It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by chr0naut
The "Linear Phased Array" for HAARP consists of multiple tuned dipoles. Please read the HAARP specs on the website. MOOB (which is a "boom" reflected back at you).
HAARP doesn't have a linear phased array, it has a matrix phased array.
So.... take your moob, or whatever, and.... I don't know... do something with it.
Inductive reactance implies coiled elements where the magnetic field lines can interact with each other, inducing a phase delay as electromotive force is converted to magnetic field and then back to EMF - what part of the word "linear" did you not understand? MOOB, MOOB.
... (video removed) ...
You suck at this game.
Due to the wonderful weirdness of superconductors, only the top (approx.) 100 nm of a superconductor can actually provide any useful reactance at all (this is called the London distance, which is due to the Meissner effect, which expels magnetic field lines, making inductive reactivity impossible within the bulk of a superconductor). Put simply, coupled with the problem of measuring any potential difference across a superconductor (because they superconduct!), means that superconductors make pretty lousy inductors. MOOB, MOOB, MOOB!
www.google.com...
You are embarassing yourself.
Honestly, I'd just stop if I were you.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
...
You suck at this game.
....
You are embarassing yourself.
Honestly, I'd just stop if I were you.
....
You people are just transparent, honestly...
.....
Are you having a complete mental breakdown?
....
Christ... what is wrong with you?
....
You are disinfo agents and you don't even know it...
Not for beam forming or antenna geometry.
It's more critical than that...you need to get the array members positioned to a fraction of a wavelength.
among them bad lobe control and ambiguities that can generate two beams at once.
The article refers to an array where the individual elements are non-uniform.
"we can use the ships themselves" .. you've demonstrated a distinct lack of understanding of the basics, why should I feel there's a lower limit to it?
Polarization is an attribute of the signal, like frequency. Polarization type does NOT affect the wavelength. It also does not affect the focal properties of the dish.
Polarization, seperate ship mounted arrays.
Polarization doesn't matter, the arrays HAVE to be spaced and arranged in a precise way. The arrangement part you can somewhat compensate for.
Mind control satellites. Get a grip. Everyone knows that mind control is done by the traffic light cameras.
HAARP's array consists of multiple tuned dipoles. I was calling it a "linear phased array" because that was the term you were using in previous posts (as anyone following the topic thread will see). Apparently you change your nomenclature on a whim to support your views.
I agree that the video you posted does show how magnetic inductance may happen in situations without a coil but it does not relate at all to superconductors and is a rather more expensive and inefficient way to achieve inductance than a simple coil (static wiring as opposed to a moving magnetic field in a paramagnetic sheath).
The links you gave were for conventional inductors coated with a thin film superconductive layer. In this instance, the Meissner effect in the superconductor constrains the magnetic field within the conventional inductor, thereby increasing the efficiency of the conventional inductor. This is exactly why superconductors alone make poor inductors, as I previously stated.
But all this is beside the point as the dipoles used in HAARP are not likely to be superconductive or coated in a superconductor. I state this because the insulation required would add considerable bulk to the array elements and the freely available photos and specifications show no such bulk or pipework to feed the antennas with supercooling liquids or gasses. The whole superconductor issue is a red herring and is irrelevant to HAARP.
I'm not embarrassing myself.
I do enjoy the CONTENT-BASED back and forth between you guys
but do you really have to be such a snarky jerk all the time?
You come off as an arrogant yob drunk on your own cleverness
which as each rebuttal to your sarcastic point scoring turns out, isn't actually so clever.
You can challenge and disagree without being a douche.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Would you like to explain how electromagnetic waves reflect off of surfaces then?
We are dealing with wavelengths on the order of tens of meters....
I'm pretty sure that military grade GPS is accurate to far less than that.
Well, I guess it's a good thing that our target is hundreds of miles across, eh?
Are you stating that interference patterns only work when emitted from uniform matrix sources?
Explain how a surface reflects electromagnetic waves, then... if you're so confident.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
...
HAHAHAHAHA
...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
...
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
...
IS that what I was doing?
You sure about that?
If the surface is small compared to the wavelength...it won't.
Holding position is the issue
If you don't really care, then just broadcast...
Misread your cite, didn't you. If you use nonuniform arrays, you end up with blind spots and a big misshapen lobe that varies in size and shape as you swing the beam. Again, if you're going to do a crap job, why not just radiate?
Explain how you think polarization affects that. "If you dare." Geez, so melodramatic.
how do you think your nuclear transmitter fleet is radiating hundreds of MW in HF into the storm and isn't noticed by anyone with a receiver.
I'm outta here again for the salt mines
Glad to have been of service. Carry on.
Well you sure as hell aren't AGREEING with people.
You seem to be arguing the possible technical details of some highly speculative hypothetical scenario that is entertaining to one watching from the sidelines.
You say 'this is possible and has merit as a scenario that is do-able', they say 'no, your understanding is lacking', or 'it may be possible but not under those conditions,' to which you say, 'your knowledge is poor and mine is awesome and you're too stupid to understand what I'm really saying', and then slightly change what you're saying, etc.
If this is the wrong impression and my summary is incorrect I apologise, my understanding may be poor but so may your communication be lacking effectiveness. Hence, subtracting the snark may help.
In 1990’s, MIT’s Atmospheric Laboratory conducted field trials in non-conventional weather modification technologies.
Through further studies, atmospheric researchers developed a theory that identified macro‐scale weather chaos as ‘the key’ to influencing weather. During late 1990's an independent research team in Australia stumbled on an 'atmospheric mechanism' whilst exploring origins of this theory (link). Experimental trials revealed that “small amounts of electromagnetic energy, applied intelligently,” could force change into weather, based on atmospheric sine wave patterns. This research culminated in the development of an atmospheric resonance technology, represented by Aquiess International (aquiess).
Electromagnetic wave forms are utilized to deliver signals toward a target weather system, that may be as remote as beyond the visible horizon. Proprietary technologies which draw upon data from locally applied hardware and software as well as disparate sensors, are deployed to modify the patterns forming 'oceanic corridors' that deliver rain. Scientific analysis of aquiess' results, shows what is described as 'resonance technology', has both a vast reach and incremental scalability.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
That's because I'm designing the system in this thread, with their help.
....
And to this effect, I am attempting to create a plausible technological explanation for a device that can do just that.
The people that I am arguing against, are arguing from a perspective of "Deny the possibility at all costs"
As I knew they would, so instead of actually "Arguing the point" I am using their knowledge to expand my own, and further flesh out the concept and idea, in the hopes of explaining the technique and technology.
....
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I find this meme to be confusing. Can you explain in what way HAARP has anything to do with the work of Tesla?
Tesla based some of his tech off it and HAARP is Tesla tech at it's heart.
Did Tesla invent the phased array? Did Tesla know anything about the heating of plasma with electromagnetic radiation? Do you think that he invented the idea of resonance? It's ironic, Tesla did not believe that the ionosphere (in his day, called the Heaviside layer) existed at all and yet the claim is that he has something to do with a device used to study and manipulate it.
Terrestrial phenomena which I have noted conclusively show that there is no Heaviside layer, or if it exists, it is of no effect.
Tesla did not believe that radio waves (which HAARP uses) were capable of doing anything useful.
The Hertz wave theory of wireless transmission may be kept up for a while, but I do not hesitate to say that in a short time it will be recognized as one of the most remarkable and inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind which has ever been recorded in history.
Tesla did not believe that radio would even be of much use for communications.
As regards signaling without wires, the application of these radiations for the purpose was quite obvious. When Dr. Hertz was asked whether such a system would be of practical value, he did not think so, and he was correct in his forecast. The best that might have been expected was a method of communication similar to the heliographic and subject to the same or even greater limitations.
www.tfcbooks.com...
edit on 10/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by freedomSlave
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I find this meme to be confusing. Can you explain in what way HAARP has anything to do with the work of Tesla?
Tesla based some of his tech off it and HAARP is Tesla tech at it's heart.
Did Tesla invent the phased array? Did Tesla know anything about the heating of plasma with electromagnetic radiation? Do you think that he invented the idea of resonance? It's ironic, Tesla did not believe that the ionosphere (in his day, called the Heaviside layer) existed at all and yet the claim is that he has something to do with a device used to study and manipulate it.
Terrestrial phenomena which I have noted conclusively show that there is no Heaviside layer, or if it exists, it is of no effect.
Tesla did not believe that radio waves (which HAARP uses) were capable of doing anything useful.
The Hertz wave theory of wireless transmission may be kept up for a while, but I do not hesitate to say that in a short time it will be recognized as one of the most remarkable and inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind which has ever been recorded in history.
Tesla did not believe that radio would even be of much use for communications.
As regards signaling without wires, the application of these radiations for the purpose was quite obvious. When Dr. Hertz was asked whether such a system would be of practical value, he did not think so, and he was correct in his forecast. The best that might have been expected was a method of communication similar to the heliographic and subject to the same or even greater limitations.
www.tfcbooks.com...
edit on 10/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)
LoL wow Phage Here have a look at my avatar tesla showing wireless transmission of power . Or maybe look up his patents. I have to ask do you get paid for what you do here on ATS ?
Haha, that's rather ingenious.
Sorry for doubting the efficaciousy of your jerkiness.
The people that I am arguing against, are arguing from a perspective of "Deny the possibility at all costs"
Originally posted by Tecumte
...
... they can try to obfuscate, deny, derail, flat out lie, belittle, name call,lol all to no avail, ....
Originally posted by delusion
Originally posted by Tecumte
...
... they can try to obfuscate, deny, derail, flat out lie, belittle, name call,lol all to no avail, ....
I've seen no evidence of this, can you point out where on this thread anyone supporting the non-doomsday weapon capabilities of HAARP has gone out of their way to harrass or insult (other than the normal cut and thrust of internet debate), or in particular said anything demonstrably false or blatantly a lie? If not, isn't what YOU said a lie?
Or are you talking about some other sites? And if so, how is what you said relevant?
What if they're not paid servants but just knowledgable amateurs, or even experts, in this field, in a position to answer the questions from the less well informed (or more often the ignorant yet smugly self-satisfied hysterical claims of persecution from 'evil science')?
It happens, not everyone who disagrees with your world view is in on the conspiracy. That way mental-illness lies.
Originally posted by delusion
Originally posted by Tecumte
...
... they can try to obfuscate, deny, derail, flat out lie, belittle, name call,lol all to no avail, ....
I've seen no evidence of this, can you point out where on this thread anyone supporting the non-doomsday weapon capabilities ... said anything demonstrably false or blatantly a lie?