Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Are you saying that there's no frequency that preferentially stimulates the ionosphere?

No.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Just getting back into town after a lil R&R in the woods. It was nice to unplug for a bit.

Just a couple of notes as James was asking about how this broadcast theory jives with the temperature drop in the late 40's - to early 50's

IF and that's a bit IF here.. If AM broadcast used in the gyrofrequency range was stimulating Electron Precipitation, hence ozone depletion and influencing global temperature. The simulation around this frequency causes cyclotron plasma waves to travel from the ionosphere to the polar regions along magnetic field lines where density ducts form in the ionospheric plasma. Though EEP does occur at most any latitude, most of it occurs in the polar regions.

Once we started using higher frequencies to broadcast television.. the electromagnetic energy travels upward through the E layer of the ionosphere, but isn't high enough to couple with or go through the F layer of the ionosphere so it reflects off of it and comes back down on the E layer of the ionosphere at an angle causing what's called 'hybrid wave suppression' along the magnetic field lines that typically conduct the cyclotron plasma waves to the polar regions in the EEP-NOx process. 'Hybrid Wave Suppression' has been seen to occur on multiples of the gyrofrequency above the second gyroharmonic.



Then when FM came over the airwaves over taking AM, I wonder if it might have overloaded the ionosphere creating cyclotron maser plasma turbulence in the F layer, which has been recorded, and resumed the EEP-NOx ozone depletion process.



Again.. all apart of the theory as it goes.. IF there's anything to it all.

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Just getting back into town after a lil R&R in the woods. It was nice to unplug for a bit.

Just a couple of notes as James was asking about how this broadcast theory jives with the temperature drop in the late 40's - to early 50's

IF and that's a bit IF here.. If AM broadcast used in the gyrofrequency range was stimulating Electron Precipitation, hence ozone depletion and influencing global temperature. The simulation around this frequency causes cyclotron plasma waves to travel from the ionosphere to the polar regions along magnetic field lines where density ducts form in the ionospheric plasma. Though EEP does occur at most any latitude, most of it occurs in the polar regions.

Once we started using higher frequencies to broadcast television.. the electromagnetic energy travels upward through the E layer of the ionosphere, but isn't high enough to couple with or go through the F layer of the ionosphere so it reflects off of it and comes back down on the E layer of the ionosphere at an angle causing what's called 'hybrid wave suppression' along the magnetic field lines that typically conduct the cyclotron plasma waves to the polar regions in the EEP-NOx process. 'Hybrid Wave Suppression' has been seen to occur on multiples of the gyrofrequency above the second gyroharmonic.



Then when FM came over the airwaves over taking AM, I wonder if it might have overloaded the ionosphere creating cyclotron maser plasma turbulence in the F layer, which has been recorded, and resumed the EEP-NOx ozone depletion process.



Again.. all apart of the theory as it goes.. IF there's anything to it all.

What about CFC's other than the NOx you believe is generated by radio waves?

Lewis Carlson wrote:

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Just getting back into town after a lil R&R in the woods. It was nice to unplug for a bit.

Just a couple of notes as James was asking about how this broadcast theory jives with the temperature drop in the late 40's - to early 50's

IF and that's a bit IF here.. If AM broadcast used in the gyrofrequency range was stimulating Electron Precipitation, hence ozone depletion and influencing global temperature. The simulation around this frequency causes cyclotron plasma waves to travel from the ionosphere to the polar regions along magnetic field lines where density ducts form in the ionospheric plasma. Though EEP does occur at most any latitude, most of it occurs in the polar regions.

Once we started using higher frequencies to broadcast television.. the electromagnetic energy travels upward through the E layer of the ionosphere, but isn't high enough to couple with or go through the F layer of the ionosphere so it reflects off of it and comes back down on the E layer of the ionosphere at an angle causing what's called 'hybrid wave suppression' along the magnetic field lines that typically conduct the cyclotron plasma waves to the polar regions in the EEP-NOx process. 'Hybrid Wave Suppression' has been seen to occur on multiples of the gyrofrequency above the second gyroharmonic.



