ANOTHER SMOKING GUN: Maui Fire Breaks SCIENCE as we know it…
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (54)
sorted by:
And it is statements like yours that make me think that you don't think. I am a simple retiree of modest means...but I happen to know my shit.
Masers preceded lasers, according to a different physical implementation. Lasers came along later and they borrowed/updated the acronym. Microwaves are not good at coupling with metal; they bounce off. Which is why they started out being used for radar. They also have significantly more diffraction spreading (proportional to wavelength). You called a maser a laser because you didn't want to be confusing? To confuse something with another is to call them by the same name.
Whatever you are trying is not worth it.
A "Laser" can be of any frequency. Laser means "light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation." The "L" just means "light." Microwaves are just light. A maser is just a microwave frequency laser., It lases (makes coherent by stimulated emission of a medium) light in the microwave frequency. Lumping all frequency lasers into the term "laser" is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, since they are all "light". If you don't like it, I'm OK with that, but most people don't mind it at all, as that is how it is commonly done.
"Masers" and "Lasers" (or more precisely, lasers in the microwave frequency)) are exactly the same thing. The lasing medium is different (obviously) but they are functionally identical. You use all the same equations, all the same principles of construction, everything is identical. The actual engineering is different, because the lasing medium is different and the creation of light in the microwave frequency is different, which will require different engineering of the device, and maybe that is what you mean, but the physics is all exactly the same.
Some of their energy goes into moving free electrons around, some gets reflected. If metal has edges (like aluminum wheels, wheel bolts, cars in general) it gets bounced around a lot. The more it gets reflected, the more the electrons move around. If there is enough energy absorption/reflection/electron movement this can create a plasma, which can melt metal.
There are various ways to increase the coupling and/or increase the total energy absorption in metals. You can pulse the laser, for example, creating electric or phononic resonance. You can couple one laser frequency with another, creating runaway thermal effects (localized heating which can begin a melting process, like a torch, which in turn creates more surfaces to bounce off of, which creates more electron movement --> more plasma --> more heating --> etc.). Who knows all the techniques people have come up with. All of these effects are used in various technologies, and all can be coupled with microwaves to heat things up/melt them.
Maybe the DEWs don't use microwaves at all. Maybe they use a different frequency, one that couples with metal better. Maybe they use both.
That microwaves under the right conditions can melt metal is not in question. That DEWs exist is not in question. That microwave frequency DEWs exist is not in question. That DEWs can be put in space is not in question. That microwave energy can be transferred from high altitude or from geostationary orbit to the surface of the earth is not in question.
It is a reasonable question to ask whether or not microwaves (or light of any frequency that has a low(ish) coupling with air) can be used to melt aluminum wheels from long distance DEWs. There are plenty of reasonable objections there. Can enough energy be transmitted from space (or high altitude) to cause that effect? If enough energy is thus transmitted, what would it do to the other materials when compared to the aluminum? What other technologies (pulsing, or additional frequencies e.g.) can be used to improve it's coupling and/or overall energy transfer with aluminum or other metals? What other frequencies might be used in long range DEWs to cause the same effect?
Something strange is going on with these fires. Car wheels never melted from car fires before, so why are they now? It is fair to assume there is a new component. It is fair to think that it might be DEWs since we know they exist, even if we don't necessarily know their capabilities. NO ONE knows their capabilities, so there are a lot of reasonable questions.
You do not seem willing to ask those questions because you know it all already.
Until you can let yourself appreciate that you don't necessarily "know your shit" as much as you think you do, you can never ask the right questions.
Since I was there from the beginning, I can tell you that you are making up a confusion that never existed in the technical media. The maser was first (1953) and the laser followed (1961)---taking its name as a variation of "maser." Anyone who confuses them is simply ignorant. Anyone who tries to say that such confusion is legitimate is trying to back-pedal ignorance.
Since I did study laser engineering---and applied it in the design and analysis of laser weapons---you are simply feeding me stuff I digested a very long time ago. When metal can be polished to 99% reflectance, they become tough cookies to heat up, which accounts for their alarming performance in microwave ovens.
