HAARP: A Logistical Study.

Originally posted by Edrick
You are very venomous to someone who is just trying to use your anger to learn... aren't you?


Do you have a VESTED INTEREST in making sure that I do not peruse this line of thinking?

Or are you just being a condescending troll?

I'm just asking, because I really want to know.

Yes, yes, I have a vested interest. I am one of THEY. Actually I AM one of they, especially in this case, which is sort of funny.

I'm also probably being venomous and condescending at this point, when I shouldn't be. But at least early on you seemed to be trying, now it's more like you're tossing out garbage - I had been and still do wonder if YOU are trolling, which is sad if so. A lot of people on ATS weigh arguments by the number of technical words hummed in and could leave thinking that HAARP is a big laser using the van Allen belts or something.

And I suppose that the Lasing Medium of a Free Electron Laser undergos Population inversion of specific Orbital Energy States?

Oh, wait... they are not IN orbit of any protons, are they...


So, a LASER does not necessarily NEED a Lasing Medium...


All it needs is WIGGLING ELECTRONS...

Don't it?

Man, you are helping me out TREMENDOUSLY!

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's like you're dipping into the big wiki book o' terms and spewing, but you're not looking at any of the basics of what it takes to work. Just googling for terms and then flatulating the first thing you hit onto a post.

edit: this is what it looks like when the van Allen belts catch on fire




[edit on 21-6-2010 by Bedlam]

reply to post by Bedlam

Yes, yes, I have a vested interest. I am one of THEY. Actually I AM one of they, especially in this case, which is sort of funny.

DECEIVER!

WITCH!!!!!!!

LOL!

that's funny.

I'm also probably being venomous and condescending at this point, when I shouldn't be.

But at least early on you seemed to be trying, now it's more like you're tossing out garbage

Yeah... that's because I took quite a long time to coellate the original post... and replying to your rapid fire questions, as well as my continuing research...

Well, You were responding, so I figured that I would continue to add material to the thread.

Kind of Haphazard... but this thread is basically THE study that I am conducting.

Thanks for helping me learn more about the subject... I do appreciate it.

I had been and still do wonder if YOU are trolling, which is sad if so.

Am I Trolling?

Er... perhaps for more information and perspectives on the matter.. I would have to say so.

I like figuring things out, actually.


I like sharing things that I figure out.


I like new things to figure out as well.

A lot of people on ATS weigh arguments by the number of technical words hummed in and could leave thinking that HAARP is a big laser using the van Allen belts or something.

I have to admit, that is pretty funny.


But it is POSSIBLE to use a system simmilar to a Free electron laser to make the Electrons in the outer belt emit photons.

I have read that Compton Scattering allows photons and free electrons to interact.

So it is possible that the Outer or inner Van Allen Belt could be excited by a radio emitter.

I am trying to discover if that is practical.

I only thought of this new path to discover because I am getting Responses.... so thank you Again.

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's like you're dipping into the big wiki book o' terms and spewing, but you're not looking at any of the basics of what it takes to work. Just googling for terms and then flatulating the first thing you hit onto a post.

What are your thoughts on "Wiggling" the electrons orbiting the earth on the Van Allen belt?


in a manner similar to a free electron laser?


Edit: Your Link is broken, just an FYI... it returns a 403 Forbidden.

-Edrick

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Edrick]

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Edrick]

Originally posted by Edrick
But it is POSSIBLE to use a system simmilar to a Free electron laser to make the Electrons in the outer belt emit photons.

I don't really think so - there's more to a FEL than just shaking an electron. You have to get all the electrons pretty much going in the same direction at a near relativistic speed to really do it, because what you're doing is extracting the 'ballistic' energy of the electron and converting it to emitted photons.

If they're not all going about the same speed, no laser. If they're not all booking at .99C, no laser. If you don't have a superconducting wiggler, no laser. It takes a hellacious amount of magnetic moment to shake them electrons, and you have to do it at right angles to the motion, which has to be uniform and fast etc etc etc. There are a lot of caveats. So I'd say, no, no you're not going to get what you want there.

