Here’s
something I noticed as I was reviewing the sightings near Levelland, Texas on
November 2, 1957. There were many reports that vehicle engines stalled, lights
dimmed and radios filled with static at the close approach of the UFO. I’m not
going to argue numbers here, or point fingers at the lack of substantive
investigation, but comment only on one aspect of the case.
I
will note first that the Condon Committee investigation at the University of
Colorado, funded by the Air Force, attempted to learn something about these
sightings. In an experiment, they could find no way to suppress the electrical
energy of an engine that would allow it to restart when the suppression field,
whatever it might have been, was removed. Dimmed lights might brighten and static
filled radios might clear, but the engines would not restart automatically.
While
I’m not sure that their experiments or conclusions were based on good science,
I have noticed something in the reports. Here’s what one of the witnesses,
Newell Wright, a 19-year-old college student, reported about his encounter with
the UFO:
I was driving home from Lubbock on
state highway 116 [the same highway that Saucedo was on] at approximately 12:00
p.m. when the ammeter on my car jumped to complete discharge, then it returned
to normal and my motor started cutting out like it was out of gas. After it had
quit running, my lights went out. I got out of my car and tried in vain to find
the trouble…. It was at this time that I saw this object, I got back into my
car and tried to start it, but to no avail. After that I did nothing but stare
at this object until it disappeared about 5 minutes later. I then resumed trying to start my
car and succeeded with no more trouble than under normal circumstances.
And just so I’m not accused of taking
but a single example from these sightings and applying it to all of them, let
me say that Jim Wheeler said that when the UFO took off, his lights came back
on and he was able to start his car.
Ronald Martin, who also reported his
car engine stalled and his lights dimmed, suggested that when the UFO left, the
lights came on and his car engine started. But I’m not sure if that was
something spontaneous or if he meant that he could now start it himself.
In other reports it does seem as if the
cars started without any action by the witness once the UFO was gone. We have a
discrepancy here. In some reports, the witness said that the engine would not
start while the UFO was near but they were able to start it once the UFO was
gone. That was what I found intriguing about Wright’s and Wheeler’s accounts.
They reported they had to start their cars.
I wondered if the other witnesses, in
the course of talking about it, might have been misunderstood, meaning they too
started their cars… or if they had started them they hadn’t realized that they
had.
I don’t know if this is a big deal or
not. It was just something that I noticed that I hadn’t seen pointed out by
anyone else. The electrical systems were suppressed, the lights and the radios
worked fine when the UFO took off but the car needed to be started again, at
least according to some. Different electrical systems and different ways of
working. Maybe most of those who reported that the lights came on and the
engine started meant that they were able to start it. Maybe some of them didn’t
remember having to start it, only that it worked once the UFO was gone.
The solution here is simple. In
future cases like this, the investigators should make sure that the engine
started again without any action by the witness. Just a simple question to
clarify the situation. That might give us an insight into this.
36 comments:
In 1957 there were still vehicals on the road that had floor mounted starter switches. These were spring loaded pedals that engaged the starter by closing the switch with foot pressure.
It might help to know what the vehicals in question were equiped with.
Curious stuff, there's no harm in clearing up details for one's consideration on a subject, even if they are just curious.
I'm already wondering how many UFO reports involve an unidentified flying object that is reported as being rather close to operating electrical equipment ... but is not accompanied by reports of electrical failure of any kind.
I think that numbers alone don't necessarily tell a believable story, but they can be curious.
An interesting case.
This would probably need an expert on both 1950's cars and the relevant physics, but on the assumption that the ammeter mentioned was probably a moving-coil ammeter this would be sensitive to an electromagnetic field.
Could the change of reading be an effect on the meter rather than an actual change of state in the battery? The general cutting out of lights may argue against such a simple scenario.
Could we be looking at induced currents here? The cutting out of lights and the engine suggests the normal flow of the charge was being resisted.
I would have thought that if the effect is initially to cut out the engine then the starter motor would normally have to be engaged after the event to get the car to restart whilst other devices (lights, radios etc.) would still be switched to the 'on' position and so would return to normal once current began to flow again.
Treat all the above with extreme caution - this really needs a physicist to consider further.
What are the characteristics of an EM field that could produce this range of effects?
Can this be found naturally - e.g. in association with a plasma?
Gentlemen -
I believe you have missed the point here. In many of the EM cases, people report that the cars, which had stalled, restarted when the UFO left. I noticed in these specific cases that the drivers were required to take some action... they started the car after the UFO was gone, but had failed when it was close.
