Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36
Like Tree5Likes
  • 2 Post By shlunka
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By RedPanda

Thread: Microwave weapons

  1. #1 Microwave weapons 
    Forum Freshman deep'n'dark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    56
    Here's an interesting video of microwave weapons: http://www.youtube.com/v/kvn-8ITy0oc...apiid=ytplayer
    This is not a new thing for me for 9 years but I have not seen this interview before.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Fascinating.
    Thanks for posting that.
    I'm always amazed at the coverage that lying/ deluded crackpots get.
    And also at the fact that people tend to accept them without checking.

    This so-called Dr. Barrie Trower appears to have no published papers whatsoever.
    And the source: naturalscience.org - "It is our mission to heal this world in accord with Natural Law, thus restoring Divine Order on this precious Planet Earth. By consistently combining Natural and Spiritual Science The World Foundation for Natural Science has a unique approach."
    Hmm, "divine order"? "Spiritual science"?
    They're kidding right?


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman deep'n'dark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Fascinating.
    Thanks for posting that.
    I'm always amazed at the coverage that lying/ deluded crackpots get.
    And also at the fact that people tend to accept them without checking.

    This so-called Dr. Barrie Trower appears to have no published papers whatsoever.
    And the source: naturalscience.org - "It is our mission to heal this world in accord with Natural Law, thus restoring Divine Order on this precious Planet Earth. By consistently combining Natural and Spiritual Science The World Foundation for Natural Science has a unique approach."
    Hmm, "divine order"? "Spiritual science"?
    They're kidding right?

    You're skeptical for no reason this time, i'm a proof that this is true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by deep'n'dark View Post
    You're skeptical for no reason this time
    On the contrary, I'm sceptical because Trower is a fraud and a liar or a fantasist.

    i'm a proof that this is true.
    Really?
    How so?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    You're skeptical for no reason this time, i'm a proof that this is true.
    I'm very skeptical as well and think the same way Dywyddyr is. Your no proof of anything except a parrot for whatever you believe is true but cannot prove it is.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Oops, I forgot!
    Could we have this moved to Pseudo or Trash please?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,786
    I smashed my finger in the microwave door once.
    Kerling and Dywyddyr like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman kanzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    11
    I think I am reading the comments right in that they don't believe this. Do you even know about electronic harassment? Project MK Ultra?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,965
    Quote Originally Posted by kanzen View Post
    I think I am reading the comments right in that they don't believe this. Do you even know about electronic harassment? Project MK Ultra?
    What I know is that its scope did not involve electronics in any way, other than incidentally. No microwaves, no (ultra)sonics, no Neuralyzer(tm) flashy-thingy...so mentioning it here would seem to be wildly off topic. If you have contrary information, please present it (with appropriate citations). If you don't, then please refrain from muddying the waters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by kanzen View Post
    I think I am reading the comments right in that they don't believe this.
    Because the guy in the OP's video is a fraud and a crank.

    Do you even know about electronic harassment?
    Such as?

    Project MK Ultra?
    Which relates to microwaves how?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman kanzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    11
    I'm not too adept in the ways of presenting information to a core science audience, however the reason I brought up MK Ultra is simple. By using inaudible frequencies which are still processed by the brain, information can be planted into the subject's brain and cause a radical shift in their thoughts, emotions, actions etc. Now if this has been possible in the 70s, it is wrong to dismiss the possibility of microwave weaponry being used maliciously.

    Electronic harassment is very difficult to document. How would you prove that someone shot a microwave through your walls and cooked your knees while you were asleep? The technology is present. With the world in the state that it is I would not dismiss the possibility.

