Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

HAARP: A Logistical Study.

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Please tell me more about radio waves with periods of hours or days. That's something I was not aware of.


Well.... there is no theoretical limit to the size of the wavelength of a photon.

Although, in order to "See" into that wavelength, you would have to have an antenna an appreciable fraction of that size....

So, Radio emissions from a Large Star, perhaps would form something like this.


Actually being able to "HEAR" one of this signals, would probably require an antenna near the size of the sun, of course...


Radiation spreads. In the presence of magnetic fields, the ELF radiation is guided by those fields.


So, you are saying that a Projected beam or VHF radiation will "Naturally" begin to spiral?


I find that fascinating.... does that have anything to do with the Lorentz force?


I know what ions are. I know what plasma is. Please show me where I said that HAARP produces a display of any sort.


Yeah... my last post....

AIRGLOW.

Radio waves can produce visible effects.


The area affected by HAARP does not rotate. But you are correct, the Norway spiral did not rotate either. The effluent from the rocket expanded radially from its source, at the speed at which it was ejected.


Are you saying that it is not possible to project an image of a rotating "system" onto the atmosphere by using high frequency Radio Waves?


Because we do that exact same thing with Visible spectrum projectors.


And Phased Arrays are capable of shaping the wavefront to produce crude shapes...


So... it looks ENTIRELY POSSIBLE dude.

-Edrick




posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick


Do Angel's or Devil's play this Harp?


Ugh, starting off with "Mr Misinformation - Nick Begich". Bad choice.



I have read Many discussions over the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program of the Defense Advanced Research Agency...

As well as doing my own research on the matter, and the Physics Involved.


Hopefully you skipped out on Begich and his flunkies, but given what I just read in the post, obviously not.



large amount of "bees smell fear" material


I often see Begich and the like do this same thing. It's really nice that you have clipped a lot of material from various "real" sites and stuck it in front. I'm sure it's to lend some credibility to the train-wreck that follows, which is why Nick does it. I call it "bees smell fear" data - there was a kid in a movie I can't recall that all through the movie would pop up with true, but pointless non-sequiturs such as "bees smell fear" or "the human head weighs about eight pounds" before stating that there were monsters under the bed.



Thus, the HAARP facility can steer a relatively focused beam in a large range of directions.

Simply by timing the pulses.


Actually, for HAARP that's not true in the sense that it would be for, say, a millimetric radar - HAARP operates CW in the HF band, no pulses at all. So it would be more correct to say that it steers the beam over about a 60 degree cone from the vertical by adjusting the phase relationships between the antenna array elements, by using a direct-synthesis digital exciter, which was very fun to help design, I'd bet.




Now... the Stated Goal of HAARP is to study the ionosphere, and I have little doubt that the purpose of the study was to map the precise beam direction changes caused by the phenomenon of Ionospheric Refraction.


Why not go get a nice subscription to Geophysical Letters and you can download literally thousands of studies done on the array?



Therefore, the HAARP facility is capable of projecting a Coherent Beam of Electromagnetic Radiation onto any spot on the earth that surrounds it for a certain distance...


Here's where we leave the "bees smell fear" material and take a left turn into the alfalfa. No, it does not emit coherent radiation.



So, using Ionospheric reflection, HAARP can cast a semi-coherent beam of electromagnetic radiation a great distance.


Nor even semi-coherent, whatever that means to you.



Now, it Gets Freaky!


You're already there. Trust me.



You have heard that a photon can circle the earth 7 times in one second?

Yeah... it's actually more like 7.83 times per second.


Actually, the Schumann resonance is the cavity resonance caused by the sphere-in-sphere waveguide formed between the conductive earth and the conductive ionosphere. It doesn't have anything to do with the van Allen belts, nor protons, nor really much of anything else. In a way, it looks like a big piece of coax to extremely low frequency radio waves, but it doesn't mean jack to anything else.



Is a Sprite... lightning (Short Circuit) produces an EM pulse across the visible spectrum, as the ions in the path of the current flow reach an EXTREMELY HIGH energy level, and radiate at their Blackbody temperatures as they cool down....


More "bees smell fear"



Now.... back to HAARP.

Our own personal Photon Spheres


before another refreshing trip into the alfalfa again....



Since HAARP is capable of generating a fairly controllable beam of Radiation and reflecting it to almost any place on the globe...

