Meanwhile, back on the SS Caroline

Now open for business. (Every cosmic neighborhood has a local watering hole. This one's ours.)
Forum rules
Behave or be thrown out. The bouncers are enormous out here in this no-gravity space.

Re: Meanwhile, back on the SS Caroline

Postby Griffin » Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:59 am

Nate,

Given, as I believe, TTB's long involvement in the study of ufology by 1952, I think he was aware of the 1948 sighting and telepathic contact by "The Prophet" as Hopi elders called him. That would have only provided the basic shape. Adamski's December, 1952 photo of the tilted underside provided important technical details. So TTB said.

Also, TTB was aware that the Germans were developing flying disc technology. That's what the 1945 secrets retrieval raid was about. If the Haunebu design is true, then TTB could have been aware of that general design in the 1940s from Germany.

But TTB definitely told me that Adamski's photo provided needed technical detail. I can only speculate as to what that was. To someone who doesn't personally know me, of course, this is only meaningful if they think I can be believed. And, given that, whether TTB was disinforming me. But to what purpose? I don't believe he was.

As ever,

Griffin
Griffin
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:17 pm

Re: Meanwhile, back on the SS Caroline

Postby nate » Fri Aug 05, 2016 4:21 am

Hi Griffin.

1. Yes, from the 1958 entries in his notebook it does seem that Townsend felt that the Adamski saucer shape was vitally important technical data. He was not the only one in the UFO back-engineering scene circa 1955 who felt that way (see eg Leonard Cramp). But it's possible for even smart people to get swept up in unjustified beliefs.

2. I feel that Townsend, based on his writings and behaviour, is a reasonably credible witness, though I'm not convinced all his scientific conjectures have been proven. His written statements are usually careful and consistent when he reports observed effects, and he separates his data from his personal interpretation. He strikes me as someone who keeps secrets, but when he does speak, tells the truth.

3. I also feel that Adamski, based on his writings and behaviour, is not at all a credible witness.

I'm not sure how to put those three things together.

The fourth fact that I find hard to resolve is: if Adamski really took those photos in December 1952, and they were Townsend's primary source for the shape of the saucer, how could Linda have seen the model in that year? Surely a precisely machined metal model (let alone one which contained layered dielectrics) couldn't have been produced in only a couple of weeks, in the lead-up to Christmas.

Regards, Nate
But on inspection of the dust
I came upon this thing called 'trust'
It helps
us to adjust
User avatar
nate
 
Posts: 896
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 4:03 am

Re: Meanwhile, back on the SS Caroline & the UFO

Postby Griffin » Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:49 pm

Nate –

What I’m saying is that it’s possible TTB might have had the basic design information pre-Adamski. From either or both a German source and The Prophet. He could probably infer or extrapolate a lot from even a little. There also exists a clear photo possessed by an American astronomer, but I’m unsure when it was taken. TTB only told me that he still needed the technical details which the Adamski photographs supplied. This seemed to imply that he already had a good overall idea of the design. Adamski’s second set of photographs, from December of 1952, were the clearest.

I was challenged to investigate Adamski in depth. And I was rather knee-jerk skeptical initially. But I’ve found that certain claims, at least, have essentially proven out. To me, there’s persuasive evidence for the existence of the “Model-A” Unearthly Flying Object, including the informed scientific oriented testimony of Cramp, Smith, and TTB. Come autumn, I may put my website up again and place my Adamski book draft in a passworded file for some invited Beta readings.

Environmental factors influence all our behaviors. Adamski’s family were emigrants and also Gypsy. Emigrants tend to have a certain protectiveness and insularity, as we might expect. Gypsies more so. They can be particularly insular and mistrustful. They’ve always been outsiders, who apparently did not leave northern India by choice. There’s a rather well supported theory that they were a large tribal military unit fighting “convert or die” Muslim invaders on India’s northeastern frontier. The theory postulates that they were flanked by the Muslim forces and completely cut-off from their homeland. To escape the increasing influx of Muslims pouring in behind them, their retreat westward became a migration. They stayed fiercely cohesive and martially self protective. One of their terms for non-Gypsies is claimed to have a military-like connotation. Like calling a non-soldier a “civilian” in a rather dismissing or demeaning way. To me, it’s not surprising that Adamski rather craftily spun his story in a kind of down-home to earth fashion to make it more receptive to a wide audience. Gypsies have maintained an innate need for cover and dissimulation anyway, and are often accused of being liars and thieves. When such behavior does occur, I think it’s a reflection of centuries old us-against-them distrust of “civilian” outsiders, who they feel can too easily turn on them anyway. But Adamski was, from all I’ve learned, totally committed to what he believed was his assigned task: spreading the Visitants’ nuclear-free message to our world. When you objectively look at what he succeeded in doing, at his age and with his years as a virtual spiritual recluse, it’s certainly remarkable. Especially, considering the obstacles. Of course, he had the help of colleagues. But they gradually dropped away, due to his mercurial behavior after the contacts. It’s possible he was manipulated. Williamson eventually gave up his nuclear-free stance and even his writing about the Visitants reality after what he considered to be the second premature death of a colleague, following warnings. He claimed he received a dire warning himself, which he took most seriously after Morris Jessup was “suicided” -- as Williamson believed.