I wondered if we might have misinterpreted what some witnesses were saying. Yes, the lights that had dimmed brightened and the radios were no longer filled with static. They said the car started when the UFO was gone... but did it start by itself or was some actin taken. I thought a question to witnesses might clear this up but don't believe there is much to be done at Levelland since that all happened more than a half century ago.
@Sarge is spot on regarding the floor mounted starter switches. There were a lot of 6 volt electrical systems on the road back then. The starter switch had to have huge copper contacts to handle the starter motor current, twice the current of later 12 volt systems. The spring in the switch was quite strong, to make it more difficult to engage accidentally. It is highly unlikely that these vehicles could have been restarted remotely, unless the UFOs had technology capable of physically moving specific things like one switch of many in an auto.
It's more likely a misunderstanding: "...my car stopped, I couldn't start it...then it started." Are we to assume that it started by itself? No, unless a UFO was involved? Does common sense evaporate in the UFOs energy field?
Microwave/RF radiation can have disruptive effects on simple electrical systems like those found in 50s-era autos. Because the circuits were so simple, they likely would survive such an application, whereas todays computer-controlled cars would likely sustain permanent damage. Some even have remote start capabilities! :)
Moving-iron or moving-magnet ammeters are tough, but moving-coil types are delicate.
@AM - Your 'induced currents' hypothesis is a good one. I would suggest that some sort of interference with the battery itself is a possibility. With the engine running, and lights and radio on, any reduction in battery voltage will show up as a discharge on the ammeter. But, in that state, the generator should begin charging as well. A very interesting phenomenon.
That said, any serious research on this would be complicated and time consuming, neither of which is possible, given the lack of data.
I'll bet $$-2-doughnuts that the military is quite evolved in EM research, and could explain exactly how these effects can be achieved.
I gotta go...
Leonard Stringfield reported UFO EM effects at the end of WWII when he was an AF intel officer on his way to Japan. They sighted four UFOs, the engines sputtered, and they were almost forced to ditch the plane.
I know of two UFO EM cases from the summer 1947 wave, one involving prospector Fred Johnson on Mt. Adams who probably saw the same objects that Kenneth Arnold did after they had flown south and disappeared from Arnold's view. Johnson reported the objects were affecting his compass.
Another case was near Austin, Texas, July 7. A military plane crew sighted a "flying saucer" going at an estimated 1400 mph. It interfered with their radio.
In the late 1990s, the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board put out a white paper on their vision for a 21st century Air Force. It included high-powered microwave weapons that could be used to stall internal combustion engines, perhaps the result of a back-engineering program inspired by UFO stallings.
Usually these car stalling cases are internal combustion engines with ignition systems, whereas diesel engines lacking spark coils, high voltage wiring, and spark plugs are unaffected. This has led to speculation that the EM interference is in the ignition, perhaps interfering with the engine timing, which would cause stalling. If an engine was sputtering, but still turning, if only barely, it might come back to normal after the interference disappeared, but a thoroughly stalled engine should not spring back to life unless something also caused the starter motor to turn over the engine.
@David
IIRC, those WWII radial engines had magneto ignition systems, which operated without batteries.
Interesting.
Diesel engines are totally thermal/mechanical, though, IIRC, all use glow plugs to start.
Moral: don't stall your diesel when UFOs are around :)
'Lights dimming' would indicate a reduction in battery voltage, which would also result in 'engine sputtering' (not getting continuous spark) Such a reduction could be caused by an excessive load(current draw) on the battery, or battery voltage reduction. All the while the generator is trying to charge the battery.
It's a conundrum.
I gotta go...
D.R. -
I refer you to these two excellent looks at this by a couple of guys that actually have degrees in either engineering or astrophysics:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/vehicleinterference.htm
Whether the engines restart or are started, the interference suggests a strong field effect. I wonder if any people involved in these kind of sightings later had any related health issues, even though the initial effect was transient?
My father, Gaines Crook, wrote an article in 1990 which was rejected by MUFON because his analysis of EM effects did not agree with the then MUFON research director's opinions.
My father was a specialist in engineering applications in regards to electromagnetics.
