HAARP for DUMMIES

reply to post by donlashway

Would you explain how it would be possible to manipulate the weather?

I assume you're not talking about cloud seeding. I have no idea how weather could be manipulated on a large scale. I'm pretty sure it would require enormous amounts of power though.

And if weather news dropping the use or tracking of pressure isobars back in the 1970s was at all related?

I didn't know they did but I don't pay a lot of attention to TV weathermen. I like getting closer to the source. Related to what? HAARP was not built until the mid 1990's.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Can I use HAARP to make perfect microwave popcorn?

Nope. HAARP can only affect charged particles. Sorry.

Interesting choice of words, "affects charged particles". Keep researching you're ALMOST there.

Originally posted by WonderBoi

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

HAARP plays with the ionosphere, which affects the troposphere, which is directly related to the jet stream. Which part of that....don't YOU UNDERSTAND???

The part about the ionosphere affecting the troposphere. Maybe you could dig up some information on that for me.

Why? So you can say, "that's not proof"?! Besides, i've already done that waaaaaay back when. Go look at some of the nice videos i posted, describing the procedure. Funny how the very science you're so "knowledgeable" in, seems to elude you, in this topic. Hmmmmm. Strange. What's your angle???

Still waiting for you to provide the military documentation on HAARP weather control, sir. Any time now.

And while you're at it, toss in some information about the ionosphere having any measurable effect on the troposphere. Didnt see the videos explain it. If there was one, I could have missed it, so re-post please.

Originally posted by WonderBoi

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Can I use HAARP to make perfect microwave popcorn?

Nope. HAARP can only affect charged particles. Sorry.

Interesting choice of words, "affects charged particles". Keep researching you're ALMOST there.

Here is something for you:
"The HAARP facility will not affect the weather. Transmitted energy in the frequency ranges that will be used by HAARP is not absorbed in either the troposphere or the stratosphere - the two levels of the atmosphere that produce the earth's weather. Electromagnetic interactions only occur in the near-vacuum of the rarefied region above about 70 km known as the ionosphere."

Now, if you have a method of proving the above statement wrong, please enlighten us. I'd enjoy reading it.

reply to post by Phage


I didn't mention HAARP. Was asking for your ideas on how weather could be manipulated.

I grew up at a time when watching pressure changes was the main indicator for weather changes; old sailing movies always had a clip where the captain would tap the barometer to check.

It is rare to ever hear mention of pressure in modern weather forecast, was just wondering...

Thank you for your time and consideration, it's late, have a good night, I'll catch up on this in the morning.
Think it's great you help us out.

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by WonderBoi

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

HAARP plays with the ionosphere, which affects the troposphere, which is directly related to the jet stream. Which part of that....don't YOU UNDERSTAND???

The part about the ionosphere affecting the troposphere. Maybe you could dig up some information on that for me.

Why? So you can say, "that's not proof"?! Besides, i've already done that waaaaaay back when. Go look at some of the nice videos i posted, describing the procedure. Funny how the very science you're so "knowledgeable" in, seems to elude you, in this topic. Hmmmmm. Strange. What's your angle???

Still waiting for you to provide the military documentation on HAARP weather control, sir. Any time now.

And while you're at it, toss in some information about the ionosphere having any measurable effect on the troposphere. Didnt see the videos explain it. If there was one, I could have missed it, so re-post please.

Do your own research. I'm not here to convince you of anything. It takes 10 people to debunk 1 OP? That's pretty sad. Even sadder, when not 1 of you, have contributed as to why it isn't being used. HOW DO YOU KNOW???? Where is YOUR PROOF, THAT IT ISN'T BEING USED?

Answer: YOU HAVE NO PROOF. You're still under the illusion, it's merely for research. Really, who's the one that's less informed, me or you??? In my world, as is the scientific community, possibilities are endless. Now, since we KNOW this technology was being thought possible 100 years ago, what makes you think those possibilities haven't become reality? If possibilities weren't made a reality.....WE'D STILL BE TRAVELING BY HORSE AND BUGGY!

WAKE UP TO REALITY!

reply to post by donlashway

Sorry. Since the topic is HAARP I thought your questions about weather manipulation had something to do with it.

It is rare to ever hear mention of pressure in modern weather forecast, was just wondering...

Which is one reason I rarely watch TV weather forecasts. I guess they think that sort of think isn't interesting enough.

reply to post by Phage

ELF transmissions [edit]

The coding used for US military ELF transmissions employed a 64-symbol Reed-Solomon error correction code, meaning that the alphabet had 64 symbols, each represented by a very long pseudo-random sequence. The entire transmission was then encrypted. The advantages of such a technique are that by correlating multiple transmissions, a message could be completed even with very low signal-to-noise ratios, and because only a very few pseudo-random sequences represented actual message characters, there was a very high probability that if a message was successfully received, it was a valid message (anti-spoofing).

The communication link is one-way. No submarine could have its own ELF transmitter on board, due to the sheer size of such a device. Attempts to design a transmitter which can be immersed in the sea or flown on an aircraft were soon abandoned.

Due to the limited bandwidth, information can only be transmitted very slowly, on the order of a few characters per minute (see Shannon's coding theorem). Thus it is reasonable to assume that the actual messages were mostly generic instructions or requests to establish a different form of two-way communication with the relevant authority.

Source

3.generating extremely low frequency waves in the 0.1 Hz range. These are next to impossible to produce any other way, because the length of a transmit antenna is dictated by the wavelength of the signal it must emit.

Source

It seems apparent that what we are addressing here is a more efficient way to send and perhaps even receive information from not only submarines.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by donlashway


Greetings friend, I believe this may sway off topic a bit but I've just grabbed this weather map from BOM Australia:



Barometric pressures being used.

And half hourly pressure readings from Sydney Airport:

www.bom.gov.au...

If tv weather forecasts don't bother with them it's probably because the great unwashed have no idea what they mean.

reply to post by Kashai


That was one branch of research at HAARP. HAARP can be used to induce very low powered ELF and VLF radiation in the ionosphere when the conditions are favorable. But I think the communications aspect is pretty obsolete. That article mentions the low bandwidth.

There's a satellite system for normal use but I guess they could send a "Hey! Wake Up!" signal with VLF but probably isn't reliable, or powerful enough. There are some ground base VLF stations.

reply to post by Phage


As my first article explains VLF can transmit at standard operating depths but HAARP would allow for transmitting much deeper.

I remember when HAARP began is was offered as better way to communicate with our submarines, this is when animal rights organizations began protesting about it.

This is in relation to its potential harm to marine life. the US government did not then give up enough information and some considered to be based upon micro-wave emissions. One way of looking at it is that the modern submarine operates well below what they are capable of doing based on declassified data.

HAARP operates to deliver information at those depths.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai

As my first article explains VLF can transmit at standard operating depths but HAARP would allow for transmitting much deeper.

I think your first article does not say that. Your first article does not mention HAARP.

This is in relation to its potential harm to marine life. the US government did not then give up enough information and some considered to be based upon micro-wave emissions.

Microwaves do not penetrate water very well.

HAARP operates to deliver information at those depths.

Doubtful. Considering the limitations on HAARP's ability to induce VLF radiation.

Any thoughts?

I think you are making things up.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Kashai

 

As my first article explains VLF can transmit at standard operating depths but HAARP would allow for transmitting much deeper.

I think your first article does not say that. Your first article does not mention HAARP.

This is in relation to its potential harm to marine life. the US government did not then give up enough information and some considered to be based upon micro-wave emissions.

Microwaves do not penetrate water very well.

HAARP operates to deliver information at those depths.

Doubtful. Considering the limitations on HAARP's ability to induce VLF radiation.

Any thoughts?

I think you are making things up.

edit on 6/8/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I have not made anything up HAARP produces a transmision that could be picked up in deeper water.

Plain as the nose on your face

reply to post by Kashai

I have not made anything up HAARP produces a transmision that could be picked up in deeper water.

That isn't exactly what you said. Here is what you said.

As my first article explains VLF can transmit at standard operating depths but HAARP would allow for transmitting much deeper.

What is your source for this claim?

HAARP operates to deliver information at those depths.

What is your source for this claim?


Show me sources and I will retract my statement about you making them up. I'll forget about the part about microwaves, that was just wrong.

reply to post by Phage


Cleary HAARP can transmit information at lower water depths based upon the information I provided, so what is your problem?

Can you provide evidence that HAARP cannot do this? impossible because there is no reason it cannot.

Seriously, "operational depth" has not changed much since WW2.

With respect to most modern submarines the deepest they can go is classified. HAARP can operate at the .01Hz Range while ELF operates at 3 to 300Hz range.

Very low frequency or VLF refers to radio frequencies (RF) in the range of 3 kHz to 30 kHz and wavelengths from 10 to 100 kilometres. Since there is not much bandwidth in this band of the radio spectrum, audio (voice) cannot be transmitted, and only low data rate coded signals are used. The VLF band is used for a few radio navigation services, government time radio stations which broadcast time signals to set radio clocks, and for secure military communication. Since VLF waves penetrate about 40 meters into saltwater, they are used for military communication with submarines.Also known as the myriametre band or myriametre wave as the wavelengths range from one to ten myriametres (an obsolete metric unit equal to 10 kilometres).

Source

The kilohertz, abbreviated kHz or KHz*, is a unit of alternating current (AC) or electromagnetic (EM) wave frequency equal to one thousand hertz (1,000 Hz). The unit is also used in measurements or statements of signal bandwidth.

Source

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai

Cleary HAARP can transmit information at lower water depths based upon the information I provided, so what is your problem?

My problem is that you say HAARP could (if it were used for that purpose) communicate with submarines at a greater depth can could be with ground based antennas.

Can you provide evidence that HAARP cannot do this? impossible because there is no reason it cannot.

Possible is not the same as saying it is being done.

HAARP can operate at the .01Hz Range while ELF operates at 3 to 300Hz range.

HAARP doesn't exactly "operate" at 0.01Hz (which is actually considered ULF). It can, as I said, induce low powered VLF, ELF, and ULF emissions in the ionosphere. Low powered. On the order of 20-30 watts. About the power of a refrigerator light bulb.

Moore et al. [2007] demonstrated the long-distance observation of ELF waves produced using the HAARP HF transmitter at a ground distance of »4400 km from the transmitter at Midway Atoll. Observations were shown to be consistent with a radiated ELF/VLF power of ~4-32 Watts from an ionospheric altitude of ~75-80 km [Moore et al., 2007].

www-star.stanford.edu...

But submarine communications, when they are done with low frequency radio, are in the VLF or ELF range, not the ULF range. Are you saying that ULF communications could be useful and penetrate deeper? What about the problem with bandwidth? In ELF bands the bitrate is two or three bits per minute. With ULF it would be even less. Think about that. Communicating at one bit per minute makes no sense. Add to that the problems with getting HAARP to even produce a signal (the conditions have to be favorable) and you do not have a reliable communications system.
adsabs.harvard.edu...

Research into communications, maybe. Communicating, no.

So you have a submarine that can travel below 100 feet so how do you communicate with it? How much information can be transmited at 3 bits per minute in 15 minutes?

Short for binary digit, the smallest unit of information on a machine. The term was first used in 1946 by John Tukey, a leading statistician and adviser to five presidents. A single bit can hold only one of two values: 0 or 1. More meaningful information is obtained by combining consecutive bits into larger units. For example, a byte is composed of 8 consecutive bits.

Computers are sometimes classified by the number of bits they can process at one time or by the number of bits they use to represent addresses. These two values are not always the same, which leads to confusion. For example, classifying a computer as a 32-bit machine might mean that its data registers are 32 bits wide or that it uses 32 bits to identify each address in memory. Whereas larger registers make a computer faster, using more bits for addresses enables a machine to support larger programs.

Graphics are also often described by the number of bits used to represent each dot. A 1-bit image is monochrome; an 8-bit image supports 256 colors or grayscales; and a 24- or 32-bit graphic supports true color.

So essentially it might take several months to transmit "War and Peace" to your average Submarine but a paragraph or a sentence should take how long?????

Obviouly HAARP is a way to send information to Submarines and potentially underwater facilities.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai

A single ASCII letter has 8 bits. Eight minutes to send one letter?

Let me ask you this. With all the research being done at HAARP. How would they find the time to send paragraph to a submarine? And remember, the conditions have to be right to get a signal out of the ionosphere at all. A very low powered signal which requires sensitive equipment to detect. Communications systems need to be reliable. That one would not be.

reply to post by Phage


So 30 minutes at best to send the same letter at 3 bits per minute.

Sounds ideal for transmiting information to a modern day submarine.

Originally posted by WonderBoi

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by WonderBoi

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

HAARP plays with the ionosphere, which affects the troposphere, which is directly related to the jet stream. Which part of that....don't YOU UNDERSTAND???

The part about the ionosphere affecting the troposphere. Maybe you could dig up some information on that for me.

Why? So you can say, "that's not proof"?! Besides, i've already done that waaaaaay back when. Go look at some of the nice videos i posted, describing the procedure. Funny how the very science you're so "knowledgeable" in, seems to elude you, in this topic. Hmmmmm. Strange. What's your angle???

Still waiting for you to provide the military documentation on HAARP weather control, sir. Any time now.

And while you're at it, toss in some information about the ionosphere having any measurable effect on the troposphere. Didnt see the videos explain it. If there was one, I could have missed it, so re-post please.

Do your own research. I'm not here to convince you of anything. It takes 10 people to debunk 1 OP? That's pretty sad. Even sadder, when not 1 of you, have contributed as to why it isn't being used. HOW DO YOU KNOW???? Where is YOUR PROOF, THAT IT ISN'T BEING USED?

Answer: YOU HAVE NO PROOF. You're still under the illusion, it's merely for research. Really, who's the one that's less informed, me or you??? In my world, as is the scientific community, possibilities are endless. Now, since we KNOW this technology was being thought possible 100 years ago, what makes you think those possibilities haven't become reality? If possibilities weren't made a reality.....WE'D STILL BE TRAVELING BY HORSE AND BUGGY!

WAKE UP TO REALITY!

So you're asked to present the evidence that you say you have seen, but instead of presenting it, you say "do your own research!" Sir, it is your job to prove yourself right, as you are the one making the accusation that the stated purpose of HAARP is different than what it actually does. You should understand that the burden of proof is on the accuser ... or did you skip that class in high school? What you are doing now is much like me saying "I have two rainbow unicorns in my shed, prove me wrong!" It just doesnt work that way, for either of us.

You can have theories and ideas that HAARP affects the weather, there's nothing wrong with that. But the instant you start saying that you have proof, you'd better be willing to provide it, otherwise you will just get laughed off the proverbial stage.