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.

 

Would HAARP disrupt Analog signals?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Can someone tell me if EMP (HAARP tech) weopons affect analog communications?


I wondered why the federal government wants to replace tv transmissions in the United States to digital.




posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Hi, i cannot tell you why HAARP technology may interupt analogue signals, but i can confirm its happening here in Australia also.

It makes me wonder, since ive had a digital set top box, ive had worse reception than the traditional rabbit ear type antenna.

I too will join your crusade to find the answers of which bother the human Couch Potato



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by scubagravy
Hi, i cannot tell you why HAARP technology may interupt analogue signals, but i can confirm its happening here in Australia also.

It makes me wonder, since ive had a digital set top box, ive had worse reception than the traditional rabbit ear type antenna.

I too will join your crusade to find the answers of which bother the human Couch Potato


What do you mean worse reception? With digital, your reception can't be anything but perfect, or you simply won't get the channel. You could say you get less channels with digital, but you can't really say that the reception is worse; the picture will be as clear as it was at the broadcast end, or it won't be there at all.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mdiinican
 


Hi Mdiinican,
thats right, i guess digital is only as good as the reciever (antenna) thats on your roof, i wasnt talking bout underground cable network. With digital, the interferene looks like blocks or giant pixels, compared to analogue where the picture would flicker, but the sound would remain the same.

Btw, do you have a theory why were all being made to change to Digital, or are you just here for a rant ??



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by scubagravy
reply to post by mdiinican
 


Hi Mdiinican,
thats right, i guess digital is only as good as the reciever (antenna) thats on your roof, i wasnt talking bout underground cable network. With digital, the interferene looks like blocks or giant pixels, compared to analogue where the picture would flicker, but the sound would remain the same.

Btw, do you have a theory why were all being made to change to Digital, or are you just here for a rant ??


I'm talking about broadcast TV, like the US is switching to next year. You either get it, or you don't. You're probably at the edge of reception for some of the channels, and they're cutting out with minor changes in the atmosphere/passing traffic/whatever while the converter box desperately tries to piece things together.

The reason is easy: digital takes less bandwidth than analogue. The government wants some of that EM spectrum for itself, and it's going to sell the rest to huge corporations for megabucks.

If you buy digital cable, you have to worry about your cable provider being cheap, and making use of the fact that digital signals mean they get to pack more channels into each allotted "channel". Instead of sending an HD signal down it, or two to four digital standard definition channels, they're sending like eight standard definition channels, each compressed to hell, and charging you full price for the service.

You probably just need a better antenna, though.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   
scubagravy: thank you for helping find the answer and PLEASE post if you find something to confirm or deny the question posed.

I notice when I search this site it is all debate about digital vs. analog and such but I want to know if analog would be left unharmed against EMP weapons.

Does anyone know or can someone lead me to sources for research. I'm not having much luck so maybe it hasn't been considered or no one is talking about it.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   
no, i don't believe that analog signals are impervious to EMP. EMP, as i understand it, just fries circuit boards by pumping a whole heap of current through them, simular to lightning strike.

i think it can be shielded against with a faridays cage though. it's a copper cage that's earthed, but i needs to be pretty good to sheild against an EMP, it won't work if the item has an atenna or is connected to the grid.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Maybe this will help

Haarp



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Anyway, HAARP won't affect analog or digital TV signals because:

a. It's on a government frequency, distinct from the civilian frequencies used for TV. We have band-pass filters in our TVs so they only pick up TV frequencies, because, frankly, it's not like it'd do you any good to try and turn HAM radio into a picture, or whatever.

b. It's primary effect is to alter the upper atmosphere, but broadcast TV doesn't intentionally try to bounce signals off the upper atmosphere. If you're lucky, you might be able to pick up distant stations bouncing off the ionosphere, but you can't really say you're in their service area.

In the future, hardware both military and commercial will interfere with old analog TVs, because some the frequency range will have been sold to the highest bidder, or used for government project.

But by then, the only ones broadcasting will be pirate stations, so you'll have to be pretty close by anyway.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
To the two previous posters: Thank you very much!
The youtube vidio explained HAARP pretty well and the info supplied lastly was great too.

whichever the reason for killing analog for general public use seemed strange to me mostly in that broadcasting for entertainment purposes being a priority and upgraded seems strange in light of the other pressing concerns for our times.

It was interesting to see that analog signals have the potential to interfere with HAARP signals. If HAARP was to be used for the good of us all...like Tesla intended then it would seem reasonable that our government would want to eliminate an interfering system.

Its still a bit creepy.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jesspassinthruwhichever the reason for killing analog for general public use seemed strange to me mostly in that broadcasting for entertainment purposes being a priority and upgraded seems strange in light of the other pressing concerns for our times.


Again: because selling off the part of the frequency range that analog TV used that digital TV doesn't need to because it's more bandwidth efficient will make the government billions of dollars.

This isn't about entertainment quality; it's about money.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   
gotcha...
message received
no surprised look on this face, for sure



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jesspassinthru
I wondered why the federal government wants to replace tv transmissions in the United States to digital.


Countries all over the world are changing their tv transmissions to Digital because it opens up new possibilities that analog is incapable of providing.

Interactive tv.
Various bandwidth subscriptions for ordinary/high def viewing.
Pay as you watch - see Bt Tv.
Integrated interactive advertising.
Clearer picture.
Easier control of viewer subscriptions.
Integrated digital radio.
Multiple channel recording.
Soon to be - complete broadband availability.
Soon to be - cross platform communication possibilities as the hardware becomes available.

I highly doubt there is a conspiracy here - this is an evolution of communications.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join