Then when FM came over the airwaves over taking AM, I wonder if it might have overloaded the ionosphere creating cyclotron maser plasma turbulence in the F layer, which has been recorded, and resumed the EEP-NOx ozone depletion process.



Again.. all apart of the theory as it goes.. IF there's anything to it all.

What about CFC's other than the NOx you believe is generated by radio waves?

I can't invalidate CFC's and won't attempt to. I truly don't know what of the various processes contribute significantly, but if I look at that temperature graph put out by the WMO, from what I see the rise in temperature that hits the half way mark started around the time of broadcast.. ie. before CFC's were widely used.

In fact the historical trends of our use of both CFC's and CO2 don't fit this temp curve at all. The only thing that fits these global temp anomalies is our historic use of broadcast, especially when you take into consideration how those frequencies used at the time interact with the ionosphere --> AM --> cyclotron plasma waves --> EEP-NOx

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Just getting back into town after a lil R&R in the woods. It was nice to unplug for a bit.

Just a couple of notes as James was asking about how this broadcast theory jives with the temperature drop in the late 40's - to early 50's

IF and that's a bit IF here.. If AM broadcast used in the gyrofrequency range was stimulating Electron Precipitation, hence ozone depletion and influencing global temperature. The simulation around this frequency causes cyclotron plasma waves to travel from the ionosphere to the polar regions along magnetic field lines where density ducts form in the ionospheric plasma. Though EEP does occur at most any latitude, most of it occurs in the polar regions.

Once we started using higher frequencies to broadcast television.. the electromagnetic energy travels upward through the E layer of the ionosphere, but isn't high enough to couple with or go through the F layer of the ionosphere so it reflects off of it and comes back down on the E layer of the ionosphere at an angle causing what's called 'hybrid wave suppression' along the magnetic field lines that typically conduct the cyclotron plasma waves to the polar regions in the EEP-NOx process. 'Hybrid Wave Suppression' has been seen to occur on multiples of the gyrofrequency above the second gyroharmonic.



Then when FM came over the airwaves over taking AM, I wonder if it might have overloaded the ionosphere creating cyclotron maser plasma turbulence in the F layer, which has been recorded, and resumed the EEP-NOx ozone depletion process.



Again.. all apart of the theory as it goes.. IF there's anything to it all.

What about CFC's other than the NOx you believe is generated by radio waves?

I can't invalidate CFC's and won't attempt to. I truly don't know what of the various processes contribute significantly, but if I look at that temperature graph put out by the WMO, from what I see the rise in temperature that hits the half way mark started around the time of broadcast.. ie. before CFC's were widely used.

In fact the historical trends of our use of both CFC's and CO2 don't fit this temp curve at all. The only thing that fits these global temp anomalies is our historic use of broadcast, especially when you take into consideration how those frequencies used at the time interact with the ionosphere --> AM --> cyclotron plasma waves --> EEP-NOx

I think the warming that started around 1910 was caused by earthquakes somewhere between Greenland and the mouth of the Hudson Bay. There was excessive glacial calving followed by the waters south of there suddenly warming. Radio waves can't account for that.

Lewis Carlson wrote:

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Just getting back into town after a lil R&R in the woods. It was nice to unplug for a bit.

Just a couple of notes as James was asking about how this broadcast theory jives with the temperature drop in the late 40's - to early 50's

IF and that's a bit IF here.. If AM broadcast used in the gyrofrequency range was stimulating Electron Precipitation, hence ozone depletion and influencing global temperature. The simulation around this frequency causes cyclotron plasma waves to travel from the ionosphere to the polar regions along magnetic field lines where density ducts form in the ionospheric plasma. Though EEP does occur at most any latitude, most of it occurs in the polar regions.

Once we started using higher frequencies to broadcast television.. the electromagnetic energy travels upward through the E layer of the ionosphere, but isn't high enough to couple with or go through the F layer of the ionosphere so it reflects off of it and comes back down on the E layer of the ionosphere at an angle causing what's called 'hybrid wave suppression' along the magnetic field lines that typically conduct the cyclotron plasma waves to the polar regions in the EEP-NOx process. 'Hybrid Wave Suppression' has been seen to occur on multiples of the gyrofrequency above the second gyroharmonic.



Then when FM came over the airwaves over taking AM, I wonder if it might have overloaded the ionosphere creating cyclotron maser plasma turbulence in the F layer, which has been recorded, and resumed the EEP-NOx ozone depletion process.



Again.. all apart of the theory as it goes.. IF there's anything to it all.

What about CFC's other than the NOx you believe is generated by radio waves?

I can't invalidate CFC's and won't attempt to. I truly don't know what of the various processes contribute significantly, but if I look at that temperature graph put out by the WMO, from what I see the rise in temperature that hits the half way mark started around the time of broadcast.. ie. before CFC's were widely used.

In fact the historical trends of our use of both CFC's and CO2 don't fit this temp curve at all. The only thing that fits these global temp anomalies is our historic use of broadcast, especially when you take into consideration how those frequencies used at the time interact with the ionosphere --> AM --> cyclotron plasma waves --> EEP-NOx

I think the warming that started around 1910 was caused by earthquakes somewhere between Greenland and the mouth of the Hudson Bay. There was excessive glacial calving followed by the waters south of there suddenly warming. Radio waves can't account for that.

In 1910 I don't know if our ability to pinpoint a specific area where global temperature anomalies started was very honed. There could have been many other parts of the world that started warming too. I will say though that the area you speak of is right about the lowest point of the Auroral Electrojet, which would indeed be sensitive to broadcast induced EEP-NOx.

In the end we all have our theories James.. I'm not saying mine is right, but I do think my perspective is worth considering.

Lewis Carlson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Are you saying that there's no frequency that preferentially stimulates the ionosphere?

No.

That's not what your saying.. or no there isn't?

Lewis Carlson wrote:
If you're saying that no frequency preferentially stimulates the ionosphere, I'd like to slow this debate down and try to uncomplicate things here.

In the mid 80's they launched a rocket called the MINIX experiment to determine the viability of a Solar Power Satellite - SPS system that would collect solar energy and beam it back to Earth's surface using 2.45GHz. When they ran the experiment this is what they had to say:

"A rocket-borne experiment called MINIX was carried out to investigate the nonlinear interaction of a strong microwave energy beam with the ionosphere. The MINIX stands for Microwave-Ionosphere Nonlinear Interaction Experiment and was carried out on August 29, 1983. The objectives of the MINIX is to study possible impacts of the SPS microwave energy beam on the ionosphere such as the Ohmic heating and plasma wave excitation. The experiment showed that the microwave with f = 2.45 GHz nonlinearly excites various electrostatic plasma waves, though no Ohmic heating effects were detected."

Nonlinear interaction of strong microwave beam with the ionosphere MINIX rocket experiment - https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6955190

Lewis Carlson wrote:
They found that 2.45GHz would excite the ionospheric plasma --> regardless of altitude <-- this means unlike other frequencies that affect the ionosphere at specific altitudes.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
I'm not making this up. It's not simple.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
AND if that's not what your saying then please elaborate on what you mean. I truly want to understand.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
It's just that your saying it's too complicated,

Lewis Carlson wrote:
but you seem to have a sure answer for how you think this works.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Help me understand your perspective. If you're really here to debate and not just troll, show me you're open to debate please.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
1.5MHz is in the AM broadcast band and it's on ALL the time. A frequency shown by the MINIX experiment to stimulate electron cyclotron waves.

I'm not making this up.

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Just getting back into town after a lil R&R in the woods. It was nice to unplug for a bit.

