Let's not drop it, NOAA does not know the difference between Energy and Power:
http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/dloc/topic3/lesson1/Section2/g.html Antenna Gain (G) Gain is a measure of the antenna's capability to focus outgoing energy into a beam. Energy is originally assumed to be radiated isotropically (i.e., equally in all spherical directions). That energy is then concentrated or focused into a narrow beam based on the shape of the antenna. The WSR-88D antenna is a parabolic reflector and has a gain of 35,481. Notice that Pr is directly related to the square of G which means that doubling the gain of the antenna would increase returned power by four times the original value. However, the WSR-88D antenna has a fixed diameter which makes G a constant. Similarly, the larger the antenna dish, the more returned *energy (power)**[WRONG, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME]* from targets can be collected which acts to *increase a radar's sensitivity* (or ability to detect distant and/or very small targets). A classic analogy used to describe power and energy is based on water towers. Water in the tower is energy and the flow of water out of the tower is power. Energy can be stored, like water. It can also flow. When energy flows, it can do work like moving stuff or lighting a house. The speed at which energy flows is called *power*.[Mike Tyson's Punch] The same amount of energy can be released at high power (which will occur quickly) or at low power (which will take more time). Also, in one nanosecond, electricity will flow 1 foot so I will still be cooked. On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 4:20 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > How about sticking your tongue into the 750,000 volt light socket for 1 > nanosecond instead? And if Mike Tyson's fist is stopped by some force in > 1 microsecond after it makes contact with your face, it will do little if > any damage. > > Lets drop this discussion. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, May 12, 2014 3:39 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Vector Potential Wave Radio > > David, > > Yes, you are still wrong. I understand pulse length, the 750,000 watt > peak pulse is only ON for ~1/1000 of each second. That still does not mean > you can average it over a second and say it is safe or "low power". If H is > 0 there is no pulse. > > Please stick your tongue in a 750,000 watt light bulb socket for 1/1000 > of a second and report back to me. Electromagnetic radiation travels 186 > miles in that amount of time. > > Mike Tyson still knocks you out. Or maybe it is more like the quickness > of Mohammad Ali. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqMXpziDJsM > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 3:18 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> What do you suppose the purpose of the H term is? It is referred to as >> pulse length in the equation. If I choose to make it zero, then the peak >> power is totally irrelevant. Do you still think I am wrong? >> >> Consider what happens if one were to double that term. The receive power >> would exactly double which to me suggests there is more of it to work >> with. And, the average transmitter power would double as well. Hard to >> argue against that. >> >> ChemE, it is better to use the average power in the first place instead >> of having to deal with the duty cycle each time. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Mon, May 12, 2014 3:05 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Vector Potential Wave Radio >> >> David, >> >> You are wrong. The NEXRAD weather radar is designed based upon PEAK >> (Pt) transmitted power, not average, else there would not be enough return >> signal strength to detect. Peak is 750,000 watts to 1,000,000 >> >> >> http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/dloc/topic3/lesson1/Section2/Section2-2.html >> >> The Probert-Jones (P-J) radar reflectivity equation will help to >> quantify the physical aspects of pulsed E-M energy and the associated >> limitations of target (e.g., precipitation) detection. The P-J equation is >> described below as >> [image: Equation 1. Probert-Jones Radar Equation. Click for Long >> Description.]<http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/dloc/topic3/lesson1/Equations/Equation1.html> >> >> Equation >> 1<http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/dloc/topic3/lesson1/Equations/Equation1.html> >> where: >> Pr<http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/dloc/topic3/lesson1/Section2/pr.html> >> = power returned to the radar from a target (watts) >> Pt<http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/dloc/topic3/lesson1/Section2/pt.html> = >> peak transmitted power (watts) >> G<http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/dloc/topic3/lesson1/Section2/g.html> = >> antenna gain [image: greek symbol >> theta]<http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/dloc/topic3/lesson1/Section2/theta.html> >> = >> angular