It should be no trouble at all to create a near microwave frequency "Display" that heats the surface of the water in a rotating pattern, in order to induce the creation of rising Thermals, that spin around a cold vortex.


...and what I'd like to term "the sell". After having given you a dose of bees, then some highly incorrect physics, then more bees, we'll now introduce a total non-sequitur. Note that this statement, in addition to being totally incorrect, has no real connection to what he's been saying, which has also mostly been pretty much wrong except for the bees parts.

He's trying to connect "microwaves" to "heating water". But HAARP doesn't transmit microwaves, they top out at about 10MHz. Microwaves wouldn't be reflected by the ionosphere - they go right through. That's why you have to have cell towers all over the place, and why you have to have microwave relay stations every few miles - it's line-of-sight unlike, say, AM radio or HF band SSB transmissions which rely on "sky wave" propagation, where you can bounce it off the ionosphere. You cannot bounce microwaves off of the ionosphere. HAARP, even if the IRI was capable of transmitting microwaves (it isn't) couldn't possibly use ionospheric bounce to work.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by Phage
 


What has been spent so far on HAARP and what has it achieved??

What is it capable of regardless of if its doing it or not?


It's an ionospheric heater. You can do some neat tricks with that. They do a ton of studies on how particles behave in the ionosphere and inner magnetosphere.

There are some military applications too, but most of them rotate around communications.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 

Yes, I am saying it is not possible to "paint" a visual image with radio waves. The wavelength is too great. The dispersion is too much. Light is not "near" radio frequencies (or microwaves).

Under the right conditions HAARP can produce a very small "artificial aurora". It cannot draw pictures.

Artificial auroral lights are optical emissions induced by high-power radiowaves in a manner similar to the creation of natural auroral lights due to precipitation of superthermal electrons. Here the Earth's atmosphere itself plays the role of a plasma laboratory. A high-power radio-transmitter creates superthermal electrons in situ due to radiowave interactions with the ionospheric plasma. Low-altitude (85–125 km) artificial aurora is a relatively rare phenomenon observed for the first time about 10 years ago. Analysis of available observations shows that its intensity and structure, as well as the very possibility of its generation at these altitudes, depend largely on the presence and features of so-called sporadic ionization, best known for its effect on navigation and communication.

Source

As in the natural aurora, the "structure" seen in artificial airglow is the result of the existing magnetic lines of force. It is not a result of the transmitter.

[edit on 6/21/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Ugh, starting off with "Mr Misinformation - Nick Begich". Bad choice.


Fair to say... It's just a name.


Hopefully you skipped out on Begich and his flunkies, but given what I just read in the post, obviously not.


Honestly, I have never read that book... but I have heard of it.


I often see Begich and the like do this same thing. It's really nice that you have clipped a lot of material from various "real" sites and stuck it in front.


So... what you are saying, is that ME, trying to validate the physics of a radio antenna being able to project glowing images upon the ionosphere is.... What.,.. loony?

Seriously?

The rest of your post is merely an assumption that I am parroting the words of a book that I have never read...

Stop it.

-Edrick



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Oh... more good information.... thank you!


Yes, I am saying it is not possible to "paint" a visual image with radio waves. The wavelength is too great. The dispersion is too much. Light is not "near" radio frequencies (or microwaves).


So, you are saying that if I shoot radio waves at ionized gasses in certain places... they will not light up in those certain places?




As in the natural aurora, the "structure" seen in artificial airglow is the result of the existing magnetic lines of force. It is not a result of the transmitter.


So... you are saying that it would be easiest to project an image at 90 degrees to the magnetic field lines... say, north to south?

Sound about right!

Thanks again Phage!

-Edrick

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Edrick]

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Edrick]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Enjoyed all the banter going on.

Microwaves are near high frequency (short waves that HAARP uses) after you go through UHF and VHF frequencies to get there.

I mention this as the graphs used are a little subjective to interpretation. Someone not so technically inclined might think you just jump from one band into the other without realizing what frequencies are actually involved.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oneolddude
Of course nobody knows that because the one the public knows about is designed to lead people astray.

Don't believe me? Read this.


The PFRR array? PFFT.

Instead of rehashing a long explanation, read this. Start about 3/4 of the way down, where this really smart informed guy named Tom Bedlam states "I just have to look. I don't get up there much. I am betting it's the PFRR, but it will be interesting to see. There are also some long range radars in Alaska for spotting polar-orbit reentry vehicles."

