Mysterious Missile Launch Over California - 11/8/2010

reply to post by SarK0Y

This is as old as Archimedes defense of Syracuse

an array of mirrors mounted on a parabola, and used to ignite the sails of Roman ships. From his geometric studies he would have known about the focussing properties of the parabola. Still, this would have needed a lot of small mirrors with good surfaces and accurate placement to work.

world.std.com...

reply to post by Arbitrageur

You wanted to apply the inverse square law, so the sun is the isotropic light source. You compare the 1000 watt per square meter intensity at 93 million miles versus 93 million miles plus 200 miles when the sunlight reflects off a flat surface, like a mirror, or a plane wing.

my friend, if you wanna to use the distance to the Sun, use it -- i have Nothing against it, but you must use formulas in right way (93*10^6 + 200)^2

reply to post by Bordon81

don't compare parabolic mirror with flat, there're about to focus entire collected energy to one point + where is parabolic mirror in the airplane??

Originally posted by Bordon81
reply to post by SarK0Y

 

an array of mirrors mounted on a parabola, and used to ignite the sails of Roman ships. From his geometric studies he would have known about the focussing properties of the parabola. Still, this would have needed a lot of small mirrors with good surfaces and accurate placement to work.

world.std.com...

Thank you! But I'm not sure if that was ever implemented?

Here is a more modern example, and if SarK0Y's math was applied, it wouldn't work, but it does work for the reasons I stated, you DO have to consider the distance to the sun in calculating the power of a reflection from a flat surface:

www.esolar.com...

eSolar power plant technology utilizes small, flat mirrors which track the sun with high precision and reflect the sun's heat to a tower-mounted receiver, which boils water to create steam. This steam powers a traditional turbine and generator to produce solar electricity.

So the flat mirrors are enough to boil water. Here is the technology in application:

Sierra SunTower

So sunlight reflecting off a plane can be quite bright, though you'd need a lot of planes to boil water and it would be hard to line them up!

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by Bordon81

 

don't compare parabolic mirror with flat, there're about to focus entire collected energy to one point + where is parabolic mirror in the airplane??

These mirrors are flat my friend:
en.wikipedia.org...:Esolar_13.jpg
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/87289c0ba508.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

1000/(93000200/93000000)^2

once again, my friend, what does it mean???? if you want to get Sunlight Intensity at the further point, you must use SI/(93000200^2)

reply to post by Arbitrageur

wuhhhhh, so great area

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

1000/(93000200/93000000)^2

once again, my friend, what does it mean????

if you want to get Sunlight Intensity at the further point, you must use SI/(93000200^2)

Let's insert some smaller numbers. 1000 watts per square meter at 2 meters distance will be how many watts per square meter at 4 meters distance?

It's twice the distance so according to inverse square it should be one fourth the intensity:

1000/(4 meters/2 meters)^2 =

1000/2^2=

1000/4=

250 watts per square meter at a distance of 4 meters instead of 2 meters.

See, the formula works!

So what we need to do is plug in the intensity at the airplane wing which is 1000 watts at 93 million, and an observer 200 miles away which is 93 million plus 200 and that formula will work the same way.

We can apply the 93 million miles compared to the sun's surface as in your statement I quoted, but to do so requires using the intensity at the sun's surface:

www.eoearth.org...

The total quantity of energy emitted from the sun's surface is approximately 63,000,000 Watts per square meter

We also need the sun's radius:
432 163.664 Miles

So the formula becomes 63,000,000/ (93,000,000/432163.664)^2 at the airplane which is 1360.41418 watts/m^2

and at an observer of a reflected image the sun 200 miles further:

the formula becomes 63,000,000/ (93,000,200/432163.664)^2 200 miles further, which is 1360.408329 watts/m^2

Wikipedia says 1366 watts/m^2 but the radiation at the surface of the sun is just approximate. en.wikipedia.org...