A bit lower down and around the pole, and at times when the electrojet's actually there, and when you've got a number of other conditions met to allow you to do so, something vaguely similar is how you get HAARP to produce ELF out of the auroral electrojet. But it's not a laser, not even as much laser as a FEL is. And it's incredibly inefficient and low powered.

I have read that Compton Scattering allows photons and free electrons to interact.

Well, in a sense, what you get is a gamma ray burst whacking into either a free electron, or more likely, one that's bound to an atom, knocking it loose and ionizing the atom, imparting a big momentum to the electron. It departs at a high rate of speed and starts making tight little circles in the lower ionosphere (usually) and radiates its kinetic energy away as radio waves. Thus do you get the Compton component of an EMP. But radio waves won't do it, that lets HAARP out.

So it is possible that the Outer or inner Van Allen Belt could be excited by a radio emitter.

I am trying to discover if that is practical.

"practical" depends on the effect you're trying to achieve. Making it into a FEL, no. Can you raise the electron temperature in spots, sure. Can you raise it a lot, more than normally happens now and then due to natural events, not with anything we've got lying around.

What's sort of neat is that we can duplicate the natural trick that empties out that blank spot between the inner and outer belts, and use it to drain the inner belt of charge by precipitating it onto the ionosphere. Basically, most of the fast moving charges are making loops in the inner magnetosphere there, you just push the loops a bit bigger until they whack into the ionosphere.

It's handy for when you have a CME or HAND that pumps the inner belt way up with high speed charged particles, which then start frying up your satellite assets or astronauts. So you just clear it out.

reply to post by Bedlam

I don't really think so - there's more to a FEL than just shaking an electron. You have to get all the electrons pretty much going in the same direction at a near relativistic speed to really do it, because what you're doing is extracting the 'ballistic' energy of the electron and converting it to emitted photons.

So, you are saying that the Electrons in the outer belt are too... rarefied... and .... too dispersed to be usable?

WIKI: FEL
Free Electron Lasers were invented by John Madey in 1976 at Stanford University. The work emanates from research done by Hans Motz who proposed the wiggler magnetic configuration which is at the heart of a free electron laser. Madey used a 24 MeV electron beam and 5 m long wiggler to amplify a signal. Soon afterward, other laboratories with accelerators started developing such lasers.

Ok, so this dude used a 24Mev beam.... and the Outer Van Allen belt has an energy range from:

WIKI: VAN ALLEN BELT
The outer belt consists mainly of high energy(0.1–10 MeV) electrons trapped by the Earth's magnetosphere.

Yeah... 1-10MeV

If they're not all going about the same speed, no laser.

I'm assuming, because you would get photons of varying wavelengths, thus, no coherence, eh?

If they're not all booking at .99C, no laser.

Well, at 10MeV, that would put the electron at energy equivalent to around 10-20 times its rest mass.

So, the velocity of an Electron at 10Mev would be...

10,000,000 * (1.6*10^-19) = (1.6 × 10^-12) (Kinetic Energy)

mass of electron, m= 9.1x10^-31 kg

v = sqrt[ 2 * KE / m]

So:

v = sqrt(2*

OR:

sqrt(2*((1.6 × 10^-12)/(9.1x10^-31))) = 1.87522892 × 10^9 m/s

Or:

1,875,228,920 m/s


I am assuming that I got an answer above "c", because of relativistic effects....

And THAT would put the Electrons velocity at close enough to the speed of light.


Is this correct?


IF so, It seems that it has the velocity that you said was required.


Now, mass increases by special relativity are based upon an objects speed... so an electron with a mass 10* its rest mass would be moving at around:

99.3% c

So, sounds about right.

(Yes, I am, aware that this is the UPPER threshold for KE in the Van Allen Belt

If you don't have a superconducting wiggler, no laser.

So, we need Tesla Strength Fields, eh?

Thats pretty strong.

I have another question for you, but I will save it for after...

Well, in a sense, what you get is a gamma ray burst whacking into either a free electron, or more likely, one that's bound to an atom, knocking it loose and ionizing the atom, imparting a big momentum to the electron. It departs at a high rate of speed and starts making tight little circles in the lower ionosphere (usually) and radiates its kinetic energy away as radio waves. Thus do you get the Compton component of an EMP. But radio waves won't do it, that lets HAARP out.

IS there a lower limit on photon energy for photon-Free-electron interaction?

Do you know what that is, offhand?

"practical" depends on the effect you're trying to achieve.

Inducing electrons to emit Extremely Low Frequency radio Waves at the Resonance frequency of the Outer Van Allen Belt. (

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by Bedlam

 

So, you are saying that the Electrons in the outer belt are too... rarefied... and .... too dispersed to be usable?


Ok, so this dude used a 24Mev beam.... and the Outer Van Allen belt has an energy range from:

Yeah... 1-10MeV

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that's a thermal energy - they're all going in different directions, more or less. For a FEL, they've all got to be going the same way, pretty homogeneously.

I'm assuming, because you would get photons of varying wavelengths, thus, no coherence, eh?

That.

Well, at 10MeV...

And THAT would put the Electrons velocity at close enough to the speed of light.

Remember, what you're wanting to get it to do is give up that kinetic energy. The more you start with, the more you have that you can reap. I'm not sayin' that 10MeV wouldn't get it, but your Gaussian distribution is going to put 10MeV electrons at the top of the scale, not be an average, IMHO. You'd want God's own current density too, to compensate, and you're not likely to get it out there, even if all the electrons were going the same way, which they're not.

So, we need Tesla Strength Fields, eh?

Thats pretty strong.

When you get them moving at relativistic speeds, they don't want to budge. A lot of DARPA money is going into investigations of lightweight alloys with extreme magnetic density like a super duper neodymium, because it solves a lot of issues with the entire family of devices - FEL, CARM and gyrotrons, which the military would love to be easier to deal with.

IS there a lower limit on photon energy for photon-Free-electron interaction?

Do you know what that is, offhand?

I don't think I've ever seen Compton effect lit discuss anything below x-rays...

Could you not also do this with the Outer Electron Belt?

Somehow "Grounding" it to the Ionosphere?

Well, there's a process going on between the belts that sweeps the region between clear. There's a satellite program that was, IIRC, trying to stick some test birds in there to poke at both belts to see what they could get, the RFQ was very interesting.

In order to do the trick that we do with the inner magnetosphere (with HAARP, btw, heh, as well as other things) you'd have to get outer belt electrons to make big enough loops. There is surely some open lit - go google around Helliwell, Siple Station, cyclotron resonance, VLF, electron precipitation and whatnot, you'll likely stir some of the pre-classification lit up - there are a lot of foundational papers that are unfortunately in Geophysical Letters. I have seen a few in arxiv for free, but the stuff we were given long ago for a certain interesting design bid involved Dr Helliwell's work at Siple as foundation lit for the new designer in the field.

There's a gap in the late 80's to maybe 2005 when a general screwed the pooch on TV and let the cat out of the bag on the HAND electron precipitation function of HAARP. After that you find more stuff, IIRC.

Don't think so much of getting some electrons to drop into the ionosphere as being a 'short', you really don't have enough of a conductive medium for current to flow at the densities you have - it's a hard vacuum.

Since a Laser is basically a coherent (in step) beam of light... and since light is a rotating electric and magnetic field....

Could you use a laser to induce an alternating potential in a material?

It's part of the reason you get surface ablation and reverse Brehmstrahllung in a material, they definitely HAVE an e-field. But the higher the energy, the smaller the photon, the tighter the e-field. A big beam won't have big sweeping e and h fields, it'll have a lot of tiny photon sized ones with no net motion in the macroscale.

totally unrelated side note - I see the Army RFQ'd another emp bomb design this spring. This one's for a howitzer shell. I'll have to see who's doing the design.

M.A.D. aka HAARP,

I was watching the movie "the core" from 2003 and found this a bit interesting......

Fast forward till 2:10 and then at 9:23

Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't HAARP in Alaska?

www.youtube.com...


Rather interesting if you ask me.........



Good Coincidence

reply to post by Edrick


The purpose of the array is to make a cyclic wave from as in the
diagram in the patent of an antenna with a corkscrew antenna.

Do you see any helical antennas, no because the phasing is
supposed to accomplish the same wave front.

The circular polarizing wave rotated the molecules and heats them
up thus ionizing them.

The fact is that Tesla showed how to illuminate or ionize or even
smash atoms with high static waves and this in my opinion will
never accomplish anything great by lack of the ether wave.

@yeahright

SAMETHREAD IS SAME!!!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course... My Sincere Apologies.





*PHAGE*




LOL!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/45d78942a523.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2d1c17fb1dc5.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3a3a1acf929c.jpg[/atsimg]

departments.colgate.edu...

The interference of two modes of electromagnetic radiation intersecting at a shallow angle, out of phase, will produce a spiral shaped interference pattern.

This interference pattern will heat rarefied gases surrounding the Earth into a ionized plasma "Aurora" into the shape of the interference pattern.


The plasma is more Opaque to the beam frequency, and thus, serves as a WALL between the two emitters (the two that are projecting their beams to intersect each-other.)

The more powerful emitter, will cause an electromagnetic pressure on the Interference region, thus, pushing the Plasma Spiral away.

One emitter is turned off, while the other side keeps projecting; the interference pattern stops heating the ions to luminescence... (The spiral shape is no longer there because it was produced by the interference.) but the beam that is still on, continues to pump energy into the remaining plasma, until it disperses.

-Edrick

[edit on 3-7-2010 by Edrick]

reply to post by Bedlam



I'm pretty naive about this, but I wondered if a purpose (beyond basic research) of the RF array would be to artificially increase the density of the upper atmosphere in order to a) cause guidance problems in b) dynamically distinguish decoy and real

for ballistic missile buses or RV's.

Somebody said:

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"

The fact that they are different is precisely the reason that Albert Einstein received his first Nobel Prize for explaining the photoelectric effect. Specifically, low frequency E&M waves will not ionize atoms, no matter their intensity. This is a consequence of quantum mechanics and has no classical electrodynamical explanation.

In a nutshell, Einstein invented the concept of the photon---and thereby upgraded the arbitrary assumption of Planck (to fit the black body spectrum empirically) into an actual fundamental physical phenomenon.

He was a smart dude.

(as it turned out the proper QM treatment of photons was much more difficult and didn't come for decades later---the bohr/heisenberg/shroedinger theory of QM with quantum electrons in classical potential---i.e. a nuclear coulomb potential plus Maxwellian E&M waves---was enough to explain basic facts of lasers & photoelectric effect---but more detailed experiment & theory of 2nd quantization shows that photons are truly necessary).

[edit on 4-7-2010 by mbkennel]

[edit on 4-7-2010 by mbkennel]

[edit on 4-7-2010 by mbkennel]

reply to post by mbkennel

Specifically, low frequency E&M waves will not ionize atoms, no matter their intensity.

Simple analytical expressions are obtained for the energy and angular distributions of outgoing electrons in ionization of a molecular hydrogen ion by a strong low-frequency electromagnetic field as well as for the ionization probabilities per unit time. The cases of linear and circular polarization of the laser radiation are studied. It is shown that in contrast to the case of the ionization of atoms oscillations appear in the energy spectra of the photoelectrons as a function of their kinetic energy. The well-known limits for the tunneling ionization probabilities for the hydrogen atom by a strong low-frequency alternating field are obtained in the case of large internuclear separations.

www.springerlink.com...

You are ALSO forgetting THIS:

Two images of the sky over the HAARP Gakona Facility using the NRL-cooled CCD imager at 557.7 nm. The field of view is approximately 38°. The left-hand image shows the background star field with the HF transmitter off. The right-hand image was taken 63 seconds later with the HF transmitter on. Structure is evident in the emission region.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c029d0576b1.gif[/atsimg]

-Edrick

[edit on 4-7-2010 by Edrick]

reply to post by Edrick

You left out the title of the paper and ignored one very important word.

Ionization of a molecular hydrogen ion by a strong low-frequency electromagnetic field of laser radiation

Laser: light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation

The paper is talking about low frequency lasers, which are at frequencies extremely higher than radio frequencies. HAARP is not a laser, it is a radio transmitter.

HAARP does not induce ionization. It cannot. It adds energy to existing ions.

[edit on 7/4/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage

You left out the title of the paper and ignored one very important word.
Ionization of a molecular hydrogen ion by a strong low-frequency electromagnetic field of laser radiation

Oh, I'm terribly sorry.

I did not realize that "Laser" light, is somehow different from "Ordinary" light.

Laser: light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation

I got your LASER right here pal!



In this video...

Light is AMPLIFIED by the Stimulated Emissions of Radiation from the Microwave Magnetotron.

The gas in the microwave is HEATED to a plasma state.

The photons they release are more energetic than microwaves. (visible spectrum)

You are bickering about whether *ONE* photon has enough energy to Ionize a gas... and you are missing the fact that THERE IS MORE THAN ONE PHOTON increasing the energy level of the gas.

From what has been said in this thread, by the detractors... *MICROWAVE* frequency Electromagnetic radiation is TOO WEAK to make Gas Glow.


*OBJECTION OVERRULED*

The paper is talking about low frequency lasers, which are at frequencies extremely higher than radio frequencies. HAARP is not a laser, it is a radio transmitter.

Stop bickering about semantics as an objection for my hypothesis.

Electromagnetic Radiation is the focus here... not the Shape of the device that emits it.


HAARP frequency radio waves CAN, Have, and *DO* produce visible "Auroral" phenomenon.

HAARP does not induce ionization. It cannot. It adds energy to existing ions.

See, there you go again, thinking that HAARP is only capable of firing off one photon at a time.

One match cannot boil a glass of water... but Millions of matches COULD.

-Edrick

reply to post by Edrick

There you go again, ignoring the significance of the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation. HAARP transmits HF radio radiation. It is not capable of inducing ionization.

Near ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwave, radio waves, and low-frequency RF (longwave) are all examples of non-ionizing radiation.

en.wikipedia.org...


HAARP is capable of heating a small volume of existing ions in the ionosphere over Gakona, Alaska. And yes, under favorable ionospheric conditions, it can heat that volume of existing ions enough to produce visible light. Very low levels of visible light.

The video is not the demonstration of a laser, it has nothing to do with a laser. If you think it does (and if you think laser light is the same as normal light, you need to learn more about lasers). The microwaves are not causing ionization. The ions produced are by the open flame from the burner in bottom of the jar. If the flame wasn't there, nothing would happen. The ions are heated by the microwaves.

But yes, it is similar to what the HAARP heater can do. However, the ion density at the altitude at which HAARP operates is much less than that found in the bell jar. The power density of the HAARP heater is also very much less than that found in a microwave oven.

reply to post by Phage

HAARP is capable of heating a small volume of existing ions in the ionosphere over Gakona, Alaska. And yes, under favorable ionospheric conditions, it can heat that volume of existing ions enough to produce visible light. Very low levels of visible light.

So, you agree with me that the Fundamentals of my Theory are Sound?

That an Arrayed Radio Transmitter *CAN BE PRODUCED* that is capable of creating visible Auroral phenomenon in the sky.

HAARP, being the *RESEARCH PROGRAM* for this knowledge Acquisition.

-Edrick

[edit on 4-7-2010 by Edrick]

reply to post by Edrick

Weren't paying attention?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Edrick

 

Weren't paying attention?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm glad that we had this discussion.

(Second line)

-Edrick

Due to lack of comprehension skills due to others, I subside.

You're all right! Have a great day...


[edit on 7/6/2010 by passingthought]

reply to post by passingthought


I'm sorry.... do you have the right thread?

(Second line is serious)

-Edrick

Originally posted by Edrick
In this video...

Light is AMPLIFIED by the Stimulated Emissions of Radiation from the Microwave Magnetotron.

The gas in the microwave is HEATED to a plasma state.

That's not a laser in any way.

The photons they release are more energetic than microwaves. (visible spectrum)

You are bickering about whether *ONE* photon has enough energy to Ionize a gas... and you are missing the fact that THERE IS MORE THAN ONE PHOTON increasing the energy level of the gas.

You aren't understanding the mechanism by which a microwave oven creates plasma.

From what has been said in this thread, by the detractors... *MICROWAVE* frequency Electromagnetic radiation is TOO WEAK to make Gas Glow.

HAARP frequency radio waves CAN, Have, and *DO* produce visible "Auroral" phenomenon.

Low frequency radio waves in very low power densities are not going to have the same mechanism of action of plasma etchers and whatnot.