Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Alchopwn

An idea for your consideration

48 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alchopwn

Reviewing many of the UFO cases of late, there is a pattern of events that seems to be popping out at me, so I thought I'd run it past you guys.

One of the features common to many UFO cases is the presence of elevated levels of local ionizing radiation.  So, what if it isn't an alien craft at all, but a secret aircraft, likely USAF, that uses a nuclear engine?  The reasons it needs to be hidden, is partially because of the strategic value of keeping the asset hidden, and also because it is dangerously polluting and would face public outcry if it were revealed, given how many of them have potentially crashed over the years?  If the powerplant requirements for the craft were specifically ring-shaped, it might explain why the use of saucers is required, despite the fact they aren't all that aerodynamic.  I raise this point as the Russians have recently claimed to have nuclear powered rockets that they say can stay in the air indefinitely.  Obviously VTOL capability is implied.  Thoughts?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
12 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

One of the features common to many UFO cases is the presence of elevated levels of local ionizing radiation.

So they claim.

The only type of nuclear propulsion explodes miniature bombs behind it and that would leave a whole lot of radiation that would be detectable for some time. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
46 minutes ago, Piney said:

So they claim.

The only type of nuclear propulsion explodes miniature bombs behind it and that would leave a whole lot of radiation that would be detectable for some time. 

Not true.  See project Pluto

Quote

The basic goal was to build a nuclear-powered ramjet engine: bring in cool air at the front, pass it over a nuclear reactor to heat it up and make it expand, and then expel it out the back to provide thrust. 

Here is an article about it and how it may relate to current super cruise missile development by Russia

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

Reviewing many of the UFO cases of late, there is a pattern of events that seems to be popping out at me, so I thought I'd run it past you guys.

One of the features common to many UFO cases is the presence of elevated levels of local ionizing radiation.  So, what if it isn't an alien craft at all, but a secret aircraft, likely USAF, that uses a nuclear engine?  The reasons it needs to be hidden, is partially because of the strategic value of keeping the asset hidden, and also because it is dangerously polluting and would face public outcry if it were revealed, given how many of them have potentially crashed over the years?  If the powerplant requirements for the craft were specifically ring-shaped, it might explain why the use of saucers is required, despite the fact they aren't all that aerodynamic.  I raise this point as the Russians have recently claimed to have nuclear powered rockets that they say can stay in the air indefinitely.  Obviously VTOL capability is implied.  Thoughts?

Nuclear thermal engines have been looked at since the 1950s. The way they work is they have a small nuclear reactor with low grade fissile material that creates heat, the heat is transferred to a liquid propellant possible Hydrogen which is turned into a gas which is projected through a nozzle which creates thrust. This form of propulsion will allow the vehicle to move at a much faster speed than standard chemically fueled rockets used on space craft.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a18345717/nasa-ntp-nuclear-engines-mars/

Peace

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
36 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Not true.  See project Pluto

 

Well, first it wouldn't produce the amount of radiation reported. It would produce much more and scorch a huge area. Second it would turn into a county wide sighting with all the heat and noise and third it would actually have to work. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
5 minutes ago, Piney said:
 

Well, first it wouldn't produce the amount of radiation reported. It would produce much more and scorch a huge area. Second it would turn into a county wide sighting with all the heat and noise and third it would actually have to work. 

Didn't say it was feasible or a good idea :tu:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BorizBadinov

Just tossing some random thoughts out.

Possibly a variation of the EM drive concept more refined?  http://www.emdrive.com/

Using a nuclear pile to generate power? Heat would be hard to control. Maybe as an exciter?

Saucer shape is necessary for a tunnel  structure like the Hadron Collider? Could you create stability with that? Or speed up an exciter before slamming it into the drive for that turbo boost?

One thing is it would have to be developed well outside conventional aircraft manufacturing as I cant see them ignoring the tech to fly that way no matter how secret. I'm not sure the super top secret skunk works has that much more advanced tech since they contract everything out. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
3 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

One of the features common to many UFO cases is the presence of elevated levels of local ionizing radiation

Who.are testing this? When and how?

Not everyone who claims to see a ufo has the equipment to test for this. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

From  a design point of view a UFO (saucer type) can allow for omni-directional movement in space. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
3 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

One of the features common to many UFO cases is the presence of elevated levels of local ionizing radiation.  Thoughts?

Thats how the UFO-mania works in the course of time. Triangle shaped objects, some time its burned holes in the soil, then electro-fog, or by ETs monitored ICBM silos/nuclear power plants, "unknown" objects around the ISS1, "orange lights" and sometimes "local ionizing radiation". Its like a school timetable, but on a bigger scale, but above all: BS.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
38 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

Who.are testing this? When and how?

Not everyone who claims to see a ufo has the equipment to test for this.

