HAARP: A Logistical Study.

reply to post by Bedlam

Nope, what he's saying is what I'm saying. Microwaves are non-ionizing.

It was my understanding that Plasma was a THERMAL state...

Hence, Heating something to plasma.... as opposed to direct photon ionization.

High-frequency electromagnetic waves are generated by oscillators (often by gyrotrons or klystrons) outside the torus. If the waves have the correct frequency (or wavelength) and polarization, their energy can be transferred to the charged particles in the plasma, which in turn collide with other plasma particles, thus increasing the temperature of the bulk plasma. Various techniques exist including electron cyclotron resonance heating (ECRH) and ion cyclotron resonance heating.

en.wikipedia.org...-frequency_heating

Set of hyperfrequency tubes (84 GHz and 118 GHz) for plasma heating by electron cyclotron waves on the Tokamak à Configuration Variable (TCV). Courtesy of CRPP-EPFL, Association Suisse-Euratom.

Looks like you are wrong.

-Edrick

Originally posted by Edrick

It was my understanding that Plasma was a THERMAL state...

Hence, Heating something to plasma.... as opposed to direct photon ionization.

Then maybe you shouldn't be posting all the comments about how the "microwaves" from HAARP were "ionizing" gases. Of course, they aren't microwaves, but you've been trying so very hard to make them be because you've seen plasma etchers and whatnot.

There's one of the ways in the next paragraph of the three - ECR heating. You don't get ICR heating with HF to any extent.

Looks like you are wrong.

-Edrick

Nope. Looks like you don't understand enough about this to understand Phage, mbkennel and my responses. Still doing the keyword thing and looking for pictures that sort of look like what you want, then trying to misinterpret the paper to fit your desires.

At least we're past the "microwaves ionize gas" thing, at least for now. It probably won't last though.

edit:
If you're really all hot and bothered about that rocket fuel leak, try working the thing backwards, starting with your assumptions of what the end result was. It'll entail a lot of math, some physics, once you have an understanding of what the energetics are at the target, you can start working backwards to what they'd have to be at your putative source. Should you do it, (you won't) it may show you that there's no point going farther.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Bedlam]

reply to post by Bedlam

Then maybe you shouldn't be posting all the comments about how the "microwaves" from HAARP were "ionizing" gases.

Microwaves can heat gases to plasma, yes.

Of course, they aren't microwaves, but you've been trying so very hard to make them be because you've seen plasma etchers and whatnot.

Honestly never heard of a plasma etcher before you mentioned it... thanks.

They don't have to be microwaves... they can be almost ANY frequency.


Is it possible to bring a substance up to a plasma state with light alone?

en.wikipedia.org...

Looks like... although this facility uses Ultraviolet.


Oh, this is interesting...

en.wikipedia.org...

LOL!

-Edrick

Post Script.


I guess it's a good thing that the IONS in the IONOSPHERE, are already *IONIZED*.......

Isn't it?


..... ISN'T IT?

-Edrick

[edit on 11-7-2010 by Edrick]

for some reason, this comes to mind

Otto: Don't call me stupid.
Wanda: Oh, right, to call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. I've known sheep that could outwit you, but you think you're an intellectual don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it.

maestro.haarp.alaska.edu...

I've saved a screendump, but something has been switched on. Can anyone here advise as to what i'm actually seeing?
Thanks

reply to post by harryhaller

The radiation is occurring mostly at frequencies of between 6 and 15MHz. These are not transmissions but received signals, mostly from international shortwave broadcast stations. You will notice that a similar pattern occurs each day, beginning each afternoon (local time) and easing off at around dawn. They are the result of changes in the ionosphere which are induced by sunlight. As these changes occur the way radio waves propagate changes. If you've ever fooled around listening to shortwave radio you'll know that the middle of the night is the best time to listen to distant stations.
www.haarp.alaska.edu...

Yes, i see the 6-15 band during daytime has picked up intensity.

I'm referring to the 3mhz signal that "instantaneously appears". I also see they call it received signals, but what on earth would be creating a signal hat strong? And between 13 and 00 agin it tapers off somewhat, only return at previous strength?

