It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# HAARP at work on the EAST Coast

page: 4
0
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 11:59 AM
Ok, let’s work from the following:

We have an area 10 miles by 10 miles. The altitude in unimportant, but let’s just say that it is high enough that the clouds consist of ice crystals. Let’s also ignore the starting temperature for now, and assume that the only energy we need to add is that required to sublimate the ice to water vapor. This would be the sum of the heat of fusion (melting the ice to water) and the heat of vaporization (going from water to vapor). This happens to be 2594 kJ/kg.

So if we have an area of 100 square miles with the equivalent of 1 inch depth of water scattered about as ice crystals (a totally arbitrary number for now). That equals 65,785 kilograms of water.

Multiply this by 2594kJ/kg and you get 170,648,101 kJ.

As for the time frame, it would have to be fairly quick. How fast does a weather front move? Christodd’s “black triangles” and lines appear to be stationary to me, so that the heating would have to be completed before the air mass moves out of the area.

For the sake of simplicity, lets just say one hour. That way we can use standard units of watt-hours.

At this rate we would need about 47.4 megawathours of energy to convert our ice crystals to water vapor.

“Well,” you say, “that’s not a lot of power. An industrial generator can easily generate that much energy.”

This is true, but that number is assuming 100 % efficiency in the absorption and conversion to heat of the microwave energy by the ice and water.

You still have to account for the inverse square law in delivering the power from the source to the “heating zone.” This is what really kills your theory.

If our 100 square mile “heating zone” is located 1000 kilometers from the microwave radiation source, then the energy that would be required at a distance of one meter from the microwave source would be 47.4 million terawatts. This is quite a lot, considering that the total global electrical generating capacity in 1993 was only a measly 2.1 terawatts.

All that scalar B.S. is just that. B.S. You still can’t get around the basic laws of physics.

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:55 PM
Howardroark, you 10 mile by 10 mile all at once assumption is flawed. Additionally you disapation assumption is also flawed.

You assume zero natural energy available.......also flawed.

On you methodology a bonfire must light and erupt instantly instead of a small spark and available fuel to burn..........

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:58 PM

How are they flawed. What assumptions would YOU make?

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 12:26 PM
(sigh) OK, lets go over you critiques then. . .

Originally posted by thermopolis
Howardroark, you 10 mile by 10 mile all at once assumption is flawed.

Well I agree, it is kind of small. Most of those “black triangles” and black lines on the satellite images posted by Chrisstodd, are much, much, much bigger than that. A 100 square mile area isn’t really enough to significantly impact a major weather system, but I chose it because I think it is easier for people to conceptualize. If you want to start with a bigger area, just let me know.

If you are implying that a smaller area is applicable, then please explain how this could affect a large area such as in christodd’s images.

Originally posted by thermopolis
Additionally you disapation assumption is also flawed.

What “disapation” assumption is that? The dispersal of the ice crystals in a cloud deck? What difference does it make. I am actually doing you a favor by ignoring that. In reality, it would take much more energy to heat up the widely dispersed ice crystals and water droplets in a cloud system.

Actually I also ignored the transfer of heat from the water to the surrounding atmosphere. This would rob your “microwave oven” of some of the energy needed to evaporate the water.

Originally posted by thermopolis
You assume zero natural energy available.......also flawed.

What “natural energy” are we talking about here? Naturally occurring microwaves?

The existing heat in the atmosphere?

Of course I ignored it. I also ignored the starting temperature of the ice crystals (or water droplets, because as I stated in my post, all I was trying to do was to calculate just the energy required to overcome the heat of fusion and the heat of vaporization. This is the absolute minimum energy needed to “evaporate” your cloud.

Did you realize that it take more energy to overcome the heat of fusion than to heat water from 0 to 100 C?

Originally posted by thermopolis
On you methodology a bonfire must light and erupt instantly instead of a small spark and available fuel to burn..........

What “fuel” are you talking about?

In christodd’s posts, he is implying that HAARP is causing clouds to disappear. You postulated that the heating is caused by microwave energy. I merely calculated the minimum amount of energy that would be required to make a given quantity of ice crystals disappear.

You say my assumptions are flawed. Once again, please elaborate on what you see as the flaws. Feel free to provide your own calculation.

And don’t forget about the inverse square law.

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 04:21 PM
HowardRoark
No doubt you are a hard sell and no I do not have all the answers atleast not yet. But you see this is why I came here.To find people like yourself HowardRoark very intelligent you are, But you got to think out of the box.
I thought in the box for years. I did what they told me to do overlook the blackout's it is nothing really. For years I thought in the box until one day I opened my mind to think out of the box and then it clicked.

I need people like yourself I need help to get the answers to solve this puzzle. I do not like to beg but this forum has some of the best out there to offer. This is why I came here . Not to fight to get answers from some of the brightest open minds on the internet.I know people on here have what it takes to help me.I can tell from the depth of the questions and the replies and how they are worded.If I must leave and search it would be difficult to find such a collection of talent that is here on ATS.