A lot of the thread from there is a dissection of your boy Dan Eden's PFRR fantasy fiction, it's what's being referred to as "your guy's site".



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick

A couple kilowatts is not going to do that much.... but a GigaWatt?

It could melt some ice....


It could heat some water... or oil...

It might take a while... but it is possible.


With Several Emitter Arrays in conjunction... you could do some Damage.


-Edrick


Let me know when you figure out the difference between ERP and power output. Hint - it doesn't emit a gigawatt.

Also, check out "inverse square law", it's a hoot!



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Let me know when you figure out the difference between ERP and power output. Hint - it doesn't emit a gigawatt.

Also, check out "inverse square law", it's a hoot!


Seriously!!!!


Did you hear the one about the Van allen Radiation belt being in effect One GIANT LC CIRCUIT?!?!?!

It's got capacitance... it's got Inductance...

IT is constantly charged by the solar wind (LOTS-O-POWER)

And it should be possible to GROUND the outer electron belt to the inner hydrogen belt... (Think Lightning)

Current flow between two inductive chambers that also act as capacitors = Radio Frequency Emission.

-Edrick



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick

Yes... this is why Semi-Coherent is more correct than coherent... I think we already discussed this earlier.


Except it's not correct at all. Why not say it's plaid?




Compared to the REST of the electromagnetic spectrum... *IT IS*

Do you see the word "Radio" next to the word "Microwave"?

Would you say that they are nearer to each-other than say... Radio and Gamma?


What has that got to do with anything? HAARP doesn't output microwaves, and you can't seriously be trying to claim that 10MHz is just a "real low frequency microwave because it's closer than gamma!"




That would make kind of a.... spiral... pattern... wouldn't it?


No.




Are you trying to tell me that those metal bars can only transmit at a certain power level?

They couldn't possibly.... I dont know... use a LARGER GENERATOR?...
Are you trying to tell me that *THAT* is the maximum possible power that can be pumped through an antenna?


Well, you know, they could bring in 100 nuclear reactors from the Navy, cool them with pipes in the thermafrost, totally replace all the output finals and wiring, re-build the antennas to handle huge excitation voltages without arcing, then send out DEATH PULSES, and then take it all down and by the next day it would be just like it was. PROOF!



And what is the power density at that distance if each transmitter is measured in megawatts, instead of kilowatts?

-Edrick


Why stop there? What if each transmitter put out 10000 TERAWATTS?!!



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Yes... this is why Semi-Coherent is more correct than coherent... I think we already discussed this earlier.



Except it's not correct at all. Why not say it's plaid?


AHRG!!!!



In physics, coherence is a property of waves that enables stationary (i.e. temporally and spatially constant) interference. More generally, coherence describes all properties of the correlation between physical quantities of a wave.

When interfering, two waves can add together to create a larger wave (constructive interference) or subtract from each other to create a smaller wave (destructive interference), depending on their relative phase. Two waves are said to be coherent if they have a constant relative phase.



Two waves are said to be coherent if they have a constant relative phase.

Interference is the process whereby some of the wave is destructively interfered with, and other parts are CONSTRUCTIVELY interfered with.

When the Phases are in-sync.... they AMPLIFY..


This phenomenon is known as *COHERENCE*


Phage has already argued this point.

Why must you force me to disprove this statement?


What has that got to do with anything? HAARP doesn't output microwaves


Yes, but it DOES produce VHF radio waves that BORDER on microwave frequency.... they are NEAR the band that we label "Microwave" frequency.


and you can't seriously be trying to claim that 10MHz is just a "real low frequency microwave because it's closer than gamma!"


You are nameing Photons as COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENTITIES, when they are the EXACT SAME as eachother, except for there frequency, and by extension, wavelength.


Why else do you think that Visible spectrum light can REDSHIFT into the Microwave Frequency?

ALA, COSMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION!

en.wikipedia.org...


No.


YES.... I can play this game too.


Well, you know, they could bring in 100 nuclear reactors from the Navy, cool them with pipes in the thermafrost, totally replace all the output finals and wiring, re-build the antennas to handle huge excitation voltages without arcing, then send out DEATH PULSES, and then take it all down and by the next day it would be just like it was. PROOF!


So, what you are saying, is, in effect.... that *IT IS POSSIBLE WITH EXISTING TECHNOLOGY*

As opposed to just Tin foil hatterty?


Why stop there? What if each transmitter put out 10000 TERAWATTS?!!


Do we have power generation systems capable of that kind of power output?

Maybe they have Some kind of Internal confinement Hydrogen Fusion process, eh?

-Edrick

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Edrick]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick

So, Radio emissions from a Large Star, perhaps would form something like this...Actually being able to "HEAR" one of this signals, would probably require an antenna near the size of the sun, of course...


More bees.



So, you are saying that a Projected beam or VHF radiation will "Naturally" begin to spiral?


No. Why do you hop back and forth between ELF, HF, VHF and microwaves as if they were the same?




AIRGLOW.


Note the green color of the photo? Image intensifiers. It isn't visible to the naked eye.



Are you saying that it is not possible to project an image of a rotating "system" onto the atmosphere by using high frequency Radio Waves?


By image you mean what, exactly? A naked-eye visible picture?



Because we do that exact same thing with Visible spectrum projectors.


Which use visible light....? Yeah, yeah, I know that visible light is closer to HF radio than, say ELF is to gamma rays. That PROVES it! HF radio is visible!



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Let me know when you figure out the difference between ERP and power output. Hint - it doesn't emit a gigawatt.

Also, check out "inverse square law", it's a hoot!


Seriously!!!!


Did you hear the one about the Van allen Radiation belt being in effect One GIANT LC CIRCUIT?!?!?!


Did you hear the one where I asked if you understood the difference between ERP and total output power, and you sidestepped it? HAARP doesn't emit a gigawatt. It has a gigawatt ERP. There is a distinct difference.

[quote[
It's got capacitance... it's got Inductance...

IT is constantly charged by the solar wind (LOTS-O-POWER)

And it should be possible to GROUND the outer electron belt to the inner hydrogen belt... (Think Lightning)

Current flow between two inductive chambers that also act as capacitors = Radio Frequency Emission.

-Edrick

The density of the electron belts in terms of charge per cc is....? What's the actual conductivity of your plasma? Add in an R, baby, add in the R.

The outer belt is pretty far out of the atmosphere - how do you intend to ground it? At any rate, why not set them on fire? It happened in a movie, you know.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



More bees.


NO, this is RADIO PHYSICS...


IT IS SCIENCE!


The "resonant frequency" and "electrical resonance" is related to the electrical length of an antenna. The electrical length is usually the physical length of the wire divided by its velocity factor (the ratio of the speed of wave propagation in the wire to c0, the speed of light in a vacuum). Typically an antenna is tuned for a specific frequency, and is effective for a range of frequencies that are usually centered on that resonant frequency. However, other properties of an antenna change with frequency, in particular the radiation pattern and impedance, so the antenna's resonant frequency may merely be close to the center frequency of these other more important properties.


For the love of God....


No. Why do you hop back and forth between ELF, HF, VHF and microwaves as if they were the same?


Because *ME AND PHAGE* were speaking of VHF radio waves at the time of that quote.

Stick to the context as opposed to just attacking, would you?


Note the green color of the photo? Image intensifiers. It isn't visible to the naked eye.


Not at that low power it isn't....


But to say that radio waves cannot make gases glow is... somewhat of a blind statement.

www.youtube.com...




That was YOU being Wrong.


Hot Plasma GLOWS.

Radio waves Can Ionize Air, and make them into a GLOWING PLASMA.


What about this simple concept is so difficult to understand?

-Edrick



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Did you hear the one where I asked if you understood the difference between ERP and total output power, and you sidestepped it?


Sidestepped?

No, more like nullified the importance of.


The density of the electron belts in terms of charge per cc is


The total VOLUME of the electron belt is ... what now?


The outer belt is pretty far out of the atmosphere - how do you intend to ground it?


The way I hear it.... you can do this by heating a section of the ionosphere and make it rise like some sort of....

ElectroJet.... or Thermal, or something...


Use a Microwave frequency beam to polarize the air, and conductivity breaks down...


You know that current will jump a vacuum at sufficiently high voltages, right?

-Edrick



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Great thread, the information here about how things work is wonderful. But, I think that both debaters points are moot. They are both not part of the HAARP program to have first hand experience with the technology so all you can do is assume and work the with science involved with the facility. I tend to side with Edrick in this debate as I have a healthy skepticism of my government and what they do. Phage, I think that your posts are well thought out and bring up valid points, but you seem to accept the "official story" most of the time. I can see why, because most of the the time the most logical or rational answer is the the truth.

You also say they are limited to 3.6 Megawatt, you are only saying that because that is what they are officially saying. None of us know the real potential unless we experience it for ourselves. None of us can say we know for sure, none of us have first hand knowledge.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick

Yes, but it DOES produce VHF radio waves that BORDER on microwave frequency.... they are NEAR the band that we label "Microwave" frequency.


NO, no it does NOT produce VHF radio waves. 10 MHz isn't NEAR VHF, it's not NEAR microwaves. It's just not.



You are nameing Photons as COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENTITIES, when they are the EXACT SAME as eachother, except for there frequency, and by extension, wavelength.


Not at all - you're being very incoherent on this, to borrow from your other statement. You just cannot say that all EM, being an electromagnetic wave, is thus all co-equal in behavior and effect, and I can therefore call any LF or HF radio wave a microwave, sim salabim! Except that you're wrong.



Why else do you think that Visible spectrum light can REDSHIFT into the Microwave Frequency?


Why do you think you can see visible light, but not radio waves? Why do you think that you focus visible light with a glass lens, but not an LF radio wave? Why do gamma rays ionize when ELF does not? Hint - grossly different wavelengths produce grossly different physical results.




So, what you are saying, is, in effect.... that *IT IS POSSIBLE WITH EXISTING TECHNOLOGY*

As opposed to just Tin foil hatterty?


What I am saying is that I have a real SR-71 on my desk! Sure, it's just a cast metal model, but it's really an SR-71, because if was bigger, and actually had a proper airframe like an SR-71 instead of being a model, and had engines, and avionics and everything else, then it would BE a real SR-71!

I can also proudly claim that my cell phone can broil meat. Well, it could if it had about 3x the frequency and 1000 times the output power, but those are trivial differences! It really IS an oven!

Oh, and my dog? I can ride him around with a saddle, and he eats Kodiak bears for dinner, at least he will when he's 50x the size, but it's really true!

Only, none of it's true, because that's not what they are.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
IT IS SCIENCE!

For the love of God....



What you said was true, as far as it went, but it was a total non-sequitur, which is the entire point of a "bees" statement.

Here's an example.

In transient or hunting analysis, the system equations are again investigated with respect to the armature circuit, by eliminateing from the transient equations the rows and columns associated with the field coils and permanently short-circuited paths. This gives a set of armature transient or operational inductances and time constants.

It has nothing to do with what you said, but it's true, and even technical.



But to say that radio waves cannot make gases glow is... somewhat of a blind statement.

Radio waves Can Ionize Air, and make them into a GLOWING PLASMA.


What about this simple concept is so difficult to understand?

-Edrick


HAARP, however, does not produce the frequency or output power density that could come anywhere near causing that effect. What about THAT is hard to understand? Oh, wait, that's why you're straining so very very hard to say that 10MHz is a microwave, aren't you?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Did you hear the one where I asked if you understood the difference between ERP and total output power, and you sidestepped it?


Sidestepped?

No, more like nullified the importance of.


No, not at all. You were saying that a gigawatt could cause all sorts of global heating effects, which is not all that true either. But HAARP doesn't put out anywhere near a GW, it has a GW of ERP, which isn't the same.



The total VOLUME of the electron belt is ... what now?


um, meaningless if the charges are so widely separated that a "current" per se won't flow?



The way I hear it.... you can do this by heating a section of the ionosphere and make it rise like some sort of....

ElectroJet.... or Thermal, or something...


And what was the power density of HAARP at the ionospheric level, and let's see, what would it take to heat this to the point that it expanded 1000 km, and what would happen if it did...hmm...you do know the inner belt is mixed protons and electrons already, right? Why isn't IT shorted out? Hmm...



Use a Microwave frequency beam to polarize the air, and conductivity breaks down...


You know that current will jump a vacuum at sufficiently high voltages, right?

-Edrick


Polarize the air? Polarize the air? What does that even mean? Do you think there's air there? Do you mean ionize?

And I like the bees statement there - yeah, in some conditions, generally it takes a metal surface you can strip material from to start an arc in vacuum, but ignoring the fact there isn't anything like that there, how do you plan to change the voltages?

Oh, and HAARP's IRI is not a microwave source. Unless you're bringing in random entities - well if I HAD a microwave source, I could, or the like.



[edit on 21-6-2010 by Bedlam]





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join