HAARP Unleashes Tesla Death Ray

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by Phage

 

So you are saying if a weak signal is put into an electronic amp and boosted it is amplified but a weak signal boosted by other means is not amplified but has gain. I never realized I would be arguing over such simple words but fine I will let it go but when I got my degree in electronic eng gain and amplification were synonymous and interchangeable.

phage, thanks for pointing out that my diagram was of a physical mirror and not a plasma one, but it is conceptually similar.I guess the only difference would be the efficiency of a plasma reflector.
As for a maser or laser could never make it through water vapor etc,,,NEVER SAY NEVER IN ELECTRONICS.
There is always something that no one has thought of.Example when they first tried lasing steel plate to cut it, molten metal would fall into the beam and slow the process ,but after pondering they found that pulsing the laser would blow the hole clear of molten metal and would cut much faster.

By definition, an amplifier increases power using an external power source. As posted here and also by definition, gain (when dealing with electronics) is the measure of the ability of a circuit to increase power from input to output.

What you are doing here is blurring the lines between electronic gain and antenna gain. We dont even have to do any work with this, as you've done a great job of posting the definitions as pictures and actually proving yourself wrong.

But to go along with what you're attempting to say here (even though we know you're wrong) ... how do you propose that a mirror acts as an amplifier in a case like this? You've been factually incorrect at several steps here, but there's nothing wrong with hearing new theories.

reply to post by flyswatter


How can a mirror act as an amplifier? You answered you're own question, a parabolic ant has some of the highest gains, If haarp is shape forming there plasma reflectors and using time variable convergence they could be achieving much more gain than reported and dissipating more atmospheric gases .I realize some ionized gas will return to its original state when beam stops but it is more complicated than that, when water vapors bonds break the hydrogen rises quickly and is ejected into space and that mass is lost FOREVER.THIS IS CALLED DISAPATING THE ATMOSPHERE AWAY.

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by flyswatter

 

How can a mirror act as an amplifier? You answered you're own question, a parabolic ant has some of the highest gains, If haarp is shape forming there plasma reflectors and using time variable convergence they could be achieving much more gain than reported and dissipating more atmospheric gases .I realize some ionized gas will return to its original state when beam stops but it is more complicated than that, when water vapors bonds break the hydrogen rises quickly and is ejected into space and that mass is lost FOREVER.THIS IS CALLED DISAPATING THE ATMOSPHERE AWAY.

If the atmosphere was going to be blasted away, it would have been done long ago by the Sun. You're aware that the Sun beats the crap out of the ionosphere with much more than HAARP, right?

In and of itself, a mirror does not amplify anything - it reflects, and potentially focuses. If you introduce an external power source and there is some sort of mechanism to make use of it, that turns the device into an amplifier of sorts rather than just a mirror. Two different devices, two different effects, and neither of which are used with HAARP in the first place.

reply to post by flyswatter


So the sun beats up on the atmosphere and you say what the heck were still here so lets beat up on it with more radiation?
Thats the type of cowboy attitude that can cause disasters.
Here is a diagram showing one aspect of the POWER GAIN of FOCUSING haarps energy on a our fragile environment.
Why is nobody on this thread even slightly concerned with expansion of ionosphere because of haarp heaters?
Why nobody seems to understand that this could steer the JET STREAM on accident or on purpose?

reply to post by supergravity

Why is nobody on this thread even slightly concerned with expansion of ionosphere because of haarp heaters?

HAARP heats a small region of the ionosphere by about 10%. As pointed out, the effects of the Sun are much greater on a diurnal basis and cover the entire hemisphere.

Why nobody seems to understand that this could steer the JET STREAM on accident or on purpose?

Because it can't. In the first place the jet stream occurs 10s of miles below the ionosphere. In the second place the jet stream is created by the interface warm and cold air masses below it.

reply to post by flyswatter

reply to post by supergravity

What "government records" is that image taken from?
The thing is, the beam from HAARP cannot be focused. The amount it spreads can be limited (that's where the gain comes into the picture) but it does spread.

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by flyswatter

 

So the sun beats up on the atmosphere and you say what the heck were still here so lets beat up on it with more radiation?
Thats the type of cowboy attitude that can cause disasters.
Here is a diagram showing one aspect of the POWER GAIN of FOCUSING haarps energy on a our fragile environment.
Why is nobody on this thread even slightly concerned with expansion of ionosphere because of haarp heaters?
Why nobody seems to understand that this could steer the JET STREAM on accident or on purpose?

Still no power gain, even if that document is from "government sources" (which I will believe as soon as you can explain where). You have input of power focusing to a smaller point in that image - there is no amplification or increase in power. None. Zero. Amplification and antenna gain are not the same thing, not even close, this was explained earlier.

And as was explained above me, the jet stream is far below the area that HAARP interacts with. You're spouting about something that HAARP is not capable of doing, how long will it take you to realize that?

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by flyswatter

 

You do realize that when it "focuses into a spot" as stated in your diagram, it's actually about 100km square when it gets to the ionosphere? And that the power on target is something like 0.02 microwatts per square cm?

Oh, and by the way, "Angels Don't Play This HAARP" is the most execrable piece of dog poop ever written, so you ought not use it for a reference, especially in a HAARP thread, unless you want even more mockery than you'll get otherwise.

Your boy Begich bought his doctorate for $400, and it's in homeopathy. You realize that, right? That he has NO understanding of physics?