Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 499849
  • *Total Topics: 14720
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 9
  • *Guests: 218
  • *Total: 227

Facebook

Author Topic: Disappointingly Practical and Simple EM Propulsion with off-the-shelf Parts.  (Read 19017 times)

Offline DROBNJAK

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
I described it in so many words in the attached .PDF, but if you want it short, here it is:

Its not my theory. Theory is by Dr. John Brandenburg and Roger Shawyer (EMdrive). It is based on radiation pressure, aka. Poynting vector. This had been proven on solar sails and hydrogen bombs. Of course radiation pressure of EM waves is smaller than miniscule, but enter the super magnets and we might be OK.

I am not expert but super-conductors but I know they expel  all the magnetic field, so there must be a very strong EM radiation and Poynting pressure coming out of them. That radiation pressure is simply reflected off a simple dish antennae and one gets a desired thrust.

Incidentally, here were few videos on YouTube, clearly showing the underside of some UFOs. I am pretty sure these are real UFOs, not 3D and CGI ones. CGI UFOs are easy to spot, as well as real ones. So I did a basic engineering analysis of the photographs and found that their propulsion units are perfect match for a machines using radiation pressure.

If you are interested, please check the attachment. I am interested in criticism on the engineering side of things. Second part with photographs and diagrams might be of more interest.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline DROBNJAK

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Nobody is picking up on this one. I guess you want some pics. Here they are.

The first image shows a small UFO. maybe around 3-5m (15-25ft) in diameter. I can't guarantee its not a CGI, but my estimate is 90% it is not and 10% it is. Shades of gray here.

The second image shows a vector diagram of propulsive forces acting on the craft. There are several devices producing thrust on this UFO and I identified them in the schematic. It all surprisingly makes engineering sense and works off the idea of Poynting vector.

Full explanation is in the attached .PDF.

If you know more about super-conductors and Poynting vector than I do, you are welcome to ad value.

Please refrain from promoting other propulsion ideas here. Start your own thread instead.

Offline dieter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 968
How would you expect the energy consumption to be in such a system? Are there any costs for the effect, like an equivalent of the lorentz force?


BTW. Picture #31, is it really Billy Meyl, not Meyer?

However, this picture looks rather fake to me: No shadow under the UFO, but there is a Shadow under the car. So it must be close to the camera. How close, 2 feet? It is rather blur, compared to the other things (depth of field) and has an other lense distortion, like somebody holding his nose close to a doorspy...
Well, I could be wrong.


Other than that, thanks, fascinating lecture that I will enjoy in detail.

BR

Offline DROBNJAK

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
How would you expect the energy consumption to be in such a system? Are there any costs for the effect, like an equivalent of the lorentz force?


That is where I need input from guys who know more than I do. Its kind off Practical Open Source UFO Reverse Engineering Collaboration ;-). But no exotica, completely within current, everyday physics.

As far as energy consumption goes, that will be off the "to do" list in about 5 years. Lockheed Martin is developing a portable fusion reactor that will fit on the back of a lorry. If you watch the video, you can see that the working part (a toroid) is about size of a small car's engine bonnet. It would fit perfectly into this UFO.

Here is Lockheed's promotional video:

  Lockheed Martin Portable Fusion Reactor

Its worth noting that a super-conductor wouldn't need any power in the outer space. Outer space is at 2-3K, and modern super-conductors work up to 120-130K, if I am not mistaken. Once you fill up super-conductor you are good for few hundred years. Please correct me here if I am wrong.

My reading into this is: EM field is completely expelled out of the super-conducting toroid and it reflects off the dish. That is the reason why 2 openings in the dish exist, because some of the EM flux is needed for horizontal push and for the vertical stabilization. I marked these openings (6) and (7) on my (very colorful ;-) schematic. Without the cut-outs vehicle would only be able to travel in a vertical direction and it would wobble itself out of control.

Curt-outs, (6) and (7), are proof that EM reflection provides vertical thrust.


