U.F.Os

Alternative title: - "Guitars to The Stars (The other side of the Screwdriver)"

U.F.O.s (a whole world of mis-direction). We lost the jet engine and that sucks.

It was about something but nobody is too sure what. I have a problem with the whole Roswell conspiracy theory bit and it's this...

At the present time (2011) our very best fighter planes and space vehicles either blow flames, smoke and sparks out of the back end or they don't go anywhere at all, fast. So if something crashed in the desert near Roswell, no reverse engineering was carried out from any wreckage found. End of story...

Or is there more to discuss? I don't think so. Do you? sparkspin@btinternet.com

hollowstring...

Experts, eh? I've been trying for years to hold intelligent conversations with acredited scientists. By and large every attempt has resulted in slap-downs and derision towards my credibility as a thinking and rational person. Obviously this is a frustrating result but in the past, I have put it down to the fact that any scientist of repute cannot be seen (for the sake of perceived credibility among his or her peers) to embrace anything that smacks of an alternative explanation for the wobbly bits of written history as accepted by those who really are, or thought to be, "in the know". I have respected that position up to now (Feb 2011) because they have mouths to feed and mortgages to pay.

But now I've just about had enough. Sufficient: - a right belly-full, actually.

Recently, I've come to see that these "respectable" scientists, instead of being impartial paragons of neutral virtue, squabble among themselves like a bunch of primary school kids over who gets the ice-cream and cookies. It's like the Pope versus Copernicus and Galileo all over again. The problem is compounded by the internet, of course. Any old nonsense can be put up and out there as alleged truth. Back in the bad old days, we only had the ramblings of sad old Eric Von Daniken to cloud the issue and muddy the water; now it's free-range undiluted bollocks with which we have to contend at every turn of the page. It clogs up the information highway and sucks so very badly. Hence anybody who does not suppress their own original thinking is now dragged down along with the worst and dumped securely and immediately into the trash along with the genuinely ignorant and loud-mouthed cranks that crowd the planet.

Sadly and to our eternal shame, large numbers of people actually see value in horoscope "readings". Worse, cynical money-grabbing organisations claim to be in touch with the "spirit world" or alien visitors. What a surprise that they cover their arses with this kind of disclaimer: - "These web site links are listed as a convenience to our visitors. If you use these links, we take no responsibility and give no guarantees, warranties or representations, implied or otherwise, for the content or accuracy (etc.,)" Well, they would say that wouldn't they?

Who can blame us hard-working skeptics? When it comes to the Higgs Boson and the Large Hadron Collider, count me in as a full blown, card-carrying member of the skeptic heirarchy. Irritatingly though, at C.E.R.N., they've now safely covered their backs by pronouncing that if they can't find it (the Higgs Boson), then it doesn't exist. How very convenient. Sledge hammer to crack a walnut, more like - and result? Nowhere near, of course. More funding required - you betcha. It simply ain't gonna happen and I for one have been saying as much ever since Queen Elizabeth II proudly broke that champagne bottle over the nose of Z.E.T.A., the "answer to all our energy procurement problems" back in 1957.

We can't sustain useable fusion, never mind crack the entire universe at a stroke. More good money after bad - but maybe if we just keep on building bigger and bigger and more and more powerful (and uncontrollable) Tokamaks, we'll fail even more spectacularly and embarrassingly. What we should be doing is going micro, rather than macro. That way at least lies a limit - Planck length. A Tokamak the size of the Sun somewhat defeats the object, methinks.

But why should anybody listen to me? No reason at all, really. Go away now, if you like; but I am not the only person on the planet who, while being perfectly satisfied with the majority of hard-won scientific fact that we definitely know to be true, finds it hard to swallow the awkward, ugly bits that won't fit together, no matter how you grease them up and push with all your might. One might even forgive Von Daniken for just a few of his pathetic and ridiculous assumptions! To begin with, there's a barrel load of massive stoneworks that obviously can't be explained from the "Ancients' World of Clever Tricks", for example. Respectable men of science with no axe to grind have also come to this conclusion.

Astronaut Joseph Blumrich had to be brave to do what he did for a living, for a start. To come out of the woodwork, as he has, with some of the up-front honesty that surely sticks in the craw of the anally-retentive scientists and engineers that surround us all, takes courage. Bloody good show, Joe!

From all throughout recorded history and also from the myths and legends prior to that, we are bombarded with paradoxical stuff: - amazing tasks that can't possibly be done but were in fact done anyway, with apparent ease. Typically that includes tasks that are way and above beyond the best technology that we have even now: - it's been said a million times before. Everybody knows it but all the time we have the so-called Creationists running the world, we are stuffed for a foothold in reason. But the facts won't go away, no matter how hard you pray.

The list of "things to sort out" is virtually endless. But the greatest hurdle to clarity is the endless succession of "investigators" who constantly stick foot-in-mouth as they struggle to convince with only a very poor grasp of even the most basic science they should understand before beginning. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, true - and that is one of the main arguments levelled against me.

But when we are presented with T.V. investigative documentary content describing, say, the ubiquitous "Flying Saucers" and their mysterious sightings, comparisons are made to the Avrocar - the ridiculous (again) white elephant of the USAF which was made public in 1961 and bears absolutely no practical resemblance to anything that could possibly ever be useful in space (or anywhere else for that matter). We have pin-sharp pictures and film footage of that particular montrosity but, of course, no clear pictures at all of any of the millions of alleged sightings of UFOs. Nobody ever has a camera and tripod to hand - and nobody ever has the slightest idea how to use a movie camera.

