Very grim debating an encyclopedia. But you omit one terribly important fact about melting metals: if the flame temperature is not higher than the melting point, the metal simply will not melt. If it is higher, then it is a matter of the heat input being larger than the heat rejection.
But, if something is immersed in an environment at a certain temperature, and the temperature is being replenished by exothermic reactions, it will melt. You arm wave about thermal conduction, but iron is not that good a thermal conductor. I have a nice cast iron fireplace insert (stove) in which we get wood fire hot enough that the coals glow red-orange, and the stove is not something you want to touch, but it is far, far away from anything like melting (it, too, will glow slightly red in the darkness). To the extent that the ground is rock, it is a terrible conductor. But if the tire rubber is also on fire, and there is an ambient gasoline fire, all the aluminum wheels can do is sit there and reach melting point.
Aluminum wheels are now popular. Formerly, they were steel, with a higher melting point. And the nature of fires has changed. Now we get lithium battery fires, that are more ferocious than gasoline fires.
The solar power system designs were INTENDED to be safe and therefore had reduced power intensity at arrival. This went well with the required large receiver antenna size, from the standpoint of optics. The output of a satellite was supposed to have been a gigawatt, so there was plenty of power to do damage (enough that such a system would probably need an international treaty to operate, in order to prevent its use as an anti-satellite weapon). But to make that power concentrate enough to get to the melting point of aluminum (about 4 watts/cm2 if I recall correctly) would take an enormous projection aperture.
So, you are talking about building a multi-tens of $ billions satellite, in impossible secrecy (too damn visible), to accomplish the destruction of an automobile? The point is, if the objective is to start a forest fire, Zippo lighters and a crew of accomplices are simpler and cheaper---and whether cars get burnt up is NOT IMPORTANT.
Look, if you want to point to an example, look to YAL-1A. Easily capable of maybe 100 w/cm2 on target. Demonstrated to do the job against boosting targets. But it filled up an entire 747 with equipment and reactants, required lots of care and feeding---and was scrapped by Obama in 2014. End of story. Not necessary to lecture me with arm-waving when I worked on the Real Deal. This program had classified elements, but the program was NOT SECRET. So your all-availing excuse for the lack of evidence---that the culprit was "secret"---is just more bloviating by someone who thinks he knows more than he does.
The stuff that government keeps under wraps...is kept under wraps. It wouldn't be used to do juvenile stuff like start forest fires. I have been in very classified activities and can testify to that. In any case, you can't say that something exists when there is no evidence. Saying the evidence is "secret" is laughable. It just reveals you to be a fantasist.
I don't often use "fact checkers," as I distrust them as a class. But when somebody seems to have done his research and the answers are credible, then they have to be admitted. I make no apology for bringing facts into any discussion---nor should you expect me to apologize. I am, frankly, exasperated at the ignorance and illogical thinking that is accepted in these environs. You don't realize how totally that ruins your credibility to any outside observers.
I know. You are among the types who believe whatever they say is divine revelation and reference to facts is just an insulting distraction. Prove Wikipedia wrong, if you think you know better. Just because some topics in Wikipedia are unreliable does not mean that the entire corpus is unreliable. Where does an "anon" get the confirmation that everything in Wikipedia is a lie? You are just resting on a favorite fantasy.
Just look at yourself. If you were the one who accused Nikki Haley of lying about her name, that is libel, since she did not do any such thing. When the facts are brought to your attention, you do not say "mea culpa" and admit to the facts---you double down with an outraged response that someone caught you up in your own mental sloppiness.
And generally, I find that this is hard to avoid around this site. Lots of mental sloppiness, and I have no problem calling it out. The sloppy minds have BIG problems hearing it and taking it to heart. You included.
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.
But first admit that you are libeling her about lying. She goes by her middle name, Nikki, which is Punjabi, since she was a child. She married a man named Michael Haley and goes by his surname. And what did that cost me to find out? Less than a minute on Wikipedia.
What do you call a research-less anon?
Here's a report on the subject. I am taking it at face value. You get to prove it is all a lie (if you can). Denunciations, imaginations, and changing the topic are not elements of proof. (I pointed this out in a post a few days ago, but I suppose the down-voting was overwhelming.) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/maui-theory-about-blue-objects-being-saved-from-wildfires-is-baseless/ar-AA1fG2MX
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.
You are speaking nonsense. What was available to burn didn't walk away. If the tires burned, the wheels were right there. You know it takes only a propane torch to melt aluminum---and it doesn't kill the person holding the torch. It was commonly done in my junior high school metalshop class. The only thermal sinking that went on was when the molten aluminum dribbled away from the fire and congealed on the ground. I think you are speaking beyond the realm of practical experience.
I know all about space-based solar energy transmission, since it was first proposed in the late 1970s, looking over the shoulder of Boeing's design work on giant solar panel arrays in orbit. I knew John J. Olson, the engineer who produced some splendid artwork on the subject. There are no such things presently. Moreover, their approach was to use microwave beams (not effective against metal) and at intensities a tenth that of sunlight. The designs had the satellites placed at geostationary orbit altitude and they were BIG, with dimensions in kilometers. Nothing like that exists, and we really don't know if they can be built (aspirations notwithstanding). All the current attempts at "proving" the concept involve satellites in low Earth orbit, where they indeed will "zip along rather rapidly." I've analyzed one proposed system, and it fell apart once the orbital and optical physics were accounted for. It also turns out that there is a very adverse relationship between the diameter of the satellite power aperture and the ground-based receiver aperture. They must both be big...and this has nothing to do with the amount of power being projected, so even a small-powered experiment will have an uphill test. Yeah, I would say understanding the operating theory and having analyzed proposed system examples constitutes "investigation" beyond what your quick scan provided. You flunk your rebuttal. It helps to actually know what is being talked about.
