Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is HAARP feeding SANDY? (The Conspiracy Side)

page: 32
34
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by delusion
But manipulating things on this scale to cause major death destruction and disruption, just in order to increase control and to profiteer? That's cartoon-level villiany, and just does not exist.


Really?

You ever follow what say... George Sorros does?

Evil this bad does exist.




posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Thanks for the illustration, however, as simple as it was, I know not science, and don't know if you answered my question or not. I'll just re-phrase what I was asking...

I am wondering if there are two different mediums or spectrums being referred to (eg, is an electromagnetic spectrum the same as a radio wave spectrum *radio waves may be EM waves, forgive my ignorance*, or for that matter a visible light spectrum). I've kind of lost track of what spectrum or medium we're talking about.

And is the correlation of the same possible frequency range you are claiming as evidence of something it can do, not actually in the same spectrum or medium, and therefore has nothing to do with it other than the same cycle rate?
This is haarping back to earlier in the thread when OP was claiming ALL frequencies are the same thing, and that if you matched the frequency of something you affect whatever has the same frequency - which seemed to be a very mis-guided idea.

EDIT, No sorry, I don't think I know who that is. What's he done?
edit on 2-11-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-11-2012 by delusion because: edited to make haarp pun



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Processors efficiency have emproved thousands of folds:
The article doesn't say that. It doesn't even talk about efficiency. Wouldn't "thousands of folds" mean a percentage increase of at least 1000%?

The original 8086 drew ~1.84W and the P3 1GHz drew 33W, meaning that CPU power consumption increased by 17.9x while CPU frequency improved by 125x


From 2007 to 2011, maximum CPU clock speed (with Turbo Mode enabled) rose from 2.93GHz to 3.9GHz, an increase of 33%. From 1994 to 1998, CPU clock speeds rose by 300%.
www.extremetech.com...
Looks to me like power consumption went up right along with clock speeds though so as far as "efficiency" goes, not much of a gain.
 

Lasers. I don't see anything about "thousands of folds" increase in efficiency. Not sure what that has to do with HAARP though.
 


Your really want me to go on? You really going to question that we do much more with less?
Go on with what? You haven't started as far as I can tell.
 


we show that geometric modulation can enhance ELF/VLF wave generation by up to ~11 dB over the conventional AM method.

www.agu.org...
An increase of 11dB is not "thousands of folds". Not even hundreds. So they get a bit more umph out of the ELF/VLF signal. Gosh, maybe about 250 watts on a good day.
edit on 11/2/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
Seems to me HAARP can do that just fine...


It seems to me you misread your own reference. If you review it, you'll note that they're saying that HAARP can induce airglow (visible light and IR). It does this by exciting ionospheric electrons, the high-speed outliers on the Gaussian energy distribution have enough energy to ionize neutral gas atoms, which emit photons when they recombine.

It does NOT say that HAARP is some sort of parametric laser tunable to any frequency. And to try calling IR and visible light a microwave is a travesty. Look at the scale in your reference - the black areas are what you can get directly and indirectly from the IRI. Note that you do NOT see any black areas in the microwave region.

Eastlund's patent involves beaming large scale quantities of power from the tundra to the continental US by emitting huge quantities of microwave power and bouncing it off the ionosphere to a rectenna farm.

It has no connection to inducing a trivial amount of airglow using a HF band transmitter.

BTW, you have to use the image intensifier on the site telescope to actually see this effect.

And you still didn't respond to how Eastlund's patent references Tesla. I'm betting you don't know. Here's a hint - it's absolutely trivial, and it's in the prior art section. The entire reference is maybe two sentences long. There's a photo of a magazine cover. That's it. It doesn't say "I am using the super secret knowledge of Tesla". It's more like "In the past, a device that beamed power from one location to another was envisioned by Tesla (picture of Wardenclyffe), this was never achieved and my approach, as far as I know, does not resemble this, therefore any prior art referring to this does not apply", IIRC.


edit on 2-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


So it is not limited by HAARPS power. They can bounce a much more powerful source off the mirror HAARP creates.
What "much more powerful source" would that be?



