From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #522 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 24 November 1995 Volume 05 : Number 522 In this issue: Re: Mystery plane AntiGravity Mystery planes and UAVs Re: Mystery planes and UAVs RR: Re: Gravity 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: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 09:19:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Mystery plane Mary, The Blackbirds you saw at Edwards in the Summer of 1966 probably belonged to the "SR-71/YF-12 Test Force", which was established at Edwards AFB on June 1, 1965, under the AFFTC (Air Force Flight Test Center), reporting to the AFSC (Air Force Systems Command). On January 16, 1970, the unit was redesignated the 4786th TS (Test Squadron), and was then probably a part of STC (Systems Test Command), judging from the 4700ish unit number. The unit was inactivated on January 12, 1972, and its duty was delegated to Det. 51 at Palmdale, CA, which reported to the 2762nd LS (Logistics Squadron) at the AFLC (Air Force Logistics Command) headquarters at Norton AFB. Det. 51 was established on January 1, 1971, and took over the Functional Flight Check for SR-71s and U-2s from the AFSC. On September 1, 1977, Det. 51 became Det. 6 (maybe through addition :) ), which is still supporting U-2 operations, and will conceivably also support the reactivated SR-71s. Have a nice Thanksgiving, - -- Andreas and Kathryn - --- --- 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/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Thu, 23 Nov 95 17:25:37 MET Subject: AntiGravity On Wed, 22 Nov 1995, Robert Stirniman sent a couple of postings about "AntiGravity". The first article he referred to is outdated and contains several errors: >The following article was prepared for the USAF in 1956, and >discusses the state of the electrogravitics industry at that >time. The article was found by an independent researcher on >a library shelf at Wright Patterson, and was declassified >in 1990. IMHO, it was declassified because nothing emerged from that. [...] >It also outlines the various possible lines of research into the >nature and constituent matter of gravity, and how it has changed >from Newton to Einstein to the modern Hlavaty concept of >gravity as an electromagnetic force that may be controlled like >a light wave. "gravity as an electromagnetic force" ? Gravity is definitely not an electromagnetic force. The electromagnetic and weak interactions have been united, but the unification of strong, electro-weak and gravitational interactions is still far from being made. > [...] . There was no detailed explanation of gravity >in Project Winterhaven, but it was assumed that particle >dualism in the subatomic structure of gravity would coincide >in its effect with the issuing stream of electrons from the >electrostatic energy source to produce counterbary. This does not mean anything. > The Brown >work probably remains a realistic approach to the practical >realization of electrostatic propulsion and sustentation. Maybe, if it works, but this has nothing to do with AntiGravity. >Whatever may be discovered by the Gravity Research Foundation of >New Boston a complete understanding and synthetic reproduction >of gravity is not essential for limited success. The electro- >gravitics saucer can perform the function of a classic lifting >surface - it produces a pushing effect on the under surface and >a suction effect on the upper, but, unlike an airfoil, it does not >require a flow of air to produce the effect. It seems that the Air Force report is (rightly) skeptical about the link with AntiGravity... > [...] . The classic example of non-linear physics >is the experiment in bombarding a screen with two slits. When >both slits are open particles going through are not the sum of >the two individually but follows a non-linear equation. Nothing to do with non-linearity. The complex probability amplitudes must be added linearly. There are many other criticisms, but I have not enough time... The second article quoted is more recent. Just a few hints: 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 Max Born (1882-1970), known mainly because of his statistical interpretation of the quantum wave function, and Leopold Infeld, who worked with Einstein, made a non-linear field theory which had troubles with quantization and did not succeed. Lande' was Hilbert's assistant for physics; known for his work on the anomalous Zeeman effect (multiplets in the case of weak magnetic field, 1923). I don't know his ideas about (anti-)gravity. Podolsky, known mainly because of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Worked also with Dirac and Fock (beginning of QED). Corben: spinning particle in an electromagnetic field (with Bhabha, 1941) Flint: never heard of this one. Ingraham: the most famous expert in conformal relativity (a theory discovered simultaneously by Einstein and Nordstrom, just before the discovery of general relativity by Einstein). Conformal relativity has to do with gravitation, but is not as good as general relativity. Arctan Potential: never heard of that. Milne, Edward Arthur (1896-1950): kinematic relativity, not in accord with general relativity. Disused. Williams: never heard of this one. 2.3 Development of 5-D EM Equations ............... 