Your various technical ideas are entertaining, but not representative of the field. That microwaves can be beamed from geostationary orbit to the Earth is not in question, but the size of the target zone is. The laws of optics dictate that the smaller the target zone, the larger the projection aperture. Under the best circumstances (large target zone), we are talking kilometers. In order to have pinpoint target selection (meters), the projection aperture must be tens of kilometers in size. This has nothing to do with power level, by the way. So, you are talking about a system so technically infeasible, it would never be built. (Moreover, it could never be kept secret. We are not the only ones who monitor what is in geostationary orbit.) It is for this reason of optical requirements that, when space-based lasers were first considered, the proposed orbital altitudes were not much higher than 1,000 km.
As for car wheels, maybe the tires did not catch fire in previous cases (burns hot). Don't forget that car wheels used to be steel, which melts at a significantly higher temperature than aluminum. There is also the possibility that in a very hot fire, the evaporated aluminum vapor would catch fire, at a very high flame temperature. My junior high school metal shop used to create molten aluminum for lost-wax casting, using a small forge (size of a suitcase) powered by propane. Hardly any more remarkable than melting lead.
Questions are good, but stupid or ridiculous answers are not. It is not "fair" to invoke something that does not exist (spaceborne or airborne DEWs), and for which there is NO EVIDENCE. That is just mental laziness. Yes, compared to you, I do know it all. That is what being in the field means.
You obviously didn't actually read a word I said. I think you are being pedantic, and you are perhaps completely unfamiliar with modern day lingo. A laser is just a laser, regardless of frequency. Everyone knows it but you. Apparently you didn't get the memo.
You didn't get what I was saying. The system I proposed was a dual frequency laser system based on existing technologies. The microwave is a much wider beam (by the time it gets to earth), and the coupling frequency laser, the "igniter" has a smaller beam. I think that because that is how these things are done in some metal 3D printing applications. It is also part of the construction of the solar energy collector I linked to you (though perhaps the stated purpose of the secondary laser is not exactly the same) and because the videos of these aberrant fire events show what appear to be occasional pulse beams, scattering off the clouds/smoke which would not be microwaves.
There is a metric fuckton of evidence, you just refuse to admit that it is, because you can explain it away in a way that is not actually an explaination at all, but a wagon full of suppositions.
That is why I question your motives. You come up with "plausibles" and call it "proof." That is exactly the tactic used to hide things by the media, the C_A, the government, corporations, etc.
I come up with plausbiles as well, but I am not stating my suppositions are "truth," one way or another, I am only showing that it is not impossible. That is always the greatest hurdle, admitting that a thing is not impossible.
You're not much of a hurdler.
It's not that I "didn't get the memo." It's that you are simply ignorant of the history of this technology, and the accepted terminology in this field of endeavor. I can't help it if you embrace the sloppy thinking of an ignorant public.
Your laser (maser?) concept is vague, to be generous. Why you would need "dual frequencies" (we normally discuss this application in terms of wavelengths) is not explained. Microwave and optical wavelengths do not "couple" (whatever you think that to mean). The fact of the matter is that past designs of power satellites require apertures hundreds of meters in diameter to project its beam to Earth---to be received by an aperture of similar size, for an intensity 1/4 that of sunlight. Do you want to burn down huge patches of forest, or just light a fire somewhere? You need to increase the size of the transmitting aperture. It's easy to figure out---if you know how. But I can assure you nothing of that scale has been built, or would ever be concealable from those other nations who jealously guard their slots in the geostationary orbit belt. You are basically engaging in a magical idea: just wave magic wand, no physical calculations required.
You don't have evidence if DEWs if the "evidence" does not display unique features that would be possible only with such weapons. Interestingly, DEWs would not leave behind any traces. You are therefore in the business of taking the evidence you have and construing it as being explicable in only one way---when in fact it is far from inexplicable. Melting aluminum is not very remarkable. I recall photographs of aircraft crash scenes where fire resulted and there was melted aluminum residue. At least my "suppositions" are based on known properties of materials and observed phenomena. Your "supposition" is based only on imagination. Since it assumes things not in evidence nor in prospect, it is pretty much not possible.
You come up with mythology and call it "possible"---then you get all huffy about the rational public dismissing you as "conspiracy theorists."
And then the obligatory name-calling. You don't seem to realize that name-calling is the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on an empty argument.