    I fully expect to be discredited for not having 20 sources but I feel like people need to question and not fact find by increments that lead to nothing substantial.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by kanzen View Post
    I'm not too adept in the ways of presenting information to a core science audience, however the reason I brought up MK Ultra is simple. By using inaudible frequencies which are still processed by the brain, information can be planted into the subject's brain
    Hmm,

    1. Substances which will promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness to the point where the recipient would be discredited in public.
    2. Substances which increase the efficiency of mentation and perception.
    3. Materials which will cause the victim to age faster/slower in maturity.
    4. Materials which will promote the intoxicating effect of alcohol.
    5. Materials which will produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way so that they may be used for malingering, etc.
    6. Materials will cause temporary/permanent brain damage and loss of memory.
    7. Substances which will enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion during interrogation and so-called "brain-washing".
    8. Materials and physical methods which will produce amnesia for events preceding and during their use.
    9. Physical methods of producing shock and confusion over extended periods of time and capable of surreptitious use.
    10. Substances which produce physical disablement such as paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.
    11. Substances which will produce a chemical that can cause blisters.
    12. Substances which alter personality structure in such a way that the tendency of the recipient to become dependent upon another person is enhanced.
    13. A material which will cause mental confusion of such a type that the individual under its influence will find it difficult to maintain a fabrication under questioning.
    14. Substances which will lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men when administered in undetectable amounts.
    15. Substances which promote weakness or distortion of the eyesight or hearing faculties, preferably without permanent effects.
    16. A knockout pill which can surreptitiously be administered in drinks, food, cigarettes, as an aerosol, etc., which will be safe to use, provide a maximum of amnesia, and be suitable for use by agent types on an ad hoc basis.
    17. A material which can be surreptitiously administered by the above routes and which in very small amounts will make it impossible for a person to perform physical activity.

    Hmm, can you show me in that list where microwaves are mentioned? Can you tell me how "inaudible frequencies" are related to microwaves?

    How would you prove that someone shot a microwave through your walls and cooked your knees while you were asleep?
    Can you show that "shooting a microwave through a wall and cooking your knees" is feasible?

    I fully expect to be discredited for not having 20 sources
    ONE (reliable) source would be a good start.

    but I feel like people need to question and not fact find by increments that lead to nothing substantial.
    Isn't practically ALL fact finding done by increments?
    tk421 likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,965
    Quote Originally Posted by kanzen View Post
    I fully expect to be discredited for not having 20 sources but I feel like people need to question and not fact find by increments that lead to nothing substantial.
    Absolutely you will be "discredited." Science (and remember, this is not only a science forum, it is The Science Forum) requires evidence, not the assertions of some random guy on the internet. If you have no evidence, then you're just wasting people's time (and looking crackpotty in the process).

    By the way, you seem to know very little about microwaves. There's only a relatively narrow range of frequencies that propagate at all well, and those have been claimed by telecom services (precisely because they propagate well). Interference caused by your imaginary microwave mind-and-knee control devices would absolutely have been noticed and documented.

    You'll have to come up with more than imagined scenarios if you're going to persuade anyone here. Mere assertions, appeals to plausibility ("hey, gummints lie, people die"), etc. will be dismissed as unreliable. Again, you'll need evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman kanzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    11
    The relation between MK Ultra, inaudible frequencies and microwaves is the sinister potential they all have. That is the sole reason I brought it up. If you weren't convinced that governments can and do use microwaves as weapons then I was referencing Project MK Ultra so you could see that the government is not above this sort of weaponry.

    Yes fact finding is in increments. That is all you're doing though. No questions are being asked about the morality and potential use of it for profit, control, and power. As a science forum member I don't have any hostility to your approach of finding out only if the technology is possible and nothing else.

    I am not trying to convince anyone so I am not going to waste my time finding sources. It will be your own initiative if you are actually interested.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,965
    Quote Originally Posted by kanzen View Post
    The relation between MK Ultra, inaudible frequencies and microwaves is the sinister potential they all have.
    Thanks for conceding that you are simply making linkages without evidential support.

    That is the sole reason I brought it up. If you weren't convinced that governments can and do use microwaves as weapons then I was referencing Project MK Ultra so you could see that the government is not above this sort of weaponry.
    Typical crank rhetoric, as I already anticipated ("gummints lie, people die"). Rhetoric is not evidence.

    I am not trying to convince anyone so I am not going to waste my time finding sources.
    Thanks for conceding that you've got nothing, and were simply declaring your personal beliefs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman kanzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    11
    Thanks for the swift reply. Yes everything is my belief backed by hearsay and critical thinking was used to link each piece. However science frowns upon critical thinking and only sees what is in front of them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by kanzen View Post
    If you weren't convinced that governments can and do use microwaves as weapons
    Examples please.

