It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Something shooting the sun? NASA removes images

page: 13
47
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Asynchrony
Yeah, weird sun phenomena is happening a lot more than when I was a little kid. This morning I noticed at around 930am that a cloud immediately to the right of the sun was kinda glowing neon-blue or sorta purplish, lit up a tip of the cloud while the rest of the cloud was natural white/grey. I also saw the best meteor of my life last week. How did I know it wasn't a crash landing alien ship? Because it wobbled like other meteors or comets I've seen. But god damn that was the most beautiful meteor I'd ever seen. It glowed like an angel.

Like I was typing before. Lots of strange sun phenomenon. I ain't gonna let the critics or naysayers or skeptics change that. I know something is up with the sun.


Just subtle indicators, hidden in plan sight. For those that have eyes to "see".





posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   

tanka418
You have yet to provide the manufacturer and link to the datasheet of the CCD (device).


It was manufactured by Tektronix. As far as I know it has no model number other than the 1024^2 pixel designation. Certainly all the documentation just calls it the Tektronix 1024^2 or 1024 x 1024. Going by the literature it was one of a handful of commonly used CCDs for photometry at that time. Again, I don't know what else you want? The specs are given there. There's probably not an online "spec sheet" as such, given that it dates from the 1980s, but the dimensions, well capacities, noise levels, etc are listed, as are the operating conditions and details of the camera in which it is housed.


Just subtle indicators, hidden in plan sight. For those that have eyes to "see".


You claim to have a scientific education, in which case you will know full well what iridescent clouds and meteors are. They are not "indicators" of anything.

So, are you a man of science, with all your discussion of electronic engineering, or are you a man of superstition and quackery, with vague talk of extraterrestrial events and "indicators"?
edit on 16-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Tucket
 


This could be the pipeline beam that goes to the Central Sun.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Rob48

It was manufactured by Tektronix.


Sorry man, Tektronix currently does not, and traditionally has not manufactured integrated circuits. Tektronix is an instrument manufacturer, rather famous for their line of oscilloscopes, and other test instruments.

The part most certainly has a "part number", though without knowing who the manufacturer is, it would be impossible to find.

And so we find that the SOHO system is much like your digital camera...a "black box"...whose actual operation is a complete mystery...at least for you.





posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:59 AM
link   

tanka418

Sorry man, Tektronix currently does not, and traditionally has not manufactured integrated circuits.

Bzzt! Wrong! It was rather a well known manufacturer of ICs, printed circuit boards any many other components. Many of those manufacturing divisions were spun off into separate companies during the 1990s, after the era we are talking about.

Tektronix, in order to gain an extra measure of performance, used many custom-designed or specially-selected components. [...] Later on, they built their own integrated circuit manufacturing facility in order to make custom ICs for their equipment.

[...]

Tektronix as time went on fabricated more and more of their electronic parts. This led to very specialized skills and talents which in time led to employees forming new businesses. Some former Tektronix employees left to create other successful "Silicon Forest" companies.


Source


Now, back to that CCD. Tektronix was actually a pioneer in the manufacture of large-format CCDs in the late 1980s, the era in which SOHO was being designed. The CCD group was later spun off as a separate company, called Silicon Imaging Technologies. See for example page 53 of this article.

So yes, the CCD used in SOHO, the actual detector itself, was, as I said, manufactured by Tektronix.


And so we find that the SOHO system is much like your digital camera...a "black box"...whose actual operation is a complete mystery...at least for you.


No it isn't. I have repeatedly linked to the details of what is inside the black box. You have repeatedly failed to understand what you are reading.

Like I said, this isn't my field of expertise. In a chemistry by training and a writer/editor by profession. You claim to be an engineer, so people might assume you know what you are talking about. So why is it that every time I do a little bit of research into your claims, I find that they are wrong?

Example: I didn't know a thing about Tektronix before the name came up in relation to SOHO. But it's clear from 20 minutes' worth of background research that what you claim about the company (ie that it is not and was not an IC manufacturer) is incorrect, and what the SOHO team claim about the company (ie that it built the CCD) is correct. Research and fact-checking is a big part of what I do for a living. You quickly learn to spot when people aren't telling the truth.

edit on 17-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Rob48
 


It is truly wonderful that you can see and read words...too bad you know not want they mean.

The "custom integrated circuits" that Tek built were; First and most important, devices specifically for use in their test instruments. Not likely there were ever any CCD devices used for that.

Secondly. Virtually all of the "chips" Tek manufactured were what was/is knows as "ASIC" (analog special integrated circuits) these are typically quite specialized devices with very limited application. Building these "in-house" was done to save expense.