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:34 PM
48 hours and 14 minutes for a complete 180 .... Christodd, you were either having a few very bad days at the beginning of the thread ... or your meds finally kicked in

Welcome to the land of logic.

[edit on 11/30/05 by reblazed]

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 10:59 PM
While I am admittedly not an expert at the weather, radar, physics, etc. I have always held the opinion, from knowing at least basic physics, that we just cannot generate enough power to affect the weather on any grand scale. I have stated this in other threads before about the hurricanes, and agree with what Howard is stating here.

However, I do have to wonder about the possibility of any potential energy that could be released. So all they would have to do is hit a storm in the right area with a smaller amount of energy to get the desired effect. Like pushing an bolder off a mountain, the height of the bolder has potential energy, and it does not take an equal amount of energy from the pusher to get a large release of energy out of the bolder since it had potential energy already stored within it. For instance I doubt that we could start a hurricane, but if the conditions where right, maybe we could be the catilist to start one that already had the potential to form on its own.

However, I do see the correlation that you are drawing between some of the data dropouts and the shapes you’re seeing in the air moisture levels. I am starting to wonder though if the relationship between these is not the inverse of what you are thinking it is. What I mean is that while your thinking that HAARP is causing the blackouts and effecting the moister, perhaps the moisture is itself causing the loss of signal and the blackouts, hence the similarity in the shapes between the two radar images.

Like how sonar can get caught in thermal baffles, and a sub can sometimes hide in those baffles to escape detection.

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 02:48 AM
defcon5
Intresting take and theory

Thanks

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 07:29 AM
The point here is that yes your are a bright (guy?), but a basic understand of physis does not equate to a micro-understanding of the combination of physics, supercomputers, wave theory, thermodynamics and meteorology that is HAARP.

First microwaves are but a single section of the spectrum.

Diffussed transportation of the wave bounced off the ionoshpere and focusd on a single cubic meter of air at the speed of light aimed by a supercomputer and scanned over "X" area over a specific time period.........can produce significant heat distribution at amazing levels.

Solar rays heating the upper astmosphere is the "natural energy" that can be amplified by HARRP along with geomagnetic energy.

The thermodynamics of changing ice crystals into water requires a small heat source but produces significant stored energy release in the process.

Consider the process similar to 33 magnifying glasses focusing onto a single spot from diverse locations. Until the beams het the focal point little heat is produced or lost in the process. Yes, it's over simplified but should give you the picture.

As far as energy transmission, consider an infrared heater. Only solid bodies get hot, not the surrounding air. Dirty ice in the clouds could also be heated by the microwaves. "Dirty ice" is dust plus ice crystals. rem: ice in clouds is not "pure". All kinds of chemicals and debris are in the clouds.

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 02:08 PM

Originally posted by thermopolis
First microwaves are but a single section of the spectrum.

No kidding???

But microwaves are the part of the spectrum that are absorbed by water (and water vapor) and translated into heat.

Originally posted by thermopolis
Diffussed transportation of the wave bounced off the ionoshpere

Can you clarify what you mean by “diffused transportation?”

Microwave don’t bounce off the ionosphere. They go right through.

Originally posted by thermopolis
and focusd on a single cubic meter of air at the speed of light aimed by a supercomputer and scanned over "X" area over a specific time period.........can produce significant heat distribution at amazing levels.

OK, if I wanted to heat up a single cubic meter of air, I would just shoot off some fireworks.

You still have to explain how you are avoiding the inverse square law problem.

Originally posted by thermopolis
Solar rays heating the upper astmosphere is the "natural energy" that can be amplified by HARRP along with geomagnetic energy.

How? The solar flux hitting the earth is a constant. Explain how HAARP attenuates or intensifies the incoming solar radiation.

The problem is, the EM radiation that is most affected by the ionosphere are low frequencies, (i.e. the AM band).

www.lsbu.ac.uk...

Originally posted by thermopolis
The thermodynamics of changing ice crystals into water requires a small heat source but produces significant stored energy release in the process.

Um, I think that you have that backward. Latent heat has to be added to ice to change the phase from solid to liquid to gas.

Going in the other direction, latent heat is released from water vapor when it condenses to a liquid. This is what drives thunderheads up into the sky. The latent heat, thus released is absorbed by the surrounding air, which then rises. The rising draws more moist air upwards, cooling it off, and releasing more latent heat.

Originally posted by thermopolis
Consider the process similar to 33 magnifying glasses focusing onto a single spot from diverse locations. Until the beams het the focal point little heat is produced or lost in the process. Yes, it's over simplified but should give you the picture.

So are you focusing incoming solar radiation or energy from HAARP?

Originally posted by thermopolis
As far as energy transmission, consider an infrared heater. Only solid bodies get hot, not the surrounding air. Dirty ice in the clouds could also be heated by the microwaves. "Dirty ice" is dust plus ice crystals. rem: ice in clouds is not "pure". All kinds of chemicals and debris are in the clouds.

