H.A.A.R.P. and earths magnetosphere

  1. For those who don't know what H.A.A.R.P. is, here is a description of some of it's capabilities.

    "United States Patent 4,686,605
    Eastlund August 11, 1987
    Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere .......

    "Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns or altering solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device. Also as alluded to earlier, molecular modifications of the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be achieved. Besides actually changing the molecular composition of an atmospheric region, a particular molecule or molecules can be chosen for increased presence. For example, ozone, nitrogen, etc. concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased. Similarly, environmental enhancement could be achieved by causing the breakup of various chemical entities such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, and the like....

    This invention has a phenomenal variety of possible ramifications and potential future developments. As alluded to earlier, missile or aircraft destruction, deflection, or confusion could result, particularly when relativistic particles are employed. Also, large regions of the atmosphere could be lifted to an unexpectedly high altitude so that missiles encounter unexpected and unplanned drag forces with resultant destruction or deflection of same. Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns or altering solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device. Also as alluded to earlier, molecular modifications of the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be achieved. Besides actually changing the molecular composition of an atmospheric region, a particular molecule or molecules can be chosen for increased presence. For example, ozone, nitrogen, etc. concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased. Similarly, environmental enhancement could be achieved by causing the breakup of various chemical entities such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, and the like. Transportation of entities can also be realized when advantage is taken of the drag effects caused by regions of the atmosphere moving up along diverging field lines. Small micron sized particles can be then transported, and, under certain circumstances and with the availability of sufficient energy, larger particles or objects could be similarly affected. Particles with desired characteristics such as tackiness, reflectivity, absorptivity, etc., can be transported for specific purposes or effects. For example, a plume of tacky particles could be established to increase the drag on a missile or satellite passing therethrough. Even plumes of plasma having substantially less charged particle density than described above will produce drag effects on missiles which will affect a lightweight (dummy) missile in a manner substantially different than a heavy (live) missile and this affect can be used to distinguish between the two types of missiles. A moving plume could also serve as a means for supplying a space station or for focusing vast amount of sunlight on selected portions of the earth. Surveys of global scope could also be realized because the earth's natural magnetic field could be significantly altered in a controlled manner by plasma beta effects resulting in, for example, improved magnetotelluric surveys. Electromagnetic pulse defenses are also possible. The earth's magnetic field could be decreased or disrupted at appropriate altitudes to modify or eliminate the magnetic field in high Compton electron generation (e.g., from high altitude nuclear bursts) regions. High intensity, well controlled electrical fields can be provided in selected locations for various purposes. For example, the plasma sheath surrounding a missile or satellite could be used as a trigger for activating such a high intensity field to destroy the missile or satellite. Further, irregularities can be created in the ionosphere which will interfere with the normal operation of various types of radar, e.g., synthetic aperture radar. The present invention can also be used to create artificial belts of trapped particles which in turn can be studied to determine the stability of such parties. Still further, plumes in accordance with the present invention can be formed to simulate and/or perform the same functions as performed by the detonation of a "heave" type nuclear device without actually having to detonate such a device. Thus it can be seen that the ramifications are numerous, far-reaching, and exceedingly varied in usefulness."

    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...4,686,605.PN.&OS=PN/4,686,605&RS=PN/4,686,605

    But anyways, my question is other than the military capability of H.A.A.R.P., what can it actually achieve at what magnitudes when it comes to weather and atmospheric manipulation. Secondly, I am wondering to what degree the magnetosphere and the ionosphere can be altered, and what the effects might be.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2009
  2. jcsd
    Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  3. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,529
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Here is what they really do at H.A.A.R.P.

    http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/gen.html
     
  4. I don't doubt that they do all of that. I actually don't care much specifically what they"re doing, I am more interested in the capabilities of the invention as claimed in the patent. Maybe I should haven't said H.A.A.R.P. I would prefer to focus on the technology and how it can be used. The patent claims possible avenues in breaking down C02 and c03, manipulating the magnetosphere and ionosphere, affecting wind patterns etc. If anyone wants to dispute the claims of the patent, or give some insight into the magnitude.

    For example, I could have a camp fire, and the result would be a change in the composition of the air, temp, and flow, but on what scale? In the patent, the author uses words like significant, which I don't know how interpret. Significant compared to what?
     
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program


     
  6. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    So are you interested in HAARP or are you interested in that patent? They don't have anything to do with each other... In particular, what evidence do you have for this claim of yours:
    Next:
    The USPTO endeavours to filter out crackpottery, but by their nature, patents don't automatically require real inventions, just unique ideas. This is one that slipped through the cracks. Based on a quick read, it looks like it slipped through the cracks because the patent reviewers are government employees and may be easy to intimidate. It looks like gibberish to me and a person who is easy to intimidate might see gibberish and think that it really is science that is beyond him.
    Exactly.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2009
  7. "Thus, this invention provides the ability to put unprecedented amounts of power in the earth's atmosphere at strategic locations and to maintain the power injection level, particularly if random pulsing is employed, in a manner far more precise and better controlled than heretofore accomplished by the prior art, particularly by the detonation of nuclear devices of various yeilds at various altitudes. Where the prior art approaches yielded merely transitory effects, the unique combination of fuel and desirable field lines at the point where the fuel occurs allows the establishment of, compared to prior art approaches, precisely controlled and long-lasting effects which cannot, practically speaking, simply be waited out. Further, by knowing the frequencies of the various electromagnetic beams employed in the practice of this invention, it is possible not only to interfere with third party communications but to take advantage of one or more such beams to carry out a communications network even though the rest of the world's communications are disrupted. Put another way, what is used to disrupt another's communications can be employed by one knowledgeable of this invention as a communications network at the same time. "