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage, 1000 fold would be 100,000% Double would be 200%.

You're simplifying computing metrics too far. It's a bit more complex than that.

The architecture changes with each new series advancement, so the "work" done per clock cycle increases or decreases depending on what the end goal is. Well, the end goal is always advancement, but how they go about it for each generation depends on what the current limiting factor is in the technology before a new set of breakthroughs occur.

Link

For an easy way to see the leaps, take the Pentium for to Core tech leap that happened in 2005 (??).

We were burning 100+ watts at 3GHZ+

The new core chips running ~45 watts at 1.6GHZ were out performing the pentium series.
edit on 2-11-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze

One of the amazing things about what HAARP can do is not only broadcast it's own information, but use the ionosphere to become a directed antenta, a mirror if you will, to direct secondary sources the Navy, or others want to use...


Yes, that's one of the early bits of military project research. It's not a big secret. There's a lot of interest in ducting and mirror formation. It's very useful in C3I and SIGINT, both in interdiction, redirection, and allowing OTH work on a predictable basis instead of having to use sporadic-E.

Do you have any idea of how this works, other than the graphic you keep posting on various threads? I'll wait. Here's a hint - If you raise the _____ ______ of an area so that the ______ frequency is _____ __ ____ _____ of the signal of interest, it will form a _____ _____ __ ____ _________.




So not only can it be use the ionosphere to convert it's own signals into other frequencies, it can become a mirror to bounce other energy sources.


And if you bounce a much more powerful signal off of a plasma mirror, then what happens? I'll give you a hint...it's related to the hint above.

You actually have to read for more than keywords. Although you're still doing it months later.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 


You're simplifying computing powerful too far. It's a bit more complex than that.
It wasn't my example. I was pointing out that there had been no "thousands of folds" increase in processor efficiency since 1987. Do you concur?



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


If it's not thousands of times, it's pretty close. Let me see if I can find some figures.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
An increase of 11dB is not "thousands of folds". Not even hundreds. So they get a bit more umph out of the ELF/VLF signal. Gosh, maybe about 250 watts on a good day.


It was an increase of something like 8W to mid 20W, peaking out at 35W on a really perfect night. But the conditions for that are rare.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 

Wow! A refrigerator light bulb's worth of power. I assume the calculations are based on a theoretical point source rather than the entire active region?
edit on 11/2/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
The 386DX at 33MHZ hit 9.9 MIPS. It was released in 1985.

The 486DX2 at 66MHZ hit 54 MIPS. It was released in 1992.

The Core i7 3960X at 3.33GHZ hit 177,360 MIPS. It was released in 2011

Let me see if I can find wattages for each.

MIPS


Eh, it seems to be a little difficult to find the wattage for the 386. Looks to be around 5w.

The 486DX2 consumed 7w.

The Core i7 3960 has a TDP of 130w

So if we take the DX2 vs the Core i7, the efficiency increase based on MiPS is :

130/7 = 18.571

177360/9.9 = 17915.15 / 18.851 =

950.35 fold increase from 1992 - 2011

So it is fair to say it has increased greater than 1000 fold, according to MiPS
edit on 2-11-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 

Ok. Based on "Meaningless Indicator of Processor Speed".

Synthetic benchmarks.....are.... well....synthetic and do not get your work done for you. These don't necessarily mean anything when it comes to desktop performance in real life, but certainly there is value to be gleaned from these by enthusiasts. These are also the easiest benchmarks to run when it comes to seeing if your system at home is measuring up.

hardocp.com...


I'll stick with clock speed/power but that's just me.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


That's fine.

I'll stick with my core2 running cooler and "slower" than that dinosaur P4 space heater it replaced.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by delusion

Originally posted by pianopraze



And...you HAVE seen what that reference was, right? Tell me you read it.

You do know that Eastlund's patent refers to microwaves, and that HAARP does not broadcast microwaves at all?


Hmmm...

Seems to me HAARP can do that just fine...


Yes, HAARP can match the frequency - but what is it broadcasting that is matching that frequency?

Isn't it just two different things going at the same rate? They're still two different mediums.

Or is a microwave just a frequency? So anything oscillated fast enough will produce it?


Hi, Delusion.

Pianopraze reads for spooky keywords and posts endless non-sequiturs to questions when he finds some that match up. The problem is that in finding similar keywords in searches, he confuses the pee out of non-technical people, who see that words are matching up but don't understand exactly HOW.

Where to begin with this. Ok. Nearly everything at the front of this thread was bogus. I didn't go back and address it. There are a few posters that had the thing right, but only a few.

First. There are times when you see terms being used in ways that seem very confusing, because the same term is occasionally used to describe two things that seem very dissimilar. For some people, it leads to confusion because they try to use logic to see why this is so (you). In others, it leads to them conflating dissimilar concepts because the same words are used (the early posters). Sometimes mis-attribution is done intentionally, for instance, the early founders of what has become the New Age movement (Theosophists) adopted the terminology of what was then the rock-star of the 19th century news, physics, to their bogus pseudospiritual philosophy. Thus do you hear people to this day talk about thoughts emitting negative energy, or raising their spirits to a new dimension of vibration, or other such crap. It just confuses people into thinking that what's being discussed is more rooted in valid science than it is, which was the intent of Madame Blavatsky, who got all that started.

Two of the things that really seem to throw people on ATS are "frequency" and "wave", with "vibration" and "energy" a strong third and fourth.

Here is the truth. "Frequency" just means how often something occurs in a unit of time. It is an attribute. It is not a tangible. You cannot use the word properly without the discussion having at least an implicit understanding of the question "frequency of what".

In the case of any discussion involving HAARP, the use of "frequency" is associated with "radio wave". Note that radio waves are not sound. Sound and radio are as alike as hamsters and hot sauce. Sound is a wave of compression in air. Radio is a wave of electric and magnetic fields at right angles to each other. Both sound and radio have frequencies, since they are cyclical in nature, but that attribute has nothing to do with them having some sort of syncretic similarity. A car might be blue, and the sky may be blue, but this only means they have an attribute in common - the car and the sky do not share characteristics because of the color match, it doesn't make them co-equal in some way.

HAARP is an HF radio transmitter. It can broadcast radio waves with frequencies in the range of about 2.7MHz to 10MHz. At the ends of those frequency ranges, its efficiency is not optimal. What's different (spooooky!) about HAARP is that it can squirt that power anywhere in a 30 degree cone from the vertical, and can sweep that power around within that cone really fast without moving anything like a big dish antenna. That's because they use a phased-array antenna. I can't explain that to you without a lot of math, but basically, if you take one signal, and split it up into a bunch of exact copies with little time delays inserted between them, then beam all the copies from a grid of identical transmitters and antennas, the wonders of radio math will take those signals and form them into a nice beam, just as if you used a big dish. By diddling the little time delays, you can alter the angle of the beam, and the width of it. The minimum width is set by the frequency you're using, the geometry of the antennas in the grid, and the perfection with which you can match everything up. HAARP is pretty good at this.

(page 2 coming)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
(page 2)

Oh, and by 30 degree cone, I mean total 30 degrees - 15 from the vertical in either direction. That's limited by the size of the radio wave as it relates to the size of the antenna field - but I digress.

Anyway - HAARP transmits radio waves from 2.7 to 10 MHz. You might be able to scootch a bit more at either end, but the power falls off really fast, and you can get some problems with the tuners.

Microwaves are waaaay above this range. What Pianopraze would like you to believe is that HAARP can emit ANYTHING, and he usually throws out that graphic as "proof". The truth is a bit different. Look back at that graphic, the one he claims shows they can emit microwaves. On it, at the bottom, you'll see a scale with visible light at one end and ELF at the other. There are black bands on there. The black bands indicate the frequencies that you can either produce directly or indirectly with the array. The directly part is the little swatch in the middle between 2.7 and 10MHz. That's the only range the IRI can emit. Period. There is an on-site radar which occasionally the desperate HAARP conspiracy poster will try to invoke as proof. It's not part of the array.

Now, how can HAARP squeak out the visible light black band, and the ELF black band, if it can't emit them directly? That's a good question. Let's start with the visible light one. Consider a neon light. Electrons flowing through a near-vacuum with a trace of neon will occasionally whack into a neon atom and bump one of its electrons into a higher energy state. When that electron comes back down, a photon of light is emitted, and that's why neon signs glow red. The color of the light is characteristic of the difference in energy states traversed by the electron. That's set by the mass of the nucleus of the atom that got excited, but to simplify it, each element (and isotope) have characteristic colors they emit, and that's how you get spectroscopy.

Just like you can run electrons through a neon light to get a nice red glow, you can stir electrons up in the ionosphere with the HAARP array. The radio energy broadcast by the system causes the electrons in the ionosphere at the beam focus (which are mostly free, not attached to atoms of gas) to mill around in circles. Some speed up a little, most speed up a middling amount, and there are a few that really zip. That distribution of slow to fast follows what we call a Gaussian curve, which you may have seen as a "bell curve". In this case, the ones on the fast side become fast enough to bump a neutral gas atom into a higher state, and when it comes down, photon! Just like a neon tube, only way less bright. If you put the image intensifier on the site telescope, you can see it. Otherwise, there's special cameras that can read the color of the light, over time, and tell you what sort of gas is there and how much of it. In this way, you can use the array to cause visible light to be emitted. It's sort of indirect, and horribly inefficient. But you can only get the colors of light that the gases present will produce, and only the piddly bit you can get from the outliers. That means it doesn't spew microwaves, as Pianopraze likes to imply.

Going to the ELF side it's a bit more complex. I'll try to keep it basic.

(next, part 3)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
(part 3)

You can also get really really LOW radio frequencies out of HAARP, again by using indirection. The array can't do it directly.

Ok. If you take a flow of electrons, and cause it to vary either in intensity or direction, either of current flow, or physically, in a cyclic fashion related to the frequency of radio wave you want to make, you will get production of radio waves. It's more likely you'll see a radio wave produced by varying the amplitude of a current at the frequency of radio wave you want to make. I'm grossly oversimplifying here, so forgive me when you find that you can't match this explanation up really well to other stuff on the net.

Your local AM radio tower works this way.

A method you DON'T usually see, is that you can also do this by just physically shaking an electron flow up and down. This doesn't work properly in wires, because there's no really coherent electron flow in a wire - that's another discussion. But if you have a beam of electrons, all pretty much going in one direction at about the same speed, you can shake them up and down and you'll emit a radio wave that's related to the electron speed and shake rate, with an amplitude related to the current. That's used a lot in a type of laser called a FEL. If you like, you might be able to find a nice description of a FEL with pictures and get a better idea of what I'm trying to describe.

Now, hold that concept in your head, while we jump to something else.

For reasons beyond the scope of this explanation, there is a strong, fast stream of free electrons that flow in a circle around the polar areas called the auroral electrojet. It is composed of electrons mostly moving in one direction at about the same speed. That meets the conditions for generating radio waves, if you could either shake it or vary its amplitude! The energy in the electrojet flow is dependent mostly on the Sun and the magnetic field of the Earth, so the electrojet varies in amplitude and moves around physically depending on space conditions. There are electrojets at both poles and at the equator. The polar ones are the ones you want to work with for ground work like HAARP. We have had research stations at the South Pole too, mostly at Siple Station which has long since closed up shop. The auroral electrojet is why HAARP wasn't situated in Schenectady - in order to diddle it you want to be right under where it normally runs.

So, we have our highly energetic stream of electrons, fairly coherent, solar powered. How do we fiddle with the amplitude or direction? Well, recall that HAARP is an ionospheric heater by intent. If you heat a gas that's not contained, the pressure will stay the same but the density will decrease - the hotter ionospheric gases, as thin as they are, still follow the ideal gas law. When HAARP heats them a bit, they thin out. The electrical resistivity of the gas increases as it thins out. So, hotter ionosphere, higher resistance, less current. No heating, cooler ionosphere, more current. In that mode, the array "paints" a pattern of higher power - less power - no power - less power - higher power - less power - no power in a broad brush over the electrojet flow. This doesn't cause a LOT of change in the jet, because it's huge. But it does have some effect - the electrojet itself will, by the laws of physics, radiate a low frequency RF signal whose wavelength is related to the electrojet electron velocity and the size of the pattern painted, because you're changing the current a tiny tiny percentage. That gets you a few Watts of ELF output, maybe 6-8. It's not much at all. Horribly inefficient, seeing that you're belting out about 1.8 million Watts to get 8 W of ELF, but generating ELF is heinously inefficient anyway.

That's one way.

Another is to make the jet wiggle up and down instead of getting thicker and thinner. In that mode, the array paints something like pinball bumpers in a sinusoidal pattern, forcing the electrojet to flow up and down a bit, in a cyclical fashion. The size of the pattern and the flow speed of the jet again set the frequency that's emitted, and in that mode you can get about 35W of ELF, but not usually, it's more like 20 in most cases.

At one time, ELF transmission was important because the US used to use it to communicate with subs. We had two ground based transmitters, but they're very vulnerable to attack. So we don't use that anymore. At the time, this side function of HAARP was considered important, but now it's another research tool
edit on 2-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Bedlam
 

Wow! A refrigerator light bulb's worth of power. I assume the calculations are based on a theoretical point source rather than the entire active region?
edit on 11/2/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


You can only reach a bit of the jet from Gakona. The numbers are total radiated power, as deduced by receivers at quite some distance. It's tough to get out of the near field to get a real reading, but you can estimate it.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

...


Wow! Thanks for taking the time. You write really well.
edit on 2-11-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
So in summary, the array emits 2.7 to 10MHz. That's it. By really indirect chicanery, you can get a trivial amount of signal in other bands, but what you can get is faint, and it's limited in what you can cause to be produced. You can't emit millions of megawatts of microwave with it as Eastlund envisioned in his patent, because HAARP's not Eastlund's device.

What Eastlund had originally envisioned was to make lots and lots of electrical power in Alaska by burning natural gas reserves, but there's no way to get the power back to the US. His idea was to use the electrical power to produce godawful amounts of microwaves, and reflect them off the ionosphere to land in the desert areas of the US, where he'd set up rectenna farms to turn them back into electrical power. There are several problems with this.

Not the least of which being is that microwaves would normally go right through the ionosphere. You can fix that by starting off with HF transmissions and heating the ionosphere, as you get it warmer and warmer you raise the electron temperature (remember that?). There is a bit of mathematical radio whiz physics that says that there is something called the "plasma frequency". It's related to the electron temperature. As you raise the electron temperature, the plasma frequency will also rise. At the plasma frequency, radio signals of the same frequency will reflect from the area like a mirror (pianopraze's other diagram).

If you could get the plasma frequency up enough, then microwaves will reflect from it instead of going through. The issue, though, is that while you're using it as a mirror, it's still absorbing some of the microwaves, and getting hotter, so it stops being a good mirror for your power beam and starts being one for some higher microwave frequency you're not using. This sets limits for how much power density you can have in your beam, and the total beam power and a few other pesky things, and it's all related to day/night cycles, and space weather, and gamma ray bursters, and a host of other nasty unpredictable variables. So while you're shipping back power from the tundra, the beam can defocus or drift or punch through, and you can fry Phoenix or just lose all power. It's one of those ideas that sounds good on paper but it's sort of out there.
edit on 2-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join