From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #23 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Tuesday, March 28 2000 Volume 09 : Number 023 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** RE: Airborne Surveillance Platform Patent RE: Airborne Surveillance Platform Patent skunk-works@netwrx1.com RE: Airborne Surveillance Platform, giant triangle, formation flight RE: Airborne Surveillance Platform Patent RE: Airborne Surveillance Platform, giant triangle, formation flight FWD (FT) BAe's anti-gravity research braves X-Files ridicule RE: FWD (FT) BAe's anti-gravity research braves X-Files ridicule Re: FWD (FT) BAe's anti-gravity research braves X-Files ridicule Re: FWD (FT) BAe's anti-gravity research braves X-Files ridicule RE: FWD (FT) BAe's anti-gravity research braves X-Files ridicule FWD (FT to Skunk-Works) Re: BAe's anti-gravity research braves X-files ridicule Re: FWD (Skunk-Works to FT) Re: BAe's anti-gravity research braves X-Files ridicule *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 09:10:23 -0500 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: Airborne Surveillance Platform Patent The mission to rescue the Iranian hostages required a cargo aircraft. Based on the patents, the Aereon aircraft were intended to house radar. Indeed, "house" may be the wrong word since the radar antennae are shown as being integral to the machines. Therefore, assuming that a large Aereon airship had been built, it would not have been of use for the hostage mission. A second similar objection to the use of the large Aereon airship as a cargo (or personnel) transport is that a cargo plane (or whatever) has to be able to open to unload. For an aircraft that uses lighter-than-air gas to augment lift, there is the obvious objection that opening a large door in the hull would tend to let the gas escape. A final objection is that cargo loading, carriage and unloading system in aircraft must be an integral part of the structure of the aircraft. It cannot be an afterthought. I would think that this would be doubly true of a lightweight experimental aircraft. On another matter, the Hudson Valley is basically rural. There are, I recall, several semi-abandoned military facilities which could be converted to host the device we are discussing. Perhaps most significantly, upstate New York (which has very large "forever wild" parklands) may be the least populated large area in the general vicinity of the Princeton, NJ the home of the Aereon Corporation. Having been to both areas, I would think that upstate New York and the nearby Adirondack Park would be about as "private" as the area in Scotland in which the Machirhanish RAF base is located. Machirhanish on the west coast of Scotland near the nuclear sub base at Holy Loch, has often been mentioned in connection with black aircraft. Like upstate New York, this part of Scotland is generally rural but contains several large towns. In other words, while northeast New York state is hardly as private as the desert test facilities in the American west, it is probably as good as one can get within reasonable proximity to Princeton. My conclusion is that if the sightings in the Hudson Valley were accurate, they could be explained by a large scale aircraft of the type that the Aereon Corporation proposed and patented. To my mind there is nothing about the location of the alleged sightings that would preclude accepting them. While not ideal, Northern New York (at night) is not implausible as a test site for a device of this sort. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Overkill Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 12:50 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: RE: Airborne Surveillance Platform Patent >From: "Frank Markus" >Subject: RE: Airborne Surveillance Platform Patent >Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 07:55:20 -0500 >I have a vague recollection that the "deltoid pumpkinseed" came up here in >an early discussion of the "giant triangle" aircraft that was reported in >the upper Hudson Valley near Albany. Indeed, I may have been the one to >raise the name. And then, again, there was complete silence. I quickly scanned through 'Deltoid Pumpkinseed' at my local library a few years ago after Bill Sweetman made a reference to it while mentioning the idea of floating a large antenna on such a platform. I have read some speculation regarding the possibility that Aereon airships may have been responsible for the at least 38 overflight of the Hudson Valley observed by over 7000 local residents. However I believe that there are a few problems with such a theory. We now know that in September & October 1980 in a desperate effort to rescue the 52 Americans being held hostage in Tehran, rockets we affixed to a C-130 (Credible Sport) as a makeshift STOL transport. This conflict demonstrated a need for a special ops VTOL/STOL airlifter which clearly did not exist at that time. We also know that the first acknowledged 3D stealth aircraft (Tacit Blue) did not take to the air until February 1982. Yet sightings in the Hudson Valley of the 300+ft radar evasive aircraft began on December 31, 1982. That doesn't leave much time for development. Furthermore, the Hudson Valley aircraft was often witnessed hovering even in a strong head wind and sometimes vertically on end. Some witnesses also described tremendous accelerations which were corroborated by several police officers in Illinois who witnessed a similar aircraft in January of this year. Then there is the obvious question, why take a deep black aircraft and adorn it with multicolored lights and fly it over one of the most densely populated areas in the US on a regular basis for almost 4 years? The bottom line is that there have been so many sighting of these giant triangles world wide that the question of their existence is IMO a mute point. The real question is, what are they? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 09:18:48 -0500 From: "Morris, Andrew" Subject: RE: Airborne Surveillance Platform Patent General Electric has/had jet engine development center in Massachusetts, and GE had a radar development center in Utica NY (I used to drive by this building with an AWACs radome spinning on its roof), and back then that region (Mass/NY/CT) was also a Silicon Valley East with regard to software development, but then again, I think the gov has other more remote areas to fly or park a/c than the beautiful Hudson Valley of NY. And for those who think NYC sprawls north till it merges with Albany NY, there are vast tracks of the Hudson Valley populated at night by little more than crickets and darkness. Andy Morris ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 20:34:31 -0500 From: Corbon Subject: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Thought you guys might be interested in this article:

 http://www.pacpub.com/new/business/6-22-99/aereon.html

--
Corbon
-----
I don't know with what weapons World War III will be fought,
but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
-Einstein
  ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 22:51:58 -0500 From: Lipscomb Subject: RE: Airborne Surveillance Platform, giant triangle, formation flight On: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:50:04 -0600 Overkill wrote > > I have read some speculation regarding the possibility that > Aereon airships may have been responsible for the at least 38 > overflight of the Hudson Valley observed by over 7000 local > residents. However I believe that there are a few problems with > such a theory. ... giant triangles .... Yes, and here is another problem with this theory: formation-flying pranksters. On March 17, 1988 I arrived for our flying club's monthly "IFR night" at White Plains airport (about 25 miles north of New York City) around 7:00 p.m. and teamed up with Paul, another club member. IFR-rated pilots have to log 3 hours wearing vision-restricting hoods in real aircraft every 6 months, unless they get that much real IFR, to stay legally IFR current. I suggested we practice approaches at Waterbury-Oxford airport (40 miles to the northeast). Paul said OK, but let's go by way of Stormville airport about 35 miles due north. Hmm. The chart shows the three airports making almost an equilateral triangle. Pretty big detour. Paul said that maybe, just maybe, there might be something interesting to see, and then he clammed up. I couldn't get anything else out of him. Odd, but OK, let's go. Paul climbed into the left seat of N64088, a Cessna 172 and got his hood ready. I took the right seat as the "safety pilot," who looks for trouble out the window while the other pilot wears the vision-restricting hood. Near Stormville airport this appeared below us (imagine bigger gaps): . . . . . . . <-- . Stormville airport The big "wing," a few hundred feet wide, was turning slowly left. The isolated light was crawling slowly from the direction of the airport to the big "wing," which was a few miles to the west. These were isolated points of lights, not standard aircraft lights. I blurted out something like, "Hey, look a that," and Paul took off his hood. It turns out that he used to hang out with these formation-flying pranksters. They went by the charming name of the "Mid-Hudson UFO Chapter" as if to imply that there might be upper-Hudson and lower- Hudson chapters, but there aren't. He didn't know that they would be out that night, but knowing them and knowing it was St. Patrick's day he guessed they would be in a party mood. I wish I had been curious enough to ask who they were or what they flew. If ultralights, then flying at night would be a violation. If certified aircraft, then hanging lights on them would be a violation (all equipment must be officially approved with an STC). Even though circling, they kept the lines very straight. Obviously they had done this before. Formation flying at night has got to be a highly technical specialty. I thought of descending to check them out more closely, but just that brief thought of maneuvering near points of light an uncertain distance away was frightening. OK in theory, but to actually do it... nooo way. A gravely voice came on the radio. We always listen to a New York approach frequency to maintain a realistic level of distraction while practicing IFR procedures. "What's that thing down there?" I thought that was amusing. Correct radio phraseology would be something like, "TransGlobal 1234; what is that thing down there?" Obviously he didn't want his company name on the ATC tape. Amusing too that Approach knew who he was, where he was, what he meant, and that Approach was already on top of the situation. The controller called it a formation of private pilots. We were gone before they had completely formed up. We decided to skip Waterbury-Oxford. Paul shot a few approaches to Stormville. We landed at Stormville to swap seats. All was quiet. I shot the VOR-A approach to Stormville (The "VOR" means that we flew 7 miles to the northwest to the VOR beacon, turned around, and came back. The "A" means that we weren't lined up with the runway when we got there.) Still no signs of intelligent life at Stormville, so I headed south for the ILS 34 approach to White Plains. We landed at around 10:00 p.m. Nothing was in the Westchester county newspapers the next few days, so I guess they didn't head south from Stormville to Westchester that night. I haven't been everywhere all the time in the area, but at that time and place the fakers were out there. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:32:39 -0600 From: Overkill Subject: RE: Airborne Surveillance Platform Patent As pointed out in the very interesting article refered to by Corbon ('The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed Revisited'), the Aereon aircraft were originally invisioned primarily in the airlift roll. The reference to the 320' transport is especially interesting but as the Air Force was aware of the Aereon proposals by such time it is safe to assume that this aircraft did not exist as of late 1980. There is also, to my knowledge, no evidence of the use of such technology during the Gulf War in either surveillance or transport rolls. In referance to your comments regarding the rural nature of the Hudson Valley, it must be pointed out that on several occations the mystery aircraft both followed as well as hovered directly above the Taconic Parkway with what was described as intensly bright lights illuminating the numerous cars stopped below. It was clear that the pilots were not concerned with calling attention to their aircraft, in fact they seemingly invited it. Could Aereon have been trying to call official interest to themselves? Possibly, but what about the performance aspects of the sightings? >From: "Frank Markus" >Subject: RE: Airborne Surveillance Platform Patent >Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 09:10:23 -0500 >The mission to rescue the Iranian hostages required a cargo aircraft. Based >on the patents, the Aereon aircraft were intended to house radar. Indeed, >"house" may be the wrong word since the radar antennae are shown as being >integral to the machines. Therefore, assuming that a large Aereon airship >had been built, it would not have been of use for the hostage mission. >A second similar objection to the use of the large Aereon airship as a cargo >(or personnel) transport is that a cargo plane (or whatever) has to be able >to open to unload. For an aircraft that uses lighter-than-air gas to >augment lift, there is the obvious objection that opening a large door in >the hull would tend to let the gas escape. >A final objection is that cargo loading, carriage and unloading system in >aircraft must be an integral part of the structure of the aircraft. It >cannot be an afterthought. I would think that this would be doubly true of >a lightweight experimental aircraft. >On another matter, the Hudson Valley is basically rural. There are, I >recall, several semi-abandoned military facilities which could be converted >to host the device we are discussing. Perhaps most significantly, upstate >New York (which has very large "forever wild" parklands) may be the least >populated large area in the general vicinity of the Princeton, NJ the home >of the Aereon Corporation. > Having been to both areas, I would think that upstate New York and the >nearby Adirondack Park would be about as "private" as the area in Scotland >in which the Machirhanish RAF base is located. Machirhanish on the west >coast of Scotland near the nuclear sub base at Holy Loch, has often been >mentioned in connection with black aircraft. Like upstate New York, this >part of Scotland is generally rural but contains several large towns. In >other words, while northeast New York state is hardly as private as the >desert test facilities in the American west, it is probably as good as one >can get within reasonable proximity to Princeton. >My conclusion is that if the sightings in the Hudson Valley were accurate, >they could be explained by a large scale aircraft of the type that the >Aereon Corporation proposed and patented. To my mind there is nothing about >the location of the alleged sightings that would preclude accepting them. >While not ideal, Northern New York (at night) is not implausible as a test >site for a device of this sort. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 23:01:01 -0600 From: Overkill Subject: RE: Airborne Surveillance Platform, giant triangle, formation flight >Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 22:51:58 -0500 >From: Lipscomb >Subject: RE: Airborne Surveillance Platform, giant triangle, formation flight >Yes, and here is another problem with this theory: formation-flying >pranksters. Although it has been suggested before, the prankster theory is untenable. Many of the witnesses were absolutely certain that they were observing a solid structured aircraft at close proximity. There were numerous corroborating descriptions of color, shape, detail and absence of sound beyond that of humming described by a few witnesses. This is further reenforced by the large number of witnesses who observed the aircraft hovering while rotating upon it's own axis. (Might an Aereon type airship be more stable while rotating, thus loading control surfaces, rather than simply hovering stationary?) None the less, these were not simply lights in the sky observations. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:11:09 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (FT) BAe's anti-gravity research braves X-Files ridicule < http://www.greenglow.co.uk > James Meek, science correspondent The Guardian Monday March 27, 2000 < http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,151331,00.html > MAX: There are scientists in Finland who say that they've detected antigravity over the surface of a spinning superconducting disc. (He laughs.)... - - X-Files episode, March 1997 The cameo appearance in the TV sci-fi series of the "gravity shielding" experiments of the Finland-based Russian scientist Yevgeny Podkletnov summed up the reaction of the physics world to his work: it belonged in the realm of fantasy. But not everyone sneered. The military wing of the hi-tech conglomerate BAe Systems took the Podkletnov experiment so seriously that it has launched an anti-gravity research programme, Project Greenglow. If the technology could be made to work it would make existing forms of transport obsolete. BAe last week confirmed that the project, led by the mathematician Ron Evans, existed but would give no further details. Like many of the few scientists around the world exploring gravity shields and gravity beams, Dr Evans is believed to be fearful of ridicule. The cold fusion debacle, when scientists' claims to have created a solution to the world's energy problems in a lab flask were discredited, casts a long shadow. Dr Evans, at BAe's stealth and electronic warfare department at Warton, Lancashire, is understood to be working with scientists at Lancaster University. There is a sparse website, www.greenglow.co.uk, which describes the project as "a speculative research programme - the beginning of an adventure which other enthusiastic scientists from academia, government and industry might like to join, particularly those who believe that the gravitational field is not restricted to passivity." In 1996 Dr Podkletnov claimed to have discovered a way to shield objects from gravity by placing them over a superconducting disc which, in turn, rotated above powerful electromagnets. His findings were to be published in a British physics journal, but news leaked out and, after press stories that scientists had made an anti-gravity device, he was booed by peers who accused him of breaking the laws of physics.He withdrew his paper and went into a huff. The unversity that had sponsored him, in Tampere, Finland, withdrew its support, and he has returned to Russia. But the notion of a machine that could gently lift objects - people, freighters, spacecraft - with a hum of electricity gripped some people. A few serious scientists and engineers have been trying to reproduce Dr Podkletnov's results. This month he slipped into Britain to give a lecture at Sheffield University, where he claimed that the latest Russian gravity shielding experiments had made objects 5% lighter, compared with 2% in the Finnish study. The ice age is coming, the sun is zooming in Engines stop running and the wheat is growing thin A nuclear error, but I have no fear London is drowning-and I live by the river - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:07:59 -0500 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: FWD (FT) BAe's anti-gravity research braves X-Files ridicule I mistrust all UFO-type reports and this message illustrates why. I do not watch the X Files. Under no circumstances would I give any weight to the opinions expressed in a paranoid entertainment. I wonder why the opinions of a fictional character matter in the real world. One has to wonder whether a serious firm like BAe would first give a research program a code name (especially one so melodramatic as "Project Greenglow") and then proceed to publicize it. To whom did BAe confirm that this project exists. And why? There is no real reason to assume that if anti-gravity devices could be made to work, that they would make existing forms of transportation obsolete. Leaving aside the question of suitability of various systems for various types of work, there is the obvious question of cost. Just because something can be done does not mean that it should be done or that it can be done at a competitive price. There are many examples of this but in the context of this list, I would merely point to the economic failure of the splendid Concorde - or the reasons given for the retirement of the magnificent SR-71. And does anyone actually want an anti-gravity canoe? What is the source of the statement (in the passive voice) that "[h]is findings were to be published in a British physics journal, but news leaked out and, after press stories that scientists had made an anti-gravity device, he was booed by peers who accused him of breaking the laws of physics." Booed? Really! In Britain? I can think of many wonderful notions more compelling than "the notion of a machine that could gently lift objects - people, freighters, spacecraft - with a hum of electricity." Among these I would list unicorns, Superman and the Orgone Box. And, of course, the famously suppressed 100 mpg carburetor. I assume extraordinary lecture at Sheffield University has been published. Where? Finally, I appeal to those on this list who are trained in engineering to elucidate whether a device of unknown weight consuming energy from a source of unknown weight and operating at an unknown efficiency is of any economic importance. Moreover, is there any reason to believe that anti-gravity would not lose its power in the classic inverse square relationship to the gravitational source upon which it is operating? In other words, why assume that the thing will not become progressively less effective as it rises from the surface of the object whose gravity it is opposing? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:16:30 EST From: MELUMAN@aol.com Subject: Re: FWD (FT) BAe's anti-gravity research braves X-Files ridicule Gosh, Frank. You sure are a spoilsport. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:53:52 -0600 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: FWD (FT) BAe's anti-gravity research braves X-Files ridicule MELUMAN@aol.com wrote: > > Gosh, Frank. You sure are a spoilsport. Yeah, and if I have correctly interpreted his comment on the SR-71, I'm even more outraged! ;-) Al ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 09:45:16 -0500 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: FWD (FT) BAe's anti-gravity research braves X-Files ridicule I may have been unclear. I did not intend to support the grounding of the SR-71. Rather, I was trying to use it as an example of the power that economics has in the decision of whether to employ a system as effective and elegant as the Blackbird. In the case of the Blackbird, the cost of operating it was used as the justification for an action that was probably taken for completely different reasons than those stated. This has, of course, been discussed on the list at length. I used the phrase "the reason given" rather than "the reason" in an attempt to make this distinction. The point of my rant was to point out the weaknesses of a posting to the list that I felt was both inappropriate to the topic of the list and also very weak on its own merits. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Albert H. Dobyns Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 11:54 PM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: FWD (FT) BAe's anti-gravity research braves X-Files ridicule MELUMAN@aol.com wrote: > > Gosh, Frank. You sure are a spoilsport. Yeah, and if I have correctly interpreted his comment on the SR-71, I'm even more outraged! ;-) Al ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:57:40 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (FT to Skunk-Works) Re: BAe's anti-gravity research braves X-files ridicule Niall Rote: >BAe's anti-gravity research braves X-Files ridicule Oh dear - time for some damage limitation. Why do journalists persist with X-files metaphors *every single time* they report something a little unusual? Isn't it a bit of a cliche by now? >The military wing of BAe sytems took the Podletnov experiment >seriously & has launched an anti gravity research programme - Project >Greenglow. > >Led by mathematician Ron Evans at BAe's stealth & electronic warfare >department at Warton Lancashire, working together with scientists at >lancaster University > >Theres is a sparse website: www.greenglow.co.uk "Greenglow" is merely the most recent incarnation of a small group looking at advanced propulsion (including, but not limited to, gravity modification). It was not launched as a result of Podkletnov's work. It's called Greenglow because some concept artwork done in the early 90s showed craft with green light coming from the undersides. Ron is running pretty much a one-man show, and is so poorly funded that he cannot even devote all his time to it. No mention is made in the article that NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics group is also taking it seriously. The website is sparse because we have to be careful what we say so that shareholders don't get upset, and because Ron doesn't have the time to spare to update the site. This report smells of sour grapes - the reporter couldn't get anything out of us because there wasn't much to tell as yet. >His findings were due to be published in a british Physics journal, >but news leaked out and after press stories about an anti-gravity >device he was booed by peers who accused him of breaking thelawsof >physics. He withdrew hispaper and went into a huff. The university >that had sponsored him, Tampere in Finland withdrew its support and he >returned to Russia. I've got a preprint of this paper - Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics Vol 29 (1996) p1-5. It's currently available on the Los Alamos preprint server in updated form. I don't think he went off in a huff - he was forced to change jobs and had to pick up the pieces of his life. He has never used the word "antigravity" to describe his device. The original press report that caused all the fuss was in the Sunday Telegraph, 1st September 1996, p.7. He's still living in Finland AFAIK. >Thismonth he slipped to Britain to give a lecture atSheffield >University wheer he claimed the latest Russian Gravity shielding made >objects 5% lighter compared to 2% in the Finnish study. This makes it sound like it was a secret visit - it wasn't, it was an open lecture (and I know for a fact that Nick Cook of Jane's was there). At least the reporter got the percentages correct. If anyone is interested, I've been running a mailing list on the topic at greenglow@egroups.com. Rob going off in a minute and a huff - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 09:04:58 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: FWD (Skunk-Works to FT) Re: BAe's anti-gravity research braves X-Files ridicule (Terry, feel free to pass this back to the SW list) Terry forwarded: >I mistrust all UFO-type reports and this message illustrates why. > >I do not watch the X Files. Under no circumstances would I give any weight >to the opinions expressed in a paranoid entertainment. I wonder why the >opinions of a fictional character matter in the real world. Well, the real world came first. The producer of the X-Files likes to include recent real-world developments in the series to keep it "anchored" in reality, eg. BSE and CJD for example. Unfortunately the persistent and cliched use of X-Files metaphors by journalists to describe anything even slightly unusual tends to damage the credibility of the thing they are reporting. >One has to wonder whether a serious firm like BAe would first give a >research program a code name (especially one so melodramatic as "Project >Greenglow") and then proceed to publicize it. To whom did BAe confirm that >this project exists. And why? Yes, they did give it that name - a humourous reference to the green glow shown in artists' concepts of antigrav craft produced for BAe in the early 90s during an earlier incarnation of their advanced propulsion studies. We do have a website, and an unofficial mailing list (greenglow@egroups.com). If you contact the PR department at Warton, they will confirm its existence to anyone. Unfortunately research is still at an early stage and there isn't much to tell, and besides we have to be mindful of the reaction of shareholders. In addition, it is a *very* small program, Ron is really the only official member - the rest of us do what we can in our spare time. It is nowhere near as big as the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics programme, but then our aims are less far-reaching - we would settle for improved atmospheric or near-Earth transport, we're not too bothered about warp drives for the present :-). >What is the source of the statement (in the passive voice) that "[h]is >findings were to be published in a British physics journal, but news leaked >out and, after press stories that scientists had made an anti-gravity >device, he was booed by peers who accused him of breaking the laws of >physics." Booed? Really! In Britain? (London) Sunday Telegraph, 1st September 1996 page 7 was the initial "leak". The paper (of which I have a preprint) was to be published in Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, v.29 (1996), pages 1-5. Contact the Institute of Physics Publishing company for further info. I think lack of backup from his colleagues and his university caused him to withdraw the paper after lots of unwelcome media interest. He has *never* claimed to have created an anti-gravity device - he describes it as "gravity modification". >I can think of many wonderful notions more compelling than "the notion of a >machine that could gently lift objects - people, freighters, spacecraft - >with a hum of electricity." Among these I would list unicorns, Superman >and the Orgone Box. And, of course, the famously suppressed 100 mpg >carburetor. So you're saying we shouldn't even try to investigate it? So much for scientific curiosity..... >I assume extraordinary lecture at Sheffield University has been published. >Where? Well, he did have a set of presentation slides, but they were not available in hardcopy. It wasn't really a lecture, more of a discussion. >Finally, I appeal to those on this list who are trained in engineering to >elucidate whether a device of unknown weight consuming energy from a source >of unknown weight and operating at an unknown efficiency is of any economic >importance. Moreover, is there any reason to believe that anti-gravity >would not lose its power in the classic inverse square relationship to the >gravitational source upon which it is operating? In other words, why assume >that the thing will not become progressively less effective as it rises from >the surface of the object whose gravity it is opposing? Podkletnov claims that the gravity modification (*not* shielding, *not* antigravity) appears to remain constant over terrestrial distances (checking on the floors above his lab). The current experimental setup is inefficient, yes, but it may be pointing the way to an effect which could be made more efficient and created in other ways. See, for example the work of Fran de Aquino of Brazil, who claims up to 75% weight reduction using ELF radiation and high-permittivity conductors. Robert Chambers BAE SYSTEMS on behalf of Project Greenglow (< http://www.greenglow.co.uk >) - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #23 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.com". 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 local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. 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 viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works/ If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner