Here is an interesting report that is very
definately true! Thanks Jack.
Regards,
Cal
|
Nuclear powered tunnelling machines. Since the 1950’s, the US Government
has had nuclear powered
tunneling
machines.
They were patented in the 1970's (US Patents
#3,693,731).
As it burrows through the rock hundreds of feet
below the surface,
the Subterrene heats
whatever stone it encounters
into
molten rock, or magma, which cools
after
the Subterrene has moved on.
The
result is a tunnel with a smooth, glazed lining,
somewhat like black
glass, which is also apparently
strong enough that it
doesn’t even require reinforcing of the walls.
It was featured in OMNI magazine, Sept 1983,
p80.
I happened to see a picture of (what I assume is)
one of these machines in a UFO magazine,
but at $15, I wasn't going to (let alone couldn't
afford to) buy it.
Then I was visiting a friend and he showed me the
http://www.wierdpics.com
website,
and lo and behold, there was the picture.
Hmmm, what would
the US Air Force be doing tunneling deep
under the ground?
http://www.detailshere.com/images/tunnelmachine.jpg
So, with
the above picture and the US Patent Office patent,
I think that
adds up to
incontrovertible evidence
that these things are real.
And further to that, it is highly likely that the
claims of underground
bases and tunnels across America (if not the
world) are indeed true.
Here's
a pic of one photographed in Denmark.
It
appears that there is a high probability then that an tunnel
now
exists under the Atlantic Ocean connecting America to
Europe.
http://www.detailshere.com/images/denmarktunnelmachine.jpg
For those of you aware of the difficulties
encountered
in the Burnley tunnel being constructed in
Melbourne, Australia,
just think, we could have been driving under the
Yarra
years ago if they used
this machine.
And none of these delays caused by leakages due
to cracks
which are the direct result of a large
corporation trying to save money
and constructing a cheap tunnel instead of doing
it the correct way
(double layered as per the Sydney Harbour
tunnel).
=========================
From http://www.wic.net/colonel/!subdril.txt (dead
link)
(now defunct site due to the Colonels
death).
SUBTERRENE
Robert Salter, of the RAND Corporation, has
suggested
building a subway
from New York to Los
Angeles
magnetically levitated above the tracks.
The trains
would zip through the evacuated tunnels
at
speeds faster than an SST,
crossing
the country in less than one hour.
Building such a train presents no special
technological problems,
but the cost of tunneling from coast to coast
would. To be
economically feasible,
engineers would have to develop a new way to dig.
The federal government's Los Alamos Scientific
Laboratory,
in New Mexico, however, may have an answer to
this challenge.
Called the Subterrene,
the Los Almos machine looks like a vicious giant
mole.
The beauty of the Subterrene is that,
as it burrows through the rock hundreds of feet below the surface,
it heats whatever stone it encounters into molten
rock,
or magma, which cools after the Subterrene has
moved on.
The result is a tunnel with a smooth, glazed
lining. For power,
the Subterrene can use a built-in minature
nuclear engine
or even a conventional power plant.
NOTE:
I have seen this machine, and watched it in
action.
Normal rate of speed is approximitly six and
one/half miles per hour
depending on Type of rock, sand
etc
.....................Col. Wilson =============
Nuclear
Subterrenes
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 03:13:27 -0400 From: Steve Lacy < Sandmob(at)AOL.COM > To: CTRL(at)LISTSERV.AOL.COM Could government mole machines be
building a
secret worldwide tunnel system? UNDERGROUND BASES AND TUNNELS
by Richard Sauder, Ph.D.,
Adventures Unlimited Press Nuclear Subterrenes The nuclear subterrene (rhymes with submarine)
was designed
at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, in New
Mexico.
A number of patents were filed by scientists at
Los Alamos,
a few federal technical documents were written
-
- and then the whole thing just sort of faded
away.
Or did it?
Nuclear subterrenes work by melting their way
through the rock and soil, actually vitrifying it as they go,
and leaving a neat, solidly glass-lined tunnel behind
them.
