must be....."

a reply to: BASSPLYR

My opinion on the phenomenon aside, I do like tech and engineering.

So quick question: what's your opinion on the Biefeld Brown effect? Would this be worth considering usable, or is lifting your own power supply still a problem?

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: yws6afdf7bc789

Well in terms of discussion I'm trying to have here, I'd refer you back to the OP(original post). Was I unclear? If so, how? With this thread I'm interested in speculating on what makes craft work that resist conventional explanation as to their methods of flight and/or peculiar features.

I've been mostly speculating on stuff that's probably being discreetly used by some of humanity so far, but I'm really just getting warmed up. There's plenty of more far out speculation that I intend to get to, I was just trying to start with some of the simpler stuff.

The UFO I and friends saw was a big ball of fire.

Not a meteor.

Slow and steady, west to east and dripping fire.

Low and close enough to see flames.

We even ran to where we thought the drip fell.

It was a round ball of colored flames.

No idea what nuts and bolts could do that but it was physical in appearance and movement.

Besides the fact it was on fire. lol.

Size? I'm going back 40+ yrs now.

Not huge, close enough to us to see detail so maybe 30-50 ft diameter? Could be twice that but not a lot bigger.

Didn't wobble or change course, slow and steady toward Boston.

I watched it for several minutes. So did my buds when I pointed it out to them.

I don't think anything on fire like that would stay in the air for so long.

No noise, just a big ball of colorful flames, dripping.


Not a clue how that would work.

WOW!!!
And congrats on seeing and reporting a highly probable UFO sighting; which suggests that the UAP/foo fighter that you guys possibly saw, uses some form of space alien propulsion technology that we woefully lack.

Your UFO report is very similar to my own UAP sighting...and many others as well.

I wish GUT would post his fireball sighting on this thread as well, since his suggests a foo fighter under intelligent control.

Have you reported your UFO sighting to NUFORC's, Peter Davenport? I'm sure Davenport will get excited on hearing about your UFO report just as much a I am now.

Thanx...

Erno

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

You might find this of interest as well. He could well be on to something with this presentation.

a reply to: one4all

Hey cool videos. Thanks man! I shall use one.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: one4all

interesting! how would you start the discussion on why cavitation induced plasma is a contending concept for ufo propulsion. let's get the conversation going!

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
I love this idea and am to be honest kinda tipsy lol. Lets begin

I think that a bit of technology that could become available to us and "they" have a much more complete knowledge of is a way to manipulate the atmosphere around a craft. I can see this as a way to help a craft obove and below "water" move around with much less resistance.....GO

I wanted to get back to some of these page one posts now that I've had a chance to write a little on the topic. I think you guys kind of tie in with where I left off in my last installment, with ion drive, or plasma propulsion.

Allaroundyou, torpedoes can do it with supercavitating propellers. Theoretically a submarine could be encased with a similar boundary layer, by having a high speed propeller on its nose. That's probably pretty noisy though, so they probably just use pressurized gasses or another method of generating cavitation near the front of the craft. Perhaps the hull has design features that encourage adhesion with this boundary layer, I'm not sure.

Supercavitation is the use of cavitation effects to create a bubble of steam large enough to encompass an object travelling through a liquid, greatly reducing the skin friction drag on the object and enabling achievement of very high speeds. Current applications are mainly limited to projectiles or very fast supercavitating torpedoes, and some propellers, but in principle the technique could be extended to include entire vehicles. Chinese and the US Navy are reportedly working on supercavitating submarines.

en.wikipedia.org...

This video is also hilariously informative in regards to cavitation, thanks one4all:

www.youtube.com...

I think the concept is similar with aircraft, in that you are creating a boundary layer to reduce friction losses from interaction between your airframe and the atmosphere and/or its shockwave. Plasma seems to be the method most commonly suggested, though I'm not so sure it's the only method. Although, any fluid injected into a high speed enough airstream at the leading edge of an airframe is probably going to wind up as a plasma when it leaves the nozzle whether it was one before it left the nozzle or not, so in that sense it's sort of six of one half a dozen of the other.

Anyhow, not so sure that magnetically induced plasma would be needed to create that effect. I wonder if you couldn't do something similar with just some air nozzles. Might not be quite as effective, but might produce similar effects.

Cue Bassey, why don't you tell us more about cavitation induced plasma please, sounds interesting...

a reply to: BASSPLYR

a reply to: abe froman

Well, I gotta tell you guys, while I find the folklore regarding the properties of mercury interesting, experimenting with high speed rotating mercury vortexes is not at the top of my list.

I think this is a good time to caution the readers to be very careful when conducting scientific experimentation. Always know and follow the proper safety procedures. Do your homework and familiarize yourself with the materials you are working with, and be mindful of any mechanical setup you are considering. Think it through very carefully. Observe all possible safety procedures, so that you don't get yourself killed.

Anyhow, a jug full of a poisonous liquid metal, spinning at thousands of rpm's, I mean what could possibly go wrong? There may well be something to it, but due to the nature of the required equipment it would not be at the top of my list. Certainly the concept could be experimented with safely under the right conditions. Even if it works though, I'd be looking for a less toxic way to handle my business if I could. If your mercury vessel ruptures it's probably going to ruin everybody on board's day if it's in the cabin. Still a filthy toxic mess even if it's in a separate compartment. You won't get in there to work on it without some serious mercury exposure, or some serious cleanup to avoid it.

While we're on safety, I want to mention that some microwave parts are built with toxic metals. I believe the magnetron is made of beryllium, or a beryllium alloy. Beryllium is highly toxic, so don't mess around with this stuff unless you've learned how to handle it properly. There's a reason for the stern warning labels on some of your electrical devices.

I also want to reemphasize extreme caution with any mechanical setups anyone might want to experiment with. If you think you've got a cool magnet motor thing or something you want to try, that's great, but be safe about it. Your experiment could behave in a way that you have not predicted. You want to be clear of it if it could leap off of the workbench, or have some cover you can duck behind if it decides to fly apart. Simple mechanical devices can be fun to experiment with, but if you get caught up in one of those gears it can end your life, so don't mess around.

Plenty of other industrial hazards involved with handling and working with modern technology, too numerous to mention or go into in much detail in this thread. Just be careful folks. Understand what you're working with if you're going to experiment. With the right knowledge you can experiment with just about anything safely, even high speed rotating mercury vortexes!(disclaimer: The previous statement is not to be construed as an endorsement or recommendation for experimenting with high speed rotating mercury vortexes. Don't do it dude!)

originally posted by: David23
And if there is hell somewhere it's a prison on other universe. IMHO

Wasn't that in a movie?