100,
000,000,000. I00 gigawatt and HAARP was at its inception working 3.6 - 5.1 Gigawatt
Instant free online tool for gigawatt to watt conversion or vice versa. The gigawatt [GW] to watt [W] conversion table and conversion steps are also listed. Also, explore tools to convert gigawatt or watt to other power units or learn more about power conversions.
www.unitconverters.net
The ionosphere provides a relatively quiescent plasma target, stable on timescales of minutes, for a whole host of active plasma experiments. The largest HF transmitter built to date is the HAARP phased-array HF transmitter near Gakona, Alaska which can deliver up to
3.6 Gigawatts (ERP) of CW RF power in the range of 2.8 - 10 MHz
to the ionosphere with millisecond pointing, power modulation, and frequency agility.
...TO THE IONOSPHERE
I think we may be talking past each other a bit and I'll take responsibility for that. What you need to show us is that this statement is false:
"HAARP has no impact on the troposphere or stratosphere where planes fly and weather occurs."
The difference between the 3.6 MW of actual power and the 5 GW of ERP is due to the beamforming.
This video shows beamforming from the receiving end so you'll have to flip in in your head. But notice that he keeps saying assuming that the source is "far enough away". Why?
Now my understanding is this, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but because we're talking about an array of transmitters, they have to combine their signals. So the question is where does that combination/intersection happen? Because radio signals spread out (and lose strength as they do) The further away you are, the more of these signals you can collect. Conversely the closer you get to the transmitters the more you will get stronger signals from some of them but less from others.
If it helps, one of these articles I read said to imagine it with flashlights. If a bunch of people are standing in a line aiming their flash light at a small section of trees, the further they are spread apart, the more the people on the farthest wings would have to angle their beams. But as you move towards the line of people, unless they re-adjust their angles, the closer you get the more you will be in the path of a smaller number of those beams. The further apart they are spread would dictate how quickly this would happen. And so at the closest distance, standing right in front of one of the people, only that flash light will hit you and the others will miss.
Do you see?
This is why distance is incredibly important. Depending on the distance between transmitters (and you see HAARP has verticle transmitters not dishes) the energy you're getting hit with is not the same. So if the array is spread apart so that the signals from all 180 antennas are able to hit the same target, then it means that the distance between the antennas is relatively tied to the distance at which the entire system is designed to be effective. Otherwise, if distance isn't a factor, then why not have towers in different states or cities? Why not have 1 super tower? Isn't the point of the array to help increase the signal strength? And to do so they have to be somewhat close together. But at the same time they need to be pointed in the direction you want them to go. And because there isn't a receiver in the ionosphere that can calculate the distance between reception points and combine them... that has to be a product of the process kind of working in reverse. The system on the ground has to understand the distance between transmitters and send out a beam that takes that difference into account. Right?
If you agree then that means that the closer (to the ground) you get (because those antennas are not turning towards you) the more the effect of the array system at long range is lost. So this, I believe, is the reason why "HAARP has no impact on the troposhere or stratosphere".
Now, this is a very fictional depiction of "the beam". Can you see what's wrong with it?
Do you see how the beam is coming from the middle of the array just as intense from just above the array (0 distance) as it goes up?
What radio signals you know that behave this way? It's impossible.
Why? Energy is not water, but even if it was, water would spill in all directions as it collided, going upward until it didn't have enough velocity vs its own weight being pulled down by gravity.
The image depicts a ridiculous pattern because they need you to believe science doesn't matter and this is a magical death ray.
But if you come at it scientifically, you know the curved shape of vibration. And you know it spreads as it moves. Photons do the same thing which is why every light source is not a laser beam. So using what I'm positively sure you know about energy and vibration, you have to see the flaw in this image. And if you can see the multiple flaws you can see that the closer to the ground you get the less of a "beam" it is. Understanding that is the key to understanding beamforming and the reason for it being an array. It is also the key to the distance between antennas and relationship between that distance and the distance the array is able to target. Because signals would naturally lose power/strength the farther they have to travel but more energy (where it crosses) means more power. So the distance has to be known and factored into the equation. You cannot do beamforming without knowing the distance between the target and source. Correct?
37 miles. Lower than that and we're not in the ionosphere. So if the system is designed to be effective in the ionosphere then it's not set up to be effective at shorter distances (above Alaska).
The mistake you are making is that you think we know all there is to know about energy generation and the only way possible to accomplish weather manipulation or earthquake generation....as shown before even Einstein made that mistake with regard to the possibility of the A Bomb.
Again... HAARP is transmitting energy from diesel generators, not producing magical energy from the ionosphere.
Really how you know that?
Because conspiracy theorists wouldn't be the only ones talking about it. It would be treated like other WMDs. And BTW, Russia has one too. Why is no one talking about this facility?
en.wikipedia.org
The TCM doctors took a step back and said look whole body connected.
Fair comparison. If I'm being honest, I don't know how much I believe in those connections, having had it done several times. Every part of us is linked by our nervous system. But whatever. It's kind of like Qi in that ancient medicine only had the benefit of observing cause and effect. So what they may deem Qi and what they think is connected to what may be things we don't all agree on.
Based on the Above I say the whole earth and its various spheres are all connected.
Yes, they are but there are different ecosystems. Part of the planet is very cold. Part of it is hot. We generally know where these places are and it has to do with how much solar radiation is getting through. The poles, are further away from the sun while the equator is the shortest distance. Because light loses power over distance it loses its ability to penetrate and heat. So if you've ever gone scuba diving you can feel the difference between shallow and deep water. Over the course of 93 MILLION miles the difference of 37-190 miles seems of little consequence. However... this area of atmosphere is getting hit with a lot of solar radiation. This is why it gets superhot because there's not much getting in the way. But as the energy from the sun penetrates deeper it has to filter through more elements. H20 is IMO more like a heavier type of air which is why fish can breathe the oxygen from it. But penetrating through layers of H2O is enough to completely dissipate the light and energy of the sun just by going down far enough. So if you think about it this way, even though the whole earth is connected, the biomes and ecosystems we experience can be vastly different based on how much energy of the sun is able to penetrate. So yes, you could artificially heat up small sections of the ionosphere but what would that really do when it's already receiving much more energy/heat from the sun? There's a reason why solar flares don't kills us.
I do not think Tesla called it a weapon....but people in the military saw its military application.
But I think that is the point. Tesla was the leading expert on wireless energy at the time and he wanted to show that his inventions were safe. He knew that if people thought tesla towers were going to cook them it would keep societies from adopting his technologies. That's why its important that we try not to fearmonger scientific or technological development unless there is a credible threat. For me, that's AI.