Well,
Apparently the HAARP boys don't know how to put the "fire to the wire..." If
they knew what they were doing, they'd put up a Buttered Cat Array.
See if you follow this...
SOME SCIENCE
Fact #1.
When a cat is dropped, it always lands on its feet.
Fact #2.
And when toast is dropped, it always lands with the buttered side facing down.
Therefore, if you strap buttered toast to the back of a cat; the two will
hover, spinning inches above the ground. With a giant Buttered Cat Array, a
high-speed monorail could easily link New York with Chicago.
PHYSICS RATIONALE
Even if you are too lazy to do the experiment yourself you should be able to
deduce the obvious result. The laws of butterology demands that butter must hit
the ground, and the equally strict laws of feline aerodynamics demand that a
cat cannot land upon its back. If the combined construct were to land, (which
is impossible) nature would have no way to resolve this paradox. Therefore it
simply does not fall.
PROOF
When you put the "fire to wire," you will observe more dB than the amount of
power would dictate.
-SC
>
> From: Ian White G3SEK <G3SEK@ifwtech.co.uk>
> Date: 2005/02/07 Mon PM 12:14:55 EST
> To: amps@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [Amps] 10dB and propagation
>
> Yuri wrote:
> >>A non-linear medium would have to mean that your signal was directly
> >> affecting the ionization density or the refractive index of the
> >> troposphere. As I already said, that's wishful thinking at amateur
> >> power levels.
> >
> >
> >OK, do some calculating:
> >During the contest, like CQ WW you would have on average about 600 stations
> >CQing their heads off with 1.5 kW into about 10 dB antennas. Some running
> >"plywood boxes" so err on the plus side. What do we get? Wishfull thinking?
>
> Yes, wishful thinking still. Just try to put in some numbers.
>
> The only information I've been able to find easily about non-linearity
> in ionized media, where they have done the work in a lab under controled
> conditions, refers to non-linearity observed at RF power input levels of
> "less than milliwatts per cm3."
>
> Now if they had really meant that non-linearity was observed at power
> levels of only microwatts/cm3, they would surely have said so (because
> that would have been a much more interesting result); so it's pretty
> safe to take that statement of "mW" at face value. In handier units, 1
> milliwatt per cm3 is one kilowatt per litre.
>
> You, individually, have only 1.5kW of RF power available, which would
> only be enough power to drive a few litres of ionized gas into
> non-linearity, if you had it right there in a jar. But you are trying to
> zap a refraction volume that must total billions to trillions of litres,
> at a distance of hundreds to thousands of kilometres, so it's the
> Inverse Square Law that gets you.
>
> Also, nobody else is heating up the ionosphere for you during CQWW. Even
> if you were using a refraction point right over Kilowatt Alley, all
> those QRO users have invested large amounts in achieving low-angle
> radiation themselves. That means they are in the same situation as your
> - contributing trivial amounts of energy to the ionosphere a long, long
> way away.
>
> (I also feel extremely suspicious about the "Luxembourg effect", the
> claimed cross-modulation of the ionosphere by super-power BC stations.
> The first and most obvious question is: how much of the reported
> cross-mod effects are actually occurring in receiver front-ends?)
>
>
> --
> 73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
> http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|