Destroying Tornadoes

[chardman]

Just searched the whole thread, from beginning to end, and no, the challenge had not been previously made. And before I'd ever consider accepting a challenge like that, I'd first expect you to gobble down a whole hat shop to atone for the erroneous crap you've already spouted in this forum about mammoths, clones, and computers.

None of your ideas in this thread is at all original or new. Most were tried back in the days just after WWII. Some are even older. Don't believe me? Then go to your local library and see if they can get you the old Movietone Newsreel titled "Man Conquers Nature?", which covers the countless ways man has tried to manipulate the weather over the years. From seeding clouds to firing German V-2s into storms carrying everything from high explosives to liquid nitrogen, to powerful electrodes.

For a more modern source, you might want to do a Google search for info about The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), a weather control effort run by the Air Force. They're using 180 high-powered, phased array emitter towers, capable of beaming in the 2.5-10 megahertz frequency range, at more than 3 gigawatts of power.

And guess what NAARP's discovered?

While these experiments are useful in measuring the properties of the ionosphere, they produce insufficient amounts of energy to modify it in any significant way.

That's right, they're using 3 billion watts of power, and have found that it's not enough to have an appreciable effect on the weather.

And you think some concert speakers are gonna be up to the task? The UK band The Who still hold the world's record for total speaker wattage. Their biggest speaker array had an output of 76,000 watts. NAARP's array is 40,000 times more powerful.

Sorry, but the heftiest Cerwin-Vega concert speakers (The kind they used for "Sensurround" movies, to simulate earthquakes and the like) only kick out about 1,600 watts each, and they're each roughly the size of a compact car.

To get as much wattage as the Air Force is already using you'd need nearly 1.8 million of these monster speakers. And again, that's just to match the HAARP towers, which aren't up to the task. An effective array would likely need to be a great many times more powerful. Say ten or twenty times as powerful.

Any idea how many square miles 40 million car-sized speakers would take up? And that's just to defend a single location. 'Cause unless you can find a practical way of quickly transporting such a huge array of speakers, that array isn't going anywhere, and you'll need to create thousands more of these arrays to protect the whole of "Tornado Alley".

 

[Amaris]

^ Pffft. Facts can be used to explain away anything.


J.

 

[Gepard]

Just searched the whole thread, from beginning to end, and no, the challenge had not been previously made. And before I'd ever consider accepting a challenge like that, I'd first expect you to gobble down a whole hat shop to atone for the erroneous crap you've already spouted in this forum about mammoths, clones, and computers.

None of your ideas in this thread is at all original or new. Most were tried back in the days just after WWII. Some are even older. Don't believe me? Then go to your local library and see if they can get you the old Movietone Newsreel titled "Man Conquers Nature?", which covers the countless ways man has tried to manipulate the weather over the years. From seeding clouds to firing German V-2s into storms carrying everything from high explosives to liquid nitrogen, to powerful electrodes.

For a more modern source, you might want to do a Google search for info about The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), a weather control effort run by the Air Force. They're using 180 high-powered, phased array emitter towers, capable of beaming in the 2.5-10 megahertz frequency range, at more than 3 gigawatts of power.

And guess what NAARP's discovered?

While these experiments are useful in measuring the properties of the ionosphere, they produce insufficient amounts of energy to modify it in any significant way.

That's right, they're using 3 billion watts of power, and have found that it's not enough to have an appreciable effect on the weather.

And you think some concert speakers are gonna be up to the task? The UK band The Who still hold the world's record for total speaker wattage. Their biggest speaker array had an output of 76,000 watts. NAARP's array is 40,000 times more powerful.

Sorry, but the heftiest Cerwin-Vega concert speakers (The kind they used for "Sensurround" movies, to simulate earthquakes and the like) only kick out about 1,600 watts each, and they're each roughly the size of a compact car.

To get as much wattage as the Air Force is already using you'd need nearly 1.8 million of these monster speakers. And again, that's just to match the HAARP towers, which aren't up to the task. An effective array would likely need to be a great many times more powerful. Say ten or twenty times as powerful.

Any idea how many square miles 40 million car-sized speakers would take up? And that's just to defend a single location. 'Cause unless you can find a practical way of quickly transporting such a huge array of speakers, that array isn't going anywhere, and you'll need to create thousands more of these arrays to protect the whole of "Tornado Alley".

 

[noknowes]

Just searched the whole thread, from beginning to end, and no, the challenge had not been previously made. And before I'd ever consider accepting a challenge like that, I'd first expect you to gobble down a whole hat shop to atone for the erroneous crap you've already spouted in this forum about mammoths, clones, and computers.

None of your ideas in this thread is at all original or new. Most were tried back in the days just after WWII. Some are even older. Don't believe me? Then go to your local library and see if they can get you the old Movietone Newsreel titled "Man Conquers Nature?", which covers the countless ways man has tried to manipulate the weather over the years. From seeding clouds to firing German V-2s into storms carrying everything from high explosives to liquid nitrogen, to powerful electrodes.

