3 ms·

The technology exists, and it is among the toppest of secrets. If you have a head for technical reading, you can have this patent: US20120105181A1. That is a ru

The technology exists, and it is among the toppest of secrets. If you have a head for technical reading, you can have this patent: US20120105181A1. That is a rundown of the mathematics involved. You will also need to know about Radiatively Induced Fermion Resonance. Studying this secret relentlessly for years, I have found little bits of the puzzle. They are nuclear powered aircraft. They utilize a mercury-thorium solution as a fuel source and working fluid. Not a nuclear reactor, but a generator, directly converting the exploitable thorium beta decay chain, to a nuclear magnetic moment. The torus configuration is a self driving EM pump that then creates a force normal to gravity, like a super maglev. This is gimballed to achieve flight and maneuver. Many people have independently reversed this design, and the math is solid. I myself have collected documents to support every claim I just made. There is OPINT, SIGINT, HUMINT in there too. You dont see any Homer Hickam or North Korea types building them because they require literal tons of mercury, and the nuclear material. Mercury is very well controlled on a global scale, just like uranium, all kinds of environmental regulation. The reason this tech will never be publicly released: they are flying nuclear hazmat nightmares. They put out an identifiable form of radiation when they operate. They can be detected, once you know how they run. And we already have something better, there are rumors about newer ones with a better tech, but I dont quite understand the technical claims they make for how those work. Something about pulsed lasers and antimatter, the phrase Schwinger limit kept showing up. Anyway, go buy an old Levitron off of Ebay, set it on your desk, any whenever you feel glum about the future, give it a spin and remember that its a hand powered UFO.

kossTKR 6y ago
I have no way of verifying any of this, but your writing makes me reminisce about the weirder parts of the internet about 15 years ago. It was a time with a weird cross pollination between internet sleuths, fringe academia, x-files aestheticians and citizen journalists - before the waves of commercialisation would push these fringes out of sight and drown them in noise. I remember spartan looking websites with thorough and somewhat level headed journalism and research made by often highly educated hobbyists into the history of all kinds of stuff from CIA to Oluf Palme, from Göbekli Tepe to the backside of geopolitics. This is probably partly my mind playing tricks on me but what stood out was the depth of research, the common courtesy and the long well thought out replies people would write. People really had read the books, the docs, the papers and made up their minds from that. Today so much gets derailed into superficial identity or tribal politics, completely bonkers conspiracy-fiction ala Inforwars or psyop bullshit that is hard to attach any messenger to. Does anyone know where to get that hit of fringe without all of the hysteria and insanity today?
HelloNurse 6y ago
A fairly strange comment. 1) Engines requiring "tons of mercury" (and, presumably, more tons of thorium etc. dissolved in it) are likely to be heavier than competing technologies. For aircraft use, it's a significant drawback. 2)An engine that is based on heavy spinning parts might perhaps drive propellers, but military propeller aircraft have stopped being secret futuristic tech between 80 and 100 years ago. 3) Thorium is quite stable. How could its decay be exploited as a power source? Other radioactive elements, like the plutonium isotopes used in space probes (for heat production) offer a better compromise between stable enough to store and use as fuel and unstable enough to be weight-efficient. 4) Patent US20120105181A1 is illustrated with an actual Levitron toy. I'd assume it's a joke, but US20130175895A1 by the same author is a bit more interesting and along the same lines, and it has the appearance of egregious crackpot material (competing in the prestigious free energy/perpetual motion division).
nolite 6y ago
"I myself have collected documents to support every claim I just made."" Can you share with the rest of the class?

kossTKR 6y ago

I have no way of verifying any of this, but your writing makes me reminisce about the weirder parts of the internet about 15 years ago. It was a time with a weird cross pollination between internet sleuths, fringe academia, x-files aestheticians and citizen journalists - before the waves of commercialisation would push these fringes out of sight and drown them in noise. I remember spartan looking websites with thorough and somewhat level headed journalism and research made by often highly educated hobbyists into the history of all kinds of stuff from CIA to Oluf Palme, from Göbekli Tepe to the backside of geopolitics. This is probably partly my mind playing tricks on me but what stood out was the depth of research, the common courtesy and the long well thought out replies people would write. People really had read the books, the docs, the papers and made up their minds from that. Today so much gets derailed into superficial identity or tribal politics, completely bonkers conspiracy-fiction ala Inforwars or psyop bullshit that is hard to attach any messenger to. Does anyone know where to get that hit of fringe without all of the hysteria and insanity today?

HelloNurse 6y ago

A fairly strange comment. 1) Engines requiring "tons of mercury" (and, presumably, more tons of thorium etc. dissolved in it) are likely to be heavier than competing technologies. For aircraft use, it's a significant drawback. 2)An engine that is based on heavy spinning parts might perhaps drive propellers, but military propeller aircraft have stopped being secret futuristic tech between 80 and 100 years ago. 3) Thorium is quite stable. How could its decay be exploited as a power source? Other radioactive elements, like the plutonium isotopes used in space probes (for heat production) offer a better compromise between stable enough to store and use as fuel and unstable enough to be weight-efficient. 4) Patent US20120105181A1 is illustrated with an actual Levitron toy. I'd assume it's a joke, but US20130175895A1 by the same author is a bit more interesting and along the same lines, and it has the appearance of egregious crackpot material (competing in the prestigious free energy/perpetual motion division).

nolite 6y ago

"I myself have collected documents to support every claim I just made."" Can you share with the rest of the class?