HAARP Unleashes Tesla Death Ray

reply to post by Bedlam

You asked where the other poster was getting his 3.2MW number from.

Oh, ho then...didn't know you were answering for Gaul. Where's the number from? What source? Who is saying that? That's all I was asking on that.

The rest of your post...still ragging on Bertell as though there were actually some authority on HAARP somewhere who isn't dead. Whispering in your ear, are they?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Oh, ho then...didn't know you were answering for Gaul. Where's the number from? What source? Who is saying that? That's all I was asking on that.

I generally post a snippet to show you what I'm responding to, it was there. You asked, quote: "Also, if you can't explain something in layman's terms, as Bedlam said we (you, me & Bedlam) are not going to get anywhere.'

To me, that was a request for an explanation of HOW the 3.2MW number was arrived at, for which I gave a very nice explanation, including why you'd need that much diesel power given the output and so on. You certainly don't get that succinct, yet detailed (and accurate) of an explanation from other sources.

The rest of your post...still ragging on Bertell as though there were actually some authority on HAARP somewhere who isn't dead. Whispering in your ear, are they?

You think everyone who's worked on the project is dead?

edit to add: you keep quoting her, I'll keep mocking her.

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by Gidonb4IN

HAARP Unleashes Tesla Death Ray

awe.sm

Disturbing evidence is emerging that HAARP has been weaponized. Noted Brazilian physicist, Dr. Fran De Aquino, recently asserted the fully functional HAARP network is not only modifying weather and geophysical events, it may also be warping space and gravity—even time! Now applications of Nikola Tesla’s legendary “Death Ray” weapon may have been activated.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
topdocumentaryfilms.com
illuminatiwatcher.com

Considering the source link you have a very suspicious nickname !

Gid On B4 Its News ???

Yup the OP seems to be a pro "beforeitsnews" link spammer.


here one if the worst of his "beforeitsnews" plugs pretending it to be a FB link.

Originally posted by Gidonb4IN
reply to post by UltraMarine

 

The answer is absolutely YES. The is much more information on it here in a FB group I am active on:

awe.sm...

Originally posted by Rubic0n
Yup the OP seems to be a pro "beforeitsnews" link spammer.


here one if the worst of his "beforeitsnews" plugs pretending it to be a FB link.

Hm. Maybe LD is a BIN shill, then. Paid by a competing ct site to plug their story.

How shameful.

Here we go again. All you need to know is what HAARP is, and what it is capable of, and then you put claims like this in the garbage, where it belongs and move on.

"The HAARP facility will not , and cannot affect the weather. Transmitted energy in the frequency ranges that are used by HAARP are not absorbed in either the troposphere or the stratosphere - the two levels of the atmosphere that produce the earth's weather. Electromagnetic interactions only occur in the near-vacuum of the rarefied region above about 70 km known as the ionosphere."

reply to post by Bedlam

To me, that was a request for an explanation of HOW the 3.2MW number was arrived at, for which I gave a very nice explanation, including why you'd need that much diesel power given the output and so on. You certainly don't get that succinct, yet detailed (and accurate) of an explanation from other sources.

Yes...nice, very nice...what I need is the source for the number; not how it's produced once it is a number. I want to be able to scrutinize the source giving out that number like, for instance, the HAARP PR director.

You think everyone who's worked on the project is dead?

Oh please. I consider Tesla and Eastlund authorities on HAARP. A brick layer is not an architect.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Yes...nice, very nice...what I need is the source for the number; not how it's produced once it is a number. I want to be able to scrutinize the source giving out that number like, for instance, the HAARP PR director.

What has BIN, your employer, told you you could accept? I'm probably not going to be able to come up with anything that isn't from the project or the government, and although all my numbers are remarkably self-consistent, since they're correct, you won't accept that I simply know what I'm talking about. Nor, probably, should you. But really, the project is the best source for the data, failing that, there are some other sources but when they agree with me, they could all be FAKED.

Oh please. I consider Tesla and Eastlund authorities on HAARP. A brick layer is not an architect.