Just a couple of notes as James was asking about how this broadcast theory jives with the temperature drop in the late 40's - to early 50's

IF and that's a bit IF here.. If AM broadcast used in the gyrofrequency range was stimulating Electron Precipitation, hence ozone depletion and influencing global temperature. The simulation around this frequency causes cyclotron plasma waves to travel from the ionosphere to the polar regions along magnetic field lines where density ducts form in the ionospheric plasma. Though EEP does occur at most any latitude, most of it occurs in the polar regions.

Once we started using higher frequencies to broadcast television.. the electromagnetic energy travels upward through the E layer of the ionosphere, but isn't high enough to couple with or go through the F layer of the ionosphere so it reflects off of it and comes back down on the E layer of the ionosphere at an angle causing what's called 'hybrid wave suppression' along the magnetic field lines that typically conduct the cyclotron plasma waves to the polar regions in the EEP-NOx process. 'Hybrid Wave Suppression' has been seen to occur on multiples of the gyrofrequency above the second gyroharmonic.



Then when FM came over the airwaves over taking AM, I wonder if it might have overloaded the ionosphere creating cyclotron maser plasma turbulence in the F layer, which has been recorded, and resumed the EEP-NOx ozone depletion process.



Again.. all apart of the theory as it goes.. IF there's anything to it all.

What about CFC's other than the NOx you believe is generated by radio waves?

Lewis Carlson wrote:

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Just getting back into town after a lil R&R in the woods. It was nice to unplug for a bit.

Just a couple of notes as James was asking about how this broadcast theory jives with the temperature drop in the late 40's - to early 50's

IF and that's a bit IF here.. If AM broadcast used in the gyrofrequency range was stimulating Electron Precipitation, hence ozone depletion and influencing global temperature. The simulation around this frequency causes cyclotron plasma waves to travel from the ionosphere to the polar regions along magnetic field lines where density ducts form in the ionospheric plasma. Though EEP does occur at most any latitude, most of it occurs in the polar regions.

Once we started using higher frequencies to broadcast television.. the electromagnetic energy travels upward through the E layer of the ionosphere, but isn't high enough to couple with or go through the F layer of the ionosphere so it reflects off of it and comes back down on the E layer of the ionosphere at an angle causing what's called 'hybrid wave suppression' along the magnetic field lines that typically conduct the cyclotron plasma waves to the polar regions in the EEP-NOx process. 'Hybrid Wave Suppression' has been seen to occur on multiples of the gyrofrequency above the second gyroharmonic.



Then when FM came over the airwaves over taking AM, I wonder if it might have overloaded the ionosphere creating cyclotron maser plasma turbulence in the F layer, which has been recorded, and resumed the EEP-NOx ozone depletion process.



Again.. all apart of the theory as it goes.. IF there's anything to it all.

What about CFC's other than the NOx you believe is generated by radio waves?

I can't invalidate CFC's and won't attempt to. I truly don't know what of the various processes contribute significantly, but if I look at that temperature graph put out by the WMO, from what I see the rise in temperature that hits the half way mark started around the time of broadcast.. ie. before CFC's were widely used.

In fact the historical trends of our use of both CFC's and CO2 don't fit this temp curve at all. The only thing that fits these global temp anomalies is our historic use of broadcast, especially when you take into consideration how those frequencies used at the time interact with the ionosphere --> AM --> cyclotron plasma waves --> EEP-NOx

James___ wrote:
I think the warming that started around 1910 was caused by earthquakes somewhere between Greenland and the mouth of the Hudson Bay. There was excessive glacial calving followed by the waters south of there suddenly warming. Radio waves can't account for that.

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Just getting back into town after a lil R&R in the woods. It was nice to unplug for a bit.

