A force for space with no reaction (Hoax!?)

Psychophanta · Post by **Psychophanta** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:22 am

home
article
common explanation

Do you think is it true?

Joakim Christiansen · Post by **Joakim Christiansen** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:47 am

It looks a little hoaxy, but I'm not shure.

I think it could be true, but it's nothing cool about it actually.
It's only gaining a little thrust by the solar energy and is for use in a non gravity environment. (if I understood right

)

mskuma · Post by **mskuma** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:10 am

I've stopped looking at this after reading the home page.. looks totally unprofessional with a top banner ad, Monster job-ad popup, and (in places) poorly-constructed sentences (despite being a UK company). I typically expect a half-serious 'corporate awareness' page like that to be better constructed and worded (and at least have the minimum dollars to turn off the ads). It doesn't lend much credibility, so based on that, I'd say it's a hoax or if it genuine, it's poorly formulated or marketed.

Psychophanta · Post by **Psychophanta** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:11 am

Mhhh, same here

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:21 am

Hehe I knwow another great product that is badly marketed ^^

Num3 · Post by **Num3** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:11 am

Microwave engines, ion engines, star sales...

These have been around for many years now, but the cost / effectivness of them didn't justify them being build...

Take a look at ion engines, the principle is the same as microwave ones...

http://nmp.nasa.gov/ds1/tech/sep.html

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:17 am

Don't think so, Ion Engines do need fuel, because they need the ions they use to give thrust after the simple principle of F=m*a while this engine is said to use absolutely no fuel. Ion Engines are in use today for example the European Moon moon sonde which was orderly crashed into the moon about a month ago was powered with an Ion Engine which is very efective and needs only small amounts of fuel.

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:22 am

These technologies have been around around for years and have been perfected as far back as the 50's.

The governments are trying to release them slowly into the world to hide the fact that all of these things have been reversed engineered from downed alien crafts. The trouble is, the claims are so outlandish that nobody takes them seriously, which is strange as it is the biggest story of humankind.

Learn more here:

http://www.disclosureproject.org/

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 5260900218
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 8249898710
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 6240662837

I suggest you watch the first video link in it's entirety as it is powerful stuff. Unfortunately this press conference was over shadowed by events of 9/11 a few weeks later, and got moved aside from the main news channels.

Joakim Christiansen · Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:27 am

Kale, didn't know you where into UFO's.
I actually agree with you about this, I think they have had the technology to create flying saucers for a long time now.

Num3 · Post by **Num3** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:32 am

Well to get microwaves you just need a magnetron tube (like the one inside your microwaves) and electrical power

Ok the engine needs no fuel, true, but it needs electrical power to work.
How that power is generated is not mentioned, maybe using an nuclear power system...

Ion engines work with xenon gas that is electrical charged... The resulting ions are pushed out of the engine... It's just like a conventional rocket engine where the explosion gases are pushed out through a tiny exit, thus producing a very powerfull force.

So ion engines need xenon gas and electrical power, the microwave engine only seems to need electrical power, so there is no need to have extra space reserved for 'fuel'...

Read somewhere a 3 ton satelite has 1.7tons in fuel to maintain it's position!

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:00 pm

Joakim Christiansen wrote:Kale, didn't know you where into UFO's.
I actually agree with you about this, I think they have had the technology to create flying saucers for a long time now.

I am into UFOs but im not a freak who thinks everything in the sky is one.

I have read hard fact usually collected from military archives that say 100% that these things are spotted, tracked and sometimes retrieved all since the invention of radar.

The more you look for hard fact, the more you will find, and will be astonished at the secrecy behind these thing. Also the military in public say these things are nonsense but in reality they take these things very seriously indeed and have whole teams working on such things.

Joakim Christiansen · Post by **Joakim Christiansen** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:49 pm

Kale wrote:
Joakim Christiansen wrote:Kale, didn't know you where into UFO's.
I actually agree with you about this, I think they have had the technology to create flying saucers for a long time now.
I am into UFOs but im not a freak who thinks everything in the sky is one. I have read hard fact usually collected from military archives that say 100% that these things are spotted, tracked and sometimes retrieved all since the invention of radar.

The more you look for hard fact, the more you will find, and will be astonished at the secrecy behind these thing. Also the military in public say these things are nonsense but in reality they take these things very seriously indeed and have whole teams working on such things.

Just like me

But i'm also interested in the paranormal stuff

Dare · Post by **Dare** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:06 pm

Hi Kale,

Got any links to the hard facts or sensible ET/UFO sites? (Note: Not Greer's sites like nondisclosure.org or cseti.org). I would like to visit them.

Psychophanta · Post by **Psychophanta** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:21 pm

Kale and Joakim:
I am a sceptic of UFOs , but i can't deny its existence nor their passing near Earth or even their landing onto our home Earth.
And yes, it is very very possible and very easy to understand that States, and Governments hide all about that things to the people.

Num3 and Nik:
Ion engines are a continuation of the conventional rockets, coz it is based in the same tech of propulsion, i.e.: explosion gases are pushed out through an exit of the ship machine.
The big matter i think is that after some years of navigation time, the ship should very often take materia from some place out there.
A system like the microwave one should need internal nuclear power only (and probably some computers on ship), which means it wouldn't need external materia (energy) until after some millions years of navigation time, i.e. it could give a complete round to all the known universe (at about 90% of speed of light) without taking not even an only external particle.
That is the big and key difference.

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:04 pm

Dare wrote:Hi Kale,

Got any links to the hard facts or sensible ET/UFO sites? (Note: Not Greer's sites like nondisclosure.org or cseti.org). I would like to visit them.

Greer's sites are probably the best you will find as all of the testamony comes from very credible witnesses. (Ex CIA, Military, NSA, NRO, etc.)

Read the 'Disclosure Project Briefing Document' if you can find it, 500 pages of unbelieveable material, all backed up with fact.