Or they are running around the mountains with dosimeters, yelling: "here, they were here, look at the dosimeter", but it was only Radon gas.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
18 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

The reasons it needs to be hidden

if people are seeing them then they are not hidden

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
19 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

One of the features common to many UFO cases is the presence of elevated levels of local ionizing radiation.

?  Would you mind citing the best documented example of this (one with actual numbers & stuff), so we can start from an actual premise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

It is nice to see a theory that put humans as the main cause for these sightings.   As far-fetched as this idea seems, it is still much more possible than aliens.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
21 hours ago, XenoFish said:

From  a design point of view a UFO (saucer type) can allow for omni-directional movement in space. 

Interestingly the 2 shapes that naturally emerge from the alqubiere/froning equations for FTL travel are spherical and ovoid. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
On 4/2/2020 at 4:57 AM, Piney said:
 

Well, first it wouldn't produce the amount of radiation reported. It would produce much more and scorch a huge area. Second it would turn into a county wide sighting with all the heat and noise and third it would actually have to work. 

That might vary according to the type of fuel used in the engine and its half-life etc.  We do actually see pretty major scorching at so-called saucer nests btw.  Damage to local vegetation is consistent with neutron bombardment, as it turns powdery, when it isn't outright scorched.  Hmm... perhaps they are using neutrons as a sort of stand-in for a reaction mass?  Just an idle thought.

21 hours ago, toast said:

Thats how the UFO-mania works in the course of time. Triangle shaped objects, some time its burned holes in the soil, then electro-fog, or by ETs monitored ICBM silos/nuclear power plants, "unknown" objects around the ISS1, "orange lights" and sometimes "local ionizing radiation". Its like a school timetable, but on a bigger scale, but above all: BS.

The thing about UFOs is that mostly they are ball lightning, sometimes they are other things like headlights reflecting on clouds, or hoaxes like balloons with candles underslung in baskets etc.  On the other hand, the original designation for UFOs was a military one for an unknown object in the air that may or may not be an enemy aircraft, and may not be an aircraft at all.  Experimental aircraft have been a major culprit for UFO sightings of the more genuine kind (ruling out aliens completely for the time being).  The fact is that a localized source of ionizing radiation is a avery consistent feature of the flying saucer phenomenon, so the aim here is to speculate, i.e. play with that idea and see if we can get it to a plausible form.  If you don't like the game, don't play.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
22 hours ago, XenoFish said:

From  a design point of view a UFO (saucer type) can allow for omni-directional movement in space. 

True, but something like the design of the star fury from Babylon 5 does the same job more effectively with reaction engines.  Saucers aren't especially aerodynamic for use in atmospheres, and certainly aren't good at high speeds in atmospheres.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

That might vary according to the type of fuel used in the engine and its half-life etc.  We do actually see pretty major scorching at so-called saucer nests btw.  Damage to local vegetation is consistent with neutron bombardment, as it turns powdery, when it isn't outright scorched.  Hmm... perhaps they are using neutrons as a sort of stand-in for a reaction mass?  Just an idle thought.

The thing about UFOs is that mostly they are ball lightning, sometimes they are other things like headlights reflecting on clouds, or hoaxes like balloons with candles underslung in baskets etc.  On the other hand, the original designation for UFOs was a military one for an unknown object in the air that may or may not be an enemy aircraft, and may not be an aircraft at all.  Experimental aircraft have been a major culprit for UFO sightings of the more genuine kind (ruling out aliens completely for the time being).  The fact is that a localized source of ionizing radiation is a avery consistent feature of the flying saucer phenomenon, so the aim here is to speculate, i.e. play with that idea and see if we can get it to a plausible form.  If you don't like the game, don't play.

If in fact the damage to the vegetation you are talking about above is from Neutron Radiation it would be easy to prove. Outside of the effects that the plants suffered you would also be able to look for and find enhanced radiation in the soil at the site. Enhanced radiation is created by Neutron or Ionizing radiation Bombardment of the soil, trace metals which occur in all soil will become radioactive and start to decay according to that metals half life. Different metals have different half lives but this type enhancement will have short half lives, but what's important is the fact their decay rate is detectable, and this would prove without any doubt that a radioactive source had been present at the location.

Peace

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

True, but something like the design of the star fury from Babylon 5 does the same job more effectively with reaction engines.  Saucers aren't especially aerodynamic for use in atmospheres, and certainly aren't good at high speeds in atmospheres.

I think the saucers would make a good shield. I mean if aliens are visiting us, who's to say that the saucer is the only part of their ship? If I think about it, I would go with such a design. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
32 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I think the saucers would make a good shield. I mean if aliens are visiting us, who's to say that the saucer is the only part of their ship? If I think about it, I would go with such a design. 