It has been fun talking with y'all; but, as you know absolutely nothing about my industry, and it's not my job to educate you. I feel, in the community interest, that we should be done, at least till y'all get you stuff together. So, go find out what the hell reality is and get back to me.

Again...everything you think you know about CCD devices, how they are implemented in application, etc. is so very wrong. You suggest things that, quite simply, aren't supported by the semiconductor physics, and the reality of Electronics. You are not educated in electronic technology, it seriously shows. You are dishonoring yourself by displaying your ignorance...so please...drop it...you're wrong.

ETA: Ya know...just remembering a bit: in the late 70's early 80's many companies started doing their own "ASIC" parts. Many of us (Silicon Valley Engineers) thought it was silly, at its best, but there they were...making their own parts. Most came to their senses by the end of the 80's and had their small run parts manufactured by specialized companies better suited to the task.



Research and fact-checking is a big part of what I do for a living. You quickly learn to spot when people aren't telling the truth.


Oh I can see that from the quality of your sources.


edit on 17-4-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 

A simple "I was wrong about that" would suffice. Or are you congenitally incapable of admitting that?

The SOHO team say their CCDs were manufactured by Tektronix, and it is a recorded historical fact that the Tektronix group, led by Morley Blouke, were manufacturing their own CCDs, in their own facility, at the time SOHO was being built (SITe wasn't spun off until circa 1994). Why would they lie about such a mundane detail? As you like to remind us: a CCD is a CCD. Why are you attaching such great significance to who built this one?

I don't even know what you are trying to prove here anymore. You claim I don't understand the technology, but you are the one who seems incapable of understanding the SOHO craft and what it consists of. If, as you claim, all of the technical details of SOHO are nonsense, then how come it works, and continues to work after more than 18 years?

One thing I do agree with is that this thread has run its course. It's gone so far off topic that even Hubble would have trouble spotting it. The original claims in the OP are clearly false, so I think I hear the hoax bin calling.


Oh I can see that from the quality of your sources.


You have a problem with my sources?

Who better to go to for data on spacecraft components than the team that operates the spacecraft?

And if I want to know about scientific CCDs then why not consult a book on the subject, written by an expert? Sorry I didn't cite that source, by the way - here is the book it is taken from. It was written by Ian McLean, vice chair of experimental astrophysics at UCLA. In my professional judgement, I would class him as a reputable source when it comes to astronomical instrumentation.

One source not enough for you? OK, how about this work by James Janesick, winner of the 2004 educator award from the International Society of Optics and Photonics, as well as imagining scientist of the year in 2007, who was working with CCDs at the JPL as early as 1972?

Oh look what I found pictured in his book - a CCD built by Tektronix.


edit on 17-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



You are waaaay out of your depth here, tanka, and as of now I am going to stop throwing you floats.

edit on 17-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Rob48
reply to post by tanka418
 

A simple "I was wrong about that" would suffice. Or are you congenitally incapable of admitting that?


Tell ya what slim...when I am wrong; I'll be the first to admit it!

Till then...

You on the other hand are single handedly rewriting the reality of both the SOHO system and the Tektronix company. I do understand where you are confused, after all you don't know the industry, however; I do!

Your assessment of the "facts" here is completely wrong. You have so misconstrued reality that you have companies making parts that they never had the facilities to manufacture. ASICs are a long way from CCD devices.

Perhaps IF you had any first hand knowledge of the reality of both the industry and the Tektronix company you might begin to understand just how far off you are. But, alas...you won't stop shouting your misunderstanding long enough to catch any of the real history and facts here.

So please retire to your room and attempt to actually learn something real. Drop the fantasies you have about modern science and technology...they only serve to confine you.






posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 



Your assessment of the "facts" here is completely wrong. You have so misconstrued reality that you have companies making parts that they never had the facilities to manufacture. ASICs are a long way from CCD devices.

You mean like the one pictured above? James Janesick says that Tektronix was the first company to manufacture wafer-scale CCDs. The very CCD pictured in fact. Do you know better than him?



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 



Tell ya what slim...when I am wrong; I'll be the first to admit it!

But you'll be the last to recognize it. No one has that kind of time!



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by tanka418
 



Tell ya what slim...when I am wrong; I'll be the first to admit it!

But you'll be the last to recognize it. No one has that kind of time!

Kinda hard for him to be the "first to admit it" when others have already been "admitting" his mistakes for him for a while now. Classic Dunning-Kruger. He's incapable of being the first to admit it. You can cite high quality sources, books, show him pictures demonstrating quite clearly that he's wrong, but he will never admit it.
edit on 17-4-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Rob48
reply to post by tanka418
 



Your assessment of the "facts" here is completely wrong. You have so misconstrued reality that you have companies making parts that they never had the facilities to manufacture. ASICs are a long way from CCD devices.

