From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #521 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 23 November 1995 Volume 05 : Number 521 In this issue: AntiGrav Report - USAF 1990 Re: Mystery plane Re: Mystery plane Re: Mystery plane Re: Mystery plane See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: robert@wwa.com (Robert Stirniman ) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 15:58:51 -0600 (CST) Subject: AntiGrav Report - USAF 1990 USAF Report on Anti-Gravity Technologies Copied below is the table of contents from a report which provides summary information about a wide variety of advanced science and technologies, and approaches to anti-gravity. The report was prepared by Dr Dennis Cravens of SAIC for Edwards AFB and was recently declassified. At this time, I have neither a full copy of the report, nor information about how to attain it. These may be forthcoming. The experimental section of this report may be of special interest for "amateur" researchers in antigravity. A number of familiar names and ideas can be found, such as: Section 3.3 Biefeld-Brown Effects, Section 3.7 Non- Inductive Coils (possibly related to Hooper invention), and Section 3.6 Spin Aligned Nuclei (possibly related to Wallace Inventions). ================================================================= TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE ........................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION ...................................... 2 1.1 Background and Theoretical Developments ....... 4 1.2 Measurement ................................... 6 1.3 Force Fields .................................. 8 1.4 Chirality - Odd Number Space-Like Dimensions .. 11 II. THEORIES .......................................... 13 2.1 Introduction .................................. 13 2.2 General Framework of Theory ................... 14 2.2.1 Born - Infield ............................ 17 2.2.2 Lande' .................................... 19 2.2.3 Podolsky .................................. 20 2.2.4 Corben .................................... 21 2.2.5 Flint ..................................... 21 2.2.6 Ingraham .................................. 21 2.2.7 Arctan Potential .......................... 23 2.2.8 Milne ..................................... 24 2.2.9 Williams .................................. 25 2.3 Development of 5-D EM Equations ............... 27 2.3.1 Modifications to Maxwell's Equations ...... 33 2.3.2 Lorentz Forces in 5-D ..................... 36 2.3.3 Wave Propagation in 5-Space ............... 38 2.3.4 Limits to Conversion Rates ................ 40 2.3.5 Reduction to Newton's Laws - PPN .......... 41 2.3.6 Thermoelectric Potentials in Gravity Field. 43 2.3.7 Field Vectors and Equations in 5-D ........ 44 2.4 Conservation Laws ............................. 47 2.4.1 Conservation of Energy .................... 48 2.4.2 Conservation of Linear Momentum ........... 50 2.4.3 Conservation of Angular Momentum .......... 51 2.4.4 Conservation of Parity .................... 53 2.4.5 Conservation of Pseudovectors ............. 54 2.4.6 Conditions for Non-Conservations .......... 58 2.5 Vacuum Fluctuations ........................... 60 2.6 Quantum Considerations ........................ 62 2.7 Compatibility of 10-D String Theories ......... 68 2.8 Mach's Principle .............................. 69 2.9 Rosen's Bi-Metric Theory ...................... 72 2.10 Non-Conservation .............................. 74 2.11 Particles in 5-D Spaces ....................... 76 III. EXPERIMENTS 3.1 Approach to Selection of Experiments .......... 78 3.2 Radiation Pressure ............................ 80 3.3 Biefeld-Brown Effects ......................... 83 3.4 Conductive Submarine .......................... 88 3.5 Gravitational Rotor ........................... 89 3.6 Spin Aligned Nuclei -- Magnetic and Rotational Alignment ............ 90 3.7 Non-Inductive Coils ........................... 94 3.8 EM Transparency of Conductive Media ........... 100 3.9 Magnetic Loop ................................. 101 3.10 Speed of Light in a Mass Flow ................. 103 3.11 Charged Torque Pendulum ....................... 105 3.12 Thermoelectric/Gravitational Effects .......... 107 3.13 Binary Pulsar ................................. 107 3.14 Proton Scattering ............................. 107 3.15 Inertial Mass Variation ....................... 107 3.16 An Improper Experiment ........................ 108 IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................. 110 ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 16:35:34 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: Mystery plane I wonder what's the consensus of the list, are there one or two planes here? One is the triangle shaped aircraft that was seen refueling over the North Sea in 1989, which may be the rumored super high speed "Aurora". The second, the aircraft that crashed at Boscombe Down that is said to have the outward pointing tails, intakes and engine housings similar to the YF-23. Some illustrations show it as a narrow delta, others show it as variable sweep. The thought has been raised that it is variable sweep and the wings wee full aft, giving it the appearance of a pure delta. This is the so-called "A-17", thought to be a "F-111 replacement". Popular Science postulated that these two aircraft are the same aircraft (the A-17) and with the wings at full sweep from a distance only appeared to be a triangle. So, one aircraft or two (or any)? Art Hanley In compliance with the Full Employment For Lawyers Act, I must state that the Above does not represent my employer's Views, only mine ------------------------------ From: mrousell@cix.compulink.co.uk (Mark Rousell) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 95 02:46 GMT Subject: Re: Mystery