    Yes fact finding is in increments. That is all you're doing though.
    Is there any other way?

    No questions are being asked about the morality and potential use of it for profit, control, and power. As a science forum member I don't have any hostility to your approach of finding out only if the technology is possible and nothing else.
    UNTIL we find out if the technology is possible, and if so, IS IT BEING USED, then any discussion of the morality is moot.
    Is it moral to spiggle chunchkins for profit? If not why not? If so, why?

    It will be your own initiative if you are actually interested.
    Nice cop out, since you have already made claims.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by kanzen View Post
    Yes everything is my belief backed by hearsay and critical thinking was used to link each piece. However science frowns upon critical thinking and only sees what is in front of them.
    Please show us this "critical thinking".
    You have made claims, specifically: governments can and do use microwaves as weapons.
    Please support this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by kanzen View Post
    Thanks for the swift reply. Yes everything is my belief backed by hearsay and critical thinking was used to link each piece. However science frowns upon critical thinking and only sees what is in front of them.
    I get a kick out of how some people will use the words skeptics use in order to make it appear as though each side is just making the same innuendo and leave doubt in readers minds- as if it's about opinion.
    It is not opinion- it is evidence and without evidence, you are not employing critical thinking and claiming that you are is just plain ol' fashioned lying.
    tk421 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by kanzen View Post
    governments can and do use microwaves as weapons
    A friend of mine once threw her video-player* at her boyfriend's head.
    I expect that a microwave would hurt more.
    But I hope the government never starts using conventional ovens as weapons or we'll all be in trouble.


    * Luckily it was still plugged in, so its journey was prematurely cut short.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    You have made claims, specifically: governments can and do use microwaves as weapons.
    I think he was trying to show us that governments have a history of using weapons.

    No doubt we are all in shock at the astuteness of that observation.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Kerling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    You have made claims, specifically: governments can and do use microwaves as weapons.
    I think he was trying to show us that governments have a history of using weapons.

    No doubt we are all in shock at the astuteness of that observation.
    There must be some truth to his claims.
    Let's face it, Most of the US army runs on Microwaved food...

    But sure, you can make EM weapons, But why would you?
    Hell, with sufficient power and Microwave sources I too could make a microwave gun that would slowly toast my enemy. But it wouldn't be any good. It would probably be more fun to make it into a microwave laser (a small one) with a good direction mechanism. And use it to boil the cups of soda whenever a fat religious person eats at a fast-food restaurant to simulate divine intervention.
    In the information age ignorance is a choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    128
    [QUOTE=Kerling;402730]
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    It would probably be more fun to make it into a microwave laser (a small one) with a good direction mechanism. And use it to boil the cups of soda whenever a fat religious person eats at a fast-food restaurant to simulate divine intervention.
    Did you say Microwave Lasers? Well tickle me pink. I'd say i found it. Would it be possible to add an image onto that laser and then amplify it to a certain degree by which it could travel through walls burning a mark into the intended target depending on the amplification? Let's just base this on, let's say, telecoms like am/fm radio. So that is the range we will use in this example. Now based on this info, do you now believe it is possible to use such a thing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post

    You'll have to come up with more than imagined scenarios if you're going to persuade anyone here. Mere assertions, appeals to plausibility ("hey, gummints lie, people die"), etc. will be dismissed as unreliable. Again, you'll need evidence.

    Hi tk421, just wanted to conclude with you and refer to the other thread that i initially opened up. i did the experiment with electricity flowing from an antenna and got good results. With regards toevidence, this experiment was based on current flowing from an antenna and not a battery. Here, take a look: Experiment 1 - YouTube .

    Also, i believe it is quite true to amplify the microwave laser that Kerling was referring to and make it go through walls. Since lasers travel by light waves it is safe to say that they can bypass objects like walls. For example, X-rays work with light waves also and they go through objects like skin, bones, luggage (at the airport), etc...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Sci_Research View Post
    Did you say Microwave Lasers? Well tickle me pink. I'd say i found it.
    What?
    Microwave lasers were invented before optical lasers. A laser is merely a subset of masers.

    Would it be possible to add an image onto that laser
    What?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sci_Research View Post
    Since lasers travel by light waves it is safe to say that they can bypass objects like walls. For example, X-rays work with light waves also and they go through objects like skin, bones, luggage (at the airport), etc...
    No. Light refers specifically to visible wavelengths.
    Light does not "bypass walls".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Sci_Research View Post
    Since lasers travel by light waves it is safe to say that they can bypass objects like walls. For example, X-rays work with light waves also and they go through objects like skin, bones, luggage (at the airport), etc...
    No. Light refers specifically to visible wavelengths.
    Light does not "bypass walls".

    No i have to disagree. Light is not referring specifically to just Visible light as UV light is well beyond that point in the spectrum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    light

    /līt/
    Noun
    The natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible; electromagnetic radiation from about 390 to 740 nm in wavelength.

    UV doesn't pass through walls either.
    More specifically, X-Rays aren't referred to as light.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Sci_Research View Post
    Hi tk421, just wanted to conclude with you and refer to the other thread that i initially opened up. i did the experiment with electricity flowing from an antenna and got good results. With regards toevidence, this experiment was based on current flowing from an antenna and not a battery. Here, take a look: Experiment 1 - YouTube .
    I'm not sure what you think you've demonstrated, but you're over a century behind the times. A guy named Michael Faraday discovered near-field energy transmission (mutual induction) around 1830. Heinrich Hertz demonstrated radio waves (far-field energy transmission) around 1887. You may have noticed people running around with cell phones in recent years; those, too, depend on wireless transmission for their operation.

    A fellow named Nikola Tesla did many experiments with wireless energy transmission before 1900. His experiments unfortunately showed that it is impractical to replace our wired power infrastructure with a wireless one. Short-distance, inefficient power transfer is possible (and often used to impress those without a quantitative understanding of what Maxwell's equations imply), but that's about it. The inverse-square rolloff of power precludes efficient, point-to-point long-distance transmission of industrial amounts of power. Period.

    Your "good results" are nothing of the kind, Sci_Research. It seems that you still don't even understand what the fundamental problem actually is, as your experiment isn't even quantitative in the least. Was it a near- or far-field experiment? What was the frequency? The distance? How much power was in the transmitter? How much power was delivered to the receiver? Etc. None of those questions are even asked, let alone answered, in your experiment.

    Also, i believe it is quite true to amplify the microwave laser that Kerling was referring to and make it go through walls.
    You really need to learn some actual physics; it's painful reading post after post of yours. Microwaves go through many types of walls just fine inherently. Amplification just makes something stronger; it doesn't change their basic character.

    And the "laser" part? It seems that you believe that a coherent microwave beam goes through walls better. That belief is incorrect. The attenuation of any material is a function of the material's properties (composition, shape and dimensions). If a wall attenuates an incoherent microwave beam by 50%, it will also attenuate a coherent microwave beam by 50%.

    And, as has been noted, microwave lasers -- masers -- have existed longer than visible lasers. No invention is necessary.

    Since lasers travel by light waves it is safe to say that they can bypass objects like walls. For example, X-rays work with light waves also and they go through objects like skin, bones, luggage (at the airport), etc...
    Again, you need to study actual science. You seem to be getting too much of your information from dodgy sources. You know much, much less than you think. Your posts have been filled with nonsensical claims. It is not "safe to say" that lasers can "bypass objects" because "lasers travel by light waves." I think you set a record there for the highest density of non-sequiturs and erroneous statements in a single sentence.
    Last edited by tk421; March 24th, 2013 at 12:38 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    You really need to learn some actual physics; it's painful reading post after post of yours. Microwaves go through many types of walls just fine inherently. Amplification just makes something stronger; it doesn't change their basic character..
    Ok so what would you say is transparent light waves? I know UV is one. Would Infra red be another? hold on a minute, i know infra red can be used without the red light as the output.

    On another note, let's say this: I am using AM/FM (radio) as the chosen frequency for example. Now using a varactor diode (tune) which connects to an amplifier (with volume control) and is fed into 2 darlington pairs which is then fed into an LED and outputted. Do you believe this is achievable?

