Australian Burea Of Meteorology satellite image of HAARP activity ??

luxordelphi
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Now that we've entered calmer waters...sorry you are under the weather. Put the bird in the sink to defrost over night (if it was frozen) and then a 5am kitchen duty call on the day of should put it all on the table by 2pm. (Best to
get someone in to help who has done this all before.)

Looking forward to your answers when you are feeling up to it. It's always annoying, I know, to have people like Eastlund and now Papa talking out of school. I'm sure you'll make the best of it. And I never meant to accuse you of being a sitaround.

Eastlund's proposal patently isn't HAARP. That's a microwave system for beaming energy down from the tundra to a rectenna in the States.

Dennis' statement isn't literally true. You can't make a miniature 2D array similar to HAARP just by making things smaller. You might get five or six elements on a big oil platform or a linear array on a boat, but you just can't space them that tightly, nor make them much smaller than they are. It's a physics thing.

Also, Iran is about as bad a location for accessing either electrojet as there is. I've got his email in my contact list, though, I'll fire off a quick note to him and see what he meant to say from the horse's mouth, as it were. You may feel free to disbelieve that I'm posting a reply from him, I suppose.

If anyone COULD pull it off, it would be Dr Pop.

And it's pretty much me and some other contractors. We're out here in Kern County, home of dirt and sand. So this is going to be my first, at least by myself.

reply to post by Bedlam


Ok, just re-read both articles, tried to fire an email off to Dr P, and I'm back.

This conjugate point off New Zealand was mapped in concentric circles, like a bullseye.

Right. You may notice that they drew rings around the Gakona facility as well. And then they note that the rings are just rings drawn at 100km intervals, and in fact that's all they are. In this particular experiment, they're trying to put a buoy or ship at the conjugate point from the generation point of VLF or ELF that's oriented in such as way that it ends up ducted down the conjugate line to the one-hop buoy.

The problem is, it's really tough to put a buoy at the conjugate point. It's stormy, the seas are rough, and it's over a 5700 (more or less) meter chasm, which makes it a bit tough to anchor the thing. The "bullseye" patterns at both ends sort of map to each other due to the conjugate ducting. So, if you had to move the buoy away from the dead center of the conjugate point to get a good anchor location, where you end up with it is going to be conjugate to its counterpart on the other end.

It would be nice to put the buoy dead nuts over the site's conjugate point. But if you can't, you can put it anywhere the array can cause ELF to be produced of the sort you need to go up the pipe like Augustus Gloop and be ducted to the conjugate endpoint near New Zealand. And you can put the buoy at THAT conjugate point. That's what the rings tell you - you can reach out about 1000km and make ELF or VLF there. "Personally, I believe it can reach 1,000 kilometers" - and he's right. There you go - the ring pattern describes a 1000km diameter circle. You can put the buoy anywhere in the conjugate pattern on the other side of the world described by that 1000km diameter circle in Alaska. That's the mystic significance of the
bullseye.

The bullseye in Alaska shows the reach of the array. The bullseye in the waters off NZ show the conjugate image where the signal will come down the duct. They are mirror images of each other. Wherever you end up putting the buoy, the array will have to actually create the ELF/VLF off of local vertical in Alaska to match the same coordinate. And that circle pattern in NZ is where it can make the signal come down to.

So that's the mystery of why concentric rings around the two sites. Next-why circular geometric modulation.

eta:
You actually want the thing as centered as possible. That's because conjugacy if there is such a word is not a hard and fast condition. The duct drifts with a lot of different stimuli - if there's a geomagnetic disturbance, for instance, a CME or a burst of solar wind, anything that causes a reaction by the planet's magnetic field will cause the duct to move around. There's also a somewhat predictable 24 hour migration pattern of the duct caused by the Earth rotating one or the other end points into darkness - the field lines aren't symmetric for day and night sides due to solar wind. So the closer you are to the center of the pattern, the more leeway you have to move the Gakona end to pick a duct entry point that comes down over your buoy.

Ok. Geometric vs beam painting for ELF generation

Now, at certain times of the day, and more at some times of the year than others, you have access to the auroral electrojet which flows overhead at Gakona, which is why they picked the Copper River area instead of Sheyboygan.

That is a "river" of electric current flowing in the ionosphere. Any time you've got something like that, you can make radio waves with it. And you can do that two ways - modulating the thickness of it, or shaking it back and forth.

It's damned hard to make ELF. However, for some processes in the ionosphere and magnetosphere, that's what you've got to use to get the effects you want. Towards that end, Dr Helliwell set up shop in Siple Station, Antarctica and ran experiments in the 70s and 80s. His antenna was staked out on the ice. It didn't have anywhere near the capability of HAARP but it was good enough to get a lot of data. But generating ELF is painful, and expensive, because you need HUGE antennas.

However, you've got this nifty electrojet. It's huge, and it's powerful, and it's long. So maybe you can use IT to both power and radiate your ELF and not have to build an antenna a few hundred km long.

So you get HAARP, to an extent. HAARP has, as one intent, the ability to manipulate the electrojet in order to derive, albeit indirectly, an ELF/VLF/ULF output by using magnetic field lines or the electrojet itself.

The jet was originally used in "signal paint" mode which was invented by Papadopolous. In that mode, you ramp the power up and down as you scan across the jet. The signal causes heating which thins (increases the resistance of) the plasma carrying the electrojet current, the stronger the signal, the thinner the plasma. This causes modulations in the flow of the electrojet, not a lot as a percentage but some, and that flow change causes acceleration in the electrons, which emit radio signals. And Bob's your uncle.

Along came a guy named Cohen, and he thought it might be more direct and useful to just turn the beam on and let fly at the jet in a sawtooth motion and shove the jet back and forth. That worked better. But the plasma cooling time was longer than the beam swing time to get the frequencies they wanted. So they tried a circular pattern. That gives you significantly more time for the spot you just heated to cool before you excite it again, yet it is a rhythmic change that is both easy for the array to do and doesn't result in the production of a lot of harmonic noise from the jet.

And that's why they use a circular scan. Note that, unlike the many wacky CT theories on the net, HAARP can't do this except in a 15 degree cone from vertical unless you are doing it very slowly on the low band due to limitations in the array control system. So you can't "beam HAARP circles" at people on the other side of the world ala "sincedutch". It's just a way of shoving the electrojet around overhead so that you get production of some ELF output.

"Anyway, I had read the paper about setting up this buoy and why and how but the actual mission statement was mystifying."

I'm assuming you mean this vague yet confusing bit:

The STAR Lab Very Low Frequency (VLF) group studies electromagnetic waves in the
frequency range of 100Hz to 100kHz that permeate the near-space environment of our
planet. The Navy-operated High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP)
High Frequency heater located in Alaska allows for high power VLF waves of arbitrary
frequency and modulation to transmitted by modulated ionospheric heating. These VLF
signals can be ducted along the magnetic field lines of the Earth, causing the waves to travel
through the radiation belts, shown as the “Interaction Region” in the figure below, and
interact with energetic particles. The interactions can include VLF wave amplification as
well as electron pitch angle scattering. The primary objective of the buoy is to detect and study ducted whistler-mode signals excited by the HAARP HF heating facility in Alaska. Observation of the so called ‘one-hop’ signal at the magnetic conjugate point, where the buoy is located, and the ‘two-hop’ signal in
the HAARP vicinity allows for investigation of the wave amplification and growth processes
known to take place in the magnetosphere. Quantitative analysis of multi-hop echoes along
with measurements of associated electron precipitation will allow the determination of the
parameters and know-how necessary for the design of a space-based radiation belt
remediation system. More generally, the purpose of the proposed experiments is to ‘learn’ to
amplify injected ELF/VLF signals so as to better utilize them in the scattering of trapped
radiation belt particles.

What could be more simple? It seems self-explanatory to me, and any further analysis of
this should be left as an exercise for the astute reader.

Ok. Where to start. First, Stanford has been doing this since they sent Dr Helliwell to the South Pole. It's a Stanford thing, and now it's STAR lab (Stanford Advanced Research, afaik) that does all the VLF and remote sensing projects. Thus do you have STAR Labs' involvement here.

On the north end of the thing, you have HAARP, which can induce dandy emissions in the ELF and VLF bands for you.

The purpose of being on the conjugate end is so you can study whistler mode propagation.

That's a whole other story. One of the reasons for HAARP is for the military guys to play around with ducts, whistler mode, sporadic E and the like. The military has LONG been interested in why the ionosphere works the way it does. There are a lot of ponies in that barn. So they encourage a lot of research towards that end. Both on and off the books.

This is being funded to get more data on whistler mode propagation in general, and one set of effects in particular. It is linked to another set of studies being funded at that point in time by the DOD, although that's only obliquely mentioned here. That used to be classified. We'll get back to that.

It's hard to find really descriptive links for ducting, whistler mode and the like that aren't also very technical. I'm not sure what your level of understanding is. But let's say that whistler mode involves a signal riding a magnetic line as a signal duct, and that's what they're causing intentionally here.

That signal rides the line up from Gakona, and enters the area in the lower magnetosphere where you've got very energetic trapped electrons. These electrons precess to the beat of the VLF you're putting in, and their cyclotron pitch angle changes. If it changes enough, the electrons are thrown out (that's the precipitating electron on the top) and gives up its energy to the radio wave. Some of it. That continues on through the region as the wave passes through, picking up energy and being amplified somewhat in the passage. (we're on that top right diagram in the introduction block) It comes down the line and lands in New Zealand, more or less, and you can look at the changes to the signal and see what happened to it. At the same time, you get a reflection from the seawater and the signal goes back UP the pipe and comes back to the VLF receiver at Gakona, Chistochina or Juneau. This is the two-hop bounce. I could go look for it but I think you can sometimes get three and four hop bounces and still be detectable.

Now you get to this little gem:

"Quantitative analysis of multi-hop echoes along
with measurements of associated electron precipitation will allow the determination of the
parameters and know-how necessary for the design of a space-based radiation belt
remediation system. More generally, the purpose of the proposed experiments is to ‘learn’ to
amplify injected ELF/VLF signals so as to better utilize them in the scattering of trapped
radiation belt particles."

which I suspect is the part that's puzzling you. You can "see" the electron precipitation on a good day as speckling on the image intensifier at the Gakona end. There are other ways of detecting it as radio noise. You want to know how to optimize this. Heck, even Helliwell played with that back in the 70s.

You want to be able to optimize the rate at which you can induce electron precipitation out of the lower end of the magnetosphere, what we call the radiation belt. That's done in the same manner, sort of, as sending this whistler mode signal. Only when you want straight precipitation is doesn't matter so much about sending signals, you just want the precipitation part. You get this by changing the cyclotron pitch angle of trapped electrons with the right sorts of signals sent into the belt. It is even MORE clever if you can figure out a nice way to use the energy in the belt to cause the belt to more aggressively precipitate out electrons, sort of electronic judo.

The end goal, of course, is to see how to ameliorate the effects of HAND, or High Altitude Nuclear Detonation. It's also something you get with CMEs. Either one can inject a HUGE amount of energetic electrons into the belt, and it will be hot for as much as a year. However, you can drop the electrons out into the ionosphere like rain if you know how. HAARP has been able to do this as one of those non-discussed and actually at one time classified functions that was leaked inadvertently to the press about 2005, by a general on a TV program, IIRC.

However, as I'm pretty sure I've pointed out in a dozen posts on ATS by now, it's all moved off to a set of satellites at this point.

link
link - 2007

"Then HAARP went on to create a bullseye. (Agitation of the ionosphere creates ELF, yes, but it also creates or starts alot of other stuff.) And before I forget, you can view pictures of the buoy on both links here and they sure seem kind of small to me to pick up ELF. (And also, how would you know what a magnetic field line can transmit when these experiments are supposedly learning about it?) Anyway, the bullseye was created by creating a patch of artificial ionosphere. (See answer to your next post to talk about mobility.)"

Well, that was overhead at Gakona. It's not got much to do with anything anywhere else.

The buoy was designed to receive VLF, and yep, you can do that on top of the water in a straightforward manner. It has three 10' loop antennas, they pick up the h-field component of the VLF signals.

I built something similar as a kid with two 10' pieces of big pvc in a cross and an op-amp setup with some stiff notch filtering. These days I'd use digital filtering. You used to be able to hear the Russian and US sub command signals down in the bottom of the band. The Russians are still down there. Google "homebrew VLF receivers" for about 50000 articles.

eta: people have known about whistlers for ages, in that we know they exist and sort of how they work. EXACTLY how they work is still a mystery. "Learning about it" doesn't mean we didn't know it happened. It means we needed to learn about it.

reply to post by Bedlam


Thankyou for your replies which I read with interest. Jumping right in: the agitated/dislodged electrons spiral down/up the magnetic field lines. They don't shoot or blob or...; they spiral. Conjugate points, believe me if you dare, can be configured from satellites. Holy moly! That adds a new dimension. Here a paper from 1966 (before everything was classified to kingdom come and everyone had to speak in some kind of code even when writing a paper.)

Magnetoconjugate Phenomena

The paper sometimes doubts duplicate display of all phenomena at both ends because of the external forces involved but, imo, they have not heard of the twisted pair. This twisted pair solution produced by the spiraling along the line.

To sum: conjugate points can be accessed by on the ground facilities, ships at sea, oil rigs and satellites. This gives good coverage. Also gives a clue about why what is built where. For instance: the antarctic installations which conjugate, for instance, some with Eiscat.

Here is an interesting article on conjugate points around the globe.

Natural Radio

Whistlers happen when an impulse of electromagnetic energy, typically from a stroke
of lightning, (I say typically, because manmade impulses can cause whistlers, such as a
nuclear blast or pulsed signals from a VLF Radio station), enter a duct in the
magnetosphere and follow a magnetic field line to the conjugate point in the opposite
hemisphere. These ducts are tubes of enhanced electron density that are field-aligned
with the earth’s magnetic field.

In this thread, earlier, someone put up images of concentric circles from western Australia. And in this article it shows that there is a receiver set-up in western Australia. And the picture here shows us where this is:

Murchison Widefield Array

And this link within that same site explains what it can pick-up.

Solar-Heliospheric-Ionospheric Science

The conjugate point for this facility (omitting satellites) is Millstone Hill Observatory in Westford, Mass.

Millstone Hill Observatory

(MWA stands for Murchison Widefield Array.)

This is the point where I define incoherent scatter radar:

incoherent scatter radar definition

A radar for measuring many of the properties of the ionosphere and the neutral upper atmosphere.

The radar uses a technique that is much more sensitive and has greater spatial resolution than more conventional ionosondes, but requires powerful radar transmitters and large antennas.

Kind of freaky, to me, is that the places where these things happen are often conjugate points with facilities built in tandem. My math is not good enough to allow me to configure conjugate points for moving satellites but there is an online program that will do it for me. The online programs, though, can be tampered with (found this before in arctic day/night, sunrise/sunset 'we'll do it for you' sites and so just going to say that, visually, the 66 Iridium are looking close enough to all conjugate points for magnetic field lines.

These artifacts, then, are peculiarly located, geographically. (Your explanation.) Also they could be a natural flux in the fields being measured because, in some cases, like the Sandy thread, they imaged a surge prior to the surge. So if they were caused by natural forces which instrumentation in place was able to measure: why the secrecy? It's a guilty conscience that sidesteps the most reasonable explanation because that explanation could lead a researcher to the steps that could be taken to artificially create the event.

And your explanation makes sooo much sense, have to tell you that, BUT I'm hung on this bullseye that HAARP created. Hung on bait and switch. Hung on these spiraling electrons. Hung here really, not because of you, but because this argument has been used before in this forum for different things.

luxordelphi
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Thankyou for your replies which I read with interest. Jumping right in: the agitated/dislodged electrons spiral down/up the magnetic field lines. They don't shoot or blob or...; they spiral.

Right! That's part of how the amplification part occurs to the whistler signal.

Conjugate points, believe me if you dare, can be configured from satellites. Holy moly! That adds a new dimension.

I guess I was less than clear there. The conjugate points move around due to a lot of natural phenomena. But we no longer need HAARP or any ground station to do the electron precipitation trick. We can dump electrons right out of the inner belt structure by using a small cluster of satellites we have in there. The previous method used something similar to conjugate point whistler propagation (which also causes electron precipitation) but was more aggressive than a whistler signal. That could be worked from HAARP or a number of other sites. But now you can just dump a CME to the ionosphere and drain the belt in a...short period of time.

THAT is a real plus, from a military point of view.

Here is an interesting article on conjugate points around the globe.

We initially found out about conjugates by receiving lightning strikes on radios at a conjugate point that were happening a world away.

These artifacts, then, are peculiarly located, geographically.

Almost every place has a conjugate point.

So if they were caused by natural forces which instrumentation in place was able to measure: why the secrecy? It's a guilty conscience that sidesteps the most reasonable explanation because that explanation could lead a researcher to the steps that could be taken to artificially create the event.


Which secrecy? Conjugates and whistlers are well known phenomena. At least to radio guys such as myself.

BUT I'm hung on this bullseye that HAARP created.

That's nothing more than an interaction between the beam and the ionospheric conditions at the time. Usually you get a ball.

reply to post by Bedlam

But we no longer need HAARP or any ground station to do the electron precipitation trick. We can dump electrons right out of the inner belt structure by using a small cluster of satellites we have in there.

Are you talking about the inner radiation belt? Are there satellites there?

The previous method used something similar to conjugate point whistler propagation (which also causes electron precipitation) but was more aggressive than a whistler signal. That could be worked from HAARP or a number of other sites. But now you can just dump a CME to the ionosphere and drain the belt in a...short period of time.

What!!!???

Dumping coronal mass ejections into the ionosphere???!!!

Too much turkey.

Almost every place has a conjugate point.

We weren't talking about every place. We were talking about the places that receive concentric circles, the ones you all are calling artifacts because you say the satellite or hurricane spins too fast for the imager (combining with other imagers) to sort this out.

Which secrecy? Conjugates and whistlers are well known phenomena. At least to radio guys such as myself.

I was saying that a surge (such as the one about Sandy in the thread you linked to explain the artifact business) picked up by instrumentation in place COULD be a natural surge, signalling an event. If it is a natural surge, why the secrecy about reporting it? Why try to report it as an artifact? Why not use it to predict an event?

That's nothing more than an interaction between the beam and the ionospheric conditions at the time. Usually you get a ball.

I'm going to go with the 200 global petroglyphs here and say that usually, before an event, you get a spiral.

luxordelphi
Are you talking about the inner radiation belt? Are there satellites there?

Yep.

What!!!???

Dumping coronal mass ejections into the ionosphere???!!!

Too much turkey.

You betcha. CMEs and HANDs dump a lot of high speed electrons into the inner magnetosphere, where they become trapped and loop around at high speed. Where they whack into satellites, and emit little bursts of x-rays which cause all sorts of havoc. So, we needed a way to drain the electrons off, and that was it. That was classified until 2005, when it was blown on a TV program.

We weren't talking about every place. We were talking about the places that receive concentric circles...

No one "receives concentric circles". You get something like a microwave radiometry spin imager (like Blue Marble's MODIC satellites) transitioning into daylight, you get fast warming of the signal path. So when the scanner looks aside at the reference, it resets to normal. Then over the next few scan spins, you get progressively more noise in the channel that looks like a ramp up to 'white' as the structure continues to warm, then after a few (usually 4, 8 or 16) spins, it looks at the reference again and back to normal. If you look at the "HAARP death spiral" photo, you'll see that.

I was saying that a surge (such as the one about Sandy in the thread you linked to explain the artifact business) picked up by instrumentation in place COULD be a natural surge, signalling an event.

It WAS an artifact. There was no 'surge'. Did you read ANY of it?

I'm going to go with the 200 global petroglyphs here and say that usually, before an event, you get a spiral.

Yah, ok. Me, I like knowledge, understanding, logic. But you go with the 'similar shapes' theory. I have a black car. Night is black. Therefore my car is made of nighttime.

reply to post by Bedlam


(Just lost my entire post to you - really getting annoying.)

No one "receives concentric circles".

Conjugate points mirror phenomena.

Magnetoconjugate Phenomena

The early studies, and most of the work to the present, have centered primarily on the question: Which geophysical phenomena, expecially those occurring in the upper atmosphere, are constrained to occur at the same time and in similar manner at these two points by virtue of the field linkage?

The phenomena most likely to be field-related in this way are those arising from the flux of low energy charged particles from the sun, which, by their interaction with the earths' field, will in general spiral about the field lines and either 'mirror' at two spatial conjugates above the atmosphere or precipitate into the atmosphere.

It was also recognized that hydromagnetic waves might propagate along field lines to conjugate points.

CMEs and HANDs dump a lot of high speed electrons into the inner magnetosphere, where they become trapped and loop around at high speed.

This is not the way you phrased this previously. You made it sound like we all were dumping cme's into the magnetosphere. Ok, then.

If you look at the "HAARP death spiral" photo, you'll see that.

Do you mean the spirals that people saw in the sky? The one over eastern Australia in 2010? Or the ones in Russia and China and Norway in 2009? Artifacts?

A lot of people saw them and photographed them and filmed them.

(edit to add) I find it hard to believe that these sorts of plasma displays could not be picked up by some instrumentation out there.

As far as the weather radar 'artifacts': the locations where they appear are indicative. Why in receiver locations?

imo, we'd be seeing a lot more of these except that the conjugate points for existing locations are mostly on tiny obscure south sea islands and, of course, in Antarctica. Jane & Joe are not checking the weather in these places with any consistency.

But you go with the 'similar shapes' theory. I have a black car. Night is black. Therefore my car is made of nighttime.

That's just wrong. I go with the past is trying to warn the future theory. Something that we'll find ourselves doing before long if we don't change our evil ways. We'll be scratching out spirals on rocks with the hope and the wish that a future generation will take a different path.

luxordelphi
reply to post by Bedlam

 

(Just lost my entire post to you - really getting annoying.)

Don't you hate that? I've gotten to where I copy the thing off to a text window if it's over a few lines long.

Conjugate points mirror phenomena.

None of that proves that you "receive concentric circles" it's more an effect of the right hand rule. A moving electron will spiral around a field line. qvb=mv^2/r, after all.

Do you mean the spirals that people saw in the sky? The one over eastern Australia in 2010? Or the ones in Russia and China and Norway in 2009? Artifacts?

A lot of people saw them and photographed them and filmed them.

No, those are booster failures. They generally look like spirals or earth shattering kabooms.

luxordelphi
As far as the weather radar 'artifacts': the locations where they appear are indicative. Why in receiver locations?

Because radar errors generally appear in circles around the transmitter. That's because the radar is using a polar coordinate system - it's scanning in circles, everything to it is angles from the origin and a radius.

Spiral scan satellite artifacts tend to look like spirals. Radar artifacts tend to look like donuts and spikes. Radar mosaic artifacts look like rectilinear blocks of crap.

The nature of the artifact tends to reveal the method the system uses to develop the image. That's how I knew upthread when I saw the spirals on the first post that there was a spin imager being used.

reply to post by Bedlam

Don't you hate that? I've gotten to where I copy the thing off to a text window if it's over a few lines long.

Yeah...I copy it to text but my computer system is so tweaked that even the text operates on its' own steam intermittantly. Several months ago the cable company came out to try to get into my house and install stuff. (Cable company doesn't come to this area - it's in their contract.) Whoever they were wound up installing a 2nd phone line on an outdoor connection that goes nowhere I can figure out. Since then my text is often independent. It doesn't type stuff in but it deletes at will. HAARP is a particular bug up its'....

None of that proves that you "receive concentric circles" it's more an effect of the right hand rule.

Beg to differ. I realize that the paper is old (1966) and long but further on they talk about how, back then, the conjugate points had nothing there but how they limped along with a few and were able to verify that the actual phenomena (like aurora) was mirrored. Interesting too was that they weren't sure if it was a mirror or a duplicate and that 'travel' along the field line may have had nothing to do with it. Perhaps that relates to which side of the ionosphere is producing the agitation. Harmful ELF is kept out or in depending on which side we all are on. Something to ponder. So I will look into this through the looking glass and perhaps find that you are right as far as human made phenomena goes. Time will tell.

No, those are booster failures. They generally look like spirals or earth shattering kabooms.

You do believe in coincidence after coincidence after coincidence after coincidence...


edit to add: almost lost it again!!

reply to post by Bedlam


Yes...rephrasing: why do the weather artifacts appear at conjugate points where receivers/transmitters are set up at both ends? I'm asking here about a coincidental occurrence. And these receivers - the MWA's - are supposed to be sophisticated enough to leave donuts in the dust.

Things tend to die or malfunction in certain characteristic ways. I'd have been shocked NOT to find that Blue Marble used a spin radiometer to get cloud images.

Bedlam
Things tend to die or malfunction in certain characteristic ways. I'd have been shocked NOT to find that Blue Marble used a spin radiometer to get cloud images.

Unhappily the 'malfunction' occurred over a receiver/transmitter area. Previous malfunctions (like the Sandy thread you linked to) occurred over areas about to experience events. Guess I will just have to start checking the weather at some of the more obscure mostly uninhabited conjugate points to see if I can unearth some more malfunctions.

I have enjoyed your dialogue and have learned a great deal.

edit to add: most appreciative of the satellite connection.

luxordelphi
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Yes...rephrasing: why do the weather artifacts appear at conjugate points where receivers/transmitters are set up at both ends?

Most places in the world have a conjugate point. How do you know there's something at the other end? At any rate, the duct only carries VLF and ELF well, with most duct cutoff frequencies in the 100kHz range. You can put somewhat higher frequencies up the duct, I've heard of them almost making 2MHz, but as you go over the electron gyrofrequency you lose the amplification and the duct becomes really attenuative.

So even if Natasha and Boris were on the radar's conjugate point, you won't be putting something three orders of magnitude higher frequency down the duct from the Atlantic or whatever to cause a pesky radar donut in Australia.

I'm asking here about a coincidental occurrence. And these receivers - the MWA's - are supposed to be sophisticated enough to leave donuts in the dust.

There's a whole set of basic radar issues that cause these sorts of things. It's sort of hard to make those problems go away. Take, for instance, the rings around that station at the first or second post - you'll note the rather clear air around that station. If you've got clear, calm air with the right temperature shift, typically at the end of the day, you can get a fuzzy donut at about 25-50 miles around the radar. That's caused by clear air refraction - the air bends the radar beam into the ground about that far from the station, and you get ground returns (that's the fuzzy part) in a donut pattern. It's similar to you seeing something that looks like water at the end of a hot road with no breeze.

luxordelphi

Bedlam
Things tend to die or malfunction in certain characteristic ways. I'd have been shocked NOT to find that Blue Marble used a spin radiometer to get cloud images.

Unhappily the 'malfunction' occurred over a receiver/transmitter area.

You've said that several times...what does that mean to you? In this case, it's "over" pretty much all of Australia.

reply to post by Bedlam


Thanks for the very interesting read
Just a quick question,
Do you know much about the array in Exmouth?