The point is, 200 miles doesn't make much difference in watts per square meter, when you're talking about sunlight reflected off a flat surface. That calculation shows a reduction of about 6 milliwatts over a distance of 200 miles, almost insignificant compared to the 1360 watts.

If you were talking about a light bulb on the wingtip it's a totally different story.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

my respect to you, Amicus, nice to see persons like you fair & strong playing of thou

reply to post by SarK0Y
Weedwhacker's sharing what he knows about planes, Jim Oberg shares what he knows about rocket launches etc, I can share what I know about the math and physics of reflections, Phage seems to know about a lot of things, and other people share their knowledge, so we can all learn something from each other here.

I do respect you going through the math on the reflection, because you are searching for factual answers, which is a big step up from people who just form unsupported opinions.

WHAT THE HELL WAS IT? THIS IS IN NO WAY SOLVED.

reply to post by windwaker


Now we are told that it was a Chinese sub that launched the missile. I think not. It was more likely a North Korean sub flexing it's muscle. They are well known for messing with the south and finally got up the courage to come over and mess with us at home.

That's what I think. And, OOPS, what happened to our underwater listening stations which are all over the place in that area?

Looks like our Navy had a "Homer moment".

reply to post by trailertrash


Im late..sorry..and trying to keep up!! Ok..I reallly dont think that N Korea has ICBM capable subs...just saying. And I dont think China trusts them with one either..but, you never know...N Korea is just a proxy for China anyway..so...lets just say they did "give" one fully loaded to N Korea...that would be something!!

Wayne Madson said in interview that his sources say that the NSA had telemetry of the [Chinese] missile.

Col. David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman said to Fox news,
"Lapan said the government looked at lots of data sources other than the CBS news tape. He would not get into the details of what those data sources were, but said that evidence helped determine this was most likely an aircraft. But most importantly, it was the response from all other government agencies saying they did not launch anything that convinced them this was likely an aircraft.

"The Department of Defense, after gathering info over the last 36 hours from within the Department of Defense and other U.S. government agencies, is satisfied the contrail was LIKELY caused by an aircraft." "

So you phrases like, "most importantly", "response from all other government agencies" and "convinced them" and the killer, "Most LIKELY an aircraft" in other words, if it had been a missile from a sub, they wouldn't know anyway. This is how you CYA, and there is no mention of the LIKELY 'plane, America West Flight 808. One blogger did get a Newport webcam picture of that 'plane 24hrs later on the same course and time, maybe already posted here, but I post it again,

a57.foxnews.com...

It is on the left alongside a picture on the right from the video in question, you can make your own mind as to what the direction of travel is, well not really, the picture on the left is said to be of 808 coming toward you. The picture on the right, is either coming toward you, or climbing, and away from you. Whatever, the collage says sod all.

Originally posted by paearmor
reply to post by trailertrash

 

Im late..sorry..and trying to keep up!! Ok..I reallly dont think that N Korea has ICBM capable subs...just saying. And I dont think China trusts them with one either..but, you never know...N Korea is just a proxy for China anyway..so...lets just say they did "give" one fully loaded to N Korea...that would be something!!

Hi Pae and welcome,
Maybe you've never heard of the hilariously named No Dong , only joking!

reply to post by windwaker


I think it's odd that the chemicals in rocket fuel shut down the water supply of 40,000 in San Bernardino CA. over the weekend. Must be the military base HUH ???

reply to post by smurfy


Well America West Flight 808 has already been proven wrong..
That's been altered to UPS flight 902.
But still no confirmation..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by smurfy

 

Well America West Flight 808 has already been proven wrong..
That's been altered to UPS flight 902.
But still no confirmation..

That's the point,
Col. Lapan's statement did not need to include a particular 'plane, any one LIKELY candidate would do for that statement at that time. Particular details like the actual aircraft might have complicated things if it turned out not to be so.

Chinese saber-rattling?

reply to post by tommyjo


fantasy world?...I don't have the link to prove it and I'm too lazy to search for it, but one of America's satellites was nuked by a chinese ICBM some time ago. Out of nowhere...you're living in fantasy land.