Little HAARP's

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

since HAARP cannot be shown with any credibility to actually be a weapon, why do you make this stupid claim?

Because the navy and the air force operate the program and the funding goes to DOD.

So no actual evidence that it is a weapon at all - check.

Big "if" - got any evidence that they can be created at sea level?

Cosmic rays and cloud formation

CLOUD is an experiment that uses a cloud chamber to study the possible link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation.

The initial stage of the experiment uses a prototype detector, but the full CLOUD experiment will include an advanced cloud chamber and a reactor chamber, equipped with a wide range of external instrumentation to monitor and analyse their contents. The temperature and pressure conditions anywhere in the atmosphere can be re-created within the chambers, and all experimental conditions can be controlled and measured, including the ‘cosmic ray’ intensity and the contents of the chambers.

so the conditions cannot be recreated "at will" at sea level as claimed by you either - only in highly specialised equipment - check.

Cosmic particle ignition of artificially ionized plasma patterns in the atmosphere

1. A method of creating one or more artificially ionized regions in the air called cosmic particle ignition by synchronizing the establishment of an electric field pattern at an altitude above the earth's surface with the natural occurrence of ionization trails created by cosmic particles...

3. The method of claim 1 wherein the cosmic particle is a primary cosmic ray or secondary cosmic ray electrons occurring at altitudes between sea level and 40,000 KM.

Soo.... yet another patent that has nothing to do with HAARP at all - check.

reply to post by Uncinus

Thx for finding this study. It explains a lot. HIPAS/UCLA were already conceptually and feasibly up to plus/minus 10 giga watts ERP compared to HAARP's stated 4 giga watts ERP.

reply to post by Phage

Lightning storms, like all weather, originate in the troposphere.

Wow. So is this like spontaneous combustion or something?

Lightning Formation

The first process in the generation of lightning is still a matter of debate:[5] one common idea from scientists is that lightning forms from the ejection of charged particles from the sun, which reach Earth through the solar wind.[6] These charged particles cause the Earth to acquire an electric charge in its outer atmospheric layers, especially the ionosphere. Large quantities of ice in the clouds are suspected to enhance lightning development.[7] This charge will neutralize itself through any available path. This may assist in the forcible separation of positive and negative charge carriers within a cloud or air, and thus help in the formation of lightning.

Ionosphere Facts

What causes lightning could be a question which might intrigue us. Lightning is said to take place in the ionosphere. When liquid and ice particles clash with each other, they form massive electrical fields, dissipating an electric spark which we refer to as lightning. The temperature inside a lightning bolt reaches around 50,000º C, which is even greater than the surface temperature of the Sun!

Gigantic Jets Connect Thunderclouds to the Ionosphere

Now scientists have discovered another type of lightning--gigantic jets--that link the tops of clouds to the overlying charged atmosphere, known as the ionosphere.

All five jets, the authors write, "establish a direct link between a thundercloud and the ionosphere," and measurements showed that there was a significant flow of current moving charge upward from the clouds. The researchers also detected extremely-low-frequency radio waves that were detected thousands of kilometers away during four of the five events.

ELF electromagnetic radiation does not cause earth to vibrate.

So is this some kind of static earth theory of yours? How do they get a signature in tomography then? More spontaneous combustion?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Thx for finding this study. It explains a lot. HIPAS/UCLA were already conceptually and feasibly up to plus/minus 10 giga watts ERP compared to HAARP's stated 4 giga watts ERP.

But that was momentary peak output, whereas HAARP is continuous.

And it's 25 meters long, and you'd need a bunch of them next to each other.

reply to post by flyswatter

Missile defense by way of disrupting communications? Not that I am aware of. The only mention that I see is possible using it to detect them, not disrupt. If you want to say that the detection of them is what constitutes defense, then yes, the term "missile defense" fits.

I think it's more like disrupting whatever mechanism 'communicates' with the target. The disruption is more in the nature of displacing a section of the ionosphere. Which leads to confusion about location, both of the missile and of the target. However, I, personally, believe that HAARP was designed to test and develop plasma weapons. Because that's what they do when they create aurora's and spirals and UFO lights.

I don't think we're going to find schematics on the internet that describe exactly how HAARP is used in missile defense. In other words, the graphics we find aren't going to be labelled that way. Same as we're not going to be finding out, on the internet, how it's used in surveillance except that, supposedly, it could be used to detect incoming over the horizon. I can appreciate someone believing a government handout. Most of the serious researchers into HAARP have gone beyond glossy photos, though.

The Military's Mystery Machine

“It’s an open plasma-physics laboratory,” says Dennis Papadopoulos, a physics professor at the University of Maryland who helped conceive the idea for HAARP with the Naval Research Lab more than 30 years ago. “You test ideas and scientific theories. Then, if something’s important to the Department of Defense, you apply it.”

Here's a little sentence from that same popsci article that could use a little more information (particularly in the use of the word 'zapping'):

And now, 15 years after construction on the station began, HAARP’s managers are seeing what the fully powered system can do; most recently, they’ve begun zapping the moon with the hope of determining the composition of its soil.

The article goes on to present what it calls 'both sides' in the ongoing conspiracy. On the one side, the heavy hitter (feeling loose and confident) - Eastlund. On the other side - the military industrial complex and hanger's on.

Scientific Tool or Weapon of Conspiracy?

The Claim: HAARP is designed to take out satellites and missiles.
The late physicist Bernard Eastlund believed that HAARP was built using patents of his that included satellite- and missile-disabling technology.
The Rebuttal: The Air Force, Navy and Darpa deny that they used Eastlund’s patents. Killing missiles and satellites would require injecting particles into the radiation belt, which is impossible.

So, essentially, in order to make an informed, personal assessment, some sort of foundational understanding of ionospheric heaters, the atmosphere, cold plasma, ELF and RF, phased arrays, Tesla technology - would be needed. If the government, military et al wanted to confuse and mislead and disinform...this area would be taking candy from a baby.

I'm sure there was a good reason, at the time, for exploding atomic bombs in the atmosphere and I'm sure that, at the time, it was 'safe.'

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Phage

 

Lightning storms, like all weather, originate in the troposphere.

Wow. So is this like spontaneous combustion or something?

Lightning Formation

The first process in the generation of lightning is still a matter of debate:[5] one common idea from scientists is that lightning forms from the ejection of charged particles from the sun, which reach Earth through the solar wind.[6] These charged particles cause the Earth to acquire an electric charge in its outer atmospheric layers, especially the ionosphere. Large quantities of ice in the clouds are suspected to enhance lightning development.[7] This charge will neutralize itself through any available path. This may assist in the forcible separation of positive and negative charge carriers within a cloud or air, and thus help in the formation of lightning.

Why are you quoting some random site called "Bazpedia"? It claims to be "a copy of Wikipedia", but it's nothing at all like what Wikipedia says:

en.wikipedia.org...

Cloud particle collision hypothesis

According to this cloud particle charging hypothesis, charges are separated when ice crystals rebound off graupel. Charge separation appears to require strong updrafts which carry water droplets upward, supercooling them to between -10 and -40 °C (14 and -40 °F). These water droplets collide with ice crystals to form a soft ice-water mixture called graupel. Collisions between ice crystals and graupel pellets usually result in positive charge being transferred to the ice crystals, and negative charge to the graupel.[23]

Updrafts drive the less heavy ice crystals upwards, causing the cloud top to accumulate increasing positive charge. Gravity causes the heavier negatively charged graupel to fall toward the middle and lower portions of the cloud, building up an increasing negative charge. Charge separation and accumulation continue until the electrical potential becomes sufficient to initiate a lightning discharge, which occurs when the distribution of positive and negative charges forms a sufficiently strong/high electric field.[23]

Polarization mechanism hypothesis

The mechanism by which charge separation happens is still the subject of research. A hypothesised mechanism is polarization, which has two components:[24]
Falling droplets of ice and rain become electrically polarized as they fall through the earth's magnetic field;
Colliding/rebounding cloud particles become oppositely charged.
There are several hypotheses for the origin of charge separation.[25][26][27]

Initiation

Even assuming an electric field has been established, the mechanism by which the lightning discharge begins is not well known. Electric field measurements in thunderclouds are typically not large enough to directly initiate a discharge.[28] Many hypotheses have been proposed, ranging from including runaway breakdown to locally enhanced electric fields near elongated water droplets or ice crystals.[29] Percolation theory, especially for the case of biased percolation,[30] describe random connectivity phenomena, which produce an evolution of connected structures similar to that of lightning strikes.

Nowhere is an ionospheric source of lightning mentioned.

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
HAARP by definition cannot affect the weather. Any more than a kettle can.

Despite many claims, it can't even make a pot of tea (HAARP, that is - a kettle is an intrical part of making a pot of tea (for any Americans out there, seawater is not))

Understand what the ionosphere is and then come back.

There is no honour in deliberately and knowingly spreading lies and nonsense. Nor in refusing to learn about what it is you purport to speak about.

Dear AndyMayhew: HAARP, openly and admittedly, is in the ionosphere to find out what it is. Researchers are trying to understand the ionosphere. To tell me to go and do that and then come back - go ahead: pave the way.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Here's a little sentence from that same popsci article that could use a little more information (particularly in the use of the word 'zapping'):

And now, 15 years after construction on the station began, HAARP’s managers are seeing what the fully powered system can do; most recently, they’ve begun zapping the moon with the hope of determining the composition of its soil.

It's not hard to find information on this experiment - Rense has it covered, and the HAARP home page has 2 articles on it

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
HAARP by definition cannot affect the weather. Any more than a kettle can.

Despite many claims, it can't even make a pot of tea (HAARP, that is - a kettle is an intrical part of making a pot of tea (for any Americans out there, seawater is not))

Understand what the ionosphere is and then come back.

There is no honour in deliberately and knowingly spreading lies and nonsense. Nor in refusing to learn about what it is you purport to speak about.

Dear AndyMayhew: HAARP, openly and admittedly, is in the ionosphere to find out what it is. Researchers are trying to understand the ionosphere. To tell me to go and do that and then come back - go ahead: pave the way.

Your statement was something along the lines of this:
"From what I read, lightning originates in the ionosphere."

We are simply saying that this is false. Lightning does not originate in the ionosphere, and in fact propogates the opposite direction at times, FROM the troposphere TO the ionosphere. Less than 5 minutes of research on the subject is required to learn this much.

Now, if you have some sort of evidence to the contrary, feel free to present it. I'd love to see how someone intends to re-write the book on the origins of lightning.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Thx for finding this study. It explains a lot. HIPAS/UCLA were already conceptually and feasibly up to plus/minus 10 giga watts ERP compared to HAARP's stated 4 giga watts ERP.

But that was momentary peak output, whereas HAARP is continuous.

And it's 25 meters long, and you'd need a bunch of them next to each other.

Continuous? That's not what the HAARP site itself says.

HAARP FAQ

The HF Transmitter at the HAARP Research Station is used intermittently and is primarily operated to support research campaigns where groups of scientists collaborate to conduct interactive ionospheric research.

The HF Transmitter is used during research campaigns to support interactive study of the ionosphere. A typical research period may last one or two weeks and several such campaigns may occur in a given year.

What about GWEN? That was another nomadic feat - disappearing overnight ( in the press anyway.)

The Ground-Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) System

According to a 1982 Air Force review of biotechnology, ELF has a number of potential military uses, including "dealing with terrorist groups, crowd control, controlling breaches of security at military installations, and antipersonnel techniques in tactical warfare." "Electromagnetic systems would be used to produce mild to severe physiological disruption or perceptual distortion or disorientation. They are silent, and counter measures to them may be difficult to develop."

And wasn't GWEN mostly underground anyway?

luxordelphi, could you give us a basic 101 on what the ionosphere is? Only it seems most people don't know much about it and have some strange ideas based on what they've seen on, er, dubious, websites.

Perhaps some info on how it affects the weather or at least the troposphere would be useful?

Taking into account the daily variations caused by solar acitivity and Earth rotation?

It might help support your assertions

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Thx for finding this study. It explains a lot. HIPAS/UCLA were already conceptually and feasibly up to plus/minus 10 giga watts ERP compared to HAARP's stated 4 giga watts ERP.

But that was momentary peak output, whereas HAARP is continuous.

And it's 25 meters long, and you'd need a bunch of them next to each other.

Continuous? That's not what the HAARP site itself says.

HAARP FAQ

The HF Transmitter at the HAARP Research Station is used intermittently and is primarily operated to support research campaigns where groups of scientists collaborate to conduct interactive ionospheric research.

Isn't that just a PR site tho??

It is used intermitently - but it can emit a continuous signal when it is in use:

The HAARP project directs a 3.6 MW signal, in the 2.8–10 MHz region of the HF (high-frequency) band, into the ionosphere. The signal may be pulsed or continuous.

-Princeton article

What about GWEN? That was another nomadic feat - disappearing overnight ( in the press anyway.)

The Ground-Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) System

According to a 1982 Air Force review of biotechnology, ELF has a number of potential military uses, including "dealing with terrorist groups, crowd control, controlling breaches of security at military installations, and antipersonnel techniques in tactical warfare." "Electromagnetic systems would be used to produce mild to severe physiological disruption or perceptual distortion or disorientation. They are silent, and counter measures to them may be difficult to develop."

what about it?

You cloud find out more on wiki

And wasn't GWEN mostly underground anyway?

Including:

The overall site area of a relay node was approximately 11 acres (4.5 ha), approximately 700 feet (210 m) × 700 feet. Typical site features include a longwave transmitting tower (generally between 290 and 299 feet (88 and 91 m) tall), a backup diesel generator with a two-chambered fuel tank having a capacity of 1,020 US gallons (3,900 l), 8-foot (2.4 m) × 14-foot (4.3 m) × 8-foot antenna-tuning unit (ATU) in the center of the site, and a radio processor; electronic equipment was housed in three shelters. Two of the shelters were located inside the fenced area at the perimeter of the property, and the other at the base of the tower.

and

The GWEN transmitter sites include:
A 299-foot (91 m) broadcast antenna tower
A large ground plane, designed for ground conductivity conditions at the site
An antenna tuning unit enclosure at the base of the tower
Two equipment shelters
Electronic racks that will accept the DGPS equipment
All utilities that are required for operation of the DGPS broadcast site
Air conditioning and environmental controls
Back-up power generators
Above ground fuel storage tanks
Security enclosures with intrusion alarms

doesn't look like that much of either type of site was underground!!

It did "come and go" in a bit of a rush - proposed in 1982 for capability in 1992, but found to be unnecessary due to the sustained effectiveness of its predecessor (SLFCS - not obsolete until 2005) and a much more capable successor, funding for construction was cut for 1 year in 1994, and never resumed.

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Thx for finding this study. It explains a lot. HIPAS/UCLA were already conceptually and feasibly up to plus/minus 10 giga watts ERP compared to HAARP's stated 4 giga watts ERP.

But that was momentary peak output, whereas HAARP is continuous.

And it's 25 meters long, and you'd need a bunch of them next to each other.

Continuous? That's not what the HAARP site itself says.

HAARP FAQ

The HF Transmitter at the HAARP Research Station is used intermittently and is primarily operated to support research campaigns where groups of scientists collaborate to conduct interactive ionospheric research.

It's like the difference between and a stadium flood light (which is like HAARP), and a camera flash (which is like HIPAS):



The stadium light operated "intermittently", in that they only switch it on for a few hours, and only on days when the stadium is in use. But when it's on, it's continually radiating a very strong beam of light.

A camera flash also radiates a very strong beam of light, but only for a tiny fraction of a second (typically 0.002 seconds, or less). So while the camera flash is equal in strength to the stadium light, it's really not as powerful, as it only matches it during the actual flash, the "momentary peak output".

reply to post by Uncinus

Why are you quoting some random site called "Bazpedia"? It claims to be "a copy of Wikipedia", but it's nothing at all like what Wikipedia says...

You don't like my sources? I don't like yours. But why quibble? Let's ask NASA:

The Hidden Life of Thunderstorms

Scientists have long assumed that this mostly hidden side of thunderstorms serves as the electrical "pump" that maintains a huge difference in charge between the earth's surface and an upper layer of the atmosphere called the ionosphere. There's a voltage drop between the two, measuring somewhere between 150,000 and 600,000 volts. Left to itself, this difference should naturally balance out in about 15 minutes, but it doesn't.

He explains: "The earth and its atmosphere are like a giant electric circuit. In fair weather, the charge difference between the ionosphere and the ground drives a steady trickle of current from the atmosphere to the ground, despite the fact that air is a poor conductor of electricity."

Earth's surface and the ionosphere form an electrical circuit. Thunderstorms help keep the current flowing.

And your source says specifically:

Lightning (Wikipedia)

Mechanisms that cause lightning are still a matter of scientific investigation.[10] [11]

Even assuming an electric field has been established, the mechanism by which the lightning discharge begins is not well known.

But let me help you out here. We all have talked a lot about chemtrails. Chemtrails have been exhaustively studied by every satellite, research facility and government agency remotely able to contribute to this endeavor under the heading of persistent contrails.

Enter lightning. (I'm getting you in on the ground floor here.) Why content ourselves with natural lightning when we can make fake lightning? Further, let's amp it way up so that the adrenalin rush excites us to further recklessness.

Types of Lightning & Thunder/Upper -Atmospheric Lightning

"Upper-atmospheric lightning" refers to electric discharges that occur in the upper atmosphere above the altitude for ordinary lightning. Some of these phenomena are called elves, sprites and blue jets.

Elves, which occur above areas of active cloud-to-ground lightning, may result from electromagnetic pulses extending into the portion of the atmosphere called the ionosphere.

So...is that last quote starting to sound familiar to you? The part about agitating the ionosphere?

If the difference in charge between the earth and the ionosphere cause lightning - let's utilize that a la Tesla.

But I don't claim originality here. This was all said 2000 to 4000 years ago.

Revelation 13:13

And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men.

Elves, which occur above areas of active cloud-to-ground lightning, may result from electromagnetic pulses extending into the portion of the atmosphere called the ionosphere.

You realize that this actually contradicts another portion of your argument, right? Electromagnet pulses that extend into the ionosphere indicates that they do not come FROM there, but they travel TO there. I dont recall anyone saying that the ionosphere is completely free of activity, only that it does not originate there.

reply to post by luxordelphi

Let's go back to your original statement:

Lightning storms supposedly originate in the ionosphere so that's probably where one would go in order to agitate a storm like that.

You have talked about sprites, jets, and elves which are really fascinating but the storms which produce them do not originate in the ionosphere. Lightning storms originate in the troposphere.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Phage

 

Gigantic Jets Connect Thunderclouds to the Ionosphere

Now scientists have discovered another type of lightning--gigantic jets--that link the tops of clouds to the overlying charged atmosphere, known as the ionosphere.

All five jets, the authors write, "establish a direct link between a thundercloud and the ionosphere," and measurements showed that there was a significant flow of current moving charge upward from the clouds. The researchers also detected extremely-low-frequency radio waves that were detected thousands of kilometers away during four of the five events.

I love how the debunker team like to confuse Luxordelphi.

For example, continuous as in operation schedule vs. constant or pulsed aspect.

Luxordelphi replied to schedule, while critics replied on the technical aspect.

Lightning origin. No one has addressed the above quoted study.

Critics focus on the strict lightning while Luxordelphi referred to the triggers, which in the current science literature there is heated debate on ionospheric processes as a trigger mechanism.

reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo

Luxordelphi replied to schedule, while critics replied on the technical aspect.

luxordelphi did not understand what Uncinus had said.

Critics focus on the strict lightning while Luxordelphi referred to the triggers, which in the current science literature there is heated debate on ionospheric processes as a trigger mechanism.

luxordelphi said that lightning storms originate in the ionosphere. Please present scientific literature which debates the origin of lightning storms as being located in the troposphere.

But luxordelphi is often confused because she does not understand the subject matter and limits her research to keywords, ignoring the context.

luxordelphi said that lightning storms originate in the ionosphere. Please present scientific literature which debates the origin of lightning storms as being located in the troposphere.

Reading comprehension. We are not in the ivory tower environment. Origin can be the strictest sense or the overall chain of events.

I didn't dispute or touch the troposphere in any context. The heated debate as I wrote refers to triggers, not the final event in the chain..

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
Critics focus on the strict lightning while Luxordelphi referred to the triggers, which in the current science literature there is heated debate on ionospheric processes as a trigger mechanism.

Can you point us to some of that heated debate?

Thanks