What most likely is controlling weather worldwide, the tech

[Bob]

Hi Nick - thanks again for mentioning the numerous monitoring stations and observers.. What I am working on from the OP in this thread is how nanoparticles are important with nucleation (forming larger particles which can become visible) and how larger particles at the dew point can hold moisture, and obviously get heavy (mass continues to build)..

Folks see things in the sky and attempt to make sense out of it, and often times trust a conspiracy doctrine believing that anyone with smarts and authority are part of the bad guys, imho.. I think there are brilliant people who don't buy the conspiracy spin but are seeing anomalies, and are reaching for answers.. Weather extremes, things out-of-the norm is going to generate dialog, what could it be..

Having the tools and background means one can have the capacity for sorting through technical jargon to understand when one is hearing a buzz word if it is relevant or not.. a good curiosity as to what's happening and why is a good motivation.. and of course experimenting with the subject matter gives one practical over theoretical.

The energy from the Sun and volcanic activity are the driving factors on earth.. Those are the driving factors altering the weather fronts, cold and warm.. The PDF in the post above is pretty good in explaining to a new pilot what they have to deal with with weather issues, and clouds are a big one..

Weather radar is going to see the moisture pretty well, and explaining to folks to see it, it has to reflect off it, not be absorbed.. To be absorbed means it can absorb energy and then change state (to a higher temperature).. So I find it humorous (and a bit sad) that there are folks using pseudo-tech jargon, to woo the masses.. People then believe the pseudo-jargon and then with that small amount of perceived 'knowledge' spread it.. they believe they know something that explains in a dialog they can understand, the unknown..

In my threads I try to bring in history, background and present a lot of the buzzwords in a friendly manner.. Techno jargon tho is sometimes hard to deal without because of the immense amount of time needed to explain in plain English for instance - the jargon is developed out of the schooling and training needed to convey complex concepts.. the innovative teacher will look for simple analogies to make rapid bridging steps with the student, and at the last minute toss in, oh by the way here is the jargon for what we just described... and then science has no fear, if the jargon is understood..

Its also interesting the haarp conspiracy seems to cycle every few months. The longest cycle in the conspiracy seems to be every 8 months or about 6 months, two seasons.. In the major changes of the seasons weather anomalies appear more prevalent, so people go looking for why, and well there's the explanation out there with the drama in the haarp or any other unknown about science..

--Bob

[Bob]

Understanding RADAR and absorption frequencies and reflection frequencies - an ultra simple table

Doppler radar can be divided into several different categories according to the wavelength of the radar. The different bands are L,S,C,X,K. The names of the radars originate from the days of WWII.

L band radars operate on a wavelength of 15-30 cm and a frequency of 1-2 GHz. L band radars are mostly used for clear air turbulence studies.

S band radars operate on a wavelength of 8-15 cm and a frequency of 2-4 GHz. Because of the wavelength and frequency, S band radars are not easily attenuated. This makes them useful for near and far range weather observation.

The National Weather Service (NWS) uses S band radars on a wavelength of just over 10 cm. The drawback to this band of radar is that it requires a large antenna dish and a large motor to power it. It is not uncommon for a S band dish to exceed 25 feet in size.

C band radars operate on a wavelength of 4-8 cm and a frequency of 4-8 GHz. Because of the wavelength and frequency, the dish size does not need to be very large. This makes C band radars affordable for TV stations. The signal is more easily attenuated, so this type of radar is best used for short range weather observation. The frequency allows C band radars to create a smaller beam width using a smaller dish.

** C band radars also do not require as much power as an S band radar. The NWS transmits at 750,000 peak pulse watts of power for their S band, where as a private TV station such as KCCI-TV in Des Moines only broadcasts at 270,000 peak pulse watts of power with their C band radar.

X band radars operate on a wavelength of 2.5-4 cm and a frequency of 8-12 GHz. Because of the smaller wavelength, the X band radar is more sensitive and can detect smaller particles. These radars are used for studies on cloud development because they can detect the tiny water particles and also used to detect light precipitation such as snow. X band radars also attenuate very easily, so they are used for only very short range weather observation. Also, due to the small size of the radar, it can therefore be portable like the Doppler on Wheels.