Rich Reynolds was kind enough to post the rejected paper and some of his other papers. You can find it here: http://ufoh.blogspot.com/2014_01_01_archive.html
An explanation of the rejection can be found here: http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2014/01/gaines-m-crooks-rejected-mufon-article.html
A copy of his resume can be found in the latter half of this article: http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2014/01/an-interesting-take-on-ufo-phenomenon.html
It summarizes all of the various reported "stoppage types" and suggests that what is being called "electromagnetic effects" are notathe kind of EM effects we are able to produce and that calling them what the UFOs are doing EM related is an unwarranted label since there is no know way that you can suppress an EM field using Electromagnetics... or at least not with any kind we have discovered.
As for an explanation his working theory on how they do this is by manipulating the "universal constants" of e0 and µ0 by unknown means which has the net effect of shutting off the ability for electrons to flow along a conductor.
His conclusion about the "auto starting" cars was: "I have also tentatively concluded that the engine seemingly restarted by themselves may have been restarted by the percipient but due to their dazed mental condition they did not remember doing it."
Note that recently I discovered among his papers an account of how a UFO stopped his car in 1973 in the western end of the Antelope Valley, California. After the UFO left the battery appeared to be dead. They got a jump start from a passing motorist and were able to drive to a place where they could call for help [no cell phones in the boonies then!] but when the battery was taken to Sears for replacement [it was a "DieHard"]. The battery tech said there was nothing wrong with it.
regards,
Joel Crook
Joel -
Well, I guess I was beat to my grand revelation by your father. As I noted in the post, I noted that some of the witnesses said they restarted the car when the UFO was gone, something that they had been unable to do when the UFO was near. I wondered about what others said, such as the car started once the UFO was gone, which didn't rule out them taken some sort of action on their part.
Since the Condon Committee rejected the idea that the cars would start by themselves and they could reject this idea because they had failed to find a reason for it the restarting, I thought we might want to revisit this one conclusion. Looks as if you father, who had the proper training made a better case for it than I did.
But then, it does show that we are advancing UFO research, even if it is one small step at a time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UFcyAeGQBc at 8:40 theres a police officer that attests to the car restarting on its own, after the UFO left. This is a different incident, but still an interesting side-note.
"But then, it does show that we are advancing UFO research, even if it is one small step at a time."
Yes, always towards prosaic explanations.
Lance
Lance -
Not always... but always toward the truth.
It seems likely that if UFOs are extraterrestrial vehicles or extraterrestrial robotic systems, they would take all the possible care in case they got in the proximity of a human person or a human vehicle. This would be for the UFO safety and probably for the safety of the affected human.
In this sense, the UFO system should have all the proper advanced technology of scanning mechanisms and facilities in order to detect and stop any weapon or system that may potentially harm the UFO. The scanning system should be able to understand any archaic (electromagnetic, thermodynamical, electronic, chemical, mechanical, quantum, nuclear) technology present in the human vehicle and any biological feature present in the human or animal that the UFO is approximating.
The UFO system must also be able to prevent the starting of any mechanism that the human may want to trigger (like for example a bazooka stored in the rear case of the car) and hopefully will be able to read the immediate will of the human or animal brain. The system should be able to turn off, un-energize and turn-on any system present, including the ability to paralyze people's movement and consciousness.
The UFO system should be able to act into the human's or animals's memory and feelings, in order to calm down it, make it forget the experienced sight, or make it sleep, as per required.
After the intervention and/or stoppage of the human or technological system, The UFO system should have the ability to restart or leave any human technological system operative, be it air heater, air conditioning system, communication device, transportation vehicle, etc. in order to assure the well being of the human/animal, assuring his safe return to their original way or goal.
In other words, we should not be surprised by engine spontaneous restarts after the UFO leaves. Such occurrence would be fully consistent with the ETH. (muahaha!)
Going back to the physics...
If you have a dc current and subject that to a magnetic field you get an effect called 'back emf', initially, and for a short time, the apparent resistance of the wiring increases with this effect dropping off rapidly. If the magnetic field is removed the induced magnetic field around the wiring begins to decay. This causes a momentary spike in voltage of reversed polarity in the wiring.
Now, in a steady magnetic flux these effects are transitory. If the field is pulsed, as may be the case in UFOs there may be a rapidly oscillating sequence of increased resistance and induced voltages of opposite polarity to the car's circuit. Current would flow, if I understand it correctly but rapid changes in voltage.
Hope I've not misunderstood the relevant physics and all comments gratefully received.
I'm terms if spontaneous restarts the reference above to McCampbell's 1983 paper on this in UFO evidence may well be on the right lines, but I am sceptical off the practicality of ionisation from UV radiation within an engine compartment.