Also, those so-called “scout craft” were reputedly primarily used for on-planet excursions. And, as the painting Linda has captures to some degree, you’d have to actually see that flying disc in its reality to appreciate its ethereal beauty.

Don’t indulge in the Black Pills. You might get caught with surprise drug testing, like MMA fighters and Olympians. Take good care.

As ever,

Griffin
Griffin
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:17 pm

Re: Meanwhile, back on the SS Caroline & the UFO

Postby nate » Sat Aug 06, 2016 9:17 am

Griffin wrote: To me, there’s persuasive evidence for the existence of the “Model-A” Unearthly Flying Object, including the informed scientific oriented testimony of Cramp, Smith, and TTB. Come autumn, I may put my website up again and place my Adamski book draft in a passworded file for some invited Beta readings.


That sounds intriguing.

Hakan Blomqvist seems to think that the Scout Ship represented a real object, and has collected several stories of 1950s contactees who claimed to see it - for example, his latest post on Edith Nicolaisen:
http://ufoarchives.blogspot.co.nz/2016/ ... ition.html

"In November 1955 on a moonlit evening between 22-23 p.m. about 15 km south of Linköping while waiting in my car for a train to pass, I suddenly caught sight of a beautiful green-light far above the way-lin´s green signal-light. In order to see better I rolled down the car-pane on the left side and put out my head – and there a few hundred meters above the ground a big bell-shaped ”Flying Saucer” with portholes and landing gears was suspended in the air.. In the clear moonlight it looked like a magnificient silhouette of the world-famous Venusian-scout-design. From one side of the portholes shone a shaft of green light and from the other a shaft of orange light. (The colours and the intensity reminded much about our most beautiful neon-light advertisements.) As I had time to watch this ”silhouette” suspended in the air for 2 á 3 minutes before it disappeaed of sight, I noticed the details as above described. The next day a local newspaper reported that five people south of Linköping had observed a ”Flying Saucer”. The description of the observers tallied with my own observation."


She was confused though as to why the saucer she saw had four portholes when the Adamski photos only showed three.

Something about the Scout Ship design with its pop-up top and its three 'landing balls' definitely captured the public imagination - it appeared in writings about UFOs if not reports of UFOs at least through to the 1970s. The Talahita Fry photo in that post also shows a roughly 'scout-ship' shape, but it's a different profile, not the same object. And both of them are subtly different from Townsend's 'tri-arcuate' shape. (And I agree, the 'electrohydrodynamics' painting has something oddly compelling about it).

I almost feel as if there's an element of thought-form going on. As if whatever the thing actually is, it manifests in a form taken from people's minds?

I think my first encounter with the classic Adamski shape was a 1970s illustration in a British educational magazine (World of Wonder), for an article on the future of space travel ('perhaps we'll meet aliens one day, travelling through space in flying saucers'). I'm sure my first reaction, not knowing anything of the Adamski story, was 'why would alien spaceships look like old-fashioned oil heaters?' I'm not sure why but that's what I associated that shape with.

Regards, Nate
But on inspection of the dust
I came upon this thing called 'trust'
It helps
us to adjust
User avatar
nate
 
Posts: 896
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 4:03 am

Re: Meanwhile, back on the SS Caroline

Postby Linda Brown » Mon Aug 08, 2016 4:10 am

I thought of you today NATE.... I was at a Swap meet and came across a vendor that was selling some very large spun aluminum pans..... they were beautiful... especially after I realized that they were almost the perfect model disc.....hahahaha.......I am to far away from needing the superstructure but there it was... all premade!

!
From the Shadow of Giant Rock
User avatar
Linda Brown
 
Posts: 15046
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: Meanwhile, back on the SS Caroline

Postby fruitbat » Thu Aug 18, 2016 5:03 am

"Surely a precisely machined metal model (let alone one which contained layered dielectrics) couldn't have been produced in only a couple of weeks, in the lead-up to Christmas."
IF you had access to well & equipped good engineers, then I see no reason why not, even using forties technology.
All this "thinking" like we do takes time, actually doing things, particularly in engineering with a team, can be very quick.
Never gIve up. Never surrender. - Commander Peter Quincy Taggart NSEA "Protector"
User avatar
fruitbat
 
Posts: 3443
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:59 pm
Location: Central UK.

