- To: Jeane Manning
-
- I have read two of your books, "The Coming Energy
Revolution," and "Angels Don't Play this Haarp." Thank you
for the excellent expositional works. They have meant alot to me. I found
out about you through an old friend, Walt Rosenthal. He encouraged me to
share my ideas with you, so here goes the first one.
-
- In thinking about the HAARP project, I started thinking
about what it means to spacecraft within that region of the ionosphere,
and I mean normal everyday spacecraft such as the space shuttle and satellites.
It means very bad things. Even if they limit themselves to increasing the
charge particle density to only double or triple, ionospheric heating still
means more energetic particles on average, and this will have catastrophic
effects on certain spacecraft materials. I have just completed a three
year study of ionospheric interactions with the new International Space
Station, and even though the problem is still very fresh in my mind, it
took awhile for me to grasp what an ionospheric heater is really doing,
then it took me even longer to analyze these effects and apply understand
the ramifications on my recent work.
-
- If I understand you correctly, we could start out by
saying that the ionosphere is comprised primarily of Atomic Oxygen. In
its natural state (before the invention of electricity) a fraction of this
oxygen (and the other constituent gases) was constantly being ionized by
solar and other radiations. The ionized atoms would then re-combine with
an electron (usually within milliseconds) to lose their charge. Thus an
equilibrium condition was reached, where depending on the level of solar
activity, the portion of the atmospheric gases in that region settled in
the ballpark of 0.01 - 0.1% ionized gas at any one time. This condition
began to change however, with the advent of hi-power transmission equipment
and power lines. The new technology affected both the ionization and re-combination
processes, and resulted in localized effects to the ionosphere.
-
- Now enter spacecraft into the picture. NASA has been
fighting a war for a decade on the effects that Atomic Oxygen has on polymer
spacecraft materials. Essentially what's happening is that Atomic Oxygen
is ramming into the weak organic chemical bonds at orbital + thermal velocities,
and eroding away the material slowly. This is essentially the same thing
that will happen with the ionized portion of the ionosphere as well, but
only if the particular spacecraft structure is electrically neutral. As
a detail point, the ionized atoms tend to be at the higher end of the gasses'
energy distribution, because once they become ionized they become accelerated
by electric forces. Conversely, atoms which are ionized by deliberate application
of EM fields get accelerated by that same EM field, hence the effect of
raising temperature. The ionospheric heater fits in here I now realize.
And it is insanity.
-
- Consider the effects on the new thin-film Space Station
Solar Arrays. They do not have the property of being electrically neutral
in the ionosphere by any means. 1,000 to 20,000 times a second, the entire
EM field surrounding them is collapsed by the voltage regulating SSU (non-shunt)
circuit controller, and herein lies the problem. The copper circuitry is
covered by 2 - 10 mil thick polymers like Kapton. When we analyzed the
naturally occuring effects that the ionized portion of the ionosphere has
on the arrays in 1994, we found the following interesting fact. The AC
electric field present in the array circuitry switches 140 volts at 1 khz,
and couples like a capacitor to the ions through the Kapton dielectric.
The ions then slam the charged particles into the array polymers with a
velocity fifty times greater than the orbital/thermal velocities of the
non-charged gasses. That's like 2,000 times the energy in the collision.
The result is that these atoms now have enough energy to damage copper
and steel. The process is well known as ion sputtering.
-
- When we completed our analysis, the result was within
an order of magnitude of saying that the arrays would not survive the requisite
fifteen years. We argued and argued and eventually NASA took responsibility
of the problem from us. AKA it disappeared.
-
- We based our analysis on the 1986 model of the ionosphere
which takes no man-made ionospheric effects into account. If either the
ionized fraction of the ionosphere or the average temperature goes up,
well you can imagine what will happen. I have seen papers about HAARP which
say that they have succeeded in heating the ionosphere thousands of degrees.
Is this true? The patent says that the charged particle density can be
increased greatly. How much? Increasing it a hundred fold could burn out
the arrays in hours. And I mean burn out too, so that a re-design and another
shuttle flight would be required to save the day.
-
- Now let's think for a minute. If someone were to challenge
the Space Station Program Office with this information, talking about how
HAARP poses a threat to the Space Station, people would have to respond.
NASA would either have to admit that a re-design is necessary, (No power
system, no space station game), or cover it up and pencil-whip it (not
likely if the right people were put in motion), or cancel the Space Station
program altogether to hide the truth. Now I love the Space Station program,
but I don't like incompetency resulting in one government program I am
paying for destroying another government I am paying for. I'm thinking
of raising hell, but I don't want to do it alone. So far very few people
know of this, and I'd like that to change.
-
- If you're interested please contact me:
-
- Clark Dunson
PO Box 854, Palo Alto, CA 94302
(415)323-4348
PM dunson.clark@ssd.loral.com
-
- Thanks for your time.
|
Homepage