beamwidth >> H<http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/dloc/topic3/lesson1/Section2/h.html> = >> pulse length [image: greek symbol >> pi]<http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/dloc/topic3/lesson1/Section2/pi.html> >> = pi (3.141592654) >> K<http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/dloc/topic3/lesson1/Section2/k.html> = >> physical constant (target character) >> L<http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/dloc/topic3/lesson1/Section2/l.html> = >> signal loss factors associated with attenuation and receiver detection >> Z<http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/dloc/topic3/lesson1/Section2/z.html> = >> target reflectivity [image: greek symbol >> lambda]<http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/dloc/topic3/lesson1/Section2/lambda.html> >> = >> transmitted energy wavelength >> R<http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/dloc/topic3/lesson1/Section2/r.html> = >> target range >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 2:52 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> ChemE, >>> >>> You can operate the radar at that power level in a continuous mode and >>> it does work. The pulse mode has several advantages since reception can >>> take place during the time that the transmitter stands by and offers no >>> interference. Check out the RADAR range equation and you will see that it >>> is based upon average power and not peak. This is because many pulses are >>> averaged together from a target to allow the noise to be reduced. >>> >>> Trust me, I know the difference between power and energy. I have >>> designed a number of transmitters in the past and been cooked by a few of >>> them! You are correct in assuming that I have not spent time researching >>> the subject that you are most interested in and therefore I can not comment >>> upon how you carried out the research to make your conclusions. I just >>> caution you to use the proper control techniques to ensure accuracy, >>> especially when your observations appear to conflict with most others. >>> >>> If you have an opportunity I would like to have one question answered so >>> that I might become more interested in your research. Can you clearly show >>> that a random location can be analyzed by your technique and the correct >>> decision made as to whether or not a transmitter is located there? In >>> other words, are there false positives or false negatives? My plate if >>> fairly full at the moment and I have to restrict the subjects that I can >>> follow. If you have followed proper controls and the effect remains well >>> above the noise I will find time to study your ideas as it become available. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> >>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Mon, May 12, 2014 1:43 pm >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Vector Potential Wave Radio >>> >>> David, >>> >>> I have been researching these radars for approx. 1 year and diseased >>> biology for 1 1/2 years. >>> >>> When you converted that instantaneous high power pulse to a one second >>> average you are basically confusing power with energy, which is WRONG. If >>> it was correct then why not operate your radar continuously at an average >>> power of 1500 watts? BECAUSE THEY WON'T work. >>> >>> As far as I can tell you have done very little research. If you >>> really want to do some and not just talk like a radio guy, I suggest you >>> read the following and the referenced research papers, many peer reviewed. >>> >>> This: >>> http://www.scopemed.org/?jft=65&ft=65-1394615302#abstract >>> >>> And This: >>> http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/05/03/power-to-the-people/ >>> >>> http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/04/13/autism-emf/ >>> >>> And this: >>> >>> http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/03/13/its-the-same-frequency-range-why-would-you-expect-the-results-to-be-different/ >>> >>> And this: >>> http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/01/12/florida-2/ >>> >>> And this: >>> http://sdsimonson.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/11-4-13-florida1.png >>> >>> And this: >>> http://sdsimonson.