I still need to read the ref regarding changing fundamental constants.
Anthony: James McCampbell rejected UV or other short-wavelenth EM as causes of UFO engine stalling because little would penetrate under the hood and cause air ionization, which he thought might be responsible for causing the engines to stall. (Highly conducting ionized air around high voltage ignition wires might partly short them out, drop the voltage, and prevent sparking of the spark plugs.
Instead, McCampbell thought high-powered microwaves might do the trick. He noted that dozens of such UFO-associated engine stallings collected over the year showed that the UFO’s needed to be in relatively close proximity to the cars.
He also noted spontaneous engine restarting once the UFO left the area was reported in only about 10% of the cases and thought this might be possible if withdrawal of the UFO led to a pulse on the primary ignition wire, thus a high-voltage pulse on the secondary and a spark in the spark plug. An engine cylinder already filled with a gas/air mixture would be ignited, and if the cylinder was in the right position might “jump-start” the engine back to life.
McCampbell admits he is speculating, but does get one thinking that spontaneous engine restarting might be possible.
Joel Crook: I read your father’s interesting paper. No knock on your father, but nobody can think of everything. The Air Force Scientific Advisory Board in a 1997 whitepaper was suggesting the AF already had what they termed high powered radio frequency (HPRF) weapons capable of stalling engines. This suggests some sort of more-conventional mechanism and not something exotic needed, like your father’s hypothesized change to the electric and magnetic vacuum constants.
Relevant sections:
http://csat.au.af.mil/studies.htm
Air Force Scientific Advisory Board
New World Vistas Air and Space Power for the 21st Century Summary Volume
Chapter II Capabilities and Technologies
Section 5.0 Projection of Lethal and Sublethal Power
5.2.1
"Although all fixed targets can be addressed with common sensors, or no sensors, and delivery methods may be very much the same for all, the energy applied to the target may vary considerably with the target type. If sublethal response were in order, High Power RF (HPRF) weapons could be used against vehicles and electronic devices. The deployment of HPRF by cruise missile is discussed in the Munitions Panel Volume."
5.2.2
"It is often sufficient simply to stop moving targets. Unarmed vehicles can be left immovable. An immobile armed vehicle becomes a fixed target which can be destroyed with simple munitions. Of course, stopping and destroying an aircraft are equivalent processes. HPRF weapons can be effective against vehicle ignition systems and aircraft control systems."
(Debunker red meat alert) Maybe the AFSAB was populated with more UFO nutcases practicing their "saucer religion."
Or maybe the Air Force, while publicly debunking such car-stalling reports, was quietly taking notes on a potential weapon system and eventually back-engineered it.
Of course, the report does not outright claim they definitely have such a weapon or other weapons mentioned in the report, opening the report with the following disclaimer.
“This report is a forecast of a potential future for the Air Force. This forecast does not necessarily imply future officially sanctioned programs, planning or policy.”
Lots of weapon systems never get out of the planning or prototype phase, being deemed too impractical or too expensive. But since the report is recommending such weapons as part of a 21st century Air Force, there is a strong suggestion that either there was already some sort of demonstrated prototype or the weapon was considered definitely feasible given further R&D.
Here's a link to a more recent review (2010) of current research into high power microwave (HPM) weapons, which the USAF war college author says has been going on in force for 30-40 years and now involves many countries:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/bh2010_capozzella.pdf
Excerpt:
"III. HPM Weapons’Capabilities, Today and in the Future
"...There are also a myriad of systems in various stages of development that should be ready in the near future. These include a vehicle stopper, HPM bombs or e-bombs, and anti-aircraft systems.
"The U.S. Army and several law enforcement agencies are developing HPMs to stop vehicles through attacking the engine’s ignition system."
Hi David
Thanks for the extra info... mcCampbell must have moved away from the UV idea later on I presume?
Wouldn't shorting the circuit out like that blow the fuses? Did cars of that era have fuses?
If I'm reading the info on current EM technology aimed at immobilising vehicles these work by scrambling the engine management systems, so presumably a different approach to the 1950s effects?
@David Rudiak
Part I
Most of the current "Car Killer" weapons are hi-power microwave burst weapons... which fry the microprocessor driving the engine... but consider pre-Blue Book there was no known weapon that could stop a simple points driven ignition.