The
heat is supplied by a compact nuclear reactor
that
circulates liquid lithium from the reactor core
to the tunnel face, where it melts the rock. In the process
of melting the rock the lithium loses
some of its heat.
It is then circulated back along the
exterior
of the tunneling machine to help cool the vitrified rock
as the tunneling machine forces its way
forward.
The cooled lithium then circulates back to the
reactor
where the whole cycle starts over.
In this way the nuclear subterrene slices through the
rock
like a
nuclear powered, 2,000 degree Fahrenheit (Celcius?)
-
earthworm, boring its way deep
underground.
-
The United States Atomic Energy Commission and
the
United States Energy Research and Development
Administration
took out Patents in the 1970s for nuclear
subterrenes.
-
The first patent, in 1972 went to the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission.
-
The
nuclear subterrene has an advantage
over mechanical TBMs in that it produces no muck
that
must be disposed of by conveyors, trains, trucks,
etc.
This greatly simplifies tunneling.
If nuclear subterrenes actually
exist (and I do not know if they do)
their presence, and the tunnels they make,
could be
very hard to detect,
for the
simple reason that there would not be
the tell-tale MUCK
PILES or tailings
dumps
that are associated with the conventional
tunneling activities.
The 1972 patent makes this clear. It
states:
".. (D)ebris may be disposed of as
melted rock
both as a lining for the hole and as a
dispersal
in cracks produced in the surrounding
rock.
The
rock-melting drill is of a shape and
is propelled under
sufficient pressure to produce
and
extend cracks in solid rock radially around the bore
by
means of hydrostatic pressure developed
in
the molten rock ahead of the advancing rock drill
penetrator.
All melt not used in glass-lining the
bore is forced
into the cracks where it freezes and
remains ... "
"...
Such a (vitreous) lining eliminates, in most cases,
the
expensive and cumbersome problem of debris
elimination
and at the same time
achieves the advantage
of a casing type of bore hole
liner."
(US
Patent No. 3,693,731, 26 Sep 1972)
There you have it: a tunneling machine that creates no
muck,
and
leaves a smooth, vitreous (glassy) tunnel lining behind.
Another patent three years later
was for:
A tunneling machine for producing large tunnels
in soft
rock or wet, clay, unconsolidated or bouldery earth
by
simultaneously detaching the tunnel core
by
thermal melting a boundary kerf into the tunnel face
and
forming a supporting excavation wall liner
by
deflecting the molten materials
against
the excavation walls to provide,
when solidified, a continuous wall
supporting liner,
and detaching
the tunnel face circumscribed by the kerf
with
powered mechanical earth detachment means
and in
which the heat required for melting the kerf
and
liner material is provided by a compact nuclear reactor.
-
This 1975 patent further specifies that the
machine is intended
to excavate tunnels up to 12 meters in diameter
or more.
This means tunnels of 40 ft. or more in
diameter.
The kerf is the outside boundary of the tunnel
wall that
a boring machine gouges out as it bores through the ground or rock.
So, in ordinary English, this
machine will
melt a
circular boundary into the tunnel
face.
The melted rock will be forced to
the outside
of the
tunnel by the tunnel machine,
where it will form a hard, glassy tunnel
lining
(see the appropriate detail in the patent itself,
as shown in Illustration 41).
At the
same time, mechanical tunnel boring equipment
will
grind up the rock and soil detached by the melted kerf
and
pass it to the rear of the machine
for
disposal by conveyor, slurry pipeline, etc.
And yet a third patent was issued
to the United States Energy Research
and Development
Admin.
just 21 days later, on 27 May 1975
for a machine remarkably similar to the machine
patented on 6 May
1975. The abstract describes:
A
tunneling machine for producing large tunnels in rock
by
progressive detachment of the tunnel core
by
thermal melting a boundary kerf into the tunnel face
and
simultaneously forming an initial tunnel wall support
by
deflecting the molten materials against the tunnel walls
to
provide, when solidified, a continuous liner;
and
fragmenting the tunnel core circumscribed by the kerf
by
thermal stress fracturing and in which the heat required
for
such operations is supplied by a compact nuclear reactor.
