Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is HAARP feeding SANDY? (The Conspiracy Side)

page: 35
34
<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by mrdeadfolx
 




Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by mrdeadfolx
I thought since this is a discussion on ULF/ELF radio emissions, this may prove relevant.


ULF is the frequency range between 300 Hertz and 3 kilohertz. It is often used in mine and submarines communications, as it can penetrate earth and water.

The time and location of the ULF ‘blast’ detected coincides exactly with the time and locations of the tragic collapse of a nearly 2,000 foot long the Interstate 35W Bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota that killed at least a dozen people and seriously injured many others.


Here's the link if you're interested www.dailygalaxy.com...





According to this posting ( educate-yourself.org... ), this is a hoax and the SSRT reported no such ULF blast.


Radio telescope sorry SOLAR radio telescope why and how could it locate that signal
edit on 5-11-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


First another site claimed a hoax report also your reference to IRIS

Frequencies 154 - 162 MHz

Not the same frequency range as claimed above (300 Hertz and 3 kilohertz)
edit on 6-11-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Super-conductive antenna arrays.

Booyah.


Conductivity isn't a huge issue. It's the wavelength compared to the antenna size. You can't do a proper job of emitting a wave from an antenna that's very small compared to the wavelength. And in this case, what you could pack on the top of a sub would be VERY disparate. It's even worse if you're trying to make a phased array that way - you have to separate the individual elements by more than a wavelength, otherwise it just doesn't form a beam.

If you have superconductive matching elements (loading coils), you can improve losses in that part of the system and increase system efficiency overall from heinous to just bad. However, what happens in that case is that you get into non-radiative field problems - the field that the horribly short antenna produces causes a quasi-static e-field, the field just sort of churns around the antenna but doesn't radiate. It's the radio counterpart of a non-radiating h-field. And you still can't get past the need to space out the array elements to beamform.




That's not really a point of argument, is it?



Of course it is. If you're trying to form a beam and aim it at something, then a tiny sub-wavelength-spaced-array with crappy short elements just WON'T form a beam. No beam, no aiming, no bouncing, no efficiency.




HAARP has a large antenna array, because it must contend with normal conductivity for it's antennas... you know, because of the cost.


Not at all. Not sure where you're getting that from. The electrical resistivity of the elements isn't really an issue - I2R losses in most antennas isn't a major factor in their efficiency. Radiative impedance isn't related to element resistance. If you get into really horrible mismatches, you start losing most of your power in the matching system you end up having to have which shoots your total system efficiency to hell, and you can improve THAT with superconducting antenna methods but your radiation efficiency is still tied to the size of the element vs the wavelength. When you get short enough, you get into near-field quasi-static issues where you just don't radiate a lot.



Whoops.... you goofed.

The storm runs on thermal energy.... the water vapor adds thermal energy to the system.

If you increase the average thermal energy of the storm, you increase its average strength.


Hurricanes run from thermal energy in the water. NB:



A fully developed hurricane can release heat energy at a rate of 5 to 20x10^13 watts and converts less than 10% of the heat into the mechanical energy of the wind. The heat release is equivalent to a 10-megaton nuclear bomb exploding every 20 minutes. According to the 1993 World Almanac, the entire human race used energy at a rate of 10^13 watts in 1990, a rate less than 20% of the power of a hurricane.


link

At that rate of heat release, your little fleet of nuclear subs isn't contributing much.




I clearly also said Radio waves...

I clearly also ALSO said that you might not even need the ionospheric bounce.


Microwaves ARE radio waves. The reason I brought up microwaves is, that's the only sort of phased array you could pack on a ship or especially a submarine. But, if you want to go HF, again, you just can't do it, if your plan requires a phased array or very directional beam. Even if you're sailing around with dipoles, you'd have to loft a balloon or something to get enough length - but then that's tough in a hurricane.

So... strawman only if you don't understand the physics and the issues involved.



Are you saying that the information regarding ionospheric probing for refraction wasn't gathered by the HAARP?

That this information couldn't be used in a different emitter?

Really?


Really. You're apparently missing a big chunk of understanding of basic radio physics and the history of same.



Unless you use superconductive antenna elements, which would make them more compact.


Again, absolutely wrong. You can use superconductive matching systems to improve things, but your radiation efficiency is still going to suck. And you still can't beamform with it.

I just KNOW you're going to post a zillion links to anything you can find with "superconducting antenna" in. Just read them and see that the improvement is on the order of 10dB, and that they're not talking about reducing 30 meter elements to a few inches.

Yes, superconducting techniques can improve efficiency. They don't do miracles. Further, if you stop to actually read the papers on this, you'll typically see that they're going to be discussing improving the useful frequency range of an antenna starting something like 20% of wavelength, then going UP in frequency where the antenna is overly long, not starting at 1% of wavelength and going down in frequency where the antenna is spectacularly short. It's an interesting way to get system improvements, typically used in microwave design, but while the keywords look interesting it doesn't allow you to make teeny tiny HF arrays.
edit on 7-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrdeadfolx
I thought since this is a discussion on ULF/ELF radio emissions, this may prove relevant.




Russia’s Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics located in Irkutsk reported recently that their Siberian Solar Radio Telescope (SSRT) detected a ‘massive’ ultra low frequency (ULF) ‘blast’ emanating from Latitude: 45° 00′ North Longitude: 93° 15′ West.

ULF is the frequency range between 300 Hertz and 3 kilohertz. It is often used in mine and submarines communications, as it can penetrate earth and water.

The time and location of the ULF ‘blast’ detected coincides exactly with the time and locations of the tragic collapse of a nearly 2,000 foot long the Interstate 35W Bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota that killed at least a dozen people and seriously injured many others.


Here's the link if you're interested www.dailygalaxy.com...




Well, it's really NOT a discussion on ULF/ELF, except for that derail by pianopraze. However, a bit of analysis of your article (we had a thread on this way back when it was current news) should show you that the dailygalaxy article is pure bunk.

Let's travel back to a post or two previous. Antennas NEED to be somewhat close in size to the wavelength they're trying to receive. You design antennae physically to achieve the qualities you want from them electrically.

Next, the size of a radio wavelength directly relates to the focus you can achieve with it - there is a minimum spot size that is set by physics. You can't, in general, focus ANY EM emission less than 1/2 wavelength. Since ULF and ELF tend to have wavelengths in the thousands of km, you can't "focus" ULF to a spot the size of a bridge.

That being true, things with parabolic dishes on them, like the radio telescope in Irkutsk, have a dish size that dictates what frequencies it can focus, and the antenna gain. In this case, again, you can't build parabolae that are tiny in comparison to the wavelength you're trying to gather with them. So, on the face of it you will immediately see that a parabolic dish a few dozen meters across isn't going to be able to focus a big wave like ULF. And in fact, none do.

To receive ULF/ELF, the military has to use really LARGE antennae just to get spectacularly crappy performance. Subs used to trail long lines - they weren't really antennae even then, it was an active line with e-field sensors in it, and you looked at the e-field readings to sort for certain voltage slopes. Later they switched to using onboard SQUIDs to look at the h-field. Now they don't use ELF anyway.

Thus, it doesn't make sense that any radio telescope COULD detect ULF/ELF, since they couldn't be designed for it. And if you look up the specs on Irkutsk solar radio telescope, you would discover it's designed for the 5GHz band, only seven or eight orders of magnitude away. Much less would a sky pointing device be able to distinguish where ON EARTH on another continent a radio emission occurred. That doesn't make sense either. Didn't happen.

Next, you'll note your dailygalaxy article then jumps to some crap about that location being a research facility for acoustic weaponry. This is a basic misunderstanding of simple science by the author. Radio is not sound, sound is not radio. At all. Acoustic weapons have NO relation to ULF/ELF radio transmissions.

The source you cite is a blog, the author of which is an idiot.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jacob1080David


whoever wrote that extreme evil doesnt exist, is just a typical ignorant human. they will all be squashed like the pathetic bugs they are. this hurricane is a symbol of the dooms they will continue to wreak upon us.


So I am a pathetic bug that will be squashed? Now that you've de-humanised me, do you find it easier to excuse my murder by the extreme evil you seem to be simultaneously decrying and celebrating?



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Here is Gossard's pertinent text as used by Eastlund.

Unit usage changes, the CGS unit for flux is used due to the decade when it was published.

Today is more commonplace Watts/m2, but here ergs/cm2/sec is used.

My dimensional Bridgman analysis is rusty, but this is easily verified to reduce to the flux description

M T^−2(1 of mass, 2 inversely of time)

page 751

The total energy flow represented
by these spectra is fairly large. It was 472
ergs/cm2 sec on June 24 (A.M.), 18 ergs/cm2 sec
on June 24 (P.M.), and 677 ergs/cm2 on May 15.
The computed energy flux out of the lower
troposphere for November 10, is very large
(964 ergs/cm2 sec). However, the temperature
sounding shows an adiabatic layer higher in the
troposphere on this day, and most of the energy
must have been reflected at this level. For this
reason the spectrum of vertical energy flux for
November 10 is probably not realistic and is
not shown.

Apparently the vertical energy flow can
amount to as much as 1000 ergs/cm2 sec. This
is seen to be fairly large when compared with
the total rate of turbulent dissipation of energy
in a unit column of atmosphere which is about
4500 ergs/cm2 sec. Records of wave activity as
prominent as those shown are rare, occurring
only a few times a year in southern California.
However, an energy flux of 50 to 100 ergs/cm2
sec is associated with many storms and frontal
systems.
edit on 7-11-2012 by wujotvowujotvowujotvo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Another issue with trying to load into a very short antenna is the peak voltages. Let's say you somehow just ignore the bad aperture issue and the quasi-static field problem, which cause the antenna to dissipate energy in its near field to anything it can (dielectric heating of the ocean nearby, for instance).

The peak voltages for really badly capacitive antennas like this can be spectacular. Even the IRI is power limited at the fringes of its low frequency range by arcing issues. It's only worse if you're pushing the power output into a short antenna, because the more the power you drive any individual antenna with, the higher the voltages are going to go.

Even if you used something exceptionally quirky like a Scimitar or a DDRR, I'm not sure you could control the arcing issues. DDRR's can be dramatic when you pump the power up too high, even though they're compact for the wavelength. Nothing like you'd need to do 10MHz on a sub conning tower, though.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 



A dipole antenna of insufficient length is inefficient. A superconductive dipole antenna of insufficient length is similarly inefficient.


Linear Phased Array. Boom.


You also need some resistance across an antenna or otherwise you would be unable to get a potential difference.


Inductive Reactance, Double Boom.
edit on 8-11-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Conductivity isn't a huge issue. It's the wavelength compared to the antenna size. You can't do a proper job of emitting a wave from an antenna that's very small compared to the wavelength. And in this case, what you could pack on the top of a sub would be VERY disparate.


Linear Phased Array.... Again.... Boom.


At that rate of heat release, your little fleet of nuclear subs isn't contributing much.


It wouldn't need to.

As I have already told phage... we are talking about steering the hurricane, not forming and powering the thing.


Microwaves ARE radio waves.


No, by technical definition, Radio waves are of longer wavelength than microwave frequencies.

Radio and Microwave ARE both forms of electromagnetic radiation, but the terms themselves refer to the wavelength, not the composition.

So, in my reference to them, Radio and Microwave are different.

Just as Gamma rays and Green light are different.


Really. You're apparently missing a big chunk of understanding of basic radio physics and the history of same.


Oh wow.... you just gave me a really good idea...

Using the ships THEMSELVES as the antennas of the phased array.

Ha, completely circumvents your little "Problems", don't it?


Again, absolutely wrong. You can use superconductive matching systems to improve things, but your radiation efficiency is still going to suck. And you still can't beamform with it.


It doesn't really matter anyway... as you could use a reflective dish behind a linear array to increase the gain of the beam.


I just KNOW you're going to post a zillion links to anything you can find with "superconducting antenna" in.


Well, you are wrong there too.


but while the keywords look interesting it doesn't allow you to make teeny tiny HF arrays.


Linear Phased Array.


Edit: You and phage both suffer from a very simple problem... you just don't understand what I am doing, or what is going on.
edit on 8-11-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by chr0naut
 



A dipole antenna of insufficient length is inefficient. A superconductive dipole antenna of insufficient length is similarly inefficient.


Linear Phased Array. Boom.


You also need some resistance across an antenna or otherwise you would be unable to get a potential difference.


Inductive Reactance, Double Boom.
edit on 8-11-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)


The "Linear Phased Array" for HAARP consists of multiple tuned dipoles. Please read the HAARP specs on the website. MOOB (which is a "boom" reflected back at you).

Inductive reactance implies coiled elements where the magnetic field lines can interact with each other, inducing a phase delay as electromotive force is converted to magnetic field and then back to EMF - what part of the word "linear" did you not understand? MOOB, MOOB.

Due to the wonderful weirdness of superconductors, only the top (approx.) 100 nm of a superconductor can actually provide any useful reactance at all (this is called the London distance, which is due to the Meissner effect, which expels magnetic field lines, making inductive reactivity impossible within the bulk of a superconductor). Put simply, coupled with the problem of measuring any potential difference across a superconductor (because they superconduct!), means that superconductors make pretty lousy inductors. MOOB, MOOB, MOOB!


edit on 8/11/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Linear Phased Array.... Again.... Boom.


Minimal spacing required of an array, it's related to the wavelength. Moob.



Oh wow.... you just gave me a really good idea...

Using the ships THEMSELVES as the antennas of the phased array.

Ha, completely circumvents your little "Problems", don't it?


The spacing and geometry are sort of critical. Also, the ships are immersed (at least partially...) in a conductor. Also getting the phasing right if they're spread out like that would be painful.




It doesn't really matter anyway... as you could use a reflective dish behind a linear array to increase the gain of the beam.


Ask yourself...what is the minimum size of a reflective dish, as relates to the wavelength you're trying to reflect/focus?



Well, you are wrong there too.


I stand corrected.



Linear Phased Array.


Spacing.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

MOOB (which is a "boom" reflected back at you).


Bizarre. I used "moob" before I read this post.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I have a question.

It seems that you are knowledgable in the antenna field.

I have not read anything about computers being used along with the arrays to help distinguish frequencies.

From what I am getting from your replies, you seem to be speaking in analog terms and not the digital computing age.

I was wondering that on the day of supercomputers and awesome amplifiers if maybe you could set an array up where it can send and recieve multiple frequencies, high and low, and let the computing power distinguish which is best to be used, or that needs to be heard.

Again I am just curious because we have came along way since these machines/devices have been made.

Are you saying it is impossible to retrofit an existing setup with a computer technology to enhance an arrays
capabilities?
edit on 8-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: phone spelling



ETA.....after reading my reply, I feel that I did not convey my question the way I wanted. I would like to try to clarify a bit.

You say that an array size is built for the frequency that one wants to send/receive. I would like to know that if today's computers can expand the arrays capabilities further and receive frequencies that the array might not have been designed for.
edit on 8-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: sorry



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I have a question.

It seems that you are knowledgable in the antenna field.

I have not read anything about computers being used along with the arrays to help distinguish frequencies.

From what I am getting from your replies, you seem to be speaking in analog terms and not the digital computing age.

I was wondering that on the day of supercomputers and awesome amplifiers if maybe you could set an array up where it can send and recieve multiple frequencies, high and low, and let the computing power distinguish which is best to be used, or that needs to be heard.

Again I am just curious because we have came along way since these machines/devices have been made.

Are you saying it is impossible to retrofit an existing setup with a computer technology to enhance an arrays capabilities?


Not at all, but the truth is, out at the antenna it IS all analog. Since the antenna part's where we've been tossing info at each other, I haven't really discussed the rest of it.

Most any phased array these days is digital. Long ago when dinosaurs walked the earth, you steered arrays with mechanical nightmares like ferrite rods zipped in and out of waveguides with compressed air to change the element phases.

These days, you don't.

If you look at the IRI at HAARP, what you've got is a clever but slightly dated digital exciter designed by BAE, who had both staff and contract engineering firms working on it. Alas, the staff guys made it pedestrian and had it built out of common parts instead of stuff you COULD have gotten back then, even if it was new. So what you ended up with was the exciter you could buy from Digikey.

That feeds a huge whopping field full of D616G linears, many but not all from Continental Electronics. They're big, heavy linear amps with acceptable phase noise levels, but nothing special.

You've got about a half dozen diesels running THOSE.

So in general, it's pretty pedestrian. You can get the exciter to do a lot of things. It was, however, designed to output HF power in certain ways that were thought to have been the only ones necessary. It wasn't setup to be as flexible as it MIGHT have been, alas. And it's transmit only. It's great at fast repositioning one beam.

In order to do that, you have to be able to calculate (or lookup) phase data for the exciter's 180 or so outputs on the fly as the beam sweeps across the sky. That's tough in itself.

That said, current phased array setups can be AMAZINGLY flexible. You can, in fact, receive or transmit on many rigs, you can do both at the same time (with reduced performance), with really good computational setups you can fire multiple beams at once, all at different frequencies with differing aim points and beam characteristics. THAT is the way it ought to work.

So, yes, if you have a lot of computational power and you design the thing to be flexible, you can do a lot of things, occasionally several different things at the same time.

As far as "distinguish frequencies" goes, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. If you mean, can you just use a computer to receive radio transmission and get rid of the ooky analog bits, yes indeedy you certainly can. In ways it's also very nifty to be able to do that. In others, it's inefficient and prone to problems, and it takes a lot longer to design. That's called SDR, or software defined radio, and it's eventually going to be the way to go, but at the moment you can throw a lot of money and time at it and end up with squat. See also JTRS.

edit on 9-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints
IF this were HAARP, why?

It's only an advantage if Obama can save the whole north eastern seaboard at once.

Unless Mitt Romney has HAARP on speed dial.
Hmmm...


Sandy is the #1 thing that stopped Mitt's momentum, no one can argue that. Mitt won all 3 debates according to many, or at least tied the last 2 according to some. Yet his momentum continued rising, day after day, the Obama campaign was sweating bullets, Hurricane Sandy came and it was the #1 top news story and remains a big story today, Mitt's momentum died the second Sandy arrived, I followed Mitt's momentum closely, even when Mitt tried to raise food, blankets and donations for the Red Cross he was mocked, the mockery was foolishness and spinning a good man but it worked against Mitt, his momentum never caught up after Sandy.

Not saying HAARP caused Sandy, perhaps God caused Sandy, either way, a political expert would know in times of crisis the President is always favored. If the voting took place 2 weeks before Sandy Mitt likely would have won, even 1 week before Sandy, I watched the polling closely, they fluctuated so frequently, it was like watching a rat choose between 2 types of cheese, constantly changing their mind, it was almost a crap shoot at times but very favorable towards Mitt in the end, until Sandy.

If somehow we have Tesla technology, where we can 'feed' storms, why haven't we used this technology on our enemies? Is there any evidence weather manipulation technology has been used against our enemies? None that I can think of.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 



The "Linear Phased Array" for HAARP consists of multiple tuned dipoles. Please read the HAARP specs on the website. MOOB (which is a "boom" reflected back at you).


HAARP doesn't have a linear phased array, it has a matrix phased array.

So.... take your moob, or whatever, and.... I don't know... do something with it.


Inductive reactance implies coiled elements where the magnetic field lines can interact with each other, inducing a phase delay as electromotive force is converted to magnetic field and then back to EMF - what part of the word "linear" did you not understand? MOOB, MOOB.




You suck at this game.


Due to the wonderful weirdness of superconductors, only the top (approx.) 100 nm of a superconductor can actually provide any useful reactance at all (this is called the London distance, which is due to the Meissner effect, which expels magnetic field lines, making inductive reactivity impossible within the bulk of a superconductor). Put simply, coupled with the problem of measuring any potential difference across a superconductor (because they superconduct!), means that superconductors make pretty lousy inductors. MOOB, MOOB, MOOB!


www.google.com...

You are embarassing yourself.

Honestly, I'd just stop if I were you.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Minimal spacing required of an array, it's related to the wavelength. Moob.


Depends on the polarization, doesn't it?


The spacing and geometry are sort of critical. Also, the ships are immersed (at least partially...) in a conductor. Also getting the phasing right if they're spread out like that would be painful.


Oh, yeah.... because they can't use GPS to make their position known, can they?




The spacing and geometry are sort of critical.


ieeexplore.ieee.org...

You people are just transparent, honestly...


the ships are immersed (at least partially...) in a conductor. Also getting the phasing right if they're spread out like that would be painful.


Oh my GOD.... ho on EARTH are we ever going to use RADIO WAVES while we are on the Freaking OCEAN!!!!!

Are you having a complete mental breakdown?

You do realize that our NAVAL FLEETS use radio communication every day.... and *THOSE SHIPS* are partially submerged in the water....

Christ... what is wrong with you?


Ask yourself...what is the minimum size of a reflective dish, as relates to the wavelength you're trying to reflect/focus?


Depends on the polarization, but you wouldn't really need the reflector anyway... I was just trying to increase the gain.... lol


Spacing.


Polarization, seperate ship mounted arrays.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Originally posted by chr0naut

MOOB (which is a "boom" reflected back at you).



Bizarre. I used "moob" before I read this post.


That's because you are both being controlled by the Mind control satellite grid.

FFS.

You are disinfo agents and you don't even know it....
edit on 9-11-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by chr0naut

MOOB (which is a "boom" reflected back at you).


Bizarre. I used "moob" before I read this post.


Great minds...


Cheers!



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Depends on the polarization, doesn't it?


Not for beam forming or antenna geometry.




Oh, yeah.... because they can't use GPS to make their position known, can they?




It's more critical than that...you need to get the array members positioned to a fraction of a wavelength. The crappier you do it, the crappier the result. With GPS and the ship's pitching around and sliding d/t surface currents, it would be insurmountable. More, if you space them out a large distance apart, you end up with what's called a "sparse array" which has its own problems, among them bad lobe control and ambiguities that can generate two beams at once.



ieeexplore.ieee.org...

You people are just transparent, honestly...


The article refers to an array where the individual elements are non-uniform. Not that you can make the array at random. You, like pianopraze, are hot with the keyword searches, poor with understanding the basic physics, and you don't even read the material you cite. Grant you, I'm an IEEE member so I don't have to pay.




You do realize that our NAVAL FLEETS use radio communication every day.... and *THOSE SHIPS* are partially submerged in the water....

Christ... what is wrong with you?


"we can use the ships themselves" .. you've demonstrated a distinct lack of understanding of the basics, why should I feel there's a lower limit to it?



Depends on the polarization, but you wouldn't really need the reflector anyway... I was just trying to increase the gain.... lol


Polarization is an attribute of the signal, like frequency. Polarization type does NOT affect the wavelength. It also does not affect the focal properties of the dish.


Spacing.


Polarization, seperate ship mounted arrays.

Polarization doesn't matter, the arrays HAVE to be spaced and arranged in a precise way. The arrangement part you can somewhat compensate for.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

That's because you are both being controlled by the Mind control satellite grid.


Mind control satellites. Get a grip. Everyone knows that mind control is done by the traffic light cameras.

edit on 9-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
34
<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in

join