The analysis presented in that paper was based upon James M. McCampbell's works... again, all pre-computerized ignitions. McCampbell collected something like 400 plus UFO interactions with motor vehicles. [the specific McCampbell books he used were in the references section] My father went through the list and categorized them by the kind of "effect" on the vehicle... and then drew conclusions.
The ultimate point of his analysis is that the EM field interruptions caused by UFOs is something like a remote switch that turns off the ability of a vehicle or a battery to actually conduct electricity.
No military weapon we currently possess is capable of suppressing current flow of electronic devices at a distance the way UFOs apparently can. We can fry the electronics with high powered microwaves or atomic generated electromagnetic pulses but but we cannot suppress the ability to use the electronics and then allow them to operate again.
While the term Electromagnetics [EM] is thrown around left and right because UFOs interfere with electrical and electronic systems what UFOs do is not "Electromagnetic" as the term is commonly used. UFOs do not "transmit" EM "suppression waves"... There is known know waveform or transmission of any kind in the EM range of frequencies that can "transmit" suppression of an electric current. So what ever they do it is not of an EM nature... the OBSERVED EFFECT is in the EM range of frequencies but the actual method of doing what they do is not... So UFOs do not suppress electricity with EM.
@David Rudiak
Part II
We assume that electricity flows in certain consistent formulas using "universal constants" to calculate how electricity flows. We have been going under the assumption that "universal constants" are just that-- that they are unchangible. Imagine then what might happen if one could manipulate certain specific constants. Human science has no way of doing that. UFOs apparently do.
My father was of the belief that "two universal constants", Mu Zero (Vacuum Permeability) and e Zero (Vacuum permittivity)can be manipulated by UFOs as if they were "variables". Those two constants govern the ability of electron current flow through a wire and through "space".
If the UFOs can "at will" change what humankind considers to be fundamental constants, it goes a long way to explain why a car will stop and then be able to be started again after the departure of the "suppression device". {I won't use the term "field" since we do not actually know what it is that causes the cars to stop... but let me repeat again-- there is no way you can use "electromagnets" [military or not] to suppress current flow at a distance. The only thing we have is a 100 variations on Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) weapons which will overload a system -- fry it! -- at a distance.
Please note that my father was well acquainted with EMP effects... he wrote the only non-classified paper on the "Starfish" atmospheric test entitled "Distant electromagnetic observations of the high-altitude nuclear detonation of July 9, 1962" see: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JZ068i006p01781/abstract
He actually built a custom tuned antenna and set up an "observation lab" in our garage in the West San Fernando Valley [in L.A.] in the summer of '62. He spent much of his career dealing with various kinds of engineering problems related to electomagnetics. For example he built several very large demagnetizing coils [6 to 12 feet in diameter weighing at least a ton or more] for demagnetizing whole satellites. So yes he was well aware of what was and wasn't possible by human science.
We can blow up street lights at a thousand miles with an EMP explosion [The starfish explosion did that in Honolulu] but we cannot by no known means suppress the flow of electricity in your car and then allow it to operate normally when we turn off the suppression device.
Eventually I will probably post on a blog somewhere the fragments I have of my father's UFO papers.
Joel
I don't discount your father's ideas around UFOs modifying the permittivity and permeability of space time. Puthoff develops a similar concept from the position that gravity may be an emergent property of these properties of vacuum ( an idea which builds on earlier work by Dicke, Sakharov and, more recently but in a different way by Haisch and Rueda).
If altering these constants affects the spacetime metric then to a local observer the universe would behave as normal. It is in the contrast of observations between local and distant observers that the effects show up. If the on the other hand we assume such constants can be individually changed the effect would probably be lethal to a local observer.
Agree that the effect appears as if it is about altering resistance, hence my speculation about rapidly oscillating back emf effects. The wiring would appear to initially have high resistance causing the voltage drop to occurr on the wiring rather than , say, the lights. During the off phase the magnetic field induced around the wiring would decay generating a voltage of reversed polarity to the car's circuit. The oscillation of the external field would have to be very rapid.
This may not stand up to scrutiny by an expert, which I am not...
Anthony; Joel:
It has been obvious for many years now to anyone with a command of the science, that a large number of the “strange” effects associated with close UFO encounters can be economically accounted for by assuming that the local space-time matrix is curved and not flat. See the papers of e.g., Puthoff, Davis, Maccabee, etc.