This
machine would also be capable of making
a
glass-lined tunnel of 40 ft. in diameter or
more.
Perhaps some of my readers have heard the same
rumors that
I have heard swirling in the UFO literature and
on the UFO grapevine:
Stories of deep, secret, glass-walled tunnels
excavated by laser powered tunneling machines.
I do not know if these stories are true.
If they are, however, it may be that the
glass-walled tunnels
are made by the nuclear subterrenes described in
these patents.
The careful reader will note that all of these
patents were obtained
by agencies of the United States government.
Further,
all but one of the inventors are from Los Alamos,
New Mexico.
Of course, Los Alamos National Lab is itself the
subject
of considerable rumors about underground tunnels
and chambers,
Little Greys or EBEs, and various other covert
goings-on.
(It may also be that the some of the tunnels
are made
by these machines, while other subterranean
tunnel systems
were made by other civilizations, both ancient
and modern. --SW)
A 1973 Los Alamos study entitled
"Systems and Cost Analysis for a Nuclear Subterrene
Tunneling
Machine: A Preliminary Study",
concluded that nuclear subterrene tunneling
machines (NSTMs)
would be very cost effective, compared to
conventional TBMs.
It stated:
"Tunneling
costs for NSTMs are very close to those for TBMs,
if operating
conditions for TBMs are favorable.
However, for
variable formations and unfavorable conditions
such as
soft, wet, bouldery ground or very hard rock,
the NSTMs
are far more effective.
Estimates of
cost and percentage use of NSTMs to satisfy
U.S.
transportation tunnel demands indicate a potential cost savings
of 850
million dollars (1969 dollars) throughout 1990.
An estimated
NSTM prototype demonstration cost of $100 million
over an
eight-year period results in a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio of
8.5."
-
Was the 1973 feasibility study only idle
speculation, and is the
astonishingly similar patent two years later only
a wild coincidence?
-
As many
a frustrated inventor will tell you,
the U.S. Patent Office only issues
the paperwork
when
it's satisfied that the thing in question actually works!
-
In 1975 the National Science Foundation
commissioned
another cost analysis of the nuclear subterrene.
The A.A. Mathews Construction and Engineering
Company
of Rockville, Maryland produced a comprehensive
report with two,
separate, lengthy appendices, one 235 and the
other 328 pages.
A.A. Mathews calculated costs for constructing
three different sized tunnels in the Southern
California area in 1974.
The three tunnel diameters
were:
a) 3.05 meters (10ft.); b) 4.73 meters (15.5 ft.); and c) 6.25 meters (20.5 ft.). Comparing the cost of using NSTMs to the cost of mechanical TBMs, A.A. Mathews determined:
"Savings of 12 percent for the 4.73
meter (15.5 ft.) tunnel
and 6 percent for the 6.25 meter (20.5
foot) tunnel were found
to be possible using the NSTM as compared to
current methods.
A penalty of 30 percent was
found for the
3.05 meter (10 foot) tunnel
using the NSTM.
The cost advantage for the NSTM results from
the combination of:
(a)
a capital rather than labor intensive
system,
(Reducing the number of personnel required is especially important in black budget projects for security reasons.
--SW) and
(b) formation of both initial support and final lining in
conjunction with the excavation
process.
(Leaving a glass-like lining, which could be *air-tight*, allowing the use of high-speed,
superconducting mag-lev trains
operated in a virtual vacuum in a tunnel deep
underground. --SW)
This report has a number of interesting features.
It is noteworthy
in the first place that the government
commissioned such a lengthy
and detailed analysis of the cost of operating a
nuclear subterrenes.
Just as intriguing is the fact that the study
found that the tunnels
in the 15 ft. to 20 ft. diameter range can be
more economically
excavated by NSTMs than by conventional
TBMs.
Finally, the southern California location that was
chosen
for
tunneling cost analysis is thought provoking.
This is
precisely one of the regions of the West
where there is rumored to be a secret
tunnel system.
Did the A.A. Mathews study represent part
of the planning for an
actual
covert tunneling project that was subsequently carried out,
when it
was determined that it was more cost effective
|