27 There have been numerous attempts to solve everything with 5-D theories (Kaluza-Klein comes to my memory). It did not work. 2.5 Vacuum Fluctuations ........................... 60 2.6 Quantum Considerations ........................ 62 2.7 Compatibility of 10-D String Theories ......... 68 Wow! Extremely advanced physics! Only a few physicists understand correctly these points (and I definitely don't understand them). It's so esoteric and so speculative that practical applications (if any) are very far from us... I may be wrong, but I think that the MHD drive is far more interesting than all these speculations about antigravity... J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: VVKW99B@prodigy.com (MR THEODORE CORMANEY) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 14:42:29 EST Subject: Mystery planes and UAVs >mrousell@cix.compulink.co.uk (Mark Rousell) wrote: >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? A few comments: The UAV's operated by the US in the Adriatic are low-capability prototypes (Tier Two) derived from the old DARPA Amber program. They are operated by support contractors for the Navy, are not integrated to the logistics system and can't be sustained in theater for more than 90 days at a time. The flimsy prototypes have great difficulty operating in Balkan weather conditions, the sensors are low-capability and there are no data links to the tactical forces on the ground. Even if data links were available, operating under Air Force target cycles, the prototypes are of little use to the local forces. Three of the prototypes (one-third of the vehicles) were lost this year due to engine failure. DARPA has two high altitude UAV programs under way; neither close to deployment. One is a Lockheed stealthy flying wing called DarkStar (Tier Three Minus), rolled out in early June. The other, a Teledyne Ryan vehicle (Tier Two Plus) is still in preliminary design. The prototypes and the HAEs are set to transition to a USAF Recce Sqdn at Fallon AFB. The prototypes are sustained by a political agenda among the political appointees at DOD, not by mission needs or technology. Elements in OSD and JCS are conspiring to kill the Army's BQM-155A Tactical UAV that is integrated to the logistics and training systems and is therefor deployable, supportable, sustainable and survivable and linked to the G-2 hut at the operations level. When the US troops get off the train in Tuzla, they're going to wish they had the Army system with 'em. As a recently retired Army general said last week, "When the JROC voted to kill BQM-155A, they voted to take casualties." The cockamamie procurement strategies for the UAVs lead Congress to bring the SR-71 out of retirement. NATO forces in the Adriatic have a number of manned tac recce aircraft available. But not nearly enough to provide the kind of support US troops are going to need in the Posavina Corridor. If you want dwell time over the target, you better hope that the skies are clear and you can get a satellite link. Nothing has changed. Ted Cormaney * vvkw99b@prodigy.com ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 23:27:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Mystery planes and UAVs (MR THEODORE CORMANEY) wrote: >The UAV's operated by the US in the Adriatic are low-capability >prototypes (Tier Two) derived from the old DARPA Amber program. They are >operated by support contractors for the Navy, are not integrated to the >logistics system and can't be sustained in theater for more than 90 days at >a time. The flimsy prototypes have great difficulty operating in Balkan >weather conditions, the sensors are low-capability and there are no data >links to the tactical forces on the ground. Even if data links were >available, operating under Air Force target cycles, the prototypes are of >little use to the local forces. Three of the prototypes (one-third of the >vehicles) were lost this year due to engine failure. Tier 1 (the General Atomics Gnat 750) was derived from the Amber 1 program, but the Tier 2 is considerable bigger. The Tier 1s are operated by the CIA (or at least their contractors like General Atomics ?) and the Tier 2s are operated by the Predator joint program office under a DARPA Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration, to 'get them out as soon as possible'. I sure don't know what's so flimsy about them. >DARPA has two high altitude UAV programs under way; neither close to >deployment. One is a Lockheed stealthy flying wing called DarkStar (Tier >Three Minus), rolled out in early June. The other, a Teledyne Ryan vehicle >(Tier Two Plus) is still in preliminary design. >The prototypes and the HAEs are set to transition to a USAF Recce Sqdn >at Fallon AFB. The prototypes are sustained by a political agenda among >the political appointees at DOD, not by mission needs or technology. Aren't they supposed to go to the 11th RS at Indian Springs AAF, on the Nellis Test Range, Nevada, and not to NAS Fallon? I won't speculate about the reasons why those Tier 1/2/3+/3- UAVs are developed, but politics always have something to do with it. I would like to know, though, why mission needs and technology would speak against them. >Elements in OSD and JCS are conspiring to kill the Army's BQM-155A >Tactical UAV that is integrated to the logistics and training systems and >is therefor deployable, supportable, sustainable and survivable and linked >to the G-2 hut at the operations level. What is the BQM-155A? Who builds it? What was its name before it received this designation (the last Missile designation I know is the AGM-154A JSOW). Or do you mean the canceled Joined Medium Range UAV, the Teledyne Ryan (TRA) BQM-145A? Or is it the TRW/IAI Hunter or one of the other older IAI out-of- production UAVs like Mastiff or Pioneer? What makes the BQM-155A so much more sophisticated compared with the Tier 1 or Tier 2 Predator? Both have LOS datalink and EO and IR payloads, and the Tier 2 will soon have an SAR and an OTH satellite data link. What better sensors and data-links does this vehicle offer? If you can believe AW&ST, then Tier 2 Predators performed exceptionally well, in exercises and lately in Bosnia. According to AW&ST, one of the lost Predators in Bosnia was probably shot down, which makes 2 lost due to engine failure, out of 10, which is a quarter, not a third (still a lot, though). I get the impression, you think that the US Army should operate all tactical UAVs, and those UAVs should be BQM-155As. I would like to know: Why? - -- 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/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: hoyt@isus.stat.com Date: Thu, 23 Nov 95 12:38:00 GMT Subject: RR: Re: Gravity I know Dr. Cravens, and have a copy of his Electric Propulsion study. I'm happy to say he mentions Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System (RS) of physics in it, however he incorrectly states that the Reciprocal System is a 6 dimensional system, when in fact it is a 3 dimensional system, but 3 dimensions of motion (s^3/t^3), not space. His study is a good survey of most of the alternative ideas in thrusters and energy production (and other physical anomalies). I think, however, that most if not all devices proposed are based on incorrect physics and will not work. There are physical anomalies observed often. but extensions of conventional modern physics will not succeed in explaining them. Dr. Cravens has demonstrated successful "cold-fusion" at symposia and is now well known in that field. According to the Reciprocal System, anti-gravity is not possible because the opposite of gravity is the expansion of the universe (constant 15 femto G repulsive acceleration). Reactionless thrust is theoretically possible however, and I submitted an SBIR proposal based on RS principles with Dr. Cravens. (Based on the theory that electricity is a one dimensional scalar motion, magnetism is two dimensional, and gravity is three dimensional, so passing current thru a mass partially neutralizes one of the three dimensions of mass leaving a two dimensional residue (magnetic field) at the expense of the mass (three dimensional), in other words, parametric mass modulation. This effect may have been observed in rail gun experiments. Hoyt Stearns, President ISUS See our new web page---------------v Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@isus.stat.| International Society of Unified Science| 4131 E. Cannon Dr. | .com OR | Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal | Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |fax 996 9088 | System- a unified physical theory. | voice *82 602 996-1717 http://infox.eunet.cz/interpres/sr/isus/index.html | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. --Arthur C. Clarke - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There are two major products to come out of Berekley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A slipping sear could let your M203 grenade launcher fire when you least expect it. That would make you quite unpopular in what's left of your unit. -- In the August 1993 issue, page 9, of PS magazine, the Army's magazine of preventive maintenance - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sacred cows make the best hamburger. -- Mark Twain - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ When you come to a fork in the road, take it. -- Yogi Berra - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #522 ********************************* 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).