We were talking about microwaves, not infrared. These are two different frequencies that interact differently with the atmosphere. Although, actually, water vapor is a significant greenhouse gas. It absorbs infrared quite readily.

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 02:11 PM

Originally posted by defcon5
However, I do have to wonder about the possibility of any potential energy that could be released. So all they would have to do is hit a storm in the right area with a smaller amount of energy to get the desired effect. Like pushing an bolder off a mountain, the height of the bolder has potential energy, and it does not take an equal amount of energy from the pusher to get a large release of energy out of the bolder since it had potential energy already stored within it. For instance I doubt that we could start a hurricane, but if the conditions where right, maybe we could be the catilist to start one that already had the potential to form on its own.

Actually, I believe that thunderstorms form this way, with a small precipitating event such as a rising thermal. The potential energy being in the warm moist air.

As I pointed out, above, however, the latent heat release only works one way. You have to condense water vapor to get the greatest energy release.

It is possible to have a situation where a high altitude region is supersaturated with respect to ice. In this situation, the passage of an airplane though this region will cause the formation of persistent contrails which can then spread out, rise and grow into a cirrus cloud cover.

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 07:19 AM
I have tried so may ways to get the light bulb to go off in your head, but I have failed.

Try this:

Study the Ionoshpere. How it works. Ozone layers, trapped radiation levels, reflected energy absorbed energy!.

Research how skylab was brought down. hint......a sudden unexpected bubble in the upper atmoshpere............cause by "anyone...anyone"

Ozone layer "holes"..........hint.........cfc's do not deplete ozone.........but HARRP does..........

Q?
How could a wave form be "changed" by reflecting off a molecule of "x" at a specific energy level of "y"?

Nothing I say will change your mind, but, if you do enough research the light bulb will go on for you.

One last thing...........do you know what an upper atmoshpereic "spite" is? How the form?

[edit on 2-12-2005 by thermopolis]

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:02 AM

Originally posted by thermopolis

Ozone layer "holes"..........hint.........cfc's do not deplete ozone.........but HARRP does..........

How and why?

One last thing...........do you know what an upper atmoshpereic "spite" is? How the form?

Do you know how and why sprites form? If so best get a paper written quickly - could be a nobel prize in it for you

[edit on 2-12-2005 by thermopolis]

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 12:42 PM

Originally posted by thermopolis
Q?
How could a wave form be "changed" by reflecting off a molecule of "x" at a specific energy level of "y"?

What are you specifically talking about? Fluorescence?

If so, then what specific molecule are you exciting, how are you exciting it and what frequency is being emitted.

If this is, instead, some psuedo-scientific “magic window” B.S. from Bearden, then you are right, nothing you say will change my mind.

posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 12:42 PM
My understanding is that HAARP is a series of antennas that work in concert to focus a high energy, high frequency signal on a point in the ionosphere. This point in the ionosphere heats up and bends due to expansion resulting from the molecules be excited. This bend acts as a kind of lens which allows the original high energy, high frequency signal to be reflected back to earth at a point well beyond the horizon. (controled atmospheric skip). Supposedly, this allows communications beyond line of sight in the event satillite comms are not working. It is also supposed to be a good method for communication with submarines around the world. (what does it do to whales and dolphins?) An apparent side effect of this process is that you are heating an area of the ionosphere which could (does?) affect high level weather related things like the jet stream and god knows what else. With enough practice and observation you could conceivably learn to alter short term weather patterns. (who knows what the long term affects will be.... I hope this helps clarify the matter.

posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 02:20 PM

Originally posted by wedge
My understanding is that HAARP is a series of antennas that work in concert to focus a high energy, high frequency signal on a point in the ionosphere. This point in the ionosphere heats up and bends due to expansion resulting from the molecules be excited.

I agree, except that we are talking about exciting the particles, (i.e. free electrons) not the molecules. Molecules and ions are generally too massive to efficiently heat up via RF energy. In addition, all of the molecules in the atmosphere between the antenna and the ionosphere would tend to absorb that energy long before it reached the ionosphere.

This bend acts as a kind of lens which allows the original high energy, high frequency signal to be reflected back to earth at a point well beyond the horizon. (controled atmospheric skip). Supposedly, this allows communications beyond line of sight in the event satillite comms are not working. It is also supposed to be a good method for communication with submarines around the world.

It is also popular among Ham Radio enthusiasts.

(what does it do to whales and dolphins?)

An apparent side effect of this process is that you are heating an area of the ionosphere which could (does?) affect high level weather related things like the jet stream and god knows what else. With enough practice and observation you could conceivably learn to alter short term weather patterns. (who knows what the long term affects will be.... I hope this helps clarify the matter.

Well there is my problem. This assumption that HAARP is somehow being used to affect troposphere weather does not seem to be founded on any actual science as far as I have been able to tell.

new topics

top topics

0