For a more modern source, you might want to do a Google search for info about The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), a weather control effort run by the Air Force. They're using 180 high-powered, phased array emitter towers, capable of beaming in the 2.5-10 megahertz frequency range, at more than 3 gigawatts of power.

And guess what NAARP's discovered?

While these experiments are useful in measuring the properties of the ionosphere, they produce insufficient amounts of energy to modify it in any significant way.

That's right, they're using 3 billion watts of power, and have found that it's not enough to have an appreciable effect on the weather.

And you think some concert speakers are gonna be up to the task? The UK band The Who still hold the world's record for total speaker wattage. Their biggest speaker array had an output of 76,000 watts. NAARP's array is 40,000 times more powerful.

Sorry, but the heftiest Cerwin-Vega concert speakers (The kind they used for "Sensurround" movies, to simulate earthquakes and the like) only kick out about 1,600 watts each, and they're each roughly the size of a compact car.

To get as much wattage as the Air Force is already using you'd need nearly 1.8 million of these monster speakers. And again, that's just to match the HAARP towers, which aren't up to the task. An effective array would likely need to be a great many times more powerful. Say ten or twenty times as powerful.

Any idea how many square miles 40 million car-sized speakers would take up? And that's just to defend a single location. 'Cause unless you can find a practical way of quickly transporting such a huge array of speakers, that array isn't going anywhere, and you'll need to create thousands more of these arrays to protect the whole of "Tornado Alley".

I have already said the flow at critical points needs to be disrupted yet you are so desperate to put me down you continue going about billion watts when in fact only a few megawatts would be required.

 

[chardman]

Prove it, Brainiac.

 

[Amaris]

I have already said the flow at critical points needs to be disrupted yet you are so desperate to put me down you continue going about billion watts when in fact only a few megawatts would be required.

No, I don't see desperate, just correct. You have been repeatedly shown reasonable and correct rebuttals to your ever increasingly unrealistic and infeasible ideas. To get out of this, as I doubt anyone takes your posts at all seriously, you're going to have to show some serious hard data. Not speculation, hard data, otherwise you're wasting your breath and everyone else's time.


J.

 

[hyzmarca]

I have already said the flow at critical points needs to be disrupted yet you are so desperate to put me down you continue going about billion watts when in fact only a few megawatts would be required.

Please, show us the math. Correct accurate math that supports the hypothesis is sufficient proof to justify taking an applied engineering hypothesis to go on to the prototyping stage.

But if the math isn't there then there is no point in trying.

 

[noknowes]

I have already said the flow at critical points needs to be disrupted yet you are so desperate to put me down you continue going about billion watts when in fact only a few megawatts would be required.

Please, show us the math. Correct accurate math that supports the hypothesis is sufficient proof to justify taking an applied engineering hypothesis to go on to the prototyping stage.

But if the math isn't there then there is no point in trying.

You can show a horse water but you can't make it drink.

 

[Amaris]

I have already said the flow at critical points needs to be disrupted yet you are so desperate to put me down you continue going about billion watts when in fact only a few megawatts would be required.

Please, show us the math. Correct accurate math that supports the hypothesis is sufficient proof to justify taking an applied engineering hypothesis to go on to the prototyping stage.

But if the math isn't there then there is no point in trying.

You can show a horse water but you can't make it drink.

That's "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."
So do you have hard data or not?

J.

 

[chardman]

"You can show a horse Dinosaur DNA, but you can't make him clone clone mammoths".

 

[Silvercrest]

I have already said the flow at critical points needs to be disrupted yet you are so desperate to put me down you continue going about billion watts when in fact only a few megawatts would be required.

Please, show us the math. Correct accurate math that supports the hypothesis is sufficient proof to justify taking an applied engineering hypothesis to go on to the prototyping stage.

But if the math isn't there then there is no point in trying.

You can show a horse water but you can't make it drink.

"You can show the horse math, but you can't make him do the calculations himself."

First you need to show us the math. THEN, we can decide to drink, or not. Short of that, you're just slinging horse byproducts at us and claiming you have superior insight. (And claiming you're not arrogant.)

How many megawatts will be required? Give us some calculated figures. What are the critical points that need to be disrupted? Give us exact coordinates. If you can't do these things, you can't speak with the voice of authority.

Remember your original post?

I find it remarkable that no one has bothered to work out a way to destroy or stop these tornadoes.

I find it remarkable that you can say all this without any facts at your command. No one has bothered? Maybe, just maybe, some smarter people HAVE bothered to do the research. And maybe it's just not that simple.

You can laugh all you like.

Okay! (And that's straight from the horse's mouth. )

 

[noknowes]

Please, show us the math. Correct accurate math that supports the hypothesis is sufficient proof to justify taking an applied engineering hypothesis to go on to the prototyping stage.

But if the math isn't there then there is no point in trying.

