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 preceded lasers, according to a different physical implementation

"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.

Microwaves are not good at coupling with metal; they bounce off.

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.

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 preceded lasers, according to a different physical implementation

"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.

Microwaves are not good at coupling with metal; they bounce off.

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 entirely 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.

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 preceded lasers, according to a different physical implementation

"Masers" and "Lasers" are exactly the same. 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.

Microwaves are not good at coupling with metal; they bounce off.

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 entirely 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.

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 preceded lasers, according to a different physical implementation

They are exactly the same. 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.

Microwaves are not good at coupling with metal; they bounce off.

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 entirely 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.

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 preceded lasers, according to a different physical implementation

They are exactly the same. 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.

Assuming it is from a "different engineering" stance that you make your objection, to that I say, all lasers require different engineering principles. Lasers of all frequencies have different lasing mediums and different method of photon production for their respective frequencies, yet they are all called "lasers," regardless of frequency. Why? Because it's the stimulated emission of coherent light that is what makes a thing a laser, not its frequency.

Microwaves are not good at coupling with metal; they bounce off.

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 entirely 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.

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 wouldn't mind at all.

Masers preceded lasers, according to a different physical implementation

They are exactly the same. 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.

Assuming it is from a "different engineering" stance that you make your objection, to that I say, all lasers require different engineering principles. Lasers of all frequencies have different lasing mediums and different method of photon production for their respective frequencies, yet they are all called "lasers," regardless of frequency. Why? Because it's the stimulated emission of coherent light that is what makes a thing a laser, not its frequency.

Microwaves are not good at coupling with metal; they bounce off.

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 entirely 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.

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 wouldn't mind at all.

Masers preceded lasers, according to a different physical implementation

They are exactly the same. 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.

Assuming it is from a "different engineering" stance that you make your objection, to that I say, all lasers require different engineering principles. Lasers of all frequencies have different lasing mediums and different method of photon production for their respective frequencies, yet they are all called "lasers," regardless of frequency. Why? Because it's the stimulated emission of coherent light that is what makes a thing a laser, not its frequency.

Microwaves are not good at coupling with metal; they bounce off.

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 what you can do. 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 entirely 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.

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 wouldn't mind at all.

Masers preceded lasers, according to a different physical implementation

They are exactly the same. 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.

Assuming it is from a "different engineering" stance that you make your objection, to that I say, all lasers require different engineering principles. Lasers of all frequencies have different lasing mediums and different method of photon production for their respective frequencies, yet they are all called "lasers," regardless of frequency. Why? Because it's the stimulated emission of coherent light that is what makes a thing a laser, not its frequency.

Microwaves are not good at coupling with metal; they bounce off.

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). Who knows what you can do. 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 entirely 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.

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 wouldn't mind at all.

Masers preceded lasers, according to a different physical implementation

They are exactly the same. 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.

Assuming it is from a "different engineering" stance that you make your objection, to that I say, all lasers require different engineering principles. Lasers of all frequencies have different lasing mediums and different method of photon production for their respective frequencies, yet they are all called "lasers," regardless of frequency. Why? Because it's the stimulated emission of coherent light that is what makes a thing a laser, not its frequency.

Microwaves are not good at coupling with metal; they bounce off.

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). Who knows what you can do. 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 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 entirely 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.

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 wouldn't mind at all.

Masers preceded lasers, according to a different physical implementation

They are exactly the same. 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.

Assuming it is from a "different engineering" stance that you make your objection, to that I say, all lasers require different engineering principles. Lasers of all frequencies have different lasing mediums and different method of photon production for their respective frequencies, yet they are all called "lasers," regardless of frequency. Why? Because it's the stimulated emission of coherent light that is what makes a thing a laser, not its frequency.

Microwaves are not good at coupling with metal; they bounce off.

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 reflected 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). Who knows what you can do. 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 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 entirely 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.

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 wouldn't mind at all.

Masers preceded lasers, according to a different physical implementation

They are exactly the same. 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.

Assuming it is from a "different engineering" stance that you make your objection, to that I say, all lasers require different engineering principles. Lasers of all frequencies have different lasing mediums and different method of photon production for their respective frequencies, yet they are all called "lasers," regardless of frequency. Why? Because it's the stimulated emission of coherent light that is what makes a thing a laser, not its frequency.

Microwaves are not good at coupling with metal; they bounce off.

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 reflected 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). Who knows what you can do. 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 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 entirely 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.

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 wouldn't mind at all.

Masers preceded lasers, according to a different physical implementation

They are exactly the same. 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.

Assuming it is from a "different engineering" stance that you make your objection, to that I say, all lasers require different engineering principles. Lasers of all frequencies have different lasing mediums and different method of photon production for their respective frequencies, yet they are all called "lasers," regardless of frequency. Why? Because it's the stimulated emission of coherent light that is what makes a laser, not its frequency.

Microwaves are not good at coupling with metal; they bounce off.

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 reflected 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). Who knows what you can do. 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 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 entirely 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.

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 wouldn't mind at all.

Masers preceded lasers, according to a different physical implementation

They are exactly the same. 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.

Microwaves are not good at coupling with metal; they bounce off.

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 reflected 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). Who knows what you can do. 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 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 entirely 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.

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 wouldn't mind at all.

Masers preceded lasers, according to a different physical implementation

They are exactly the same. 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.

Microwaves are not good at coupling with metal; they bounce off.

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 reflected 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). Who knows what you can do. 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 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 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 entirely 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.

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 wouldn't mind at all.

Masers preceded lasers, according to a different physical implementation

They are exactly the same. 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.

Microwaves are not good at coupling with metal; they bounce off.

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 reflected 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). Who knows what you can do. 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 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 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 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 entirely 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.

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 wouldn't mind at all.

Masers preceded lasers, according to a different physical implementation

They are exactly the same. 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.

Microwaves are not good at coupling with metal; they bounce off.

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 reflected 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). Who knows what you can do. 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 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 is not in question.

It is a reasonable question to ask whether or not microwaves (in any form) can be used to melt aluminum wheels from 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 entirely 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.