HAARP: A Logistical Study.

reply to post by Bedlam

NO, no it does NOT produce VHF radio waves. 10 MHz isn't NEAR VHF, it's not NEAR microwaves. It's just not.

Radio frequency (RF) is a rate of oscillation in the range of about 30 kHz to 300 GHz

Microwaves are electromagnetic waves with wavelengths ranging from as long as one meter to as short as one millimeter, or equivalently, with frequencies between 300 MHz (0.3 GHz) and 300 GHz.

Are you saying that the HAARP facility in Alaska is not capable of producing these frequencies...

Or that these frequencies CANNOT be produced?

Not at all - you're being very incoherent on this, to borrow from your other statement. You just cannot say that all EM, being an electromagnetic wave, is thus all co-equal in behavior and effect, and I can therefore call any LF or HF radio wave a microwave, sim salabim! Except that you're wrong.

They are all the same thing... only frequency and energy level are different.

It's all just photons.

Why do you think you can see visible light, but not radio waves?

Because the rods and cones in our eyes only pick up light in the visible spectrum...

Why do you think that you focus visible light with a glass lens, but not an LF radio wave?

Because you have to use METAL waveguides to focus a radio wave... it just goes right through glass without refracting.

Why do gamma rays ionize when ELF does not? Hint - grossly different wavelengths produce grossly different physical results.

Photons impacting upon an atom = Photons impacting upon an atom.

Sure... one is more energetic... but I fail to see how that makes them "Completely Different Things"

What I am saying is that I have a real SR-71 on my desk! Sure, it's just a cast metal model, but it's really an SR-71, because if was bigger, and actually had a proper airframe like an SR-71 instead of being a model, and had engines, and avionics and everything else, then it would BE a real SR-71!

And All that *I* am saying, is that the atmospheric effects that are currently blamed on HAARP, *ARE POSSIBLE WITH PHYSICS*


And you are helping me sharpen my argument!

-Edrick
-Edrick

Originally posted by Edrick

...bees...

Are you saying that the HAARP facility in Alaska is not capable of producing these frequencies...

No, it is not capable of producing microwaves, which your source defines as 300MHz to 300GHz, that is correct. It tops out at about 10MHz.

Or that these frequencies CANNOT be produced?

If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

They are all the same thing... only frequency and energy level are different.

It's all just photons.

And that's where you get the different effects at grossly different energy levels. Sometimes at very closely separated energy levels.

Because the rods and cones in our eyes only pick up light in the visible spectrum...

Because you have to use METAL waveguides to focus a radio wave... it just goes right through glass without refracting.

Photons impacting upon an atom = Photons impacting upon an atom.

Sure... one is more energetic... but I fail to see how that makes them "Completely Different Things"

No, photons impacting on an atom with insufficient energy = no ionization. Yes, as I said, and as the examples show, grossly different energy levels cause grossly different physical effects, sometimes even very slightly different energy levels cause different physical effects. In another sense, energy delivery rates also matter in addition to energy levels, for example, your fingertip doesn't start fires while a white hot steel rod can, even though they're both just heat. Note that that doesn't always hold true with EM, red light doesn't ionize even if it's at a godawful density.

And All that *I* am saying, is that the atmospheric effects that are currently blamed on HAARP, *ARE POSSIBLE WITH PHYSICS*

You started off blaming it on HAARP, which is just ridiculous.

Of course it's possible with physics, a malfunctioning rocket stage did it. Nothing supernatural there, nor even relativistic. Good old Newtonian physics, a bit of chemistry, the ideal gas law and some optics, and Bob's your uncle.

Originally posted by Edrick


And All that *I* am saying, is that the atmospheric effects that are currently blamed on HAARP, *ARE POSSIBLE WITH PHYSICS*

No. You are saying quite a bit more than that:

Since HAARP is capable of generating a fairly controllable beam of Radiation and reflecting it to almost any place on the globe...

It should be no trouble at all to create a near microwave frequency "Display" that heats the surface of the water in a rotating pattern, in order to induce the creation of rising Thermals, that spin around a cold vortex.

You are saying that HAARP (specifically) can send a beam of microwave radiation to anyplace on the globe, at will (by "reflection"). You are saying that that beam could be rotated such that it would rotate the surface of the ocean (explain the physics of that please). You are saying it would be capable of heating the ocean enough to create a vortex. You imply that HAARP created the Norway spiral by this process even though the spiral occurred well outside of the atmosphere.





[edit on 6/21/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Bedlam

You started off blaming it on HAARP, which is just ridiculous.

I'm trying to prove that shaped artificial auroras are possible.

I'm pretty sure that you have helped me make an open and shut case.

a malfunctioning rocket stage did it.

Did, what?

Make pretty lights in the sky?

Is that supposed to mean that the *ONLY* way to make lights in the sky is with rockets?

Really?

Have you disproved my hypothesis of Radio induced Airglow in the ionosphere?

-Edrick

reply to post by Phage

You are saying that HAARP (specifically) can send a beam of microwave radiation to anyplace on the globe, at will.

IF the power generating and design capacity of the HAARP facility in Alaska is not up to the Task...

Would you at least admit the possibility that Such Atmospheric Ionization and luminescence is POSSIBLE with EM radiation?

You are saying that that beam could be rotated such that it would rotate the surface of the ocean (explain the physics of that please).

You are saying it would be capable of heating the ocean enough to create a vortex.

Not quite what I said.... but I can see how that was misunderstood.

I explained that a rotating PATTERN of radiation would induce heating of the water in a traveling rotational direction (I.E. the rotating beam would produce heating in a rotating pattern)

This would create a sort of rotating Thermal of rising water vapor in a spiral pattern.

You imply that HAARP created the Norway spiral by this process even though the spiral occurred well outside of the atmosphere.

I also spoke of the Inner Van Allen radiation belt.... which last time I checked... was composed of *IONIZED HYDROGEN PLASMA*

And exists outside the atmosphere!

-Edrick

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Edrick]

Originally posted by Edrick
I'm trying to prove that shaped artificial auroras are possible.

I'm pretty sure that you have helped me make an open and shut case.

Yep, that Navy crew are really amazing, being able to get all those reactors in and out before anyone sees them. You have really exposed the truth.

Did, what?

Make pretty lights in the sky?

Is that supposed to mean that the *ONLY* way to make lights in the sky is with rockets?

Well, you could also have fairies form a big spiral. Or, you could take millions of glowsticks and drop them in a nice spiral pattern using a TR-3B. But malfunctioning rocket stages are a lot cheaper. That TR-3B costs a lot of money to run just to drop glowsticks.

reply to post by Bedlam

Well, you could also have fairies form a big spiral.

Well, if the Elite have access to Fairies.... then we have larger problems than atmospheric induction.

Or, you could take millions of glowsticks and drop them in a nice spiral pattern using a TR-3B.

Yeah... but shooting a gigawatt of EM radiation into the sky is SO MUCH CHEAPER, and so much harder to disprove...

-Edrick

reply to post by Edrick

Yes, EM radiation can ionize atoms. Yes, EM radiation can energize ions to the point of emitting light.

Can HAARP ionize atoms? No.
Can HAARP excite existing ions to the point of luminescence? Yes, in a very limited area above Gakona, under favorable conditions.
Can HAARP create a spiral (or any other shape) within the excited area? No.

Originally posted by Edrick

Yeah... but shooting a gigawatt of EM radiation into the sky is SO MUCH CHEAPER, and so much harder to disprove...

-Edrick

Still don't have a clue about the difference between total output power and ERP, do you?

It DOES make a difference. HAARP can't output a gig of power.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by Edrick

Yeah... but shooting a gigawatt of EM radiation into the sky is SO MUCH CHEAPER, and so much harder to disprove...

-Edrick

Still don't have a clue about the difference between total output power and ERP, do you?

It DOES make a difference. HAARP can't output a gig of power.

so says the official story, but how do you know?

reply to post by Phage

Yes, EM radiation can ionize atoms. Yes, EM radiation can energize ions to the point of emitting light.

Thank you, Sir.

Can HAARP ionize atoms? No.
Can HAARP excite existing ions to the point of luminescence? Yes, in a very limited area above Gakona, under favorable conditions.

But, you admit that a HAARP like antenna Array could be constructed to preform these exact things, yes?

Can HAARP create a spiral (or any other shape) within the excited area? No.

But do you admit that *IT IS POSSIBLE* given current science?

-Edrick

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Edrick]

Originally posted by graaly

so says the official story, but how do you know?

Well, I guess buried deep deep beneath the permafrost, there could be a massive nuclear reactor, and I guess you'd have to put the "real" output PAs down there, too, because then the Continental D616G's you see in the installation wouldn't come within two to three orders of magnitude being sufficient for the task.

And, too, in order to get that much output power through that antenna, which looks like a 50 to 70 ohm dipole set to me, you'd have to have hell's own output voltage to get the antenna current up so that your power levels matched - maybe there's a new super duper way of having them not sizzling with arcs and corona that I didn't see but I'm not recalling it. It would be festive, like a big bug zapper. We could bring popcorn and watch.

reply to post by Edrick

A sufficiently powerful IRI may be able to do that...a very, very powerful IRI.

Given current science.
No.

[edit on 6/21/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Edrick

But do you admit that *IT IS POSSIBLE* given current science?

-Edrick

Yes, and it is possible that my grandmother is a wagon, if she has wheels.

(grins) You could do it in spectacular fashion, if you used Proteus.

Did anyone bother monitoring for a dramatic rise in 511keV gamma rays during the spiral event?

Could be....

reply to post by Bedlam

And, too, in order to get that much output power through that antenna, which looks like a 50 to 70 ohm dipole set to me, you'd have to have hell's own output voltage to get the antenna current up so that your power levels matched

Simple...


A Superconducting Antenna Array that is embedded in a EM transparent, Insulated material

Those superconductors have LOTSA voltage... and Current too.

And with thin film conductors, they can have high frequency as well.

And I like your idea about a Buried array.

Seems like the thing to do, to prevent suspicion.

-Edrick

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Edrick]

reply to post by Phage

A sufficiently powerful IRI may be able to do that...a very, very powerful IRI.

Given current science.
No.

I am assuming you are expressing engineering and materials reasons as to why the construction of such a device is impossible?

-Edrick

Originally posted by Edrick


A Superconducting Antenna Array that is embedded in a EM transparent, Insulated material

Nah, won't work. I'm talking impedance, not resistance.

Those superconductors have LOTSA voltage... and Current too.

Actually, there is no potential across a superconductor, it's one of the defining characteristics.

And I like your idea about a Buried array.

No, no, it's the giant 2GW nuclear power plant that's buried. You've got to get this right.

reply to post by Bedlam

Nah, won't work. I'm talking impedance, not resistance

Ok, then if you are talking impedance... what about using a super-fluid, or ferro-fluid as the antenna?

That would dramatically reduce magnetic permeability, and impedance, allowing much higher power and frequency.

Actually, there is no potential across a superconductor, it's one of the defining characteristics.

My mistake.. I meant High Current..

Mea Culpa.

No, no, it's the giant 2GW nuclear power plant that's buried. You've got to get this right.

No... I REALLY like your idea about a buried array... it makes so much SENSE...

They could even bury it underneath the ORIGINAL antenna....

IT is an excellent idea... thank you for giving it to me.

-Edrick

reply to post by Phage

The IRI would consist of 180 crossed dipole antenna elements arranged
in a grid pattern of 12 rows and 15 columns (Figure 2.2-3). The
proposed design for the stacked IRI calls for the low frequency
antenna to be stacked above the high frequency antennas (Figure
2.2-4). The elements would be supported on 66-foot masts mounted on
steel base piles extending 4 feet above the ground and spaced at
80-foot intervals.

www.haarp.alaska.edu...

Oh, this is just getting better and better.

-Edrick

Oh, great information here:

The United States has three ionospheric heating facilities:

* HAARP - 4 GW ERP (north of Gakona, Alaska)
* HIPAS Observatory - 70 MW ERP (northeast of Fairbanks, Alaska)
* Arecibo Observatory (in Puerto Rico)

Wiki on Ionospheric heater
en.wikipedia.org...

Research at the HAARP includes:

1. *Ionospheric heating*
2. Plasma line observations
3. Stimulated electron emission observations
4. Gyro frequency heating research
5. Spread F observations
6. *Airglow observations*
7. Heating induced scintillation observations
8. VLF and ELF generation observations [5]
9. Radio observations of meteors
10. Polar mesospheric summer echoes: PMSE have been studied using the IRI as a powerful radar, as well as with the 28 MHz radar, and the two VHF radars at 49 MHz and 139 MHz. The presence of multiple radars spanning both HF and VHF bands allows scientists to make comparative measurements that may someday lead to an understanding of the processes that form these elusive phenomena.
11. Research on extraterrestrial HF radar echos: the Lunar Echo experiment (2008).[6][7]
12. Testing of SS-Spread Spectrum Transmitters 2009
13. Meteor shower impacts on the ionosphere
14. Response and recovery of the ionosphere from solar flares and geomagnetic storms
15. The effect of ionospheric disturbances on GPS satellite signal quality

-Edrick