The question has been how this is possible, since conventional steady-state solutions to the General Relativity equations for stable traversable wormholes require static accumulations of mass/energy equivalent to 1 Jupiter mass, minimum. UFOs appear to have found a way to create “low-power wormholes”. In a forthcoming book by Jack Sarfatti (June, I believe) he argues that this can be accomplished by simultaneously altering permittivity and permeability of local space (Mu zero and E zero).
I find it interesting that Joel’s father independently came to the conclusion that the vehicle interference effects derive from changes in Mu zero and E zero. I presume this effect would not involve General Relativity (although since I have not read his paper on this topic, I will reserve judgment). If so, then this would be two independent circumstantial associations between changes in permittivity and permeability and the functioning of UFOs.
This strikes me as another of those cases like the Roswell “memory foil”, where unsophisticated individuals are consistently reporting observations that have a coherent scientific/technical explanation that they could not have made up and indeed—in most cases—could not even understand when it is explained to them. To me, this stretches the psychosocial explanation for this category of sightings beyond the breaking point.
For once, I agree with Lance when he writes that UFO research is progressing towards more prosaic explanations. As long as we admit that “prosaic” will be defined relative to 21st century science, not 19th or 20th.
I find discussions of "[space]...permittivity and permeability..." humorous. Like 'space-time', the idea that empty space (i.e., nothing) can have any properties at all is absurd. Quantum theory requires that this not be so, hence the dilemma which continues to plague the Standard Model. Feynman, "the last real physicist" recognized this, but was unable to reconcile it in his lifetime. Perhaps, had he lived a few years longer,...(Hint: the solution lies in abandoning the idea of 'empty space')
I, too, tend to prefer reasonable prosaic (i.e.,not requiring magic) explanations of anomalous events. It is close to impossible for a gasoline engine to restart itself, and highly unlikely that this has ever actually happened. There are, however, several possible prosaic explanations of how automotive electrical systems can be interfered with.
None of this speculation gets us any closer to explaining what these things are, and where they come from.
Assuming for a moment that these UFOs are intelligently-controlled devices, then Joels fathers research raises an interesting question: How much do scientists really know about basic physics? Do the controllers need to be ET? Could they be human? If so, then how advanced has 'human' physics become?
Seemingly impossible behavior does not equal ET origin.
I gotta go...
Altering the electric permittivity (epsilon0) and magnetic permeability (mu0) of space would alter the speed of light. Since speed of light c = sqr(1/(eps0*mu0)) (famous result of Maxwell and his equations for EM waves), if you could decrease one or both constants, the speed of light would increase and you could go "faster than light" (i.e., faster than light in an ordinary vacuum) This is the basic idea of “vacuum engineering” ala Puthoff, Haisch, etc.
In the vacuum, light does not travel infinitely fast because it is interacting continuously with the electromagnetic field that permeates all space in the form of virtual particles that carry electric charge (essentially ghost particles that blink into and out of existence too rapidly to detect directly). These interactions take time (hence non-infinite speed), with the virtual particles re-radiating the photons (light particles carrying the EM force). That is the modern quantum mechanical explanation for the structure of the vacuum, why light speed isn't infinite and how something like an EM wave can travel through a vacuum presumably absent of ordinary matter that could conduct a wave. (A problem that bedeviled earlier physicists like Newton)
Light travels slower in matter (like glass) because it is also interacting with the permanent matter (not just virtual particles). That is why a dielectric like glass has an index of refraction of about 1.5 (instead of the vacuum's 1.0), and light travels about 2/3rds as fast as in the vacuum.
So yes, altering epsilon and mu could conceivably be part of the UFO propulsion mechanism enabling them to travel faster than ordinary light, but this is all highly speculative.
However, I suspect there is a much simpler and more conventional explanation for the earlier car stallings (also airplane propeller engines) than altering vacuum mu and epsilon. Stalling modern ignition engines is probably easier since they use solid state ignition and therefore are much more susceptible to electromagnetic pulse disruption. Older engines used mechanical rotary distributers with points to distribute high voltage pulses from the ignition coil to individual spark plugs, which passed along high-voltage ignition wires. Basically, something would have to disrupt the sparking of the plugs, which could include the dropping of voltage anywhere in the ignition system.
Anthony Mugan suggested maybe high frequency induced AC along the wires, which sounds like a good place to start. Auto ignition wires are usually carbon fiber based. One lengthy AF study I found online measured about a 10-fold increase in resistivity of such wires to RF from DC through several megahertz to 300 Megahertz. They cited another study showing yet another 3-fold increase between 1 and 3 Gigahertz (typical microwave band).