    I do but in theory. I have to admit it needs some help in the design stages.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Sci_Research View Post
    Did you say Microwave Lasers? Well tickle me pink.
    Rather ironic that before the laser there was the MASER ("Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation"). When the first lasers were developed, they were called Optical Masers.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Sci_Research View Post
    Ok so what would you say is transparent light waves?
    Transparent light waves? What does that mean?

    I am using AM/FM (radio) as the chosen frequency for example.
    That is not a "frequency". AM and FM are modulation techniques (the clue is in the name). Radio is not a frequency but an enormously wide range of frequencies.

    Now using a varactor diode (tune) which connects to an amplifier (with volume control) and is fed into 2 darlington pairs which is then fed into an LED and outputted. Do you believe this is achievable?
    Impossible to say as it isn't clear what you are trying to do. Modulate the amplitude of light emitted by an LED?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Sci_Research View Post
    Ok so what would you say is transparent light waves? I know UV is one. Would Infra red be another? hold on a minute, i know infra red can be used without the red light as the output.
    I share Strange's puzzled expression. Your post above makes zero sense (hence confirming that you need to learn basic physics first; your problems aren't limited to design of circuits -- they're deep, fundamental problems of not understanding basic principles and facts).

    Strictly speaking, all light is transparent in the sense that one can always send light through other light, but I doubt very much that this has anything to do with what you were thinking.

    UV and IR are merely two different wavelength bands of light that happen to straddle the wavelengths that are visible to people. UV, as its name suggests, consists of frequencies "beyond the violet." Roughly speaking, the short-wavelength cutoff for people is around 400nm or thereabouts. IR is "below red," and very roughly corresponds to wavelengths longer than about 800nnm or so. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "without red light as the output." I suspect you don't, either.

    Different sources of light have different spectra. Some, like lasers, are close to monochromatic (single wavelength) or perhaps polychromatic (multiple discrete wavelengths). LEDs are also approximately monochromatic. Incandescent lamps are broadband (energy is distributed more or less continuously across a band of wavelengths).

    On another note, let's say this: I am using AM/FM (radio) as the chosen frequency for example.
    As Strange noted, AM/FM are forms of modulation. That's what the "M" in AM and FM stands for. AM and FM are not frequencies.

    Now using a varactor diode (tune) which connects to an amplifier (with volume control)
    You would not connect a varactor to an amplifier. That makes zero sense. You would, however, use a varactor in the oscillator that lives inside a radio receiver or transmitter. And depending on your architecture and requirements, you may also use one or more varactors to tune various other circuits, such as filters, at the same time.

    and is fed into 2 darlington pairs which is then fed into an LED and outputted. Do you believe this is achievable?
    I don't know what "this" you are trying to achieve. It would, of course, be trivial to connect two darlington pairs to an LED. I could also connect two darlington pairs to a ham sandwich. That would be equally achievable, but I am uncertain what the point would be.

    I do but in theory. I have to admit it needs some help in the design stages.
    As is clear from the above, you need to boost your knowledge in theory as well as in design.
    Last edited by tk421; March 25th, 2013 at 01:13 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    Transparent light waves? What does that mean?
    Transparency. Light waves that cannot be seen but are actually there, like UV rays. Light bulbs and coloured LED's can be seen as they are visible light waves. UV rays on the other hand are categorized as transparent as you can't see them visibly but they are presently there.

    I am using AM/FM (radio) as the chosen frequency for example.
    That is not a "frequency". AM and FM are modulation techniques (the clue is in the name). Radio is not a frequency but an enormously wide range of frequencies. [/QUOTE]

    You're right. AM/FM are not frequencies but are uses for the categories they are in. AM is in MF and works around the 300 khz - 3 Mhz freq range while FM is in VHF and works around the 30 Mhz - 300 Mhz freq range (also has video in the same range).