plane In-Reply-To: <199511222201.OAA22060@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> Daga1@aol.com in Skunk Works Digest V5 #519 said: > Now, I know it's a big stretch, but perhaps allowable for this group, > but > consider: Would the (at first) secret deployment of an (or several) > operational Aurora a/c provide NATO forces with an enhanced capability > to > track the various combatants in the rugged terrain of Bosnia and related > areas? If equipped with the latest troop-movement tracking gadgets, > would it > not allow commanders to literally watch the movement of the various > forces in > ways that satellite systems are not yet capable of? Would such a new, secret, aircraft be necessary for this job? It is already known that CIA have operated Tier drones out of Albania for just this purpose. A Tier drone circling over the enemy would, I think, provide better real-time surveillance than any fast flying recce aircraft (subsonic or super/hypersonic). Is that correct? Interestingly there was a documentary on UK tv recently about US 'deniable' aid privded to the Croatian forces. The Croatian's recent military advances have been remarkable and this was put dwon to support, training and planning being provided through a 'private' US company (sorry, forget their name). Aiui, part of this aid was in the form of Tier II drone recce based from a small Croatian island. The data feed was sent directly to the Croatian commanders iirc! Considering that the CIA are prepared to use Tier drones for third parties in such a manner it might be reasonable to assume that there *is* something secret, and even more advanced, held in reserve. It makes sense to keep the best stuff for one's own use. ________ » Mark « ------------------------------ From: Daga1@aol.com Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 01:16:38 -0500 Subject: Re: Mystery plane Well said Mark, the drones you mention pretty much blow my idea out of the water, unless the technology advancements in the new a/c are so substantial as to give a great deal more information than we have allowed for in our discussions here to date (eg, more detailed and accurate troop counting capability than the drones have, or other slow flyers). I agree with your idea that we are unlikely to let others utilize our best stuff without holding something even better in reserve -- and this point does fuel the speculation. Andy ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 02:02:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Mystery plane There was some sort of Blackbird at Edwards AFB in the summer of 1966--I spent the summer between high school and college working in a building across the street from a bunch of them. They were still so highly classified that no one could tell me their name and I was admonished to never mention that I saw them every day. Not then having succumbed to the airplane passion I now have, I'm unable to tell you anything more about them. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Wed, 22 Nov 1995, Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > Steven Barber wrote, and nobody has debated it: > > >Both the SR71 and F117 operated out of > >Macharanish (sp?) in Scotland *before* they were publically announced (I > >don't know if the U2 was flown from the UK before being announced). > > I would like to point out, that the SR-71 was publicly announced (by > President Johnson on July 24, 1964) before she even flew for the first time > (on December 22, 1964, at Palmdale, CA). The CIA-operated A-12s were first > deployed to Kadena AB (starting with article 131) on May 22, 1967, and were > (as far as officially known) never deployed to any other place outside of > CONUS. I have also seen no evidence yet, that any SR-71s were deployed to > RAF Machrihanish, or even that they made any stops there. > > The F-117 was officially also never deployed/used abroad before Panama > (during Operation 'Just Cause' in December 1989) and I have not seen any > evidence yet, suggesting that the F-117 was ever deployed to Machrihanish, > either. > > The U-2 was definitely deployed to the UK and then Germany before being > publicly announced (at least as reconnaissance plane), but was never kept > secret at the level of "no comment", (first introduced by the F-117A), but > flew with the cover story of being a NASA-operated weather reconnaissance > plane. The first U-2s deployed abroad went to RAF Lakenheath as WRSP-1 > (Det A), but were soon moved to Wiesbaden AB and then to Giebelstadt AB, both > in Germany. The reason was not the weather (which is often pretty crappy in > Germany too, as well as here in Michigan, I must say), but because of > political reasons. > > I don't know if any other black aircraft projects were tested or deployed in > the UK, but of course the RAF had always a special relationship with the USAF > regarding black projects -- as evident by RAF pilots flying U-2s and F-117s. > > The USA has so many climatic regions on its own, that I don't believe there > is any reason to test "secret" hardware in Europe for the weather reason > alone. The only conceivable reason would be operational necessity. > > If there is any evidence (not newspaper article speculation) that SR-71s or > F-117s were deployed at Machrihanish, that I am not aware of, I would be > happy to hear about it. > > -- Andreas > > --- --- > Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org > 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu > Flint, MI 48502-1239 > Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ > --- --- ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #521 ********************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.edu A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from mail.orst.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).