(DOW) Most major airplanes are equipped with an X band radar to pick up turbulence and other weather phenomenon. This band is also shared with some police speed radars and some space radars.

K band radars operate on a wavelength of .75-1.2 cm or 1.7-2.5 cm and a corresponding frequency of 27-40 GHz and 12-18 GHz. (Water strong microwave energy absorption present in the range of 19-26 gigahertz)

This band is split down the middle due to a strong absorption line in water vapor. This band is similar to the X band but is just more sensitive. This band also shares space with police radars.

** above note - NEXRAD peak power 750KW corresponds to an actual power level at the klystron (a type of radar power source) is about 1300 watts maximum.. That is minuscule really.

[sheme]

From the horses mouth . Climate Scientist Jasper Kirkby Blows Whistle on Chemtrails https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4s1qNJpko8

[Aspen]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AbNWPoMsWIk

CBS announced that dual beams can be targeted to produce weather. An experiment by graduate students confirms this.

[Bob]

2 January 15 - update I have asked the MODS to close this thread.

Despite repeatedly trying to keep the thread on topic detailing the ELAT plus microwave blower system (AS DISCUSSED IN THE OP POST 1) it is going off into directions which are contrary to the OP. Possibly it will be reopened at a later date and when the OP subject will be fully discussed. There is enough useful information for the reader to make up their own mind.

This thread is not nor was ever intended to be taken off the op subject discussing haarp or haarp-like systems, nor nexrad radar, nor other subjects other than what was the focus - the ELAT system mentioned in the OP post number 1. I have endeavored to take the time and courtesy to answer individual member's questions to the best of my ability, even when the subject is off the topic of ELAT..

Some technical members and myself share a good understanding of real-world physics, and state-of-the-art and have been willing to share what we know with the forum in the spirit of fraternity and helping them plus the Guests get a better understanding of the OP (and sometimes related questions)..

Some folks have said they turn to the Forum for REAL NEWS.. I sure wish that would be a constant reality, my highest hopes..

Those that are sincere with the real tech probably are wondering at times, why.. why bother.. Well there may be one person out there, who CAN hear through the din, and to them some dots will connect and some good will come of it..


Fascinating watching.. better than a sitcom, better than TV, or u-tubes, (is that salt-free?)

Peace - y'all

[Bill Ryan]

-------

Our thanks to Bob for an interesting thread indeed, as very many of the topics he raises are. The ongoing discussion seems to be still current and lively (Bob has made eight valuable and substantial posts on the thread just today) — and I imagine that all the participating members (with maybe many more to come!) would very much appreciate the thread being left open.

So that would be the moderators' view. Once started, all the participating members become stakeholders in the discussion, as it were, and we normally only close threads when they no longer seem to be of service to the forum or its members and guests. In this case, the thread seems to be most worthwhile continuing addition to the Avalon library.

[Bob]

I will no longer be participating in my thread at the moment, due to the off topic push - the OP is what I had requested to be discussed. I suggest splitting the thread into multiple topics each manned by the person wishing to discuss their OFF-TOPIC subjects.. Thanks Bill and the MODS..

I wish also that MY thread be renamed to ELAT - weather control by nano-particles and we can have this thread appropriately explored as ELAT is what I wanted to discuss in the OP.. I thought it was obvious but apparently it was too complicated and folks interpreted it as a HAARP discussion or something else.

Thanks again to the many brilliant folks who are here reading this thread.

--Peace - Tranquility Base Here, the Eagle has landed..

[Aspen]

I have cut out this information because it was related to Haarp.

[Aspen]

information edited because it was related to Haarp

[Nick Matkin]

Bob's post #62 clearly and accurately describes the different types of radar, but there are still others who don't appreciate how it works and have some understandable misconceptions, muddling it with HAARP, weather control, etc. I'll try to keep this simple, but the truth is that this is a technical subject which many people obviously don't understand.

The main thing to remember is that most active radar sends out pulses of RF and detects the reflections from objects between those pules.

I am very familiar with marine X-band radar and HF (3 to 30 MHz) over-the-horizon radar (OTHR).