Re: Meanwhile, back on the SS Caroline

Postby nate » Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:18 am

fruitbat wrote:"Surely a precisely machined metal model (let alone one which contained layered dielectrics) couldn't have been produced in only a couple of weeks, in the lead-up to Christmas."
IF you had access to well & equipped good engineers, then I see no reason why not, even using forties technology.
All this "thinking" like we do takes time, actually doing things, particularly in engineering with a team, can be very quick.


A good point. And looking again at the 'Electrohydrodynamics' document, I think I was quite wrong about the model being layered dielectrics. The Bahnson, Cornillion and Whitehall Rand/Electrokinetics/Decker EHD craft documents - as well as the earlier 1950s reports - seem to show that, in that design, the dielectric was entirely in the medium (plus one dielectric rod, to support the ring electrode to act as the other end of the circuit, generating that big toroidal flow pattern). The canopy discs were just an electrode with no internal structure. * So it should've been relatively straightforward to machine them, given a design to copy. The Scout Ship model was different from the Bahnson/Cornillion discs, perhaps made just for purposes of testing what the ion flow pattern was like with that silhouette, but the testing in oil suggests it was using the same medium-as-dielectric concept as the larger discs.

* Though, hmm, maybe still not quite correct - the Fan patents have the possibility of the electrode being also a partially conductive dielectric, eg resin with carbon particles embedded. But the EHD emphasis seems definitely to be on the medium as the main dielectric component.

Regards, Nate
But on inspection of the dust
I came upon this thing called 'trust'
It helps
us to adjust
User avatar
nate
 
Posts: 896
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 4:03 am

Re: Meanwhile, back on the SS Caroline

Postby fruitbat » Fri Aug 19, 2016 7:30 am

I'm going to mention this again, because I've never got a sensible reply or acknowledgement of the truth of the matter, just silly argument about whether it works that way..

A guy made a lifter where the lower electrode was a cylinder not a plate. Furthermore, that cylinder was held on a rod running axially through the centre allowing it a degree of free movement (if it wished) towards the wire. In the demo I watched, as the guy incrased the voltage FIRST the cylinder moved towards the wire THEN when it had hit the bar, it lifted the whole framework. This demonstrating that the prime mover in a naudin style lifter isn't a dielectric, it is the aloominum lower element.

Are there two distinct ways of doing movement by electrostatics?, Or am I fighting to reveal a suppressed truth here?
God, I wish my workshop would hurry up and materialise, I have so much practical work to do...

FB.
Never gIve up. Never surrender. - Commander Peter Quincy Taggart NSEA "Protector"
User avatar
fruitbat
 
Posts: 3443
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:59 pm
Location: Central UK.

Re: Meanwhile, back on the SS Caroline

Postby nate » Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:46 am

fruitbat wrote:Are there two distinct ways of doing movement by electrostatics?, Or am I fighting to reveal a suppressed truth here?


Both, I think! I don't have any practical experience to confirm it, but Townsend's 'Electrohydrodynamics' documents seem clear that - although some believed the movement was just ion wind - he believed there was another force. See eg:

http://www.thomastownsendbrown.com/hydr ... .htm#part2

In the first instance, shaped electrostatic fields create hydrostatic pressure (or motion) in dielectric media. When such media are fluids, a flow is produced. The flow can be directed against the electrodes, generally to move the electrodes. In such case, the moving structure acts as a "motor".


"this system of stresses . . . was first given by Helmholtz. The system differs from that given by Maxwell by including the pressure:

-R2/8pi 2K/2tau

"The neglect of this pressure by Maxwell, and by other writers who have followed him, does not appear to be defensible."

It is to be pointed out that in (iii) a hydrostatic pressure results from an electric field which, if the term 2K/2tau is negative, acts outwardly "in all directions".


I'm not quite sure what tau is in this equation, but I believe this 'hydrostatic pressure' is the 'electrostriction' force. As Townsend points out, this is much stronger than the 'dieelectrophoresis' force (the one that polarises molecules and makes them move toward the most concentrated part of the field). In Townsend's disc designs, he believed this field acted as a force outwards, away from the most concentrated part of the electric field.

The electrostriction force is not the usual brute-force positive-to-negative Coloumb force either. It requires a shaped field to manifest. Probably why the lifter has to have a small and big electrode.