I don't think Tesla understood direct digital synthesis or phased arrays - he certainly never wrote about them, and the math generally wasn't known at that time. And Eastlund's design was for a microwave transmitter, which HAARP is not, although it's likely he knew something about the IRI design. Hard to say, since he's not here.

Of course, given Tesla's magical appeal, he probably rose from the grave on the third day and reigns in DC, somewhere under the Washington monument.

reply to post by Bedlam

What has BIN, your employer, told you you could accept?

I don't work for before it's news nor do I know anyone who does nor did the person from their article that I quoted nor did Tesla who I also quoted. Eastlund, as far as I know, never worked for before it's news either. The PR directory for HAARP doesn't work for them either - he works for HAARP.

Is this just more ragging? On before it's news?

I don't think Tesla understood direct digital synthesis or phased arrays - he certainly never wrote about them, and the math generally wasn't known at that time. And Eastlund's design was for a microwave transmitter, which HAARP is not, although it's likely he knew something about the IRI design. Hard to say, since he's not here.

No...no no no. No more ragging.

At this point, imo, there is no authority. If you watch the video it is clear that one of the reasons there is no authority on HAARP is because heating the ionosphere causes reactions understood and studied in a number of different fields. These range from the mechanics of the heater itself to the modulation of the heater frequency to the non-linear ionospheric reactions to the effects of ELF on life and earth.

The people quoted from within the HAARP project contradict each other because it is difficult to straddle so many different fields and be expert in each one.

Holes in Heaven

The ionosphere of the earth has got enormous amount of energy. There are 8000 thunderstorms going on all over the earth at any given moment. There are millions of amperes of electricity pouring to the earth from lightning strikes and HAARP could create a trigger effect. (Dr. Patrick Flanagan, Electromagnetic Specialist/05:07)

You know you put one watt out and you've got the field necessary to break down the air or whatever happens. (John Heckscher, Project Manager - HAARP/08:19)

We're squeezing the mega watts into a narrow beam then in a very tiny area you can create what's called an effective giga watt(John Hecksher, Project Manager - HAARP/08:42)

I was considered a child prodigy in electronics. My entire life has been devoted to the study of the effect of electromagnetic energies on the human mind. When I was 13 years old I invented a device that transmits sound to the human brain using electromagnetic waves. So this is my field. I've been studying this field for over 40 years and HAARP scares me because I know what HAARP can do. I know that HAARP can be used to control the human mind. (Dr. Rick Flanagan, Electromagnetic Specialist/21:04)

(On ERP: reading the definitions, the calculations seem to be limited to areas not including the ionosphere. So it's probably a gross undercalculation of what the ERP would actually be. A spike can't be calculated if you don't know what the trigger points are nor can parameters be set in a non-linear environment. Nor can something be contained in an environment that isn't defined.)

reply to post by luxordelphi

I was considered a child prodigy in electronics. My entire life has been devoted to the study of the effect of electromagnetic energies on the human mind. When I was 13 years old I invented a device that transmits sound to the human brain using electromagnetic waves. So this is my field. I've been studying this field for over 40 years and HAARP scares me because I know what HAARP can do. I know that HAARP can be used to control the human mind. (Dr. Rick Flanagan, Electromagnetic Specialist/21:04)

And I'd imagine this "mind control" that he "knows" can be done by HAARP is like the "mind control" and "beamed messages" that were shown to Jesse Ventura on his show about HAARP.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I don't really understand your post. Specifically, I don't understand where your

it transmitts 3.6 Mw - about 1/300'th of 1 billion.....

information comes from.

it comes from anywehere you search for HAARP that actually knows anything about the site - eg it's FAQ page::

How large is the HAARP antenna array?
The HAARP antenna array consists of 180 antennas on a total land area of about 35 acres. The array, along with its integrated transmitters, has a total radiated power capability of about 3,600 kilowatts.

Also, if you can't explain something in layman's terms, as Bedlam said

HAARP is beyond what the average layman can easily understand...

we (you, me & Bedlam) are not going to get anywhere.

If you dont' understand what a mega-watt (Mw) is and how it relates to a Giga-watt (Gw), then you should probably not talk about them in the first place!!

If

reply to post by charlyv




Truth v Fantasy. The latter always gets more interest on a conspiracy forum. But truth remains ......

Who cares if HAARP can't even make a cup of tea so long as we can pretend it does and frighten the sheeple into running scared?

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Is this just more ragging? On before it's news?

The OP was clearly trying to push traffic to BIN. You are the only one staunchly defending the article. It would seem to be proper ATS manners to therefore call you a shill. I'm usually on the receiving end of that, so it's a refreshing change to be able to do it to someone else, if tongue-in-cheek.

No...no no no. No more ragging.

Then, no no no, no more quoting someone as an authority who cannot possibly be. Or I will challenge your assumptions.

At this point, imo, there is no authority.

How conveniently self-serving. Thus we have to simply swallow any statement you make outright. I disagree.

The people quoted from within the HAARP project contradict each other because it is difficult to straddle so many different fields and be expert in each one.

I certainly agree with you there, that's why there are any number of different types of expert associated with any project, certainly with this one. See, people actually do this thing called "collaboration" where they pool their various fields of expertise and viewpoints. The medical guys don't understand the radio, the atmo guys know what they want but not always how to get that out of the array, the radio guys don't understand biology. But if you put them all together, they reach interesting multi-disciplinary conclusions.

Sometimes the contradictions are because you don't understand what's being talked about, and a lot of times engineers don't understand questions the way people ask them. The geekier the engineer, the worse the communication. Being a socialized extrovert sort of engineer, I end up translating a lot at various projects. I speak both Geek and Business Wonk.

...Holes in Heaven...I was considered a child prodigy in electronics...I know that HAARP can be used to control the human mind...Dr. Patrick Flanagan, Electromagnetic Specialist...

Crystal Energy is the first product Dr. Patrick Flanagan invented after studying Hunza water. It consists of billions of spherical nanoparticles of silica that have the highest zeta potential ever measured. When added to water Crystal Energy instantly turns water into a liquid crystal and more closely matches water surrounding the cells in the body.

Umm, yeah.

On ERP: reading the definitions, the calculations seem to be limited to areas not including the ionosphere. So it's probably a gross undercalculation of what the ERP would actually be.

Piffle. ERP takes in the actual power output and the antenna gain factor. If you say ERP is not defined, then you can't use it in your ruminations, either. Can't have it both ways. It's either definable and calculable, or it doesn't exist and that 4GW ERP figure is a fiction.

Do you actually understand what ERP is telling you? Tell me back, in your own words, no copypasta.

reply to post by Bedlam

Bedlam: I'll reply to your current post later. You peaked my interest with your ERP statement. I appreciate that you mentioned that atmospheric science is not your area of expertise but I think you can give an opinion on whether or not the following statements I'm going to make, based on your quotes and further source material, are legitimate as an avenue of inquiry. Your statements:

So, if you're running the thing full out, you can get an output power of 3.6MW. (30 x 12 x 10kw) Not all of this reaches the antenna - you've got losses in the cabling and tuning systems such that you actually end up radiating about 3.2MW. That's frequency dependent. In the middle of the range, about 6MHz, you get nearly all of it. At the edges, especially near 10MHz, you start dropping pretty badly.

So you can get about 4GW of ERP. ERP isn't total power though - there's no more than 3.2MW of output. ERP isn't total output power.

I suggest she doesn't understand what ERP is. Most people don't. It sounds really shiny though, and it's not nearly as neat when you use actual output power, so invariably HAARP-doomsters will (mis)use ERP.

Consider - if you took the IRI's entire output power, and delivered it to the ionosphere unattenuated by distance, and multiplied it with a stroke of your imagination to 1000x - what would you have? 3.2GW? Do you think I could make an island disappear with 3.2GW?

Seems like I was under a misunderstanding here. I thought that the giga watt effective radiated power was calculated including the theorized ionospheric interactions. Your explanations and some others on the internet that I've since read make it clear that this effective radiated power has been calculated using the power input and array amplitude only. Also, the effective radiated power, as a calculation, as near as I can determine, has already taken attenuation into consideration. Attenuation has been calculated, near as I can determine, in a normal atmospheric environment. It has not been calculated in an ionospheric environment. There is also no calculation to account for a potentially limitless antenna i.e. the electrojet or magnetic field lines.

These concepts also don't take stratospheric injections of aluminum, barium etc. for use as an antenna into consideration.

EFFECTIVE RADIATED POWER

It is not difficult to determine ERP for a given installation. First you need to know the exact power output from the transmitter - usually measured with a calibrated wattmeter. Next, deduct from this figure any losses caused by the duplexer. If this figure is not known, it is acceptable to measure the power coming out of the duplexer. Subtract the power lost in the feed line. This figure can be obtained from a table of coaxial cable characteristics. This gives the power reaching the feed point of the antenna. Combine this figure with the gain of the antenna; the result is the effective radiated power. In short, ERP is a measure of the power aimed in a direction that should be useful to the system.

TURNING ON A BILLION WATTS

There has always been some confusion on the part of many HAARP opponents over the power used in the HAARP "heater". The government explained this as, "a difference between 'total radiated power' and 'effective radiated power' (ERP). That difference is antenna gain, which in HAARP's case is a factor of nearly 1000 (at 10 MHz)."166 What this means is that to get to one gigawatt of output requires one megawatt of input power which can be delivered by the on-site generators. Another way to state this would be: one megawatt of input power is equal to one million watts, multiplied by one thousand (antenna gain). This will yield one billion watts of effective radiated power - one gigawatt.

1 megawatt x 1000 = 1 gigawatt = 1 billion watts ERP

HAARP IRI Operations/Capabilities and Limitations

HAARP offers a great advantage to active ionospheric modification experiments • High radiated power (3.6 MW transmitted, up to 4 GW ERP)

Also, radiated is a strange word to use for a beam that is squeezed down.

Holes in Heaven

We're squeezing the mega watts into a narrow beam then in a very tiny area you can create what's called an effective giga watt. (John Hecksher, Project Manager - HAARP/08:42)

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Attenuation has been calculated, near as I can determine, in a normal atmospheric environment. It has not been calculated in an ionospheric environment. There is also no calculation to account for a potentially limitless antenna i.e. the electrojet or magnetic field lines.

ERP gives you a way to determine the power density at a distance, taking the power output and antenna gain into consideration.

If you want to figure in other effects, you start with that number and then crank in your other factors. But you don't calculate ERP with the other factors in mind. It's not necessary and it obscures what's happening. Also, your variously quoted sources, including John, aren't being technically accurate if they say that it actually delivers the ERP as power on target - it doesn't. ERP is a nice way of getting your power density figures right.

Since I don't see a good barfback on ERP, here's something I wrote a few years back for someone else, maybe it'll get the point across a bit more accurately.

These concepts also don't take stratospheric injections of aluminum, barium etc. for use as an antenna into consideration.

That's because they don't act as one. Carnicom not withstanding.

Also, radiated is a strange word to use for a beam that is squeezed down.

No, it's exactly the right word. It's jargon-y, though. You can have non-radiating field power as well, that gets into near field effects which are not in the scope of this discussion.

the ERP of HAARP depends on a number of factors, and can be calculated for any given set of those factors on the HAARP HF Performance calculator

With the default figures the results are:

•The wavelength is 107.1 meters.
•The antenna array gain is approximately 84 (19.2 dB)
•The antenna half-power beamwidths are: ◦20.2 degrees in the North-South plane, ◦15.9 degtees in the East-West plane.
•The effective radiated power at the center of the beam is 84.1 dBW.
•The interactive region (between the half power points) is approximately 125 km by 97 km
•The power density at the center of the interactive region is about 0.0169 micro-watts per square-cm.

as I understand it, radio gain is a comparison of a directional broadcast sompared to what a theoretical spherical broadcast would transmit to the same spot. this theoretical antenna is known as an isotropic radiator

HAARP is a high directional broadcast, so its 3.6 MW is mostly transmitted "upwards".

for a spherical/omnidirectional broadcast to achieve the same power levels at any given distance would require a great deal more power input than 3.6 MW, because most of the power would be sent in other directions.

So HAARP does transmits its 3.6MW, and because it is focused the power levels it achieves in its "target area" are the same as if a much larger non-targeted transmitter were used. The ERP reflects the size of this theoretical "all directions" transmitter.

And, well, that pesky inverse square law drops the delivered power to that 0.02microWatts/cm^2 level at the middle of the F layer. That's still enough to do some working science. But you'd have to have an ungodly multiplier to vaporize an island, even if you could figure out how to deliver that in the middle of the ocean from Gakona, which can't really reach there.

reply to post by flyswatter

And I'd imagine this "mind control" that he "knows" can be done by HAARP is like the "mind control" and "beamed messages" that were shown to Jesse Ventura on his show about HAARP.

Mind control, in this context, imo, is a sort of entrainment. The ELF byproduct of modulated ionospheric heating gets the brain vibrating to the du jour ELF frequency. Different herz create different emotional manifestations i.e. anxiety, fear, apathy, sleep. (I've read, though, that it affects on a bell curve. So if you find yourself surrounded by zombies, you'll know where to place yourself on the curve.)

Beamed messages a la Jesse Ventura I don't know about. Missed that show. But if you don't think this is possible, take a look at this link:

Homemade Long Range Listening Device

The optical listening device, sometimes called a laser microphone, uses a concentrated beam of light to listen in on sounds hundreds of feet away. By reflecting a laser beam off of a suitable reflective surface, the sound vibrations in a different building can be listened to and recorded.

This device can be made on the cheap by a low-tech Jane or Joe. It extracts the sound from a beam of light.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by flyswatter

 

And I'd imagine this "mind control" that he "knows" can be done by HAARP is like the "mind control" and "beamed messages" that were shown to Jesse Ventura on his show about HAARP.

Mind control, in this context, imo, is a sort of entrainment. The ELF byproduct of modulated ionospheric heating gets the brain vibrating to the du jour ELF frequency. Different herz create different emotional manifestations i.e. anxiety, fear, apathy, sleep. (I've read, though, that it affects on a bell curve. So if you find yourself surrounded by zombies, you'll know where to place yourself on the curve.)

Beamed messages a la Jesse Ventura I don't know about. Missed that show. But if you don't think this is possible, take a look at this link:

Homemade Long Range Listening Device

The optical listening device, sometimes called a laser microphone, uses a concentrated beam of light to listen in on sounds hundreds of feet away. By reflecting a laser beam off of a suitable reflective surface, the sound vibrations in a different building can be listened to and recorded.

This device can be made on the cheap by a low-tech Jane or Joe. It extracts the sound from a beam of light.

Sure, I'm familiar with what those are. The idea behind those is actually very easy to understand - it simply takes the vibrations and transmits them via another medium, in thise case a laser being reflected back to a photoresistor.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Mind control, in this context, imo, is a sort of entrainment. The ELF byproduct of modulated ionospheric heating gets the brain vibrating to the du jour ELF frequency. Different herz create different emotional manifestations i.e. anxiety, fear, apathy, sleep. (I've read, though, that it affects on a bell curve. So if you find yourself surrounded by zombies, you'll know where to place yourself on the curve.)

Got a real cite for that? I see a lot of woo links, but you know, HAARP can only induce about 20W of ELF total on a good night using geometric modulation. You don't couple well to ELF, since you're about four orders of magnitude too small, and the signal is vanishingly small.

You've also got a modulation rate issue if you're believing that ELF can convey complex messages - the bit rate is quite low, alas. No visions or voices for you, at least not by ELF.

This device can be made on the cheap by a low-tech Jane or Joe. It extracts the sound from a beam of light.

It's not that easy, but what it does is measure the tiny deflections of a window surface caused by the sound striking the glass. The glass deflects, the beam moves. It's not "beaming messages to someone's head".

reply to post by flyswatter

Sure, I'm familiar with what those are. The idea behind those is actually very easy to understand - it simply takes the vibrations and transmits them via another medium, in thise case a laser being reflected back to a photoresistor.

Yup. The window glass modulates the laser.
I made one (minus the laser) when I was a kid. Stretched a balloon over the end of a toilet paper roll and stuck a flat sequin on it. Shine a light on the sequin and aim the reflection at a photocell. Talk into the roll, the sequin shakes which causes the reflection to shake which causes the photocell output to vary. Feed that to an amp...