Apparently the resistance increases are an induced magnetic field effect that forces the current more and more out of the core and into the “skin” of the conductor. The higher the frequency, the thinner the skin depth, the less conductance area, and the higher the resistance. Thus it seems conceivable that impinging high-frequency RF waves in the microwave band could block the lower frequency, high-voltage pulses coming off the old-fashioned car mechanical distributor and points. The higher the resistance, the less voltage to the plugs, and if they fail to spark, the engine will stall.
It seems this theory could be tested easily enough in a properly-equipped lab. The Condon Commission only tested the idea that a high-strength constant magnetic field could saturate the ignition coil and prevent the formation of high-voltage sparks. They failed with this proposed mechanism but did NOT test other possibilities, such as high-frequency, high-power RF. They certainly did NOT prove that it couldn’t be done. Your results are only as good as your assumptions and methodology going in.
Hi David
That's interesting...would you have the reference...struggling to locate it.
Thanks
David:
In Einstein’s field equation, one over the speed of light to the fourth power appears essentially as a scale factor multiplying the mass/energy density term, which is interpreted as causing the warping of space-time (i.e., the terms that appear on the other side of the equation). Substituting c squared equals one over Mu zero times Epsilon zero shows that the scale factor controlling curvature of space-time in general relativity should vary with changes in Mu zero and Epsilon zero. In other words, you can get more space-time warping (the “acceleration field” in Paul Hill’s terminology) with a smaller accumulation of mass/energy. Because Einstein’s equation scales with the speed of light to the fourth power, small changes in Mu zero and Epsilon zero can have very large changes in space-time curvature.
This is what I meant when I said that changes in Mu zero and Epsilon zero produce two independently observable effects—direct changes in the propagation speed of electromagnetic energy AND the production of GR effects.
Rudiak's separation of the Magnozapper from the Saucerian Powerplant is award winning stuff.
I notice not one word from the learned professors about the gist of Kevin's piece: that the reporting of these events are possibly flawed .
Much more fun to go inside the saucers, huh?
Lance
Anthony,
References:
"Investigation of the RF Properties of Carbon Fibre Composite Materials" (pdf, 283 pages)
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a140261.pdf
"Truth About Ignition Wire Conductors":
http://www.magnecor.com/magnecor1/truth.htm
Skin Effect of AC currents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect
Larry:
Thank you for the primer on the effects of epsilon0 and mu0 on space curvature in General Relativity.
Changes in epsilon and mu or speed of light c (= sqrt(1/(eps*mu)) could have other far-reaching consequences, such as atomic structure, which is one reason I'm a little hesitant to accept this as a car stopping reason. Usually people are in the cars and unless the change of eps/mu could be focused and confined to a small area concerning only the ignition system, you would expect changes in the atomic structure of the occupants (also the car) which might not be healthy. The atomic fine structure constant (a measure of the strength of the electric field), which defines such things as the size of atoms and energy levels, is proportional to sqrt(mu/eps). If you changed mu/eps up or down by the same amount, the fine structure constant would remain constant, but if not, atoms would change size (shrink or expand), atomic binding energies would change, etc., something I've never heard described in the literature. What this would do to a human being and the godzillion atomic bonds in our bodies I have no idea, but it sounds painful.
Lance:
Yes, Lance, it is much more fun to "go inside the saucers" and try to figure out how they tick from the multitude of physical effects reported and analyzed over the decades. Even the Air Force in 1953 in AF Reg 200-2 first made it official and explicit that the "UFOBs" they were defining were to be studied for their "technical aspects" (as well as for reasons of national security). Guess you missed the memo.
Actually discussions by various people here have been right on topic, until you came along to try to hijack the thread with your predictable insults. I haven't heard Kevin complaining so far about the discussion.
The gist of Kevin's piece is the many instances of reported internal combustion engine stallings, with some fraction of these people reporting the engines starting again on their own. Kevin is only speculating that MAYBE people don't remember trying to start the engine again, which has been mentioned by others as well. It's hardly a new idea to try to explain these bewildering reports of spontaneous engine starting (perhaps more puzzling than the engines stalling to begin with).
You, being you, assume witnesses MUST be mistaken. But there might be a mechanism by which vehicles could start again on their own, as when I mentioned James McCampbell's theory of a car cylinder in the proper position, already primed with air/gas, getting sparked by a final impulse along the ignition system, jump-starting the engine back to life. Yes, McCampbell was also speculating, but it was at least educated guessing based on his aerospace and nuclear engineering background.
Thanks David
Larry...
I wouldn't imagine these vehicle interference cases can be directly linked to changes in the permittivity and permeability of spacetime. If the speculative model of Puthoff turns out to be on the right lines then changes in these constants would be be part of a consistent change in the spacetime metric. From the point of view of a local observer everything would appear normal, including the measured value of these constants. The car would keep running.
The differences would show if local and distant observers compared observations of, for example the mass or dimensions of the car or compared their perceptions of the passage of time.
For the reasons David outlines it is very unlikely that these constants could be individually changed. If they were changed the effect on any local observer would probably be fatal, which is not observed.
It is hilarious how the buffs above all reference
Puthoff. Puthoff, of course, was one of the people who "validated" Uri Geller's supposed psychic powers. Later examination of Puthoff's experiments showed that the designs were laughably poor, allowing anyone to show psychic powers by gaming the experiment.
I note that much of his work is considered pseudoscience and then it should become clear why the present company gravitates (or anti-gravitates) towards his work.
But I'm sure that when it cones to Flying Saucer propulsion he was aces!
I'm in no way suggesting that discussion of possibilities when it comes to UFOs should be discouraged. But hilarious discourses like those above contain so many funny biases that it is hard not to comment on them. It seems that each of the professor's explanations above comes to the point at which magic happens...
Lance
It is extremely unlikely that a gasoline engine could start itself. The air/fuel mixture needs to be compressed in order to get any appreciable power from it. These engines need considerable torque to turn over, and cannot hold compression for very long, as valves and piston rings leak. You also need spark. This happens when the distributors points open, mechanically driven.
No need to speculate on this, no one has given an exact description of how this could happen. I'll go Kevin one better, and state that cars restarting themselves never happened; it's folklore.
Cadillac, years ago, tried to design an engine without a starter motor. The idea was to inject fuel into whatever cylinders were in the best position for a firing stroke, then providing a spark. (This is easy to do with computer-controlled systems) It failed miserably.
Now, get Uri Geller to operate that starter switch with his mind, and we'll be getting somewhere...
I gotta go...
Albert,
Your point about loss of engine compression is a good one. So how long can a piston hold compression? Depends on the state of the valves, piston rings, etc., but assuming all are tight, probably only a few seconds from what I read. So now the duration of the stall in the reports becomes a factor. If just a few seconds, the McCampbell-type mechanism (ignition in a cylinder) might still be possible. But longer than that, no.
However, your point about how sparking can ONLY happen mechanically by turning the distributor is flawed. That is the normal way a distributor works: by breaking the primary point, a high voltage pulse is induced in the secondary windings and passed to the spark plug wires by the distributor. However, ANYTHING causing a change of voltage in the primary will induce high voltages in the secondary, including an EM-induced pulse in the primary.
In any event, for the engine to start up again, something has to get the engine to turn over, whether it be the normal starter motor (unconsciously engaged by the driver or not), a mechanical jump-start from pushing the car while in gear, an ALMOST stalled engine that is still turning, or getting ignition in a piston that still has compression, fuel, and is in the proper position. That's all that comes to mind at the moment.
For spontaneously engine starting, I would normally put my bets on a simple mechanical jump start (maybe helpful aliens giving a little push with an antigravity beam to get you back on the road--watch Lance go crazy with that one). I'm not that familiar with the car-stalling UFO cases, but don't recall any witness mentioning feeling the car jerk and the engine starting again, so probably not.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/vehicleinterference.htm ... magneticblocks.blogspot.com
There are a few things that no one had said yet .
Strong magnetism applied to an igniton coil will cause it to work irratically or not at all (causing a stall) .
This would also effect the old style electro mechanical voltage regulators, causing lights to dim and ameters to read discharge. It is also possible to cause a short circuit through the generator when that occurs due to polarity change in the regulator, causing all out electrical system failure until that magnetism is released.
Once the magnetism is released, things will return to normal . BUT, the ignition coil may put out a nice fat spark when initially released . If there is a cylinder on compression stroke (the compression could have even equaled out to atmosphere) then the gases in that cylinder may fire and get things rolling .
I have seen this in action by experimenting with an old car by holding a soldering gun close to the coil with the key on .
Go ahead and try it on an old car. But just be safe and dont hurt yourselves (put it in neutral with park brake set and watch for moving parts under the hood)
Post a Comment