You mean like the one pictured above? James Janesick says that Tektronix was the first company to manufacture wafer-scale CCDs. The very CCD pictured in fact. Do you know better than him?


ROFLMAO...

Seriously...you either have absolutely no idea or you are attempting to misrepresent truth (aka lie).

Firstly; Yes James is wrong on this point.

CCD devices were first manufactured by Fairchild Semiconductor and Texas Instruments in the very early 70's. These were very early arrays.

That 2k X 2K device wasn't built until sometime in the later 80's; and it was not manufactured by Tektronix (much more like Fairchild or TI)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "wafer scale"...though it is probably yet another reference that you misunderstand. The construction of 3" to 7" dies is actually something that Tektronix would never have gotten into; as it is best left to more serious IC makers like Intel, National Semi, Fairchild Semi, and TI. An "equipment" manufacturer would not go into that kind of manufacturing, mostly due to cost effectiveness. Again, that kind of work is better left to those who are actually "set-up" to do that kind of work.

This whole thing you have about Tek making their own ICs is probably true, doesn't really matter sice the level of IC manufacturing would never go beyond the "ASIC" level...

Now then...and again; When I am wrong I'll actually tell you. But, in this instance, what can I say...I was there, in Silicon Valley, developing the technology y'all take for granted...back in the day. What you are saying does not "jive" with what went down back then...and like I said; I was there, you were not. (actually in the early 80's I was designing (mostly analog) IC for National Semi.)

But, you have fun with your incorrect version of history...it seems that the rewriting of history to suit is a common activity.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by tanka418
 



Tell ya what slim...when I am wrong; I'll be the first to admit it!

But you'll be the last to recognize it. No one has that kind of time!


No actually I'll be the first to recognize...if you keep hanging out with types like these...you will be the last to know. Neither have a clue about the technology, and I'm almost ready to start saying that they are deliberately misrepresenting reality.

I understand that the references they are using say something that can be misconstrued into what they believe. That's what people like me are for...we actually lived that part of history...invented the very technologies being discussed here...unlike these folk who were handed all of this on a platter, and have no appreciation for the development of the technologies.




posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Rob48


Thank you...the perfect image to help me out here.

Can you tell us "why" the streaks appear in the images? That is based on the scale of that integration and the penetration abilities of...oh say a Helium nucleus? (helium will have the best penetration...)


Damn...forgot how f'ing big those things were back then...





posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   

ngchunter

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by tanka418
 



Tell ya what slim...when I am wrong; I'll be the first to admit it!

But you'll be the last to recognize it. No one has that kind of time!

Kinda hard for him to be the "first to admit it" when others have already been "admitting" his mistakes for him for a while now. Classic Dunning-Kruger. He's incapable of being the first to admit it. You can cite high quality sources, books, show him pictures demonstrating quite clearly that he's wrong, but he will never admit it.
edit on 17-4-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)


See what I mean? He will never admit when he's wrong. He just keeps digging the hole deeper and deeper. Quick! Someone better tell Sky and Telescope to print a retraction for their September 1987 issue!
www.phy.duke.edu...
We've got an "electronics expert" here who knows it's all a conspiracy and Tektronix didn't actually make that CCD!



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

tanka418

Firstly; Yes James is wrong on this point.

CCD devices were first manufactured by Fairchild Semiconductor and Texas Instruments in the very early 70's. These were very early arrays.

I'm sure he knows this. According to his bio he started working with CCDs at JPL in 1972. He is not claiming it is the first CCD ever; he is saying it is the first one to occupy a whole wafer.


That 2k X 2K device wasn't built until sometime in the later 80's; and it was not manufactured by Tektronix (much more like Fairchild or TI)

Well, the date on it appears to read "04/20/84". I can't see any company identification marks but I have no reason to disbelieve that it is what it is claimed to be. The Spacewatch telescope on Kitt Peak appears to have been using a Tektronix 2k x 2k CCD since the 1980s*, too, unless they are making that up? Source



I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "wafer scale"...though it is probably yet another reference that you misunderstand.

I thought you knew about electronics. Come on, I am no expert but even I am familiar with that phrase. It means that the circuit (or CCD in this case) is the size, or "scale" of the whole silicon "wafer". See, I can do patronising quote marks too.


This whole thing you have about Tek making their own ICs is probably true

Is this you admitting you were wrong?



But, you have fun with your incorrect version of history...it seems that the rewriting of history to suit is a common activity.

Not my version. Just the version written by people who were there, actually using the things that you deny existed. Incidentally, fascinating though it is, what does all this arcane discussion of 1980s semiconductor technology have to do with the topic at hand?