Just a couple of notes as James was asking about how this broadcast theory jives with the temperature drop in the late 40's - to early 50's

IF and that's a bit IF here.. If AM broadcast used in the gyrofrequency range was stimulating Electron Precipitation, hence ozone depletion and influencing global temperature. The simulation around this frequency causes cyclotron plasma waves to travel from the ionosphere to the polar regions along magnetic field lines where density ducts form in the ionospheric plasma. Though EEP does occur at most any latitude, most of it occurs in the polar regions.

Once we started using higher frequencies to broadcast television.. the electromagnetic energy travels upward through the E layer of the ionosphere, but isn't high enough to couple with or go through the F layer of the ionosphere so it reflects off of it and comes back down on the E layer of the ionosphere at an angle causing what's called 'hybrid wave suppression' along the magnetic field lines that typically conduct the cyclotron plasma waves to the polar regions in the EEP-NOx process. 'Hybrid Wave Suppression' has been seen to occur on multiples of the gyrofrequency above the second gyroharmonic.



Then when FM came over the airwaves over taking AM, I wonder if it might have overloaded the ionosphere creating cyclotron maser plasma turbulence in the F layer, which has been recorded, and resumed the EEP-NOx ozone depletion process.



Again.. all apart of the theory as it goes.. IF there's anything to it all.

What about CFC's other than the NOx you believe is generated by radio waves?

I can't invalidate CFC's and won't attempt to. I truly don't know what of the various processes contribute significantly, but if I look at that temperature graph put out by the WMO, from what I see the rise in temperature that hits the half way mark started around the time of broadcast.. ie. before CFC's were widely used.

In fact the historical trends of our use of both CFC's and CO2 don't fit this temp curve at all. The only thing that fits these global temp anomalies is our historic use of broadcast, especially when you take into consideration how those frequencies used at the time interact with the ionosphere --> AM --> cyclotron plasma waves --> EEP-NOx

I think the warming that started around 1910 was caused by earthquakes somewhere between Greenland and the mouth of the Hudson Bay. There was excessive glacial calving followed by the waters south of there suddenly warming. Radio waves can't account for that.

In 1910 I don't know if our ability to pinpoint a specific area where global temperature anomalies started was very honed. There could have been many other parts of the world that started warming too. I will say though that the area you speak of is right about the lowest point of the Auroral Electrojet, which would indeed be sensitive to broadcast induced EEP-NOx.

In the end we all have our theories James.. I'm not saying mine is right, but I do think my perspective is worth considering.

I don't know Mr. Carlson. For what you're proposing you haven't shown where NOx is found in the quantities that your theory requires. The material you've shown routinely states "the right conditions" for electron precipitation to occur. How often are those conditions met?

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017<4045%3ATETWIT>2.0.CO%3B2

http://www.ghgonline.org/othernox.htm

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Are you saying that there's no frequency that preferentially stimulates the ionosphere?

No.

That's not what your saying.. or no there isn't?

No, that is not what I am saying.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
If you're saying that no frequency preferentially stimulates the ionosphere, I'd like to slow this debate down and try to uncomplicate things here.

In the mid 80's they launched a rocket called the MINIX experiment to determine the viability of a Solar Power Satellite - SPS system that would collect solar energy and beam it back to Earth's surface using 2.45GHz. When they ran the experiment this is what they had to say:

"A rocket-borne experiment called MINIX was carried out to investigate the nonlinear interaction of a strong microwave energy beam with the ionosphere. The MINIX stands for Microwave-Ionosphere Nonlinear Interaction Experiment and was carried out on August 29, 1983. The objectives of the MINIX is to study possible impacts of the SPS microwave energy beam on the ionosphere such as the Ohmic heating and plasma wave excitation. The experiment showed that the microwave with f = 2.45 GHz nonlinearly excites various electrostatic plasma waves, though no Ohmic heating effects were detected."

Nonlinear interaction of strong microwave beam with the ionosphere MINIX rocket experiment - https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6955190

Plasma is not a wave. There is no such thing as an 'electrostatic plasma wave'.