BTW. Picture #31, is it really Billy Meyl, not Meyer?

You are right, its Billy Meier. I'll correct that in the next edition.

I've just placed that photo there for completeness. I am now trying to collect as many photos of UFO undersides as possible, because they might reveal important details of how they work.


However, this picture looks rather fake to me: No shadow under the UFO, but there is a Shadow under the car. So it must be close to the camera. How close, 2 feet? It is rather blur, compared to the other things (depth of field) and has an other lense distortion, like somebody holding his nose close to a doorspy...
Well, I could be wrong.

Other than that, thanks, fascinating lecture that I will enjoy in detail.

BR

Billy Meier's photos are very hard to disprove, because they were all transparencies which are notoriously hard to tamper with. One would need access to big studio. They were analyzed by various film laboratories and large corporations (I think it was Sony or Fuji films) and they found them to be genuine.

I would say that shadows are right. It was a cloudy day, so shadows were very soft. Picture is slightly overexposed, about one stop. Car is sitting on the ground and covering its own shadow. So there is no way for any reflection to occur. On other hand, UFO is apparently hovering about 2-3m (6-9ft) in the air. The underside of UFO would receive lots of reflected light from the grass and the cloud dome (if we can call it that).
« Last Edit: February 08, 2015, 03:39:56 PM by DROBNJAK »

Offline dieter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 968
Well there is a greenish color on the bottom, but it would have that also if it was just a two feet dish somebody held up in front of the camera. The top of the UFO is off the picture - why? Why was the ground more important.


The problem I got with it is, it says it was taken by Meyer personally, which would discredit all of his work. What fuji or sony said seems nonrelevant to me, esp. because I cannot verify that.


But I am not supersceptical. You're right about superconductors in space! Which indeed opens a wide range of possibilities.


BR

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline rassilon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Interesting, Dr Brandenburg is from UF. That is close from here. I always wanted to get into a university but my finances disagreed.

There is one major problem with his paper. He assumes the propulsion and energy system can be entirely explained with conventional physics. A lot has happened over the past 20 years which may never be discussed in textbooks. One specific area of science is cold fusion which is slowly gaining acceptance. Why is this relevant? Cold fusion provides a simple recipe involving metals, electricity and hydrogen atoms to create fusion. A sustained fusion reaction by purely electro-chemical interactions, and without millions of degrees in temperature is impossible according to conventional books.  I ask that you shift your perspective just 3 degrees. Don't look at the Bob White object as part of the propulsion system. Look at it as part of a fusion reactor involving aluminum and hydrogen. Everything else will fall into place with this very basic point of view. Electrokinetic propulsion is old tech. What powers it is more important.

At the risk of proposing an alternative model I can also suggest looking at the torroid as plasma in nature. A z-pinch provided by the torroid to the reactor sustains fusion. Flight stability can be a secondary benefit from the torroid further reducing the need for fast rotational speed(gyroscopic balance).   ;)

Notes: the NASA STS video was debunked. Look at the Stephen Michalak UFO case.

Offline DROBNJAK

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40

At the risk of proposing an alternative model I can also suggest looking at the torroid as plasma in nature. A z-pinch provided by the torroid to the reactor sustains fusion. Flight stability can be a secondary benefit from the torroid further reducing the need for fast rotational speed(gyroscopic balance).   ;)

do you have any viable links to share explaining this "z-pinch by the toroid to sustain fusion"?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline rassilon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
do you have any viable links to share explaining this "z-pinch by the toroid to sustain fusion"?

Keep an eye out for Sandia Labs and the z-machine.  http://www.sandia.gov/media/z290.htm
By conventional standards, this device is a step closer to fusion due to the heat generated.

Modern science has largely ignored the role of electric currents in space. The establishment claims gravity as the most important force despite evidence to the contrary.  There are observations that support a solar model involving the z-pinch effect and cold fusion reactions. Don't expect to see these topics in any textbook. Study the 'Electric Universe' ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgdJcghkri4 ) and 'Birkeland Sun' (http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/model.htm) model for a better understanding.

Someday, the public will harness the power of stars too.   ;)

Offline DROBNJAK

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Much better candidate for power supply is Lockheed Martin's Compact Fusion reactor:

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13695
I don't actually think that any _serious_ UFO researcher believes that Billy Meier's photos are anything more than simple hoaxes.

Quote
Some UFO researchers such as Stanton T. Friedman and Jacques Vallée publicly dismiss the Meier case,[16] while others believe the Meier case to be the most thoroughly researched and validated UFO case in our history. Some critics have provided examples of faked photos similar to what Meier produced[17] and have pointed out that some of his photos correspond to scenes that were subsequently found in science fiction books, paintings and television programs.[18] Meier claims that some of his photos were altered by intelligence agencies and slipped into his collection in order to discredit his UFO testimony.[19] Kal K. Korff has been particularly vociferous in dismissing the Meier case, pointing to proof of Meier's fakery obviated by finding light-direction and focal discrepancies consistent with cut-and-paste and model techniques.[20]
...................
Meier's relationship with his wife Kalliope ended acrimoniously and in 1997 Kalliope stated in an interview that the UFO in the photos looked like models that Meier had made himself with items like trash can lids, carpet tacks and other household objects, and that the stories he told of his adventures with the aliens had been entirely fictitious. She agreed when asked by an interviewer that the infamous "wedding cake" UFO looked like the lid to a trash barrel. She has also claimed that one of the pictures taken of an "extraterrestrial female" was actually an acquaintance covered in tanning foil. Also, she claimed that photos of the extraterrestrial women Asket and Nera were really photos of Michelle DellaFave and Susan Lund, members of the singing and dancing troupe The Golddiggers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Meier

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline pavqw

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
I believe that there are various types of UFO propulsion.
The most familiar is for me Ion thruster which can work in atmosphere without additional gas.
It was many times proved that it just work. There is only no public research. NASA is using ion thrusters for very long time. But with current knowledge, in atmosphere it is unusable.

I found pictures of orbs that looks very real and from its construction it can be deducted that it use ions.
There are 3 rods perpendicular to each other, attached to orb while the result is assymetric capacitor.

I believe that there are good ways to boost the efficiency quite a lot for usable levels.

You will need milions of volts which is not that easy to create in compact and lightweight size. But surely it is possible with good technology.

Offline DROBNJAK

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Good you mentioned it.

I doubt that UFOs use ion trustees, because, once they are in the atmosphere the column of ions shooting out of the exhaust would glow approximately like a flame torch. As well the ion jet would burn soil and start fires etc. All of that would be reported. To make those quick turns and fast rises ion thrusters would need to be at least 4-6 orders of magnitude stronger than what we have.

Another thing, all these ions would charge up the surrounding atmosphere and UFOs would be trailed by lighting bolts and other electric discharges.

I agree with you, that there are few variants. I would like to believe that some of them are within our reach.

I am much more inclined towards microwaves, simply because majority of reliable reports point in that direction.

Offline pavqw

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Actually description about glow and lighting bolts, buzzing noise as there is static electricity all perfectly matching to flying orbs.
Flying orbs are usually relatively slow. Not used for transportation but rather observing.

I am very interested in all types and experimenting with this stuff.

Lot of UFO observers reporting failing electronics, strong magnetization of metalic things, etc.

With my experiments I can change weight on small digital scale by few grams one meter away from my device based on the ion thruster.
It also causing random failures because of EM pulse with high voltage. Scale is resetting on its own, multimeter is measuring wrongly, etc.

Offline DROBNJAK

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
That interesting.

How are you managing to control an ion jet in a normal living space?

Offline pavqw

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
We are doing such tests in our lab.
Our ion thruster is working in normal atmosphere with oxygen, the only problem is lot of ozone which is not good in higher doses.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at:


OneLink