The cars already have gasoline in them. Bathe them in a flame (as driven by the winds) and it is credible to suppose that the gas tank would pop a seam, and leak fuel and vapor. The rest would be history. Then the tires would light off. They are not that difficult to set on fire, e.g., the terrible practice of "necklacing" in South Africa.
What is so incredible about arsonists blending into the population? Are they wearing caps with "Arsonist" printed on them? If there were arsonists, they would have known first (of any) about the fire and the right direction to flee.
Maybe that's a lesson not to shortcut research. I found the data on the internet also, but knew what I was looking for and where to look. The technical areas of Wikipedia are pretty trustworthy.
And why would you do that? There is no evidence for their existence. No orbit. No operational theory. You do realize that satellites zip along rather rapidly and would only be in view for a few minutes? The facts add up if you admit the behavior of flash fires in high winds.
I might mention that lasers do not project microwave radiation. You really don't know what you are talking about.
This is the car that was burned by its own gasoline and rubber tires. Aluminum and glass have melting points lower than the flame temperatures. If local winds were driving flames up the adjacent slope, they would envelop the car without even touching the grass. Ignition would be prompt.
I see a lot of people being astounded by the behavior of fire, which only shows how little they know about it.
You are fudging your numbers. The ideal adiabatic flame temperature for wood is 3,596 F. For gasoline (in the car) it would be 3,880 F. Only fused quartz comes close to the temperature you cite. The more common forms of glass (e.g., auto glass) have a high melting point closer to 1,100 F. The car burned itself up.
Spreading is not a problem. Winds would do that easily. It is the bane of wild fires. Arsonists should be the first alternative. We know they have been in previous incidents.
Interesting news, but a very sketchy account. Some of it not even grammatical. Time to wait and see.
At least you don't say I'm wrong.
This is where the back-pedaling begins. Some red things didn't burn. Some blue things did burn. Color meant nothing. Clearing brush and wetting down works wonders. Living in the other 99% of the island was the best option.
You are very credulous. The only lasers on planes in that video were cartoons. Their only comments about airborne applications were in the future tense. The piece of podded hardware was, in all likelihood, a targeting laser pod for missiles homing on a laser-designated target (paint the target and home on the signal).
If you saw Google images of the YAL-1A Airborne Laser, realize that it is now scattered into parts. The program was canceled and the system was scrapped. You have this idea that "the pubic is decades behind what has already been built," but I doubt you can back that up with any evidence. The Corona and successor programs might be the only example. The Airborne Laser was known from the beginning.
It's not a matter of me "thinking" anything about 50 years ago versus now. I was there. I was working in the field. They were experimenting 50 years ago and it has taken this much time to get where we are. The fundamental technology has gone through about 5 generations by now.
The China system blinds sensors. That takes a far lower power level than a hard kill. A satellite couldn't afford to mount such a system (weight and power) and it wouldn't have any thermal weapon effects on other objects.
Elon spends that much money for internet access. It's not just him, either. Everybody wants in on the action. Lots of plans for huge constellations. Your flight of fancy ("no one spends that kind of money...") is refuted by the facts.
Nothing is being "leaked" to the public. Such DEWs as we have are out in the open. But you have to be attentive and quick to pick up on what is going on. No "slow and obvious"---it is all fast and obvious.
False myth. Blue things did burn.
First hand knowledge of laser weapons? I don't think so. Or they would have displayed some. All that has happened is that ignorant people have done a quick internet search and found things they think support their case. But there is still no evidence. Only imagination.
The video is evidence of sheer ignorance. It is very clear that the automobile burned up by itself, from the gasoline and rubber in the tires. The ideal adiabatic flame temperature of gasoline is 3,888 F (in practice at least 2500 F); rubber is also a hydrocarbon and should be similar. The melting point of aluminum is 1220 F. The transition temperature of Pyrex glass is ~997 F (where it begins to slump). It is even possible that the vapor from the molten aluminum was burning (flame temp of 6,750 F). I got about 6 minutes into the video, but that was the substance of what they had to say, and the rest was oohing and aahing over the miracle in front of them. You must not have bothered to check any of this information.
Things add up. You just don't know how to do the math.
Additionally...
- The battery charge is a function of ambient temperature. When the temperature goes down, so does the available charge. A race to the bottom in bad weather.
- The absence of a hardcopy manual may be an indication that they don't know how to write one. (See cell phones.)
- If the battery decides to catch on fire, the vehicle and anything within about 10 feet will become a total loss. Think about that when you park your car for the night. (Powered by thermite.)
How would you possibly confirm "space lasers"? Nobody has been working on them since the 1980s, when it turned out they were enormous and had a shelf life. Or did you mean something else?
I would go so far as to say that only part two is meaningful; skip part one. Nothing more gay (shall I say it?) than empty threats. Mow them down, trample them, and continue on without looking back.
Taken another way, that's a very uncomfortable image...
Prove it wrong. Where are you going to get your information from? Or do you prefer to live an information-free life, where favorite fancies are endangered by inconvenient truths? Your reaction is nearly textbook paranoid delusion. Imagination is not reality. You need to ponder that.