*edit: I originally wrote 1984, which I thought seemed suspiciously early for a chip that was only first built that same year. On further reading the Tektronix chip wasn't used in the Kitt Peak telescope until 1989. Source. Mea culpa.
edit on 17-4-2014 by Rob48 because: Admitting I was wrong
(on one minor detail)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
there's an interesting beam/meteor(?)/cosmic ray detail on soho EIT 284 at the moment;

files.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 17/4/14 by RoScoLaz because: changed wording



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Rob48
Not my version. Just the version written by people who were there, actually using the things that you deny existed. Incidentally, fascinating though it is, what does all this arcane discussion of 1980s semiconductor technology have to do with the topic at hand?


The first intelligent thing you've said.

It all goes to the technology used in the SOHO system, and how it performs.

So...I'll as my question again regarding the image you linked...

Please explain the "streaks" frequently seen in light of the scale of the integration (27 um). Tell us all how and by "what" (specifically) those "streaks" are created...

Oh...when I said that Tek probably did make some ICs...I was referring to the ASIC chips that they and many others were so "hot" about in the late 70's and early 80's...most of those companies have since given up the making of their own parts because it is not as cost effective as once thought.

By the way; could you explain "why" Tek is not a famous chip maker? IF, as you insist, they built a manufacturing facility capable of making CCDs...they should be a major chip maker now; and they are not.

You are reading and listening to people who were not actually there back in the day...they were somewhere else..."on the outside looking in"; and you think they are reporting everything correctly...you are truly funny!



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
OK just a quick reply as I am busy.


tanka418

Please explain the "streaks" frequently seen in light of the scale of the integration (27 um). Tell us all how and by "what" (specifically) those "streaks" are created...

In basic terms, energetic particles striking the silicon atoms in the CCD and "knocking the electrons out of orbit", liberating them into the pixel sites along the track of the particle. Electrons, of course, being what a CCD is recording. (Yes I know electrons aren't really "orbiting", but if an analogy is good enough for my chemistry professors it is good enough for me.)

(By the way, the CCD pictured is not the one used in SOHO. The ones used in the LASCO imagers are less than half that size, being 1024 x 1024 pixels with 21μm pixels.)



By the way; could you explain "why" Tek is not a famous chip maker? IF, as you insist, they built a manufacturing facility capable of making CCDs...they should be a major chip maker now; and they are not.

Slightly odd logic. Lots of tech companies from the 1980s are no longer around or have moved into different fields. I did mention this, anyway: I said that the Tek CCD group was spun off as a separate company, called Silicon Imaging Technologies. I haven't been able to find out what happened to that company. There is a digital cinematography camera firm called Silicon Imaging, founded in 2001, which involves ex-Tektronix people, but whether it shares anything more than the name and some expertise, I couldn't say, and I have wasted more than enough time on this thread.


You are reading and listening to people who were not actually there back in the day...they were somewhere else..."on the outside looking in"; and you think they are reporting everything correctly...you are truly funny!

The SOHO team were certainly there back in the day, when they wrote that handbook. And James Janesick seems to have been there too, based on that Sky & Telescope piece from 1987, written by one James Janesick of Caltech and Morley Blouke of, erm, Tektronix.

edit on 17-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Rob48

In basic terms, energetic particles striking the silicon atoms in the CCD and "knocking the electrons out of orbit", liberating them into the pixel sites along the track of the particle. Electrons, of course, being what a CCD is recording. (Yes I know electrons aren't really "orbiting", but if an analogy is good enough for my chemistry professors it is good enough for me.)

(By the way, the CCD pictured is not the one used in SOHO. The ones used in the LASCO imagers are less than half that size, being 1024 x 1024 pixels with 21μm pixels.)


Thank you...21um technology...

Now, can you find the penetration depth of your typical atomic nuclei?

Then explain just how there are "streaks" longer than 2 pixels.

Here is where your misunderstanding is coming from: Tektronix has never been a "chip maker", they are however, one of the best / most famous instrument makers n the industry. They have traditionally designed and manufactured instruments across a wide variety of industry and discipline. Thus they would be quite likely, and in fact seem to have designed and produced imaging systems using CCD devices. However, like most companies like that; all they really do is integrate existing technology into a useful system. That's what I do, along with virtually every other technology company (I own my own software house).

So...while SOHO and probably many other imaging systems may be based on an imaging system produced by Tek. Tek still did not produce the actual CCD device, even IF it was originally a custom build for Tek. What I'm saying is that Tektronix probably did not design, or manufacture the actual device (silicon part), but, probably did supply the original specification. That sort of thing is still quite common in the industry...sometimes referred to as "OEM" (original equipment manufacturer). for instance; some Fords are actually Toyotas (I think Toyota), some Dodges and Chryslers are actually Nissan...you see how that works?

Anyway...please answer the question above.




edit on 17-4-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-4-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join