You misread my point about microwave ovens. (I'm ignorant now?) There IS radiant heating inside the oven -- that's why the walls of the oven get warm, from the radiant heating of the food. (i.e., there is no water molecules inside the plastic components to excite.) There is focusing to the extent that the microwave energy isn't evenly distributed across the interior volume. Why is food placed in the center? I also imagine there is some sort of reflective surface above the magnetron...that is a rudimentary form of focus. This schematic shows the reflection (focusing) I was referring to: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Fig-C1-Schematic-diagram-of-a-typical-microwave-oven-C1_fig39_307633263
The only reason I brought up the microwave point is that it is an example of microwave energy passing through "solid" material to reach water molecules where it can then interact. What is possible at higher wattages?
Again, you misread the reason I mentioned the colored lights in the sky preceding the Sichuan earthquake. I wasn't implying that the lights themselves caused the earthquake. The implication is that the lights are perhaps evidence of some sort of unknown energy in the atmosphere. Might it be possible for a disturbance in the atmosphere to alter magnetism to produce ground effects? I don't imagine classroom theory in universities provide any clarity to this type of question.
My dad was an engineer, specializing in aeronautics at GE for 35 years. I know full well how the "engineering mind" perceives and processes, and rejects anything foreign. I gave up trying to have interesting discussions with him...it was just too frustrating, and it gave him yet more opportunities to be dismissive. Now, in his later years, his close-mindedness has been to his detriment.
It is simply too difficult to try to discuss a concept such as this via a messageboard. We can only describe summaries and concepts, and the rest of the research is up to the reader. There are several disturbing revelations from the book, Angels Don't Play This HAARP -- among them, several patents including "Nuclear-sized Explosions Without Radiation" and electromagnetic pulse weaponry. The only thing I can say to you is that there is a basis for suspicion of this technology.
The walls get warm from the warmth of the food, which is conducted and conveyed by the air in the oven. There is no "focus," and you are misunderstanding the concept. The radiation is distributed around the food so the food can all "see" the radiation. Kitchen illumination has reflectors etc., but it is "focused" nowhere. Don't use the term to describe what it is not. The microwave oven is an example of...a microwave oven? What else does this? Radars will do this if you are unwise enough to step into their beams while they are under ground test. At higher wattages (kilowatts to megawatts), laser weapons can melt metal. But none of this is even a gnat's eyelash compared to the energies involved in an earthquake.
You must not have understood my comment about the lights in the sky. I was explaining a plausible reason why they could have been caused by the geologic stresses preceding an earthquake. In this matter, I think we are on the same page. But there isn't any power coming down. That would be easily detected if it were.
Your dad may have been a nice guy, but you have only one sample. Have you read Halton Arp's "Seeing Red," which outlines a completely different view of deep astronomical events...based on observational evidence? Have you read Frederick Kantor's "Information Mechanics," which derives both quantum and relativity theory from information theory (his test: a successful theoretical prediction of the rest masses of all the known leptons). Have you heard of the Journal of Galilean Electrodynamics? If you haven't read any of these, don't go around judging the closed-mindedness of others. (Where I came from, there were plenty of original ideas. I had one colleague who literally covered his office walls with all his patents.)
You also have an overblown understanding of patents. They are intended to commercially protect as intellectual property a product or process according to what is described therein. They are not proofs that said products or processes are worth a tinker's damn. I have 9 patents, all of which I am convinced could be implemented, and one of which spawned an actual product that was (regrettably) off patent. Unless you understand the disclosure of the patent well enough to know how it would actually work, you don't have a basis for either admiration or suspicion. (My last patent could be used to clear orbital debris or to de-orbit satellites. Saint or sinner?)
I know about patents. My dad authored several GE patents in his tenure. I understand about "intellectual property," and the corporate process and strategy of doing so. I don't care about the number of your patents, how well-read you are, or what your education is. I noticed you rattling off your qualifications to other GAW members, too.
I'm tired of you passing judgment about your assessment of my understanding of things. You were the one resurrecting this old thread, then misunderstand what I write, then dismiss me precisely the way my dad did when I tried to talk with him. Despite your proclamation, I judged NO ONE. You assumed I was, but I was only describing a personal experience I had with an engineer and drawing a similarity to this discussion. It is YOU using inflammatory language, such as "ignorance," "overblown," etc., etc. Perhaps you have no idea you are communicating this way to others, but it's clear from your other posts that you seem to enjoy demeaning others. You and I are on two different wavelengths, and I have no interest in continuing further.
Well, what do you call it when you are not displaying any knowledge of the underlying science? I have tried to discuss particulars of the science. You have dodged the particulars in favor of bludgeoning me with being "closed minded." I have been refuting that with reference to very non-traditional scientific views and offering you insight into what is going on and referring to material for your edification. I am interested in whether YOU have an open mind. But you pass that all by. You don't seem to get that an empty mind is not the same thing as an open mind.
You misread my point about microwave ovens. (I'm ignorant now?) There IS radiant heating inside the oven -- that's why the walls of the oven get warm, from the radiant heating of the food. (i.e., there is no water molecules inside the plastic components to excite.) There is focusing to the extent that the microwave energy isn't evenly distributed across the interior volume. Why is food placed in the center? I also imagine there is some sort of reflective surface above the magnetron...that is a rudimentary form of focus. This schematic shows the reflection (focusing) I was referring to: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Fig-C1-Schematic-diagram-of-a-typical-microwave-oven-C1_fig39_307633263
The only reason I brought up the microwave point is that it is an example of microwave energy passing through "solid" material to reach water molecules where it can then interact. What is possible at higher wattages?
Again, you misread the reason I mentioned the colored lights in the sky preceding the Sichuan earthquake. I wasn't implying that the lights themselves caused the earthquake. The implication is that the lights are perhaps evidence of some sort of unknown energy in the atmosphere. Might it be possible for a disturbance in the atmosphere to alter magnetism to produce ground effects? I don't imagine classroom theory in universities provide any clarity to this type of question.
My dad was an engineer, specializing in aeronautics at GE for 35 years. I know full well how the "engineering mind" perceives and processes, and rejects anything foreign. I gave up trying to have interesting discussions with him...it was just too frustrating, and it gave him yet more opportunities to be dismissive. Now, in his later years, his close-mindedness has been to his detriment.
It is simply too difficult to try to discuss a concept such as this via a messageboard. We can only describe summaries and concepts, and the rest of the research is up to the reader. There are several disturbing revelations from the book, Angels Don't Play This HAARP -- among them, several patents including "Nuclear-sized Explosions Without Radiation" and electromagnetic pulse weaponry. The only thing I can say to you is that there is a basis for suspicion of this technology.
The walls get warm from the warmth of the food, which is conducted and conveyed by the air in the oven. There is no "focus," and you are misunderstanding the concept. The radiation is distributed around the food so the food can all "see" the radiation. Kitchen illumination has reflectors etc., but it is "focused" nowhere. Don't use the term to describe what it is not. The microwave oven is an example of...a microwave oven? What else does this? Radars will do this if you are unwise enough to step into their beams while they are under ground test. At higher wattages (kilowatts to megawatts), laser weapons can melt metal. But none of this is even a gnat's eyelash compared to the energies involved in an earthquake.
You must not have understood my comment about the lights in the sky. I was explaining a plausible reason why they could have been caused by the geologic stresses preceding an earthquake. In this matter, I think we are on the same page. But there isn't any power coming down. That would be easily detected if it were.
Your dad may have been a nice guy, but you have only one sample. Have you read Halton Arp's "Seeing Red," which outlines a completely different view of deep astronomical events...based on observational evidence? Have you read Frederick Kantor's "Information Mechanics," which derives both quantum and relativity theory from information theory (his test: a successful theoretical prediction of the rest masses of all the known leptons). Have you heard of the Journal of Galilean Electrodynamics? If you haven't read any of these, don't go around judging the closed-mindedness of others. (Where I came from, there were plenty of original ideas. I had one colleague who literally covered his office walls with all his patents.)
You also have an overblown understanding of patents. They are intended to commercially protect as intellectual property a product or process according to what is described therein. They are not proofs that said products or processes are worth a tinker's damn. I have 9 patents, all of which I am convinced could be implemented, and one of which spawned an actual product that was (regrettably) off patent. Unless you understand the disclosure of the patent well enough to know how it would actually work, you don't have a basis for either admiration or suspicion. (My last patent could be used to clear orbital debris or to de-orbit satellites. Saint or sinner?)
I know about patents. My dad authored several GE patents in his tenure. I understand about "intellectual property," and the corporate process and strategy of doing so. I don't care about the number of your patents, how well-read you are, or what your education is. I noticed you rattling off your qualifications to other GAW members, too.
I'm tired of you passing judgment about your assessment of my understanding of things. You were the one resurrecting this old thread, then misunderstand what I write, then dismiss me precisely the way my dad did when I tried to talk with him. Despite your proclamation, I judged NO ONE. You assumed I was, but I was only describing a personal experience I had with an engineer and drawing a similarity to this discussion. It is YOU using inflammatory language, such as "ignorance," "overblown," etc., etc. Perhaps you have no idea you are communicating this way to others, but it's clear from your other posts that you seem to enjoy demeaning others. You and I are on two different wavelengths, and I have no interest in continuing further.
Well, what do you call it when you are not displaying any knowledge of the underlying science? I have tried to discuss particulars of the science. You have dodged the particulars in favor of bludgeoning me with being "closed minded." I have been refuting that with reference to very non-traditional scientific views and offering you insight into what is going on and referring to material for your edification. I am interested in whether YOU have an open mind. But you pass that all by. You don't seem to get that an empty mind is not the same thing as an open mind.
Perhaps you misunderstood your father...