Nov 12, 2023·edited Nov 14, 2023Liked by EntropyWave
Excellent article.
I wouldn't beat yourself up too much about the experiment you performed as a child.
Although cruel and yeah, a bit horrible, I think it's kind of a rite of passage that most curious kids go through at a certain age. The important part is that upon looking back, we recognize that it was a vulgar display of power (to quote my favorite metal album) and completely wrong.
I fear that TPTB that perpetrated this heinous crime upon the people of Lahaina never learned that lesson and care not.one iota for any life, human or insect. In fact, I believe they see no difference between the two life forms.
There's a few things published, but I haven't really decided what direction I'm going yet with my stack.
I have a real confidence issue withy writing as well, not being formally educated in writing or going past my first year of high school English classes here in Canada.
Sep 25, 2023·edited Sep 25, 2023Liked by EntropyWave
Have you heard about low power microwaves with specific frequencies and maybe modulation being able to disassemble molecules of various materials but not others. Wood brought this up in her book "Where Did the Towers Go?" Anomalies noted at Maui and some in California seemed to indicate things that shouldn't burn did and things that should did. Microwave ovens burn metals but don't touch plastics.
I am aware of resonance effects of microwaves modulated with extremely low frequencies in biological systems. In terms of starting fires, there may be some resonance effects of microwaves with metals that could potentially lower the power density needed to produce arcs, but those would probably depend heavily on the geometry of the target (e.g. sharp edges). Microwaves tend to reflect very well from metal surfaces and when not trapped in a cavity like a microwave oven would just carry off into space.
We are used to the energy released by temperature reaching ignition point. Molecular bonds rearranged releasing energy. We may not be aware of a different type of ignition due to specific microwave pattern loosening molecular or crystal bonds and releasing energy. Wood referred to such experiments in her book. Wouldn’t have to come from space either.
I think that we are seeing an entire variety of new toys being experimented with and which goes a long ways towards explaining the construction of bunkers. As in the case of 9/11 the underground garage was undamaged,
Please read my posting on German Flying Saucers. Gravity control is not a physics problem, it's an engineering problem, and they have the rest of the world bamboozled with the idea that gravity is an unsolved problem when that's just a line of manure.
My point here is that in the case of 9/11 there were overturned cars more than a block and a half away, almost all the cars had melted engine blocks which are almost always made from cast iron. You are looking at an electromagnetic inductive process akin to that of an electromagnetic forge. So I think we have a combination of weapon systems that are being experimented with and which is why I am working on trying to convince people to wake up to the reality of where UFO's began and basically how they work. or at least ones we could build and thus cut this problem away from their control.
Superior technical write up. Could you please read my post on German Flying Saucers. Gravity control is not a physics problem, it is an engineering problem and I think it's not an especially difficult one either. That doesn't mean I wouldn't appreciate some help and input. Please see my reply to EntropyWave as well. Consider that the potentials of these devices may lie on a still greater plane of destructive capability than is obvious. Gravitational control is a relatively simple concept and has the potential implication for creating massive destructive effects which hereto have been wrongly considered in the realm of science fiction as gravity bombs.
I will be addressing some of this in due time in a future post.
Okay, so, I personally can't buy DEW as a theory (I've researched the Maui fires in-depth and there's evidence showing an electrical fire fault; that said, the government is still evil, tyrannical opportunists), however your article was so delightfully technical from a practical design standpoint, unlike the usual DEW nonsense I read ("pulled directly out of someone’s rear-end." so you so finely put it) it earned a subscribe.
I don't mind having my viewpoint challenged, I just hate having my time wasted by folks who don't bring the evidence or at least something that seems well researched.
No mention of square-inverse law, from what I can see. I know you will know this, but for other readers: square-inverse law means power required to achieve the same output over distances requires exponentially more power (at roughly square-inverse). Whenever I raise that up most DEW proponents rage-quit.
No-one ever mentions the magnifying glass the Nazis invented, either.
Oh, and in terms of ants, it is good you've learned compassion. I did several things similarly as a kid; I once converted a deodorant can into a flamethrower, melted plants, ants, and aluminium foil into a metal tray. I was told if the can was almost empty the flames would have backfed due to low pressure and the can would have exploded, possibly even killing me in the process.
I instead recognised the value of the ants' deaths, informing me of the extreme dangers and harms experimental ideas can have. I haven't conducted an experiment on an ant since. And I avoid experimental stuff where-ever possible.
What a great comment! I appreciate your interest and welcome your critique of my work. Regarding inverse square law, I think when considering concentrated beams we only need to concern ourselves with the divergence angle, which I provided the formula for in the text (note: the formula may not display correctly if you are using the app, or the website, I can't remember which one). The divergence angle is the angle at which the beam spreads out as it travels through space, and it is a simple function of the beam wavelength and diameter as it
leaves the optical system. Inverse square law doesn't apply in the case of a beam, because, we could use optics to focus the beam to a tiny point if we wanted - although this would be extremely difficult to achieve from orbit. Hopefully, I've been sufficiently clear with my reasoning.
I must admit I chuckled when reading your experiment with the aerosol flame-thrower. Been there, done that. I should probably be dead too considering all the crazy crap I did as a teen.
I agree with this and did account for the dilution of power density due to spreading of the beam in my analysis. I apologize if I caused any confusion in my previous comment.
Excellent article.
I wouldn't beat yourself up too much about the experiment you performed as a child.
Although cruel and yeah, a bit horrible, I think it's kind of a rite of passage that most curious kids go through at a certain age. The important part is that upon looking back, we recognize that it was a vulgar display of power (to quote my favorite metal album) and completely wrong.
I fear that TPTB that perpetrated this heinous crime upon the people of Lahaina never learned that lesson and care not.one iota for any life, human or insect. In fact, I believe they see no difference between the two life forms.
Thanks. I was probably being a bit melodramatic there with the ants, but sometimes small things like end up bugging the crap out of me.
I appreciate you reading my work. I see you have a stack as well. I will check it out!
There's a few things published, but I haven't really decided what direction I'm going yet with my stack.
I have a real confidence issue withy writing as well, not being formally educated in writing or going past my first year of high school English classes here in Canada.
Have you heard about low power microwaves with specific frequencies and maybe modulation being able to disassemble molecules of various materials but not others. Wood brought this up in her book "Where Did the Towers Go?" Anomalies noted at Maui and some in California seemed to indicate things that shouldn't burn did and things that should did. Microwave ovens burn metals but don't touch plastics.
I am aware of resonance effects of microwaves modulated with extremely low frequencies in biological systems. In terms of starting fires, there may be some resonance effects of microwaves with metals that could potentially lower the power density needed to produce arcs, but those would probably depend heavily on the geometry of the target (e.g. sharp edges). Microwaves tend to reflect very well from metal surfaces and when not trapped in a cavity like a microwave oven would just carry off into space.
I think your question is valid and good. Thanks.
We are used to the energy released by temperature reaching ignition point. Molecular bonds rearranged releasing energy. We may not be aware of a different type of ignition due to specific microwave pattern loosening molecular or crystal bonds and releasing energy. Wood referred to such experiments in her book. Wouldn’t have to come from space either.
I think that we are seeing an entire variety of new toys being experimented with and which goes a long ways towards explaining the construction of bunkers. As in the case of 9/11 the underground garage was undamaged,
Please read my posting on German Flying Saucers. Gravity control is not a physics problem, it's an engineering problem, and they have the rest of the world bamboozled with the idea that gravity is an unsolved problem when that's just a line of manure.
My point here is that in the case of 9/11 there were overturned cars more than a block and a half away, almost all the cars had melted engine blocks which are almost always made from cast iron. You are looking at an electromagnetic inductive process akin to that of an electromagnetic forge. So I think we have a combination of weapon systems that are being experimented with and which is why I am working on trying to convince people to wake up to the reality of where UFO's began and basically how they work. or at least ones we could build and thus cut this problem away from their control.
Superior technical write up. Could you please read my post on German Flying Saucers. Gravity control is not a physics problem, it is an engineering problem and I think it's not an especially difficult one either. That doesn't mean I wouldn't appreciate some help and input. Please see my reply to EntropyWave as well. Consider that the potentials of these devices may lie on a still greater plane of destructive capability than is obvious. Gravitational control is a relatively simple concept and has the potential implication for creating massive destructive effects which hereto have been wrongly considered in the realm of science fiction as gravity bombs.
I will be addressing some of this in due time in a future post.
Okay, so, I personally can't buy DEW as a theory (I've researched the Maui fires in-depth and there's evidence showing an electrical fire fault; that said, the government is still evil, tyrannical opportunists), however your article was so delightfully technical from a practical design standpoint, unlike the usual DEW nonsense I read ("pulled directly out of someone’s rear-end." so you so finely put it) it earned a subscribe.
I don't mind having my viewpoint challenged, I just hate having my time wasted by folks who don't bring the evidence or at least something that seems well researched.
No mention of square-inverse law, from what I can see. I know you will know this, but for other readers: square-inverse law means power required to achieve the same output over distances requires exponentially more power (at roughly square-inverse). Whenever I raise that up most DEW proponents rage-quit.
No-one ever mentions the magnifying glass the Nazis invented, either.
Oh, and in terms of ants, it is good you've learned compassion. I did several things similarly as a kid; I once converted a deodorant can into a flamethrower, melted plants, ants, and aluminium foil into a metal tray. I was told if the can was almost empty the flames would have backfed due to low pressure and the can would have exploded, possibly even killing me in the process.
I instead recognised the value of the ants' deaths, informing me of the extreme dangers and harms experimental ideas can have. I haven't conducted an experiment on an ant since. And I avoid experimental stuff where-ever possible.
What a great comment! I appreciate your interest and welcome your critique of my work. Regarding inverse square law, I think when considering concentrated beams we only need to concern ourselves with the divergence angle, which I provided the formula for in the text (note: the formula may not display correctly if you are using the app, or the website, I can't remember which one). The divergence angle is the angle at which the beam spreads out as it travels through space, and it is a simple function of the beam wavelength and diameter as it
leaves the optical system. Inverse square law doesn't apply in the case of a beam, because, we could use optics to focus the beam to a tiny point if we wanted - although this would be extremely difficult to achieve from orbit. Hopefully, I've been sufficiently clear with my reasoning.
I must admit I chuckled when reading your experiment with the aerosol flame-thrower. Been there, done that. I should probably be dead too considering all the crazy crap I did as a teen.
Thanks again for your interest.
Inverse-square law is about distance though, not radiance, so it'd still apply to a beam.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/inverse-square-law-and-lasers.177187/
I agree with this and did account for the dilution of power density due to spreading of the beam in my analysis. I apologize if I caused any confusion in my previous comment.
Square-inverse isn't to do with radiance ('spread'), it is to do with distance, length.
"I apologize if I caused any confusion in my previous comment."
Okay ChatGPT.
Excellent ! Great catch on the direct line. I’m sharing 💕