That could be true, like you said we don't know if the Saucer is the entire ship. But one thing is for certain the Saucer Shape we equate to Flying Saucers is very Aerodynamic at both fast and slow speeds. Different companies and our Government have been experimenting with this design for some time.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a8690/the-real-tech-behind-flying-saucers-15075908/

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Yes, there are aspects of the design that are used by real aircraft.

But overall:

- the saucer design is not aerodynamic (not that you need that in space..)

- it is poor for maneuvering and requires added complexity from vectored thrusters

- it in no way overcomes inertia thus sharp turns become problematic unless you invent some sort of anti-grav (which is generally regarded by us old fogies as impossible / nonsensical).

 

There's more, but in simple terms, there are a lot of reasons why no aircraft (other than drones, which have very different design criteria) use the saucer design.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BorizBadinov
15 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

there are a lot of reasons why no aircraft (other than drones, which have very different design criteria) use the saucer design

I agree 100% with your premise, when generating lift is accomplished by using pure thrust. Even drones work the same way really. It's all pushing.

What if it's being accomplished by magnetic trapping? If a magnetic field could be generated or amplified around a craft and then use trapping to lock the location in the field using some superconductor? It resembles antigravity but it's not. 

It would require a power source probably on the level of the everspark granted. 

Most of the power used in conventional flight is to achieve lift and that goes for wing, rotor, or rocket. If you can hover without thrust then shape is no longer paramount. The torus or sphere shape would even be best if you are generating a field to avoid weak points.

There was a company giving lectures on a project they were in r&d on some years back exploring that tech, and there has been lots of research done on the effect of sustained exposure to strong magnetic fields.

A side effect could be static generation which might be the ionization reported. 

Any flying craft utilizes a spectrum of effects for stable flight. Something that complex would likely use multiple systems to achieve the reported results and not one single drive.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
21 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Yes, there are aspects of the design that are used by real aircraft.

But overall:

- the saucer design is not aerodynamic (not that you need that in space..)

- it is poor for maneuvering and requires added complexity from vectored thrusters

- it in no way overcomes inertia thus sharp turns become problematic unless you invent some sort of anti-grav (which is generally regarded by us old fogies as impossible / nonsensical).

 

There's more, but in simple terms, there are a lot of reasons why no aircraft (other than drones, which have very different design criteria) use the saucer design.

I don't know. Depends on how the saucers is built. Lightweight and similar to our own drones. 

81H0K67IOsL._AC_SX425_.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
23 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

If in fact the damage to the vegetation you are talking about above is from Neutron Radiation it would be easy to prove. Outside of the effects that the plants suffered you would also be able to look for and find enhanced radiation in the soil at the site. Enhanced radiation is created by Neutron or Ionizing radiation Bombardment of the soil, trace metals which occur in all soil will become radioactive and start to decay according to that metals half life. Different metals have different half lives but this type enhancement will have short half lives, but what's important is the fact their decay rate is detectable, and this would prove without any doubt that a radioactive source had been present at the location.

Peace

Thanks for the comment M.L.,  I have actually personally gone to a couple of alleged flying saucer landing sites with a geiger counter over the years and found radiation levels that were well above background levels (21 μSv or double background levels, episode in 1966, and 27 μSv after episode in 1976 ) literally decades after the supposed events.  As far as I am concerned this is proof positive of the factual basis of this claim, but I expect nobody to just take my word for it.  I urge people who have such landing sites in their area to go have a look if they can lay hands on a geiger counter.

5 hours ago, BorizBadinov said:

I agree 100% with your premise, when generating lift is accomplished by using pure thrust. Even drones work the same way really. It's all pushing.

What if it's being accomplished by magnetic trapping? If a magnetic field could be generated or amplified around a craft and then use trapping to lock the location in the field using some superconductor? It resembles antigravity but it's not. 

It would require a power source probably on the level of the everspark granted. 

Most of the power used in conventional flight is to achieve lift and that goes for wing, rotor, or rocket. If you can hover without thrust then shape is no longer paramount. The torus or sphere shape would even be best if you are generating a field to avoid weak points.

There was a company giving lectures on a project they were in r&d on some years back exploring that tech, and there has been lots of research done on the effect of sustained exposure to strong magnetic fields.

A side effect could be static generation which might be the ionization reported. 

Any flying craft utilizes a spectrum of effects for stable flight. Something that complex would likely use multiple systems to achieve the reported results and not one single drive.

These are some solid points ChrLzs and B.B.  If I am not mistaken, I believe that torus shapes are also of value in nuclear fusion technologies, specifically tokamak reactors, and they indeed use powerful magnetic fields of the type you are describing.  Are we looking at a mini-tokamak-like power plant perhaps?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L.A.T.1961

Why do you need a drive system? 

Another option would be something like the Star trek tractor beam. The ship need only be a container to sit in while a beam moves the ship about ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.