Non-HF radar (L, S, C, X, K) all have approximately line-of-site range. That means detection only to the visual horizon. (In practice atmospheric refraction extends it by about 6% - depending on frequency.)

The distance to the horizon obviously depends upon the observer's (or radar scanner's) height. (Distance-to -horizon calculators are widely available on the web.)

Most marine radar has a range of not much more than 15 miles. To have a range of 500 miles, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, either the radar scanner or target must be at a height of 180,000 feet, 34 miles!

On the other hand, over-the-horizon radar has a range determined by the reflective height of the ionosphere (80 to 200 miles very approximately) which it uses as a 'mirror' between radar its target. OTHR range is commonly 500 to 2,000 miles.

There is also confusion about pulsing and frequency. X-band radar has a frequency of 8 to 10 GHz, but a pulse reputation frequency (PRF) of between 500 Hz and 2 kHz. Think about it; it takes time taken for the pulses to return at the speed of light over a distance of say 30 miles (pulse out and reflection back). The PRF cannot be faster than the time taken for the pulse to return from the target, so any talk of pulsing in the MHz range is just nonsense.

Resolution is something else to be considered, but it's enough here to say that generally the higher the frequency the greater the resolution; all related to wavelength of the radar.

OTHR has the relatively slow PRF of about 10 to 50 Hz so the pulses have time to return from targets hundreds of miles away. They are of relatively low frequency (typically 15 - 30 MHz wavelength, 10 to 20 metres) so can only detect large object; ships, missiles, etc.

Water molecules are not heated by RF in the 19 - 22 MHz range. Bob is right when he said GHz range. Water demonstrably does not significantly absorb radio waves blow the GHz range or we couldn't watch TV or listen to the radio when it rained. It really doesn't help when MHz, GHz and HAARP 'factoids' all get muddled up and extrapolated into goodness knows what.

Then there's the confusion about the power in radar, often quoted in megawatts. Yes, but that's the peak power in the short pulses. The average power is very, very much less than that.

And something else to bare in mind; two radar installations on similar frequencies causing interference to each other looks like swirling rings of objects. I think we've all seen those on conspiracy sites...

So, please be wary of articles appearing in non-scientific websites written by well-meaning but scientifically illiterate journalists. Likewise, videos presented by people who have an agenda, but no understanding of the facts they are repeating, whether they are accurate, or are deliberately muddling stuff up.

It's a great shame that there are not a few more qualified technical forum members who post. Although we run the risk of being accused of being mind-shrivelled automatons, unable to think outside of our box, or being part of the 'problem'. But at least we can explain how real-world technology works to those who obviously don't understand it or have a very confused understanding.

But it's hard when you try to explain stuff when you get confronted, as I was, by the kind of people who actually believe that the government wants us all to use low-energy light bulbs because they contain mind-controlling nano-technology

There is no hope…

Nick


(Sorry Bob, I realise this doesn't relate to your OP, but there was obvious confusion that I thought needed some clarification.)

[avid]

Over the years, I'm stuck in the middle of all sorts of theories/facts. If I promote Nick or Bob/anyone - his 'Dave' lordship always 'knows best', well I'm fed up with that pompous eediot, and will happily state facts and truths, as over the years I do resonate with 'truths' - and will never be dismissed as some no-mark. I am totally aware, have been for years, have loads of strange devices in my house to protect us from rads, and I am definitely not too eccentric! I'm turning into a Clouseau-esque parody - hopefully not!

[Aspen]

Hi Bob, I have been reading and rereading your posts. I used to love science and physics, but that was 30 years ago! I feel really bad about your request to shut down the thread so will remove the videos from Dutchsinse. (I was looking at them because he was my trusted source years ago and I was curious about his latest work. ) I do resonate with what you are saying about nucleation and DC current being required to create clouds, rain and storms. It is beginning to sink in (through all the years of programming from conspiracy theories! lol). In reading and rereading your posts I am beginning to see how the short bursts of energy with the use of AC current would disperse clouds rather than form them. I don't know if you have watched any of the Haarp Report videos, but that is essentially what this meteorologist is observing. The weather videos he is producing essentially are showing how already existing clouds are being manipulated in order to PREVENT the formation of low pressure systems and disperse storms that are changing the flow of the jet stream. I don't care what type of technology is being used or if it is Haarp or not Haarp. I am concerned that our weather is being messed with. These videos appear to show that it IS! I am just trying to understand it all better and appreciate the hard science you are putting out and the patience.

I am especially curious about the nucleation angle. You have mentioned in several posts that nanoparticles of a specific size can enter our body and be harmful healthwise. You point out that these particles are being produced all the time by pollution, and fossil fuels emissions in general. I will continue to study the previous posts to understand what you have already said. If there is more you have to say on this topic, please do so.

In Alberta we have a very high rate of certain chronic health issues that have been linked to the flaring of the natural gas that is being extracted out of the ground. You point out in your posts that nanoparticles are being produced by man and by nature all the time (volcanoes). I bet forest fires are also big source.

If I am understanding you correctly, weather can be modified by charging these already existing particles and then moving them around through DC current. I will continue studying your posts to try to understand this better. It makes sense to me that this may be occurring covertly through technology we are not being told about.

I would appreciate any information you can provide about weather being modified by the opposite approach as well: i.e. breaking up already existing low pressure systems and preventing counter clockwise flow. But I guess that is information best put on another thread.

[Bob]

OK, Hi Aspen

thank you for tracking the nano-particle issue..

When it is related to weather, it can be weaponized..

That has been my jumping up and down, with the sound of one hand clapping (hey Calz).

Aspen: I would appreciate any information you can provide about weather being modified by the opposite approach as well: i.e. breaking up already existing low pressure systems and preventing counter clockwise flow. But I guess that is information best put on another thread.

A Reichean system could be used to break apart the nano-induced ELAT weapon systems.. BUT ELAT has the potential by reversing the polarity, and using AC drive to blow apart nano-structures.. which would be perfect for dealing with nano-particle smogs and air pollution as well (as discussed in my nano-particle thread) (thank you for reading that and connecting those dots)

I asked for folks to ask the questions about counter-measures, thank YOU for doing that..

Yes of course I have followed haarp, haarp-like systems, all sorts of cloud seeding techniques, radars, microwaves, every new spy satellite, of course laser..

As well as every actually functioning healing system - full spectrum coverage, but to "stay on topic".. getting to the bottom of it is where it starts..

Can they deploy, is the amount of energy capable of producing the end product expected actually there? First question to ask.. UFO, ok, sure, what's powering it, as the first question to ask, laser weapon able to wipe out cities, er, ok, what is powering it.. If the what is powering it can't be realistically answered, using known laws, then it's likely woo-woo..

That's why NICK mentioned the AVERAGE POWER verses any high value peak values.. AVERAGE power out with a given efficiency of conversion gives one a good understanding of how much power the THING, _________ fill in the blank, will need to use to create an effect..

Then look at how much mass is needed to be moved, changed or altered in some way.. To make a change, it takes an equal amount of energy generally with a completely 100% efficient system, but generally expect 15%-60% at best to be typical efficiency as a rule of thumb..

Those are the starting points.. Being able to solve that let's get started point, and one can really get into dealing with anything..

--Best to you and the readers.

Bob

[Evaflys]

Thankyou all for the great information, yes im thinking you are right HAARP is after all such old technology now..... and surely many more great minds like Tesla have come in to being since to advance the field..
There was a company here using ion tech which they called ATLANT. Ive seen them.
The company was called "Australian Rain and i was going to post a link but the website has now disappeared.... along with MIPD weather modification's website.

I'm sure you've all heard but MIPD did all the cloud seeding "trials" over SE Queensland 2008-2012, they made an inland tsuanami from the Wivenhoe dam which they overfilled and released, killing some 10 people and caused serious flooding And droughts in other places which is just as devasting....

Cant stand the weather tinkerers... very difficult issue to expose and get people on board.... so little info and any good websites keep disappearing, am i am to share a links to threads on the Avalon forum? I have read much I'd like to share, thanks again!

[Nick Matkin]

The entire www.australianrain.com.au website is available via the Google cache and is also fully available complete with graphics via Archive.org.

Just looks like their domain lapsed.

Nick