    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...4,686,605.PN.&OS=PN/4,686,605&RS=PN/4,686,605

    Does this ability to direct the energy strategically through the worlds atmosphere also mean that the invention is capable of the effects mentioned earlier (concentrating certain molecules, braking certain molecules down, affecting wind patterns etc) could be caused anywhere on earth? Or would the power be diminished to a level only suitable to scramble communications? For example, if you wanted to clean up some of the pollution above a certain city for an even like say the world series?
     
  8. As I understand it, it was one of the inventions that led to the H.A.A.R.P., and the invention is the very technology used by H.A.A.R.P. to carry out their research. I already stated I shouldn't have said H.A.A.R.P. if I would rather discuss the technology only. I don't see how in any way this patent is crackpotery. using terms like significant don't imply crackpot. They probably mean significant as in enough to fulfill a purpose as opposed to a useless amount.

    "Bernard J. Eastlund (1938 – December 12, 2007) was a physicist who received his B.S. in physics from MIT and a his Ph.D. in physics from Columbia University. He received a Special Achievement Certificate from the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission in 1970 for co-invention of the "Fusion Torch."
    Eastlund was the founder of Eastlund Scientific Enterprises Corporation (ESEC), a small company in Houston, Texas that provided scientific, engineering and technical services.
    His hobby was astrophysics. Recently he has co-authored two papers regarding pulsars in the Astrophysical Journal and has presented a paper on Gamma Bursters.
    In addition, Eastlund is one of the patent holders (US Patent #4,686,605) that led to the development of the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program HAARP..."

    I don't want to get into the issue of what H.A.A.R.P. is doing because there is so much B.S. But the guy who invented the apparatus isn't a crackpot.
     
  9. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    What leads you to this "understading"?
    That word implies the imprecise, which only vaguely implies crackpottery. That's tough to detect. What implies crackpottery strongyly is the gibberish that completely fills the claims.
     
  10. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,529
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Also, keep in mind that nowhere do we state that patent claims count as legitimate scientific references. Has any of this information been published in an applicable, mainstream academic journal?

    The real killer I'm sure would be the power requirements. When we are talking about manipulating things like the weather, we are talking about vast amounts of power due to the volume of space and the mass of gases involved. Not only does the inverse square law kill you, but also the energy absorbtion.
     
  11. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    Have a read of the wiki on Eastlund: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Eastlund

    Of particular importance is this:
    So basically, they are saying that he had some interesting ideas that didn't work and were not applied to HAARP. But he got a patent because they were interesting ideas.
     
  12. I guess I missed that little part. My bad. This is why I brought the discussion to PF. To me it does all sound like gibberish, but that is to be expected.

    But I did note that APTI, inc. who holds the patent was contracted to build H.A.A.R.P., so you can see how this can be confusing.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2009
  13. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    He didn't invent the apparatus, but regardless, just because he went to MIT, doesn't automatically mean he isn't a crackpot.
     
  14. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    Fom the HAARP website:
    Clearly, you didn't pull this question of yours out of thin air. I ask again: where did these questions you are asking come from? What website that you surfed to turned you on to that patent?
     
  15. I was looking up Tesla, and magnifying transmitters. I clicked on a few youtube links of Tesla coils, and on the right side where there are similar videos was something about H.A.A.R.P., and death-rays or something like that. I don't buy the death ray thing, but I thought H.A.A.R.P. was an interesting subject wondered why you don't hear about it in the news and stuff. Looked it up on Google, and a site came up which linked to the USOP. I don't remember the site, but I admit having to filter out lots of bogus stuff.
     
  16. He certainly has a highly distinguished career as a physicist. For me, the only evidence suggesting he is a crackpot is an opinion of a stranger. I will take your advice into consideration, because I know that you are vastly more qualified than me, but I have to find things out for myself to believe them, and if I accepted your opinion as fact without proper justification on my part, I would be no better than the people with tinfoil hats meditating under makeshift pyramids.
     
  17. Just comparing power levels between HAARP and natural solar radiation is misleading.

    Solar radiation is broad spectrum and not focused in one spot. HAARP radiation is narrow band and focused one one location.

    The ionosphere is electrically non-linear which means it can act as a mixer. HAARP can transmit two HF frequencies a few hertz apart and then the ionosphere can play mixer creating a sum and a difference, the difference being a VLF signal.

    The VLF signal may then interact with natural resonances resulting in effects much greater than ratio of power of the sun to that of HAARP would indicate.

    Even 50HZ and 60HZ power line radiation affects the ionosphere as most whistlers seem to start at a harmonic of these frequencies.

    It's rather like comparing the energy from a 100-watt lightbulb to a 100 watt focused beam
    from a CO2 laser.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Similar discussions for: H.A.A.R.P. and earths magnetosphere
Loading...