    Now using a varactor diode (tune) which connects to an amplifier (with volume control) and is fed into 2 darlington pairs which is then fed into an LED and outputted. Do you believe this is achievable?
    Impossible to say as it isn't clear what you are trying to do. Modulate the amplitude of light emitted by an LED?[/QUOTE]

    Something like that. LED's are light emitters. Have you ever heard of Infra - Red LED's? They are invisible. So this is how my mind works:

    Since in AM a diode is used to clip off one side of the wave so you could hear the DJ's voice on the speakers and in FM the diode turns the changes in frequency into sound, it tells me that if i have an antenna to receive the signals and then feed it back into the IC where the Tuner is connected to and then have the output connect to the amplifier which amplifies the signal, along with the 2 darlington pairs and then outputted out through an Infra - Red LED then it should work, yes?

    I think it will. The objective is to send a signal out through an Infra - red LED which can resonant using a tuner and FM radio antenna feed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    128
    So basically sound waves can be converted to AM waves using a mic like component and then feeding that through a Electtro - Optical transducer which converts the Am waves into light. So technically what i'm saying is that it is quite possible to do my experiment. You know, i have always liked to work with others in this experiment. That's if there are any takers of course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Sci_Research View Post
    Transparency. Light waves that cannot be seen but are actually there, like UV rays. Light bulbs and coloured LED's can be seen as they are visible light waves. UV rays on the other hand are categorized as transparent as you can't see them visibly but they are presently there.
    That is not what the word means.
    Quote Originally Posted by Meriam Webster
    Transparent a (1) : having the property of transmitting light without appreciable scattering so that bodies lying beyond are seen clearly : pellucid (2) : allowing the passage of a specified form of radiation (as X-rays or ultraviolet light)
    You're right. AM/FM are not frequencies but are uses for the categories they are in. AM is in MF and works around the 300 khz - 3 Mhz freq range while FM is in VHF and works around the 30 Mhz - 300 Mhz freq range (also has video in the same range).
    By convention (and for good practical reasons to do with bandwidth, that is true). But any carrier signal (sound, light, radio of any frequency) can be either amplitude or frequency modulated. So it is not really helpful to use AM and FM in the way you do.

    Since in AM a diode is used to clip off one side of the wave so you could hear the DJ's voice on the speakers and in FM the diode turns the changes in frequency into sound, it tells me that if i have an antenna to receive the signals and then feed it back into the IC where the Tuner is connected to and then have the output connect to the amplifier which amplifies the signal, along with the 2 darlington pairs and then outputted out through an Infra - Red LED then it should work, yes?
    A radio receiver is much more than just a diode "to clip of one side of the wave". You need a tuning systems as well. But that isn't relevant. It still isn't clear what you are trying to achieve with this arrangement.

    It is still not clear what you mean by "work". It sounds like you want to receive a radio signal, tune/demodulate it to get the audi, and then use the audio to modulate the output of an IR LED. Is that correct?

    There is no particular problem doing that. It is used, for example, by some wireless headphones.

    What is your objective in doing this?

    The objective is to send a signal out through an Infra - red LED which can resonant using a tuner and FM radio antenna feed.
    You can send a signal through an IR LED. I have no idea what "resonant" or and FM radio antenna has to do with it though.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Sci_Research View Post
    So basically sound waves can be converted to AM waves using a mic like component and then feeding that through a Electtro - Optical transducer which converts the Am waves into light. So technically what i'm saying is that it is quite possible to do my experiment. You know, i have always liked to work with others in this experiment. That's if there are any takers of course.
    OK. You want to take a microphone, use the audio signal to drive an LED. Then presumably a photodiode to receive the IR and decode the audio? No problem in principle. It might require someone with some basic knowledge of electronics to help you. Have you looked at buying one of those educational electronic kits that let you plug components together? That might get you started.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. best weapons ever!
    By the man of science in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 157
    Last Post: January 6th, 2014, 02:09 PM
  2. What are the best improvised weapons?
    By kojax in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: May 20th, 2013, 09:05 PM
  3. Disabling weapons
    By jrwagner89 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: January 14th, 2013, 08:49 PM
  4. Coilguns as Weapons
    By P4raMagnet1c in forum Electrical and Electronics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: August 16th, 2011, 03:57 PM
  5. Atomic Weapons
    By wallaby in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: September 10th, 2006, 09:47 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •