UFO Propulsion Theory

[timallard]

From studying Moon dust properties, the surface plasma & erosional process from bombardment came the finding that it likely can provide reluctance-repulsion to a radiant plasma.

Test case UFO scout ship; hover 1m, 1000kg, 7m dia. craft; the main trick is that the repulsion layer "shades" gravity, it can only attract from the sides of the craft [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g10eTiZ_AZEOvspEyqIcvyV_r8mOBCbV/view?usp=drivesdk

Original force diagram: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h31zUP7Zsz_WOzMkmm3PkK3zMi4cXyh4/view?usp=drivesdk

Motive power by magnets, this 1300hp motor for a genset is small, 2ftx7in/61x17cm, magnets decay at 10%/1000yrs, it's the machine to wear out, "50yr no-inputs warranty" normal upkeep, ships in a container, military-spec, sparkless for use with explosives;
technokontrol.com/en/current-projects/generator.php

Then, a fluid impulse motor takes over, a jetboard in a box, equations: http://bit.ly/30Cz7qO

Those are the pieces, an empirical R&D would bake dirt on Earth with a microwave antenna to create the equations that provide the metrics, easily modelled.

Critique & rebuttals welcome.
Cheers

 

[YetAnotherBob]

From studying Moon dust properties, the surface plasma & erosional process from bombardment came the finding that it likely can provide reluctance-repulsion to a radiant plasma.

Test case UFO scout ship; hover 1m, 1000kg, 7m dia. craft; the main trick is that the repulsion layer "shades" gravity, it can only attract from the sides of the craft [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g10eTiZ_AZEOvspEyqIcvyV_r8mOBCbV/view?usp=drivesdk

Original force diagram: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h31zUP7Zsz_WOzMkmm3PkK3zMi4cXyh4/view?usp=drivesdk

Motive power by magnets, this 1300hp motor for a genset is small, 2ftx7in/61x17cm, magnets decay at 10%/1000yrs, it's the machine to wear out, "50yr no-inputs warranty" normal upkeep, ships in a container, military-spec, sparkless for use with explosives;
technokontrol.com/en/current-projects/generator.php

Then, a fluid impulse motor takes over, a jetboard in a box, equations: http://bit.ly/30Cz7qO

Those are the pieces, an empirical R&D would bake dirt on Earth with a microwave antenna to create the equations that provide the metrics, easily modelled.

Critique & rebuttals welcome.
Cheers

It's already been proposed. By HG Wells in 1901. The material was 'Cavorite'. (It was the ship in "First Men in the Moon". Unfortunately, no such material, 'opaque to gravity' has ever been discovered.

There was some hope with rotating superconductors in the early 2000's, but that didn't pan out. Bob Lazar claims that rotating mercury will work, but he's never been able to show any results. Still, he makes a nice living just repeating the claims.

Don't bother designing the ship until you have that basic requirement for gravity shielding.

If you do get it, be sure to document very carefully. You are looking for a material that will leave you in free fall inside a shell of the material. It's useful for a lot more than just cheap space travel too.

 

[timallard]

It's already been proposed. By HG Wells in 1901. The material was 'Cavorite'. (It was the ship in "First Men in the Moon". Unfortunately, no such material, 'opaque to gravity' has ever been discovered.

There was some hope with rotating superconductors in the early 2000's, but that didn't pan out. Bob Lazar claims that rotating mercury will work, but he's never been able to show any results. Still, he makes a nice living just repeating the claims.

Don't bother designing the ship until you have that basic requirement for gravity shielding.

If you do get it, be sure to document very carefully. You are looking for a material that will leave you in free fall inside a shell of the material. It's useful for a lot more than just cheap space travel too.

However:
The trick is honoring Kirchhoff's Laws, mercury would be the wrong choice in spite of its density so doesn't say anything referring the fluid dynamics of the 1901 system.

The jetboard flies the weight of the water & the rider on pumps only in an open system using well know equations as open systems, closing the system cannot be a continuous flow to get directed-force from fluid impulse, this violates Kirchhoff.

I found a better fluid 3× more dense than water and low viscosity, pumps are driven by magnets, longevity flux fades -10%flux/1000yrs.

The 7 5-ton hovercraft motor for firefighting tankers is only 75x175cm, no fuels, no CO2, no electricity req'd.

I have most critical details of construction in mind, a 5-axis milling machine takes care of most parts, there are no other possible methods for such no-fuels directed-force from a machine.
Cheers

 

[timallard]

It's already been proposed. By HG Wells in 1901. The material was 'Cavorite'. (It was the ship in "First Men in the Moon". Unfortunately, no such material, 'opaque to gravity' has ever been discovered.

There was some hope with rotating superconductors in the early 2000's, but that didn't pan out. Bob Lazar claims that rotating mercury will work, but he's never been able to show any results. Still, he makes a nice living just repeating the claims.

Don't bother designing the ship until you have that basic requirement for gravity shielding.

If you do get it, be sure to document very carefully. You are looking for a material that will leave you in free fall inside a shell of the material. It's useful for a lot more than just cheap space travel too.

Then:
In reference to "shading" gravity my term the proof of concept taking a dirt sample on a free-arm set up in a standard microwave oven bypassing the door switch and turn it on.

If the dirt moves away from the magnetron opening reluctance-repulsion works to "shade" gravity at hover for a spacecraft near the ground.

My spec at 1m to hover a 1000kg craft 6m in diameter for total repulsion from the dirt at proper frequencies & power distributions.

My money bets the arm moves and have no desire to prove it to anyone when such a cheap experiment does the job.
Cheers

 

[uncle bernie]

From studying Moon dust properties, the surface plasma & erosional process from bombardment came the finding that it likely can provide reluctance-repulsion to a radiant plasma.

Test case UFO scout ship; hover 1m, 1000kg, 7m dia. craft; the main trick is that the repulsion layer "shades" gravity, it can only attract from the sides of the craft [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g10eTiZ_AZEOvspEyqIcvyV_r8mOBCbV/view?usp=drivesdk

Original force diagram: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h31zUP7Zsz_WOzMkmm3PkK3zMi4cXyh4/view?usp=drivesdk

Motive power by magnets, this 1300hp motor for a genset is small, 2ftx7in/61x17cm, magnets decay at 10%/1000yrs, it's the machine to wear out, "50yr no-inputs warranty" normal upkeep, ships in a container, military-spec, sparkless for use with explosives;
technokontrol.com/en/current-projects/generator.php

Then, a fluid impulse motor takes over, a jetboard in a box, equations: http://bit.ly/30Cz7qO

Those are the pieces, an empirical R&D would bake dirt on Earth with a microwave antenna to create the equations that provide the metrics, easily modelled.

Critique & rebuttals welcome.
Cheers

ive been asking around if magnetics isnt the ultimate way to go.
im not an engineer; but i always thought " flying saucers "were possible.
like a giant aluminum frisbee that has a magnetic propulsion system beneath the skin...?
i certainy cant understand your diagram; but i understand centrifugal force and that without magnetics; you renever going to be able to pack enough fuel

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

IMO traveling from star to star won't be done with brute force.
Gravity and light travel at instant speed but one is perspective instant travel the other travels in the void between fluctuation.

Traveling at warp speed requires you to travel in void space that time and space don't exist.
99.99% of the universe is nothing, just got to figure out how to travel in it and not interact with fluctuation like gravity does.

JMO

 

[YetAnotherBob]

ive been asking around if magnetics isnt the ultimate way to go.
im not an engineer; but i always thought " flying saucers "were possible.
like a giant aluminum frisbee that has a magnetic propulsion system beneath the skin...?
i certainy cant understand your diagram; but i understand centrifugal force and that without magnetics; you renever going to be able to pack enough fuel

I am an Engineer. Magnetic systems use a magnetic field to connect two different bodies. In an electric motor those are magnetic coils in the Rotor and the Stator. The stator is stationary and the rotor rotates. That's how the motor works. There is some counter rotation in the body of the motor, but you have the motor secured to some fixed frame to deal with that. Motors don't violate Newtonian Mechanics.

But to really work well, the two magnets have to be close together. The force you get falls off as the square of the distance between the coils. Commercial motors keep that separation to a few milimeters. Earths coil is rather large, but it's hard to get enough of a push using just magnetics. The Moon has virtually no magnetic field, so a magnetic motor against it's field is useless there. You may be able to push on dust particles, but you still have to get those particles from somewhere, so it's really just an electric rocket. It's not one that will power itself however, so the rockets Apollo used are easier cheaper and waste less energy and resources.

Something vaguely like this has been used in Orbit, it's called an electric tether, This is a very very long wire that is charged up and reacts with the Earths magnetic field to produce a small amount of thrust. It works, but isn't really a terribly efficient use of power. It can de-orbit a satellite in low orbit over a few months, but is still both bulkier and slower than the very low thrust ion units that some satellites carry.

But about the idea of using the dust on the moon to push a spacecraft, the Moon is a good 400 Million Kilometers away. The push you are talking about is observed over a few millimeters. How many millimeters do you think there are in four hundred million Kilometers? Square that and then divide the total thrust you measured to find how much thrust you actually get after you leave the Moon. It's effectively Zero. Like the EM Drive and some others, it's less than the push of the heat from the craft. One of the Pioneer spacecraft had that problem. It drifted in it's path out of the Solar System due to the heat from the onboard reactor over decades.

This thing would also be a power hog. Designing a ship for this would require a very great deal of power. Beyond anything we currently know how to build.

So I don't expect to see anybody flying one of these any time soon.

 

[timallard]

I am an Engineer. Magnetic systems use a magnetic field to connect two different bodies. In an electric motor those are magnetic coils in the Rotor and the Stator. The stator is stationary and the rotor rotates. That's how the motor works. There is some counter rotation in the body of the motor, but you have the motor secured to some fixed frame to deal with that. Motors don't violate Newtonian Mechanics.

But to really work well, the two magnets have to be close together. The force you get falls off as the square of the distance between the coils. Commercial motors keep that separation to a few milimeters. Earths coil is rather large, but it's hard to get enough of a push using just magnetics. The Moon has virtually no magnetic field, so a magnetic motor against it's field is useless there. You may be able to push on dust particles, but you still have to get those particles from somewhere, so it's really just an electric rocket. It's not one that will power itself however, so the rockets Apollo used are easier cheaper and waste less energy and resources.

Something vaguely like this has been used in Orbit, it's called an electric tether, This is a very very long wire that is charged up and reacts with the Earths magnetic field to produce a small amount of thrust. It works, but isn't really a terribly efficient use of power. It can de-orbit a satellite in low orbit over a few months, but is still both bulkier and slower than the very low thrust ion units that some satellites carry.

But about the idea of using the dust on the moon to push a spacecraft, the Moon is a good 400 Million Kilometers away. The push you are talking about is observed over a few millimeters. How many millimeters do you think there are in four hundred million Kilometers? Square that and then divide the total thrust you measured to find how much thrust you actually get after you leave the Moon. It's effectively Zero. Like the EM Drive and some others, it's less than the push of the heat from the craft. One of the Pioneer spacecraft had that problem. It drifted in it's path out of the Solar System due to the heat from the onboard reactor over decades.

This thing would also be a power hog. Designing a ship for this would require a very great deal of power. Beyond anything we currently know how to build.

So I don't expect to see anybody flying one of these any time soon.

The fluid_impulse motors provide a directed_force similar to rocket thrust, pumps don't need fuels for centuries w/upkeep.

The jetboard in a box works anywhere in the universe, the concern to Mars is transit time, a constant acceleration 6-mtr has 45-tons force vs EIP.

 

[event.horizon]

This is of course, an interesting thread, though due more to the nature of the topic than any of the speculations it appears to contain. The old metaphor of 'forest for the trees' certainly applies in this case, as everyone is still thinking in a classical mechanistic mode, while leaving out the single-most ubiquitous aspect of physical reality: the phenomenon of particle spin.

In this respect, classical physics, whose central theme seems to have been almost intentionally designed to obscure reality, maintains that the entropic nature of thermodynamics is an incontestably universal fact. But! --as I'm sure you've already guessed-- I'm about to tell you that this is pure crap, because at the heart of all that exists, the principle of particle spin --whose motion is clearly perpetual-- provides a blatant counterpoint to a universe that's slowly winding down.

Look at any given electron. It's reported that each such particle represents a given quantity of "mass." However, in order to maintain the angular momentum of this mass, thermodynamic principles assert that energy must therefore be "consumed" in order to maintain this motion, even though every electron throughout a probable infinity must necessarily be "consuming" this energy simultaneously... and as you can see, this becomes problematical in a few microseconds.

So the question here is: where is the energy coming from? --that is, in order to perpetually maintain the rotational motion of all these infinitesmal particles of mass? Answer: it's coming from the spin of the particle, as each electron is literally recycling itself, and best of all, by means of an already well-understood process.

In brief, the propulsion system of every make and model of 'ufo' (though I prefer the term, 'quantum ship') throughout the universe is actually nothing more than a macroscopic model of any given electron...

 

[timallard]

Some thoughts on electron_positron pairs & their creation:

Consider the Sternglass-Einstein work on the electron-positron pair in a death spiral since being created in the first condensates of matter after a Bang by a neutrino hitting a quantum charge dropletto spin off pairs, some decay quickly the rest last billions of years.

From that structure paired with another counter-rotating pair was found a meson matching properties in lab results.

The implications of this finding, late 50's, which was never disproven although disputed vs the "Copenhagen School", are important to theory & help explain a portion of 'dark matter' by virtue of their external neutral charge as a single pair.

And, when they finally decay their energy of annihilation is released, this can explain inflation.

Thus the Standard Model while coherent to itself isn't a theory being a empirically derived system.

In a cellular universe there were more than one Bang, material was there before & a portion unaffected by the explosion remains mixed in with the results of a Bang.

That is, a Bang converts mass to energy that is sent quickly away from the center of mass outward as energy thus removing the gathered mass as an Attractor.

All masses being drawn by a Great Attractor are suddenly free to take altered trajectories as a way to distinguish objects released from the mass attraction.

Consider if this didn't happen all the Universe would be only Great Attractors gobbling each other.
Ymmv.