Disappointingly Practical and Simple EM Propulsion with off-the-shelf Parts.

[DROBNJAK]

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.

[DROBNJAK]

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.

[dieter]

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

[DROBNJAK]

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).

[dieter]

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