You can show a horse water but you can't make it drink.

That's "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."


J.

But you said "show us".

 

[Amaris]

You can show a horse water but you can't make it drink.

That's "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."


J.

But you said "show us".

The concrete data. The real information. Yet here you are being quippy when you should be proving us wrong.

You know what? Forget it. You're obviously stalling and pulling things from your ass. I will no longer take your posts seriously at all. I doubt anyone else here will either. You have no real knowledge of anything here, and it's a waste of time to discuss things with you, as you simply try and get out of presenting hard data.

J.

 

[noknowes]

That's "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."


J.

But you said "show us".

The concrete data. The real information. Yet here you are being quippy when you should be proving us wrong.

You know what? Forget it. You're obviously stalling and pulling things from your ass. I will no longer take your posts seriously at all. I doubt anyone else here will either. You have no real knowledge of anything here, and it's a waste of time to discuss things with you, as you simply try and get out of presenting hard data.

J.

Why would I "present" data to you? You have already stated your entranced position as skeptics.It is well known that people with entrenched positions never admit to being wrong.

Even if I did present you are not qualified to understand complex non linear equations.In any case if you were that interested you would have done your own research on the data and would have been convinced I was correct all along.I already have a website devoted to the complexities of stopping tornadoes.We have a forum too to discuss issues.

 

[chardman]

Why would I "present" data to you?

To support your stupid assertions.

You have already stated your entranced position as skeptics.

No, we've stated our entrenched position as people with a degree of common sense, education, and overall intelligence that you clearly lack.

Even if I did present you are not qualified to understand complex non linear equations.

Every one of us is more qualified to understand non-linear equations than you qualified to understand the first thing about genetics, clones, mammoths, dinosaurs, prehistory, Hitler, television syndication, parallel processing, SATA drives, artificial intelligence, etc, etc.

You've repeatedly established to all of us that you are not qualified to understand much of anything, let alone speak about it with any authority whatsoever. That said, why, oh why, should we accept that you understood this particular topic when you've openly displayed you ignorance about virtually every other topic you've ever addressed on this entire board?

In any case if you were that interested you would have done your own research on the data and would have been convinced I was correct all along.

We have, and we've come to the peer-reviewed conclusion that you're a scientifically ignorant loonie, and that what you've suggested has already been tried, and retried, and has never produced positive results, nor any potential for such.

I already have a website devoted to the complexities of stopping tornadoes.We have a forum too to discuss issues.

Please post a link to this font of knowledge. I could use a good laugh.

 

[Silvercrest]

Please post a link to this font of knowledge. I could use a good laugh.

I agree. Please post it. You did invite us to laugh at you, after all.

 

[Amaris]

Why would I "present" data to you?

To support your stupid assertions.

You have already stated your entranced position as skeptics.

No, we've stated our entrenched position as people with a degree of common sense, education, and overall intelligence that you clearly lack.

Every one of us is more qualified to understand non-linear equations than you qualified to understand the first thing about genetics, clones, mammoths, dinosaurs, prehistory, Hitler, television syndication, parallel processing, SATA drives, artificial intelligence, etc, etc.

You've repeatedly established to all of us that you are not qualified to understand much of anything, let alone speak about it with any authority whatsoever. That said, why, oh why, should we accept that you understood this particular topic when you've openly displayed you ignorance about virtually every other topic you've ever addressed on this entire board?

In any case if you were that interested you would have done your own research on the data and would have been convinced I was correct all along.

We have, and we've come to the peer-reviewed conclusion that you're a scientifically ignorant loonie, and that what you've suggested has already been tried, and retried, and has never produced positive results, nor any potential for such.

I already have a website devoted to the complexities of stopping tornadoes.We have a forum too to discuss issues.

Please post a link to this font of knowledge. I could use a good laugh.

Agreed.


J.

 

[Alrik]

You know what? Forget it. You're obviously stalling and pulling things from your ass. I will no longer take your posts seriously at all. I doubt anyone else here will either.

J.

Don't sweat it J. I think we may be in the presence of a master baiter. The formula is pretty clear. Propose and absurd idea. Watch it get shredded by facts. Then attack everyone else as being blind and closed minded.

Who's this remind you of? http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/nq/2009/06/03/

Edit:

Shame on me for thinking this thread had faded away. Look at all of the fun I have been missing.

 

[Silvercrest]

Oh, I just figured you were getting your keyboard replaced.

 

[Amaris]

You know what? Forget it. You're obviously stalling and pulling things from your ass. I will no longer take your posts seriously at all. I doubt anyone else here will either.

J.

Don't sweat it J. I think we may be in the presence of a master baiter. The formula is pretty clear. Propose and absurd idea. Watch it get shredded by facts. Then attack everyone else as being blind and closed minded.

Who's this remind you of? http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/nq/2009/06/03/

Edit:

Shame on me for thinking this thread had faded away. Look at all of the fun I have been missing.

Beautiful, and a perfect example.


J.