Townsend I think also believed that this 'electrostriction force' was some kind of warping of space in an absolute sense, that it changed depending on the Earth's position relative to the moon and stars suggesting some kind of gravitational or absolute/ether frame connection. (Based on his 'differential electrometer' runs - he was very interested in I think Dayton Miller's interferometer runs as he saw a correlation between the two datasets). He also thought, I think, that this force scaled with the square of the voltage.

Most other observers didn't believe this electrostriction force was real and looked only at the 'electric wind' forces for motion, and 'space charge' (electrons accumulating in space around an electrode in a vacuum tube) as an explanation of the square-of-voltage law. Even Supplement B of Electrohydrodynamics, the outside review by Robert Seaman, takes this view ( http://www.thomastownsendbrown.com/hydro/hydrosb.htm )

Other documents mention the point that in the disc designs, one of the most important reasons for having a fluid dielectric (air or oil) was so that it could keep bringing fresh dielectric in, so that the system could 'keep charging'. Bearing in mind that in Townsend's descriptions of the gravitator/gravitor, and in the few other descriptions of Faraday electrogravity that exist in the literature, the 'electrogravitic' or (as Jefimenko calls it) 'electrokinetic' force only exists while the capacitor is charging (ie, while the voltage in the system in changing), not after it's charged and there's a steady-state voltage.

I suspect that a combination of all these effects and more is happening, which probably makes it quite complex to analyze even a lifter. But if an electrostriction force exist (I mean it's accepted it exists, but the usual analysis doesn't consider it significant in this system - and the actual force, if it's electrogravitic/electrokinetic, might be subtly different even from electrostriction, though Townsend's drawn a line between them), then the cylinder electrode moving may be consistent with that one. I'm guessing, though. But really hoping.

Thinking about his blackboard diagrams in the Bahnson lab, with what looks like a plate capacitor with arrows pointing outward on one side and inward on the other. What was this diagram showing?

Notebook 1, p129, April 7 1958, he speculates about this unknown force using the metaphor of 'dielectricity', a proposed counterpart to electricity. He's careful to note that he's speculating on the underlying mechanism, but basing it on his observations:
One characteristic of the flow of dieletricity appears to be its ability to create a force on the material through which it is slowing. It may be said that it was largely through the indications of its forceful effects that its presence was initially detected. In practically every experiment where a flow of dielectricity is established, an air flow results in the direction of the flux. In the beginning, the air flow was so pronounced that it was difficult to purify the results so as to eliminate what appeared to be the effects of an "electric wind".

It is to be noted that the classical concept of electric wind is perhaps inseparably confused and inter-related to the effects of a flow of dielectricity. Any electrified point, according to classical concepts, produces ions of the same sign as the point and hence are repelled by the point, producing a motion of the medium when their momentum is transferred to that medium. It is assumed that the reaction, resulting from the repulsion of the ions from the point, will drive the point in the opposite direction and that this reaction will be exactly equal and opposite to the forward momentum of the wind.


It's the same phenomenon that Valone and Jefimenko are talking about, I think. Townsend points out that you can use AC (Valone says this as well) because the circuit will self-rectify (Valone says because it charges in one direction and discharges in the other, so the signs flip).
It must be borne in mind that the generation of dielectricity is a kind of rectification process, producing unidirectional flow of dielectricity from either electrical polarity. Hence, AC at any frequency will generate dielectricity.


Regards, Nate
But on inspection of the dust
I came upon this thing called 'trust'
It helps
us to adjust
User avatar
nate
 
Posts: 896
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 4:03 am

Re: Meanwhile, back on the SS Caroline

Postby fruitbat » Sat Aug 20, 2016 10:56 am

Thanks Nate, thats solved a little mystery for me.
At risk of boring those who have already heard it, a few years back I built a lifter and a sensitive balance suitable for measuring force down to about 0.01 of a gramme.

I measured around three grams of lift when I connected it up one way and a tiny, tiny figure when I connected it the other way, and when I mentioned this a number of people saw fit to tell me (In all caps on one occasion) that "it doesn't work that way". Given that I'd not only observed, but quanitifed how it obviously does "work that way" I've been quite puzzled for a while, why my work drew that observation by others. Basically I hadn't read about (or absorbed) self rectification of the effect, and was just seeing what actually happened when I explored the operation of the hardware.

I'll need to do more practical work, before I can comment further.
FB.
Never gIve up. Never surrender. - Commander Peter Quincy Taggart NSEA "Protector"
User avatar
fruitbat
 
Posts: 3443
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:59 pm
Location: Central UK.

PreviousNext

Return to The Sword and The Teapot

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron