Not a credible proposal. No such satellites have been launched---and, if you think they have been, kindly provide the satellite designations, launch dates, and orbital parameters, particularly inclination and altitude. And proof that such satellites could be close enough (how close?) for long enough (how long?) in any mutual passage over Maui. Generally, for LEO satellites, you have only minutes to pass from horizon to horizon.
Phased arrays exist, but only as monolithic systems (one emitter). Two things are essential about phased arrays: a rigid and constant-dimensioned framework for the array elements, and a common, high-precision timebase. We do not have the technology to control these elements for two, independent arrays. The net result of current methods is that all you will get will be "side lobes."
Metal reflects microwaves, so in order to melt aluminum, you would have to scorch the rest of the island at maybe 40 watts/cm2, or 0.4 megawatt/meter2. And this would be a much larger spot than a square meter, because small target spots would require a large satellite aperture. So, the requirements for power and aperture are prohibitive,.
The video of the melted wheels is sheer ignorance and proves nothing about DEWs or side lobes. Similar effects have been observed at the California "Camp Fire" wildfire and the recent wildfire in Tennessee (I have posted the photos elsewhere on this site). At some point, you have to realize that is is a commonplace occurrence at wildfires.
I spent decades working on laser DEWs, and spent time on the AWACS program studying how to mount phased-array antennas on the airframe for a communications link. The more off-axis you point the beam, the less the intensity of the beam becomes. There is also the interesting and non-trivial problem of pointing the beam. At present, such beams are the mainstay of radar systems, which are all about pointing and detecting. In order to have a microwave DEW, it would have to be also an imaging radar system---which is very hard to implement, since the beamwidth would have to be as small as the desired observable resolution of the image. Back to big aperture again, and extreme precision on the timing of the wavefront phasing. Frankly, there is no way to show that you would be able to hit a discrete target, unless you simply wanted to flood-illuminate the target. It would be easier to drop napalm bombs.
Oh, and why would a LIDAR be necessary, if you already had access to surveyed topographic maps? You are just throwing everything into the kitchen sink in hopes of making a souffle.
(1) To use a phased array system statically, you'd need a stable relationship between elements. But to use a system one time for one mission, you'd only need to know their positions at the moment of use.
(2) As far as I am aware, the capabilities of satellites of this sort are not made known publicly. And not all are listed on the public ephemeris, for that matter.
(3) I've not seen a wild fire hot enough to melt metal that, yet, is confined to about -- what -- 100 ft in all directions, with no barriers? That's unusual, to say the least.
(4) Agree about off-axis aiming, for the obvious mathematical reasons.
(5) Why would LIDAR be necessary for ANYTHING, if you have topographic maps? Why create it at all? Why use it at all? But, yet, it was created, it was used, and we do need it, despite the existence of such maps. Perhaps our maps do not tell all, in terms of the data needed for every mission.
(6) Agree that if you had an unstable array and knew nothing of its current configuration, all you would get is side lobes.
...WOULD LOVE TO TALK MORE WITH YOU ABOUT THIS AND CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS. For whatever reason, I've not noticed you here, and I'd think I would have, as you're interesting and intelligent. I'm on and off here, so it's probably my fault.
EDIT: oh, and the aperture issues are not issues at all, depending upon how many satellites are participating in the project, over what span of space, with what spacing, and in how many dimensions. ...But I think you may know that...
(2) As far as I am aware, the capabilities of satellites of this sort are not made known publicly. And not all are listed on the public ephemeris, for that matter.
Exactly! They won't tell us, we have to figure it out!
(1) You would have to know the element positions to within an accuracy less than a wavelength of the radiation, and also have a time base that is accurate to less than the inverse of the frequency. This is possible if you have a monolithic system. It is practically impossible for two (or more) units that are separately located, with unknown and dynamic spacing, and separate time bases. Microwave wavelengths are typically on the order of centimeters. You would be lucky to know the position of another satellite to within meters. And you would have no way of knowing which way its boresight is pointed. I don't see that you would have any way of knowing which way YOUR boresight should be pointed (to aim at a target, and not just spray an entire island).
(2) There are no satellites with these capabilities, because of point (1). The burden is on you to put the finger on likely culprits. And see where they were at the times in question. This is the kind of detective work that is hard to do, but seems (by some) justifiable to just hand-wave.
(3) Just do an internet search. It didn't take me long to find examples of this from the California "Camp Fire" wildfire, and the Tennessee wildfires. Easy to do if the automobile gasoline tank fails under the environment, leaks, and ignites, also lighting the tires.
(4) Aiming is tough, especially if you have no means of seeing what you are trying to shoot.
(5) You don't need LIDAR if you have topographic maps. But you may want to conduct an experiment to compare LIDAR results to known topography. The point being: LIDAR was not needed for any imaginary DEW. And there is no logical basis for thinking that the LIDAR sats were weapons.
(6) Which is why the concept is unworkable. Not to mention the significant problem of orbital coordination.
(Edit) You are thinking of the notion of a sparsely-filled array. You can get something, but not for nothing. The resolution will not approach the diffraction limit.
Sorry about the fact that we are all "anons" out here. Have no fear. I am generally engaged in educating the populace about technology mythology.
The GPS system as a whole requires that independent satellites be located to within a tolerance of less than a centimeter and manage the problem of independent time bases. If a particular satellite timestamped its signature with data that was even a little inaccurate, the receiver would calculate a drastically marred positional result. You are (drastically) overstating the difficulty of this.
As for the oddity of the fires, I don't think the issue is that certain metals melted in an immense fire. Smelting is a "thing" -- we all get that. But there are odd isolated burn pockets. No path of burn leading to these pockets, and no path of burn leading away. There is no trace of fire anywhere near these pockets. What started the fires in these pockets? The ordinary function of a forest fire does not and cannot explain that. But a side lobe sure can.
By the way, my SUV caught fire some years back. Long story. Anyhow, yes, the gas tank ignited and there were huge, towering flames, and the whole thing burnt to the ground. Ask me if the rims melted. Nope. None of the metal melted. The fuel in the gas tank is insufficient to cause that result.
Do I think LIDAR was needed to conduct the mission? Perhaps. I couldn't tell you the accuracy of any topological map that may or may not exist. I can tell you that every time any construction is done -- even residential construction such as at my home -- the land is surveyed. They don't say: "hey, I'll just access some pre-existing topological map." Topography changes. So, yes. I think you'd want up-to-date accurate topological data. I certainly would. If you'd prefer to work from old data, even though you possessed the means to derive timely, accurate data, that would be your choice. But I'm pretty sure you know that no one would make such a choice.
As for your avocation relating to "educating" the populace, I'm not so sure you aren't on some sort of other mission.
It seems that the GPS satellite position accuracy is determined by terrestrial tracking as an update to its ephemeris. I am quite surprised at this improvement, but decades have passed since I worked with its performance limitations. I can't seem to find any quantitative reference to the ephemeris. The Wikipedia article on GPS ephemeris error analysis suggests that residual errors in satellite position amount to a few meters. I would be grateful if you could reference a source for your information. Even so, this would be problematic for radiation in the 1-5 centimeter band. Moreover, it would not contain pointing information. The final problem is signal timing, which would have to be provided by data link, which would incur latency errors. Still not a solved problem, in my view.
As for wildfires, they are known to leap from tree to tree, or for hot cinders to be blown by wind to outlying targets that catch fire (remember that Maui was windy at the time). No oddity for anyone familiar with wildfires. Just a deadly feature of their behavior. As for sidelobes, that is a stretch, since there is no evidence for a main lobe, and the transmitter positional errors and timing errors would produce a rapidly shifting sidelobe pattern. (This is what we see as "twinkle" from a star; the effect of the star's interference pattern shifting around with the effect of atmospheric refractive turbulence.)
Did your tires burn? Were the rims aluminum or steel? And how would that refute the fact that aluminum rims were melted in the California and Tennesse wildfires? Ignorance is no proof of hypothesis. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it didn't happen elsewhere---for which there is evidence. This is the logic of "I wasn't stung by a bee...therefore bees don't sting."
You would only need topography if you were shooting blind and open-loop. How do you get your target location...down to the fraction of a meter? This is not the method for a directed energy weapon, which requires target sensing and feedback during the shot. The scenario is magical, because all wheels were melted---which would require at least two separate---and opposing---lines of sight to the target. The target aiming spots (two on each side) would had to have been each about a meter in diameter (no melting of the body). Explain to me the wavelength, aperture diameter, shot duration, time window of opportunity, and orbital altitude for this engagement scenario. It may seem "unreasonable," but everything about DEWs depends crucially on details. Getting any one of them wrong means the shot will not be possible. I did this for a living.
So, which were these satellites? Each one would have to be tracked and equipped as a GPS class satellite, be equipped with an array aperture meters in diameter, and a powerplant and heat rejection system to operate at megawatt levels or greater. Something like that would be conspicuous as hell to any nation that monitors our launches, and there would be comment and question. Crickets.
Those two cars were sitting in an empty dirt lot. What could have caused the wheels and exhaust manifold to melt? And ehats the melting point of automotive glass? The windshield melted in both vehicles
The gasoline in the automobile tanks catching fire and burning beneath the car, and also setting alight the rubber tires. The melting point of automotive glass is about the same as the melting point of the cast aluminum wheels, substantially below the flame temperature of gasoline and rubber.
Only certain kinds of glass melt at higher temperature (e.g., fused quartz), not auto glass. For one thing, the auto glass incorporates a transparent layer of plastic (anti-shatter) that would certainly melt. You should read a little more.
The burning temperatures of gasoline and rubber are in the high 2000s. More than enough to melt anything with a lower melting temperature. The videos also evidence the fact that all the upholstery was burned up, which also releases heat.
Look for wider examples. This same kind of thing was observed in the California "Camp Fire" wildfire and the Tennessee wildfires.
Not a credible proposal. No such satellites have been launched---and, if you think they have been, kindly provide the satellite designations, launch dates, and orbital parameters, particularly inclination and altitude. And proof that such satellites could be close enough (how close?) for long enough (how long?) in any mutual passage over Maui. Generally, for LEO satellites, you have only minutes to pass from horizon to horizon.
Phased arrays exist, but only as monolithic systems (one emitter). Two things are essential about phased arrays: a rigid and constant-dimensioned framework for the array elements, and a common, high-precision timebase. We do not have the technology to control these elements for two, independent arrays. The net result of current methods is that all you will get will be "side lobes."
Metal reflects microwaves, so in order to melt aluminum, you would have to scorch the rest of the island at maybe 40 watts/cm2, or 0.4 megawatt/meter2. And this would be a much larger spot than a square meter, because small target spots would require a large satellite aperture. So, the requirements for power and aperture are prohibitive,.
The video of the melted wheels is sheer ignorance and proves nothing about DEWs or side lobes. Similar effects have been observed at the California "Camp Fire" wildfire and the recent wildfire in Tennessee (I have posted the photos elsewhere on this site). At some point, you have to realize that is is a commonplace occurrence at wildfires.
I spent decades working on laser DEWs, and spent time on the AWACS program studying how to mount phased-array antennas on the airframe for a communications link. The more off-axis you point the beam, the less the intensity of the beam becomes. There is also the interesting and non-trivial problem of pointing the beam. At present, such beams are the mainstay of radar systems, which are all about pointing and detecting. In order to have a microwave DEW, it would have to be also an imaging radar system---which is very hard to implement, since the beamwidth would have to be as small as the desired observable resolution of the image. Back to big aperture again, and extreme precision on the timing of the wavefront phasing. Frankly, there is no way to show that you would be able to hit a discrete target, unless you simply wanted to flood-illuminate the target. It would be easier to drop napalm bombs.
Oh, and why would a LIDAR be necessary, if you already had access to surveyed topographic maps? You are just throwing everything into the kitchen sink in hopes of making a souffle.
Would love to talk with you more.
(1) To use a phased array system statically, you'd need a stable relationship between elements. But to use a system one time for one mission, you'd only need to know their positions at the moment of use.
(2) As far as I am aware, the capabilities of satellites of this sort are not made known publicly. And not all are listed on the public ephemeris, for that matter.
(3) I've not seen a wild fire hot enough to melt metal that, yet, is confined to about -- what -- 100 ft in all directions, with no barriers? That's unusual, to say the least.
(4) Agree about off-axis aiming, for the obvious mathematical reasons.
(5) Why would LIDAR be necessary for ANYTHING, if you have topographic maps? Why create it at all? Why use it at all? But, yet, it was created, it was used, and we do need it, despite the existence of such maps. Perhaps our maps do not tell all, in terms of the data needed for every mission.
(6) Agree that if you had an unstable array and knew nothing of its current configuration, all you would get is side lobes.
...WOULD LOVE TO TALK MORE WITH YOU ABOUT THIS AND CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS. For whatever reason, I've not noticed you here, and I'd think I would have, as you're interesting and intelligent. I'm on and off here, so it's probably my fault.
EDIT: oh, and the aperture issues are not issues at all, depending upon how many satellites are participating in the project, over what span of space, with what spacing, and in how many dimensions. ...But I think you may know that...
(2) As far as I am aware, the capabilities of satellites of this sort are not made known publicly. And not all are listed on the public ephemeris, for that matter.
Exactly! They won't tell us, we have to figure it out!
(1) You would have to know the element positions to within an accuracy less than a wavelength of the radiation, and also have a time base that is accurate to less than the inverse of the frequency. This is possible if you have a monolithic system. It is practically impossible for two (or more) units that are separately located, with unknown and dynamic spacing, and separate time bases. Microwave wavelengths are typically on the order of centimeters. You would be lucky to know the position of another satellite to within meters. And you would have no way of knowing which way its boresight is pointed. I don't see that you would have any way of knowing which way YOUR boresight should be pointed (to aim at a target, and not just spray an entire island).
(2) There are no satellites with these capabilities, because of point (1). The burden is on you to put the finger on likely culprits. And see where they were at the times in question. This is the kind of detective work that is hard to do, but seems (by some) justifiable to just hand-wave.
(3) Just do an internet search. It didn't take me long to find examples of this from the California "Camp Fire" wildfire, and the Tennessee wildfires. Easy to do if the automobile gasoline tank fails under the environment, leaks, and ignites, also lighting the tires.
(4) Aiming is tough, especially if you have no means of seeing what you are trying to shoot.
(5) You don't need LIDAR if you have topographic maps. But you may want to conduct an experiment to compare LIDAR results to known topography. The point being: LIDAR was not needed for any imaginary DEW. And there is no logical basis for thinking that the LIDAR sats were weapons.
(6) Which is why the concept is unworkable. Not to mention the significant problem of orbital coordination.
(Edit) You are thinking of the notion of a sparsely-filled array. You can get something, but not for nothing. The resolution will not approach the diffraction limit.
Sorry about the fact that we are all "anons" out here. Have no fear. I am generally engaged in educating the populace about technology mythology.
The GPS system as a whole requires that independent satellites be located to within a tolerance of less than a centimeter and manage the problem of independent time bases. If a particular satellite timestamped its signature with data that was even a little inaccurate, the receiver would calculate a drastically marred positional result. You are (drastically) overstating the difficulty of this.
As for the oddity of the fires, I don't think the issue is that certain metals melted in an immense fire. Smelting is a "thing" -- we all get that. But there are odd isolated burn pockets. No path of burn leading to these pockets, and no path of burn leading away. There is no trace of fire anywhere near these pockets. What started the fires in these pockets? The ordinary function of a forest fire does not and cannot explain that. But a side lobe sure can.
By the way, my SUV caught fire some years back. Long story. Anyhow, yes, the gas tank ignited and there were huge, towering flames, and the whole thing burnt to the ground. Ask me if the rims melted. Nope. None of the metal melted. The fuel in the gas tank is insufficient to cause that result.
Do I think LIDAR was needed to conduct the mission? Perhaps. I couldn't tell you the accuracy of any topological map that may or may not exist. I can tell you that every time any construction is done -- even residential construction such as at my home -- the land is surveyed. They don't say: "hey, I'll just access some pre-existing topological map." Topography changes. So, yes. I think you'd want up-to-date accurate topological data. I certainly would. If you'd prefer to work from old data, even though you possessed the means to derive timely, accurate data, that would be your choice. But I'm pretty sure you know that no one would make such a choice.
As for your avocation relating to "educating" the populace, I'm not so sure you aren't on some sort of other mission.
It seems that the GPS satellite position accuracy is determined by terrestrial tracking as an update to its ephemeris. I am quite surprised at this improvement, but decades have passed since I worked with its performance limitations. I can't seem to find any quantitative reference to the ephemeris. The Wikipedia article on GPS ephemeris error analysis suggests that residual errors in satellite position amount to a few meters. I would be grateful if you could reference a source for your information. Even so, this would be problematic for radiation in the 1-5 centimeter band. Moreover, it would not contain pointing information. The final problem is signal timing, which would have to be provided by data link, which would incur latency errors. Still not a solved problem, in my view.
As for wildfires, they are known to leap from tree to tree, or for hot cinders to be blown by wind to outlying targets that catch fire (remember that Maui was windy at the time). No oddity for anyone familiar with wildfires. Just a deadly feature of their behavior. As for sidelobes, that is a stretch, since there is no evidence for a main lobe, and the transmitter positional errors and timing errors would produce a rapidly shifting sidelobe pattern. (This is what we see as "twinkle" from a star; the effect of the star's interference pattern shifting around with the effect of atmospheric refractive turbulence.)
Did your tires burn? Were the rims aluminum or steel? And how would that refute the fact that aluminum rims were melted in the California and Tennesse wildfires? Ignorance is no proof of hypothesis. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it didn't happen elsewhere---for which there is evidence. This is the logic of "I wasn't stung by a bee...therefore bees don't sting."
You would only need topography if you were shooting blind and open-loop. How do you get your target location...down to the fraction of a meter? This is not the method for a directed energy weapon, which requires target sensing and feedback during the shot. The scenario is magical, because all wheels were melted---which would require at least two separate---and opposing---lines of sight to the target. The target aiming spots (two on each side) would had to have been each about a meter in diameter (no melting of the body). Explain to me the wavelength, aperture diameter, shot duration, time window of opportunity, and orbital altitude for this engagement scenario. It may seem "unreasonable," but everything about DEWs depends crucially on details. Getting any one of them wrong means the shot will not be possible. I did this for a living.
So, which were these satellites? Each one would have to be tracked and equipped as a GPS class satellite, be equipped with an array aperture meters in diameter, and a powerplant and heat rejection system to operate at megawatt levels or greater. Something like that would be conspicuous as hell to any nation that monitors our launches, and there would be comment and question. Crickets.
Those two cars were sitting in an empty dirt lot. What could have caused the wheels and exhaust manifold to melt? And ehats the melting point of automotive glass? The windshield melted in both vehicles
The gasoline in the automobile tanks catching fire and burning beneath the car, and also setting alight the rubber tires. The melting point of automotive glass is about the same as the melting point of the cast aluminum wheels, substantially below the flame temperature of gasoline and rubber.
Everything I've read has the wheels burning at 1200-1500 and glass at 2500.
Those two cars were abandoned and sitting there for a long time according to a few different videos I've seen made by loxals
Only certain kinds of glass melt at higher temperature (e.g., fused quartz), not auto glass. For one thing, the auto glass incorporates a transparent layer of plastic (anti-shatter) that would certainly melt. You should read a little more.
The burning temperatures of gasoline and rubber are in the high 2000s. More than enough to melt anything with a lower melting temperature. The videos also evidence the fact that all the upholstery was burned up, which also releases heat.
Look for wider examples. This same kind of thing was observed in the California "Camp Fire" wildfire and the Tennessee wildfires.