HAARP Conspiracies

flamming_python wrote:

Weather control on a local level has been available in a limited sense for some time.. the Soviets/Russians sprayed some compounds into the skies above a coming military parade in order to exclude the possibility of rain - and probably still do so.

It's possible that with a little extra development of such technology - it can be put to operational military use too. Not only stopping rains in certain locations at certain times, but encouraging them too. Could be used to lower visibility/sound distance and provide cover for your special forces operations, or be used to hinder the movements of enemy formations while keeping the forces on your side dry, etc..

When it comes to generating or stopping storms and such - that would require a systematic approach as storms are formed over huge geographical areas and are related to atmospheric pressures, ocean currents and plenty of other factors that can't be localized at all.
Doing something like this would also require cupious amounts of energy.
Long story short - won't be possible for quite a while yet.

That is exactly what i said before or do i have the prestige being back on your ignore list?

The compound they use is Silveroxid and AFAIK till this date lot of countries use it not just Russia, germany use it from time to time, US definetley use it for same purpose. Silveroxid and alike can be used for this exact two purpose which they are used since years, dispersing cloud formations or amplyifing the rain/snow (cloud seeding).

victor1985 wrote:But in a way a device that power up a electromagnetic wave no matter which could change weather?

For now, I'll be brief. In a few weeks, I hope I can write more.


Weather phenomena involve very large quantities of energy.

To only use a relatively small amount of energy, the kind of energy available to an HF transmitter array like HAARP, to modify weather would only be possible by exploiting the nonlinearities that exist in the weather phenomena.

One example is seeding clouds to trigger precipitation. If the "nature" doesn't provide the clouds, and if it doesn't move them into place, the energy required to generate rain directly from ocean water would be huge. Just to evaporate enough ocean water for 1 cm of rain over an area of 100 km X 100 km would require the complete energy output of a 50 Mt-TNT "thermonuclear device". Can someone please check my calculations?

So the real question is if HF radio waves of the right frequency, which to some extent "interact" with the ionosphere, can trigger a weather event through some kind of nonlinear interaction. I don't think the chance of it is very high, at all.


Edit: I just found out that while I was writing this post, 4 posts were added before this post. It wasn't because I was ignoring anyone.

Well i saw that cloud seeding on wikipedia. For 100 kg of silveroxid per 50×50 meters in air how many rain would get and for what area?
In other words maibe is possible to make to clouds a vacuum cleaner effect....i mean by modify pressure of air or something to them ....the up above your head clouds to suck in the interior of country rich clouds from out of country. In this way the clouds that are out of country will travel inside country and broke and make rain inside the country.

* by rich cloud mean rich in umidithy that will become rain

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
One example is seeding clouds to trigger precipitation. If the "nature" doesn't provide the clouds, and if it doesn't move them into place, the energy required to generate rain directly from ocean water would be huge. Just to evaporate enough ocean water for 1 cm of rain over an area of 100 km X 100 km would require the complete energy output of a 50 Mt-TNT "thermonuclear device". Can someone please check my calculations?

To elaborate, for the volume of 1 cm of rain over an area of 100 km X 100 km,

(volume of water) = [1(10)^(-2)] [100(10)^3] [100(10)^3] = 1(10)^8 m^2

(mass of water) = [1(10)^8 m^2] (1000 kg/m^2) = 1(10)^11 kg

(specific heat of vaporization of water) = 2.3(10)^6 J/kg (The correct value would be somewhat higher, as this value is for around the saturation temperature at 1 atm.)

(vaporization energy) = [1(10)^11 kg] [2.3(10)^6 J/kg] = 2.3(10)^17 J


(explosive energy density of TNT) = 4.2(10)6 J/kg

(mass of TNT required) = [2.3(10)^17 J]/[4.2(10)6 J/kg] = 55(10)^9 kg = 55 Mt

So this means one Tzar bomb is needed.

Werewolf wrote:So this means one Tzar bomb is needed.

If we assume the yield of the 1961 test was 50Mt-TNT, then the answer would be "yes".


However, I should make a couple of points.

- Putatively, the Tsar' bomb (RDS-202) was to be of a yield of 100 Mt-TNT, and it had been de-rated to about half that yield for the testing purposes.

- Based on calculations and also based on comparison with other Russian "thermonuclear devices", the yield of this bomb was to be a lot higher.

- The "effects" of the de-rated test in 1961 were also indicative of a substantially higher yield.


I should also mention that the rain event that I used as an example is a very small event. Where I live we just had several days of rain that would have required the full energy output of about 1000 of those 55 Mt-TNT "devices" to just evaporate enough water for.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
If we assume the yield of the 1961 test was 50Mt-TNT, then the answer would be "yes".

However, I should make a couple of points.

- Putatively, the Tsar' bomb (RDS-202) was to be of a yield of 100 Mt-TNT, and it had been de-rated to about half that yield for the testing purposes.

- Based on calculations and also based on comparison with other Russian "thermonuclear devices", the yield of this bomb was to be a lot higher.

- The "effects" of the de-rated test in 1961 were also indicative of a substantially higher yield.

I should also mention that the rain event that I used as an example is a very small event. Where I live we just had several days of rain that would have required the full energy output of about 1000 of those 55 Mt-TNT "devices" to just evaporate enough water for.

Morpheus, apart from your insightful technical observation I will add something which is more fundamental. Contrary to what some people believe HAARP is a reality and not a fiction. It is a full fledged, government funded center based in Alaska. They used to have a website as well. They closed it down but I have the archive.

https://archive.is/www.haarp.alaska.edu

jhelb wrote:Morpheus, apart from your insightful technical observation I will add something which is more fundamental. Contrary to what some people believe HAARP is a reality and not a fiction. It is a full fledged, government funded center based in Alaska. They used to have a website as well. They closed it down but I have the archive.

https://archive.is/www.haarp.alaska.edu

jhelb,

Thank you very much for the link to the archive.

I agree that HAARP and the projects associated with it are reality. However, in my last few posts, I intended to show weather modification via, let's say, HF transmitter arrays would be very difficult, and to succeed, would require a "new" pathway that has to go through either some nonlinearity or some kind of switching mechanism, for example, in the manner of cloud seeding methods.

One possible use of HAARP can be for communication with the submarines via the VLF radio band (electromagnetic waves in the 3 KHz to 30 KHz range) .

This may be possible by using HF to generate and modulate VLF signals. Ionosphere and the earth's surface form a waveguide around the VLF band, which has the shape of a spherical shell. By using HF to "heat" and perturb a region of the ionosphere, you may be able to generate modulated VLF that can propagate, with relatively little loss, within this waveguide.

This would be like hitting the surface of a drum and then the drum cavity resonating at its resonance frequency. Here the drum membrane would be the ionosphere, and the drum-stick would be the HF emission of the HF transmitter.

The following link is that of the earlier and smaller (in comparison to the latest HAARP configuration) Russian Sura HF phased array facility.

Sura

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:The following link is that of the earlier and smaller (in comparison to the latest HAARP configuration) Russian Sura HF phased array facility.

Sura

Thanks for the link.

I have done some calculations. Whit 10 liters of water vaporized per second you get 36000 liters per hour. Now imagine that are 36000 bottles whit 1 litters of water each. There is some amount of water....and imagine that clouds arent so dense like water so 36000 litters of water would result in a cloud like 50×50×3 metters. That in just one hour.....
Here the big question is : how much power you consume for evaporate 10 litters per second? Using lets say microwaves. Not to mention you can use a nuclear reactor for vaporisation.....

Not agree. Would be needed huge ones and pumps everywhere.

Yes indeed.