Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
seeder

Scientists Produce Densest Plasma Clouds

14 posts in this topic

NRL Scientists Produce Densest Artificial Ionospheric Plasma Clouds Using HAARP -

U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) research physicists and engineers from the Plasma Physics Division, working at the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) transmitter facility, Gakona, Alaska, successfully produced a sustained high density plasma cloud in Earth's upper atmosphere.

"Previous artificial plasma density clouds have lifetimes of only ten minutes or less," said Paul Bernhardt, Ph.D., NRL Space Use and Plasma Section. "This higher density plasma 'ball' was sustained over one hour by the HAARP transmissions and was extinguished only after termination of the HAARP radio beam."

http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2013/nrl-scientists-produce-densest-artificial-ionospheric-plasma-clouds-using-haarp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the bible says two thirds of the planet will burn and we ae working on an artifical sun in our atmosphere. I wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the bible says two thirds of the planet will burn and we ae working on an artifical sun in our atmosphere. I wonder.

It's not a sun.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a sun.

Now, now, badeskov. Why must you always let facts (the ``high density'' refers to a paltry 9 x 105 free electrons/cm3, and this plasma is very cold) interfere with wildly inaccurate interpretations of a headline?

Thats just not very fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, now, badeskov. Why must you always let facts (the ``high density'' refers to a paltry 9 x 105 free electrons/cm3, and this plasma is very cold) interfere with wildly inaccurate interpretations of a headline?

Thats just not very fun.

My sincere apologies - I don't know what hit me there.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a sun.

Cheers,

Badeskov

No but it is burning plasma which is found on stars and lightening. Since it is round I could it a star.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No but it is burning plasma which is found on stars and lightening. Since it is round I could it a star.

Sure, in the same way the hot water heater in my basement is a ``nuclear warhead'' (they both have a metallic case, and they both release heat).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No but it is burning plasma which is found on stars and lightening. Since it is round I could it a star.

And could you please explain to me where on Earth you got that silly idea from? By all due respect, but you are making things up Daniel, from what seems to be a very uneducated position and an inability to understand not only what the article in question actually says. And from reading your posts in general you have no grasp of science whatsoever and physics in particular.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which silly idea are you talking about.

And, no it isn't like a water heater to a nuke plant. It is like a nuke plant to a star. Both use fission to produe heat. The star also iuses fission to produce heat.

As I said before we are playing with forces that could burn th earth. You don't like the use of star fine. It is a contolled plasma sphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And, no it isn't like a water heater to a nuke plant. It is like a nuke plant to a star. Both use fission to produe heat. The star also iuses fission to produce heat.

Stars generate energy via nuclear fusion and nuke plants generate energy via nuclear fission. Edited by JesseCuster
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Which silly idea are you talking about.

That it is a burning plasma. A burning plasma is a plasma that is hot enough to sustain a fusion reaction without the addition of external energy. That this is not a burning plasma is glaringly obvious for those that has actually read and understood even just a fraction of said article. It is ok to ask questions and/or try and google a little bit.

And, no it isn't like a water heater to a nuke plant.

Yes, it is. This has about as much to do with a burning plasma as a regular water heater has to do with a nuke.

It is like a nuke plant to a star. Both use fission to produe heat. The star also iuses fission to produce heat.

Jesse beat me to this one. But that you even state the above is mind boggling - your ignorance seems to have no limits. I learned that in high school and earlier.

As I said before we are playing with forces that could burn th earth. You don't like the use of star fine. It is a contolled plasma sphere.

So we shouldn't use fluorescent lights either as they are using controlled plasma? In fact, there is plasma a lot of places. When you see lightening, plasma is generated and I daresay that energy release is many times stronger than what HAARP could ever hope to generate.

Your statement is simply utter nonsense and I must say I am surprised by your willingness to blatantly parade your apparently rather well nurtured ignorance. You are indeed making an effort.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which silly idea are you talking about.

My analogy is apt, because I understand the processes and scales involved.

The energy/matter density in my water heater is many orders of magnitude below that involved in a nuclear explosion.

However the ion density and temperature in the plasma created by HAARP is probably even further removed from that in a star.

As I said before we are playing with forces that could burn th earth. You don't like the use of star fine. It is a contolled plasma sphere.

Like badeskov pointed out, plasma is fairly ubiquitous.

You read the word plasma and thought ``stars have plasma, this must be like a star''. I assume you did this because you don't really understand what a plasma is.

Then I wrote that my water heater was like a nuclear warhead, but you dismissed this because you do understand about heat.

What you never bothered to consider was how my analogy could be connected to the topic at hand.

What worries me about you is that you seem to confuse trivia with understanding, which would explain why your posts have so many non-sequiturs.

Like this one:

It is like a nuke plant to a star. Both use fission to produe heat. The star also iuses fission to produce heat.

Ignoring, for the moment, that stars use fusion to produce heat, plasma doesn't involve either fission or fusion, so how is that comment relevant to anything?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So they've succeeded in forming a ball of plasma in the upper atmosphere where previous efforts, notably by scientists in Japan, have been much smaller in ground based labs. Just how big are these 'lightning balls'? The article describes use of a 3.6 megaWatt source at 1.44MHz. That is a wavelenth of about 200 metres, so to make a focussed beam must involve a huge antenna system. For the plasma 'mirror' to be useful as a radar reflector at such an altitude presumably means it must be quite large and holding a stable position. Fascinating. Wonder what happens if a plane, bird, hot air balloon, etc., etc. happens to fly through the beam ... HARRP have all the conspiracy theorists reaching for their foil hats ... do they publish more about their experiments anywhere, or does it come under limited disclosure?

---

By the way, what's all this ludicrous tommy-rot above about stars and central heating boilers? It's all about as relevant as a fart in a wind tunnel.

Edited by SewerRat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they've succeeded in forming a ball of plasma in the upper atmosphere where previous efforts, notably by scientists in Japan, have been much smaller in ground based labs. Just how big are these 'lightning balls'? The article describes use of a 3.6 megaWatt source at 1.44MHz. That is a wavelenth of about 200 metres, so to make a focussed beam must involve a huge antenna system.

The HAARP antenna system covers an area of 33 acres.

I don't have any experience with HAARP, but a few of my friends study the ionosphere/magnetosphere with similar types of radar arrays (these are passive sensing, though), and from what I know of their equipment I think HAARP is unable to achieve much lateral focus in its beam, so I imagine the ``spot size'' is similar to the source size.

Incidentally, I don't think HAARP formed the plasma, I think HAARP collected the plasma. The free electron plasma already exists at that altitude, I think that by tuning the radiation to be resonant with the rotation of these electrons around Earth's natural magnetic field lines HAARP was able to ``gather'' them up into this ball.

Fascinating. Wonder what happens if a plane, bird, hot air balloon, etc., etc. happens to fly through the beam ...

It would be very bad news for the plane/bird/hot air balloon... because this occurred 170 km above the surface of the Earth.

Note that by the our standards (of ambient pressures, temperatures, etc.) this plasma was incredibly diffuse and very cold. It only seems hot and dense compared to the background pressures/temperatures of the regular atmosphere at 170 km altitudes.

HARRP have all the conspiracy theorists reaching for their foil hats ... do they publish more about their experiments anywhere, or does it come under limited disclosure?

HAARP's research is published.

I could find only one preprint available on the arxiv, but I topical journals like Geophysical Research Letters seem to have quite a few articles (just search ``HAARP'')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.