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/fish-kills-statistics.png >>> >>> And this: >>> http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/03/05/quick-everybody-rush-to-florida/ >>> >>> And This: >>> http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/04/24/a-shocking-discovery/ >>> >>> And also look at the 300 hundred or so epidemiology maps I have placed >>> on my blog and the 900 posts over the past two years and then get back to >>> me OK?? >>> >>> I am just wondering why 1/68 kids in the US now have autism, 50 >>> million people in the US now have an auto-immune disease and all of our >>> f&^%ing wildlife is suffering AND NOBODY SEEMS TO KNOW WHY >>> >>> Oh, and read this and get back to me in a month, once you have >>> actually done some of your own research, OK? >>> [image: Doppler Radar] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:13 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> ChemE, >>>> >>>> You need to research these systems. Each transmitter is far lower than >>>> the powers you list and they are not correlated in time or frequency. >>>> From what I recall the dangers associated with this type of radiation has >>>> never been shown to be significant. >>>> >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> >>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Mon, May 12, 2014 11:17 am >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Vector Potential Wave Radio >>>> >>>> David, >>>> >>>> It is not heating. It is the electromagnetic discharge of the >>>> instantaneous pulses of microwave radiation. >>>> >>>> Cell towers are typically 20,000 to 50,000 watts. Read this letter >>>> >>>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf >>>> >>>> Radiation Impacts and Categorical Exclusions >>>> >>>> "There is a growing level of anecdotal evidence linking effects of >>>> non-thermal, non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation from communication >>>> towers on nesting and roosting wild birds and other wildlife in the >>>> U.S. Independent, third-party studies have yet to be conducted in the U.S. >>>> or Canada, although a peer-reviewed research protocol developed for >>>> the U.S. Forest Service by the Service's Division of Migratory Bird >>>> Management is available to study both collision and radiation impacts >>>> (Manville 2002). As previously mentioned, Balmori (2005) found strong >>>> negative correlations between levels of tower-emitted microwave >>>> radiation and bird breeding, nesting, and roosting in the vicinity of >>>> electromagnetic >>>> fields in Spain. He documented nest and site abandonment, plumage >>>> deterioration, >>>> locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death in House Sparrows, >>>> White Storks, Rock Doves, Magpies, Collared Doves, and other species. >>>> Though these species had historically been documented to roost and >>>> nest in these areas, Balmori (2005) did not observe these symptoms >>>> prior to construction and operation of the cellular phone towers. Balmori >>>> and Hallberg (2007) and Everaert and Bauwens (2007) found similar >>>> strong negative correlations among male House Sparrows. Under >>>> laboratory 'conditions, DiCarlo et al. (2002) raised troubling >>>> concerns about impacts of low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation >>>> from the standard 915 MHz cell phone frequency on domestic chicken >>>> embryos- with some lethal results (Manville 2009). *Given the findings >>>> of the studies mentioned above, field studies should be **conducted in >>>> North America to validate potential impacts of communication tower >>>> radiation both direct and indirect - to migratory birds and other trust >>>> wildlife species."* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 50-100 times the normal incidence of "motor-neuron"/ALS around the >>>> Guam radar station >>>> >>>> http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/04/04/guilefulguamguano/ >>>> The motor neuron diseases (MNDs) are a group of progressive >>>> neurological disorders that destroy motor neurons, the cells that control >>>> essential voluntary muscle activity such as speaking, walking, breathing, >>>> and swallowing. Normally, messages from nerve cells in the brain (called >>>> *upper >>>> motor neurons*) are transmitted to nerve cells in the brain stem and >>>> spinal cord (called *lower motor neurons*) and from them to particular >>>> muscles. Upper motor neurons direct the lower motor neurons to produce >>>> movements such as walking or chewing. Lower motor neurons control movement >>>> in the arms, legs, chest, face, throat, and tongue. Spinal motor neurons >>>> are also called anterior horn cells. Upper motor neurons are also called >>>> corticospinal neurons. >>>> When there are disruptions in the signals between the lowest motor >>>> neurons and the muscle, the muscles do not work properly; the muscles >>>> gradually weaken and may begin wasting away and develop uncontrollable >>>> twitching (called*fasciculations*). When there are disruptions in the >>>> signals between the upper motor neurons and the lower motor neurons, the >>>> limb muscles develop stiffness (called *spasticity*), movements become >>>> slow and effortful, and tendon reflexes such as knee and ankle jerks become >>>> overactive. Over time, the ability to control voluntary movement can be >>>> lost. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:57 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Radar systems detect the target based upon the average power incident >>>>> upon it. This is due to the continuous behavior of noise which tends to >>>>> mask the signal. Heating of the target becomes averaged out during the >>>>> complete period of the base pulse which in this case is about 1 >>>>> milisecond. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, the reflected wave must be generated by instantaneous >>>>> currents on the target surface as you suggest. If the problem you are >>>>> analyzing occurs during the 1 microsecond time frame then it is quite >>>>> possible for it to be demonstrated. The skin effect also comes into >>>>> consideration at the high RF frequencies which tends to reduce penetration >>>>> of the signal into the target. Better conductivity of the material >>>>> decreases the dept rapidly. >>>>> >>>>> A true Doppler radar would have the full heating effect due to the RF >>>>> maximum power level as long as the antenna pattern illuminates the target >>>>> you are considering. Also, the pulsed radar pattern of the radar >>>>> mentioned >>>>> impacts upon your desired target for a small portion of the dish rotation >>>>> time. The average target heating must be adjusted accordingly. >>>>> >>>>> I do not understand the nature of the damage that you are considering >>>>> with your research. If it is associated with the average heating as with >>>>> a >>>>> microwave oven then the pulse duty cycle, etc. needs to be integrated into >>>>> the equations. My comments earlier were directed toward clarifying the >>>>> difference between a true Doppler radar and a more of less standard pulsed >>>>> system. >>>>> >>>>> Dave >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> >>>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Mon, May 12, 2014 7:17 am >>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Vector Potential Wave Radio >>>>> >>>>> David, the ASR-9 is an airport survellience radar. That is correct >>>>> about the gain, weather/military doppler radar gains are 45-50 dbi, more >>>>> focused dishes. The instantaneous pulses are > 1,000,000 watts but they >>>>> are only on for 1/1000 of each second. Does nature average that high >>>>> power >>>>> pulse over 1 second like you are doing? And if it does, how does nature >>>>> do >>>>> that? Does it induce instantaneous electrical currents? Nature operates >>>>> at the speed of light, right? A lot goes on in nature in 1/1000 of a >>>>> second that we don't even see. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, May 11, 2014, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The specifications for the radar system below are typical of a >>>>>> pulsed radar system and not what I would expect from a standard Doppler >>>>>> radar. The duty cycle appears to be .1% for the unit listed whereas a >>>>>> Doppler radar is CW. The average power is 1300 watts of RF into the >>>>>> antenna, I assume. The gain of the antenna may be 34 dB relative to an >>>>>> isotropic radiator. >>>>>> >>>>>> Someone might be thinking of a pulsed Doppler radar which measures >>>>>> the change in transmit frequency of the returning pulses to get target >>>>>> velocity information. That type of radar is not a standard Doppler. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dave >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Eric Walker <[email protected]> >>>>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>>>> Sent: Sun, May 11, 2014 9:18 pm >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Vector Potential Wave Radio >>>>>> >>>>>> Stewart, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have glanced at your web site. I have not taken a close look at >>>>>> your research, but I would not be surprised if you ended up being onto >>>>>> something about doppler radar being a source of hypoxia, oxygen free >>>>>> radicals and the death of nearby animal and plant life. You also have a >>>>>> theory of dark matter, and a hunch that dark matter is indirectly >>>>>> responsible for the conclusions concerning doppler radar that you arrive >>>>>> at >>>>>> in your informal research. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the connection to dark matter, I personally have no opinion. I >>>>>> am skeptical, however, that your research is sufficient to establish any >>>>>> kind of linkage between the effects of doppler radar and dark matter, >>>>>> however. In light of this doubt, I think you might be able to get your >>>>>> investigation into doppler radar out to a wider audience if you did not >>>>>> combine it with the question of dark matter. Adding dark matter into the >>>>>> mix asks too much of people in their suspension of disbelief for them to >>>>>> be >>>>>> able to give much credibility to your doppler radar hunch, even if both >>>>>> hunches ended up being true. >>>>>> >>>>>> Eric >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:55 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Radar/Call SignMHTModel ASR-9Max Pulsed Power (Watts)1,300,000Gain >>>>>>> (dBi)34Frequency (MHz)2,800RPM12.5Max Power Density (W/m2) @ 10 km >>>>>>> 10.39Pulse Duration(uSec)1.00Pulse Repition Factor (Hz)1,000Range >>>>>>> Est. (Miles)60Latitude42.937248 Longitude-71.437286FIPS33011County >>>>>>> HillsboroughStateNH >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