While we are on the subject of UFOs, Area 51 and all that other fluffy-guff, the Roswell incident and surrounding "evidence" presents what must be the best case for hoaxing it is possible to contrive. I really do wish it were not so but the following must be considered: -

Surely it must be true that if an alien craft really did crash at Roswell in 1947 and if the Air Force really did recover alien technology, certain facts must be true. If those scientists were able to retro-engineer "gravity drive" engines from the wreckage, then at the present date, we would not be riding into space on giant fireworks, with flame, smoke and sparks spewing out at the rear. More commonly, our very best fighter 'planes would not need to have jet exhausts, aerofoil wing design or even any kind of wing at all. Simple as that. Game set and match. Didn't happen - and that's only the beginning... British Rail actually wasted valuable time and money on their version of a Flying Saucer in 1973 (patent numbered 1310990)!

Before moving on though, let's consider some more of the great pile of uncomfortable tid-bits that don't add up in the real world. There's a big problem around basic human comprehension and The Nazca Lines co-existing in the same sentence to be considered by the sound-of-mind. Why would a UFO, presumably capable of vertical take-off and landing, need a landing strip? It fair makes yer blood boil. Much more interesting is the existence of ancient map(s) depicting Antarctica from a time when it wasn't supposed to be known to exist. But it depends upon who you ask (again). You just can't trust anybody. For Internet, read, "Compendium of Lies".

Like, some time ago there was a BBC Horizon programme all about Sonoluminescence: - "The Star In a Jar". It contained the question of whether fusion was involved. The sheer high number of buckets full of sour grapes that exists surrounding the claims for fusion within the content of that show are astonishing but that's hardly surprising, I guess. I recently received an email describing the scientist involved outright as a LIAR. "Taleyarkhan's stuff was fraud - it happens, even scientists can be crooks" was the comment. I won't name the author of those words but hey - bitchy! Oooh!

Anyway, I was interested in finding a real-world reason for the popularity of the "Ankh" symbol in ancient Egyptology. It should be noted that, in similar fashion to the earlier hypothesis of Walter Pitman and William Ryan, I began with what would normally be considered, quite reasonably, to be an un-scientific premise, i.e., that rather as, just as they (Pitman & Ryan), suggested that there should be a basis of fact behind the Great Flood of myth in real history, it was my assumption and starting point that there ought to be some real object in ancient history that gave rise to the ubiquitous use of the Egyptian "Ankh" symbol. Given the uncertainty for the provenance of objects like the "Baghdad Battery" and the "Antikythera mechanism" - this seemed to be not unreasonable.

If such a thing really existed as a physical entity, then it would have to be a pretty powerful tool of some sort, to command the respect that it obviously did. That meant that there had to be a reason why it didn't survive through to this day. Something that carried all of that importance had to be worth guarding and preserving, I reckoned. So what went wrong? Fishing about in the area of myth and legend, one thing just seems to keep on cropping up: - string.

Pause for thought.

Pause for breath...

- and I have steadfastly maintained this unpopular theoretical approach and standpoint since 1980 (despite much derision from the scientific community).

As a music string mechanic, my study of the subject began as a childhood hobby (55 years ago) and blossomed into a full-time professional career by 1972, serving the music industry as an internationally well-respected specialist electric guitar technician and builder up until retirement (due to ill-health) in 1997. It is my belief that a hollow music string, constructed of suitable materials and constrained to vibrate in the correct controlled environment could produce what I call "Chained Sonoluminescence" and that this might lead to the possibility for the useful capture of energy from what has been previously considered and shown to be merely an elusive and practically useless phenomenon, i.e., "S.L.".

The subject is briefly covered in an internet video (to which I have applied a relatively light hearted approach - to make it accessible to non-scientific public users and friends) and published on-line.

Honesty is usually the best policy. To begin with, I set out in the flawed belief that I might be dealing with some kind of gas-plasma focusing device and worked in that direction for three years, attempting to design something that might handle the requisite temperatures. This included the utilisation of a carbon-fibre cored music string to contain plasma suspended magnetohydrodynamically within the capillary spaces formed between the fibres. In 1984 I filed a provisional patent describing the device as best I could (drawing supplied). By 2000, I had come to realise that I was wrong to expect to be able to contain high temperature gas plasma by any such means but at the same time, the overall design which I had developed lent itself perfectly to the containment of microscopic water strings within the capillaries - and further, to the production of feedback loop-controlled high-numbered harmonic stimulation and thus, to multiple sonoluminescence bubble collapse events.

To build a prototype would be the stuff of my dreams but I would "guestimate" that it would take at least $1,000,000 in tooling, development and manufacturing costs. At the heart of the thing of course, is the string and I kind of figured that if I could at least get a length of that made, it should be possible to rig a simple jig to demonstrate the principle. Around early 2002 I approached Ernie Ball to see if they might be able to use one of their machines to custom wind a length. They said they could make anything but when they looked at my site, all communication ceased. UFOs again, I guess...

Very, very angry. We lost the jet engine and that sucks.

"Where Do The Children Play?"

My Uncle Dick, The Spitfire Ace

Alternative title: - "Guitars to The Stars" & "The other side of the Screwdriver".

Back to home page.