2mhz also picked up significantly during this time.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by harryhaller]

reply to post by harryhaller

The times are UTC. Alaska is nine hours behind. The increased levels occur at local night time.

The 3MHz signal is not really "that strong", somewhere around -80db. Seeing as it is a relatively broadband spectrum (2-4.5MHz) showing the jump, it would appear that there was a sudden change in propagation at that point, rather than something being "turned on". If it was a single transmitter it was a very messy one. It more likely that propagation in that band (and the AM radio band) increased at that time.

Going to the magentometer shows that something did indeed occur at that time.
137.229.36.30...

As does the Riometer
137.229.36.30...

So yes, there was an abrupt change in propagation at that time, caused by a change in the ionosphere which was induced by something that occurred in the magnetosphere. It really is not all that unusual and remember that the waterfall chart samples every few minutes, it is not continuous.

So, what was it? Well, I don't know. But the ACE satellite detected an abrupt shift in the phi angle a couple of hours before the "event". Knowing that the satellite is 1 million miles closer to the Sun, it might have something to do with that. A bump in the solar wind. But that's pretty much just speculation on my part.


[edit on 7/12/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Hmmm thanks for that insight. I'm trying to figure the timing out in my head though, and how local vs gmt would matter. It certainly then was at midnight GMT. 9 am local? That's odd too ... i'm waiting to see when it goes off ...

So something noticable did happen. An sustained energy increase in the upper atmosphere ... round the 3MhZ mark. Minutes after midnight?

I find that very strange.

reply to post by harryhaller

Midnight can also be called 24:00. 24 - 9 = 15 = 3:00PM

Not exactly an energy increase, a change in the propagation of radio frequencies around 3MHz. If you had been listening to a shortwave radio that band would have suddenly gotten noisy. Look at what happened June 21-22.



[edit on 7/12/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by graaly
Great thread, the information here about how things work is wonderful. But, I think that both debaters points are moot. They are both not part of the HAARP program to have first hand experience with the technology so all you can do is assume and work the with science involved with the facility. I tend to side with Edrick in this debate as I have a healthy skepticism of my government and what they do. Phage, I think that your posts are well thought out and bring up valid points, but you seem to accept the "official story" most of the time. I can see why, because most of the the time the most logical or rational answer is the the truth.

You also say they are limited to 3.6 Megawatt, you are only saying that because that is what they are officially saying. None of us know the real potential unless we experience it for ourselves. None of us can say we know for sure, none of us have first hand knowledge.

Exactly what you said.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Phage


It's always midnight somewhere :p

Yes, if i were listening it would have gotten noisy, agreed. But i think we agree it wasn't "daily variations", or a natural event (solar flare or something), you're also saying HAARP was not responsible for that ... the graph clearly states "received".

So somewhere someone switched on something really powerful, powerful enough to noticably affect the atmosphere in a very specific range. That's a very LOUD "background noise" ...

July 21-22 ... much happened, what are you referring to?

reply to post by harryhaller

Yes, but midnight at Greenwich has a special meaning. It is also afternoon in Alaska.

I can't be certain that HAARP is not responsible for the signal:

2. There are superfluous, constant signals present in the data. They are due to local sources at or near the HAARP site, such as computer clock oscillators.

www.haarp.alaska.edu... But I would expect a signal from the transmitter to be a very strong signal.

You have it backwards. The signal did not necessarily get "turned on". The ionospheric conditions changed such that the signal was received at Gakona. The ionosphere affected the signal, not the other way around.

Again, I don't agree that it was "very loud". -80db (the color coding of the graph) is not a terribly strong signal. When I said "noisy" I meant that you would have been hearing a lot of different stations at the same time, not that they were "loud".

On June (not July, obviously) the signal was very erratic, indicating that propagation was erratic.

It just occurred to me that you may not understand the term propagation. If you do, I apologize, if not:
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 7/13/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Forget what the site says, we all know its controlled by the Goverment..

I guess what people are asking is,

What is HAARP capable of, given no oversight and unlimited expenses for equipment.....

Lets just say a Mad, Rich maniac scientist took over HAARP.

What could he do with this facility???

Originally posted by Phage
You have it backwards. The signal did not necessarily get "turned on". The ionospheric conditions changed such that the signal was received at Gakona. The ionosphere affected the signal, not the other way around.

Thanks for that, yes i did understand the term, was nice to confirm.

WRT "noise volume" it's relative, not audibly loud even, but enough to register clearly with their equipment. I think where i disagree with you is the nature of the source. I know very little, but the sudden, full strength nature of the signal negates a naturally occuring atmospheric change?

Yes a local source is possible, but surely they designed the facility (in Alaska) to minimise any such effects?

Now either they "switched on" a more powerful receiver or someone "switched on" a signal generation device of some sort.

Is this logical?

Now if the "ionosphere" changed that abruptly, again, there should be a reason for it?

reply to post by harryhaller

I don't know what WRT is but the 3MHz signal is not a strong signal.

in this type of chart, frequency is plotted along the y-axis, time on the x-axis and signal intensity as a color with bright yellow and red colors representing strong signal levels and darker, blue and violet colors representing weak or no signal.

www.haarp.alaska.edu...
-80 db is far below the level of an S1 signal (it is logarithmic). It is barely detectable. An off the shelf receiver would not pick it up.
www.giangrandi.ch...

You ignore the possibility that an existing signal from a distant source suddenly became detectable? Have you ever used a shortwave radio? Signals can suddenly become audible "out of nowhere".

Yes, there is a reason for the ionosphere to change suddenly. One possibility, as I pointed out, is the sudden change in the phi angle of the solar wind which occurred shortly before your "event". It "wiggled" the magnetosphere and the ionosphere responded. Or it could have been something else.

You insist that something was "turned on". Yes, that's possible. But if so and if it was at Gakona, it was a pretty weak something.




[edit on 7/13/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage

You ignore the possibility that an existing signal from a distant source suddenly became detectable? Have you ever used a shortwave radio? Signals can suddenly become audible "out of nowhere".

(WRT = with regard to)

Yes, i've heard that before (played a little with shortwave, cos it's fun), and i do accept that changes in frequency strength change, even rapidly. The signal strength depreciated noticably soon after, for a few hours, that could well be atmospheric interference. But if you are watching high sensitivity equipment like this, any atmospheric change would be, well like this:
/
a fade in effect. what i understood myself to have seen was:
|
an abrupt change.

That's why i'm asking. Was there a new shortwave signal being picked up on? That to me seems the most likely?

reply to post by harryhaller

I've saved a screendump, but something has been switched on. Can anyone here advise as to what i'm actually seeing?
Thanks

That picture, is a smallish induction coil, that is hooked up to a frequency analysis device (oscilloscope), and whose output is mapped by computer software.

It displays the frequency (y-axis, vertical) and the intensity (x-axis, horizontal) of that frequency.

The patches that turn on during the day, and off at night is the natural cavity effect of the ionosphere.

What you are seeing in these patches is the natural radio emissions from lightning strikes, as well as other natural radio frequencies; being focused closer and farther away from the magnetometer.

They are "Scrambled" (as in, not in coherent frequency bands) because of atmospheric attenuation by the time they get to the magnetometer in gakona.

The reason that this changes from day to night, is because the day-side magnetosphere is compressed closer to the surface of the earth by the pressure of the solar wind, and then it "Relaxes" again at night.

Thus, the reflective zone of the ionosphere is closer to ground, thus, closer to the magnetometer, thus, has higher readings.

The column of brightly intense, and narrow band spectrum are most likely an unattenuated, Extremely close storm (within visual range)

Various lightning processes emit electromagnetic signals with a peak in the radio-frequency spectrum at 5 to 10 kHz when observed at distances beyond 50 km or so. At frequencies higher than that of the spectrum peak, the spectral amplitude is approximately inversely proportional to the frequency up to 10 MHz or so and inversely proportional to the square root of frequency from about 10 MHz to 10 GHz (Cianos et al. 1973). The mechanisms of radiation in the high-frequency (HF) region of the spectrum, 3–30 MHz, and above are not fully understood. It is thought that this radiation is caused by numerous small sparks occurring during the formation of new channels, that is, by the electrical breakdown of air rather than by high-current pulses propagating in pre-existing channels.

assets.cambridge.org...

-Edrick