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.

 

HAARP: A Logistical Study.

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by harryhaller
 

The data is sampled "every few minutes" it is not a continuous stream. The change in propagation probably changed between samples.




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
As an adendum, this is a Radio Spectrum Broadcast allocation table from the Federal Communications Commission:

www.ntia.doc.gov...

It shows this frequency block (1-30mhz) as commercial, Fixed, Maritime, and Aeronautical.

You could probably find the broadcast antennas responsible for each individual line by triangulating with their intensity falloff based on distance.

except for the mobile ones, of course...

-Edrick

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Edrick]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Oh dear.... this is most distressing.

I just found a NASA publication that map's the total mass of the Van Allen Radiation belt as a mere 0.018 kilograms...

Surely, This can't be correct...

spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/5Page46.pdf

What do you think Phage?

-Edrick



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
For edrick, a paper on plasma etching:

www.emsdiasum.com...

Silly how phage and bedlam are splitting hairs as to how the ionisation occurs.

And many of their arguments against edrick's ideas are based on power densities produced by facilities such as HAARP etc. Bedlam tried to imagine more powerful transmitters and saw in his mind voltage arcing out all over the place and deemed the idea untenable. I'll bet if he had a half a billion dollar grant to sort out the technical difficulties he could make it work. Maybe not but this is the line I think edrick is pursuing here; if they can they will....so how would they do it?

I personally think that ionospheric heaters are not the way to go if you want a death ray kind of device. Particle beams and electrolasers are much better candidates in my mind but I think it is way too early to completely disregard the idea of hurling dangerous amounts of energy around with these HAARP type gismos. I'm enjoying edricks persistence in the face of the belligerent, rude (though often informative), closed mindedness offered him.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by mrwiffler]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 

I just glanced at the math, it looks ok. They are disregarding electron density and other ions so it probably weighs a little more than that. But not much, electrons are pretty light weight critters.

Why does that surprise you? It is space, after all. Space doesn't mass much.

[edit on 7/13/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I aint no scientist but I think he is pointing out that there isn't much mass. Therefore it wouldn't take much energy to effect it...



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Ah the lights go on.

Comes from me taking websites too seriously.


Thank you for your patience.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



I just glanced at the math, it looks ok.


Yeah... about that... their math is FAR from ok.

Real Far.


They are disregarding electron density and other ions so it probably weighs a little more than that.


Try five to six orders of magnitude more.


But not much, electrons are pretty light weight critters.


Yeah, electrons wouldn't effect the total mass... much.


Why does that surprise you? It is space, after all. Space doesn't mass much.


It REALLY surprises me that NASA would make such a juvenile calculation mistake.

And YES, they did...

And YES, they are WRONG.


I'm going to see if you can find the mistake first... before I show you.

-Edrick

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Edrick]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


For Posterity:


Problem 3 - Assuming that the maximum, average density of the van Allen Belts is about 100 protons/cm^3 , and that the mass of a proton is 1.6 x 10^-24 grams, what is the total mass of the van Allen Belts in kilograms?

Answer: Mass = density x Volume, V = 1.1 x 10^23 meters^3.
D = 100 protons/cm^3 x 1.6 x 10^-24 grams/proton = 1.6 x 10^-22 grams/cm^3 which, when converted into MKS units gives 1.6 x 10^-22 g/cm^3 x (1kg/1000 gm) x (100 cm/1 meter)^3 = 1.6 x 10^-25 kg/m^3. So the total mass is about M = 1.6 x 10^-25 kg/m^3 x 1.1 x 10^23 meters^3 and so M = 0.018 kilograms




So.... where is Waldo?

-Edrick



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 

Yeah, it looks like he missed the conversion from cubic cm to cubic meters.
So the Van Allen belts actually weigh 17.6 kg. Hows the math on the volume look?

If I were you I would write to Dr. Odenwald and point out his error to him. I always got a good laugh when one of my teachers goofed.


[edit on 7/14/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Yeah, it looks like he missed the conversion from cubic cm to cubic meters.
So the Van Allen belts actually weigh 17.6 kg.


Exactly... but the mass is not 17.6 kg...

it is more like 17,600 kg.

Observe!


Mass of Proton: 1.6 * (10^-24)
100 per cm^3

Mass per cm^3 = 1.6 × (10^-22)

1,000,000 cubic centimeters per cubic meter.

Mass per cubic meter = 1.6 × (10^-16)

Volume of Van Allen belt = 1.1 x (10^23) meters^3

Mass of Van Allen Belt = 17,600,000 grams.

17,600 kilograms


Hows the math on the volume look?


Oooohhh... yeah...

From what I can tell, the volume calculation is an approximation of a double torus shape.

And... seems to be accurate, from my perspective.


If I were you I would write to Dr. Odenwald and point out his error to him. I always got a good laugh when one of my teachers goofed.


sounds like a good idea, actually.

I mean, it's not every day that one gets to point out Errors to NASA.

LOL!

-Edrick

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Edrick]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Sorry if this has come up already but have you guys seen the Holes in Heaven documentary and if so what did you think of it?

www.imdb.com...



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 

Yup, you're right.
Pesky zeros.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by virgom129
 


Here's a "sampler" (as of a few years ago). There are hundreds of papers, written by hundreds of scientists from universities and other institutions all over the world. HAARP is a research facility. A good one.
www.gi.alaska.edu...



Before the thing was even built every scientist claimed it had the making of a massive weapon. Since the Air Force and Navy operate it and its also protected by the near by bases, newly commissioned missile interceptors and the Navies Phalanx gun system you can bet your bottom that it is a weapon and will be used should someone want to play shoot the nukes at America. Yes it can be used and is being used as a research project for universities but flip a switch and it can bring the other sites into play and do with it what they need too!!

www.superforce.com...

Listen to your speakers in the house when everything is off if you don't think HAARP or another site like it is pounding at something as we speak.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join