There is also no such thing as Ohmic heating. Heat is by radiance, convection, or conduction. Nothing else.

Resistors get hot because of conductive heating by electrons flowing through it. That's all.
Food gets hot in a microwave oven due to radiant heating. The radiance is at a the absorption frequency of water.

There is no significant water in the ionosphere.

There is current flowing through the ionosphere. It is not acting like a resistor.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
They found that 2.45GHz would excite the ionospheric plasma --> regardless of altitude <-- this means unlike other frequencies that affect the ionosphere at specific altitudes.

I would tend to discard the story as buzzword 'science', due to the bad terminology.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
I'm not making this up. It's not simple.

No, but the OSTI is.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
AND if that's not what your saying then please elaborate on what you mean. I truly want to understand.

So far you have shown little interest. However, since this is a direct request, I'll explain some of this stuff for you again.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
It's just that your saying it's too complicated,

No, it's actually pretty simple. That's what I've been saying all along.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
but you seem to have a sure answer for how you think this works.

No one completely does, but we have a lot of good information about the ionosphere.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Help me understand your perspective. If you're really here to debate and not just troll, show me you're open to debate please.

The ionosphere exists anywhere from about 35 miles up to about 650 miles up. It crosses several layers of the atmosphere including the mesosphere and the thermosphere. It consists of ionized atoms and some free electrons. It is this ionization that gives the ionosphere it's name and it's characteristic capability to reflect, absorb, or be transparent to different frequencies of light (including radio).

The ionization itself is caused by the solar wind (itself charged particles), UV-C, and x-rays from the Sun striking our atmosphere. These energetic forms of energy do not heat anything, but instead just strip electrons off their atoms leaving ions and free electrons.

There is no gyro, there is no current flowing in the ionosphere, it does not produce NOx, and it does not affect the ozone layer (itself only 9 to 22 miles up, thinning with altitude). The highest (and thinnest) part of the ozone layer is 12 miles from the lowest part of the ionosphere.

As the solar wind passes Earth, electrons get trapped in the Van Allen belts and spiral around the magnetic field lines as they descend toward Earth. The approach Earth closest at the poles and produce the aurora effects at the poles. These effects are circular in nature and centered around the magnetic pole rather than the geophysical pole.

As these electrons enter the upper atmosphere, they light up just like a fluorescent tube, but without the tube. The take on different colors depending on the gases they hit. This is the only time the ionosphere becomes visible.

EPP itself DOES exist. Occasionally, electrons will 'fall out' of the spiral and become free electrons, joining those already in the ionosphere. The effect is essentially nil. There simply isn't enough power in them to do anything significant. We measure it because it's an interesting phenomenon, and because they can give us a measurable aspect about the solar wind itself, which varies with the output of the Sun. It is this measurement and others that allow us to forecast 'space weather', or the affects of the changing solar wind things like satellites and longwire systems on the ground like power distribution systems.

Another good indication of solar activity is the Auroras themselves. Higher activity expands the aurora pattern so that they are seen further south.

EPP can measure solar activity, but it cannot predict it. Like a rain gauge (using electrons instead of water droplets), it tells us what is happening now. It cannot predict the future.

Solar activity follows an 11 year cycle. This also happens to be the orbital period of Jupiter, our largest planet. There is a theory that suggests that we CAN predict solar activity by calculations based on the positions of all the planets in the solar system. To be completely accurate, we would have to include the positions of each asteroid in the asteroid belt, which is not practical. We could get a general idea though, theoretically.

The ozone layer is created by the action of UV-B sunlight on oxygen. This takes place relatively deep in the atmosphere, near the tropopause. This is an endothermic reaction, which is why the tropopause is the coldest place in our atmosphere. This action absorbs the UV-B preventing much of it from getting any deeper into the atmosphere (very little reaches the surface).

As ozone drifts upward, more and more UV-C, which can't penetrate as deeply into the atmosphere, is encountered. UV-C acting on ozone destroys the ozone, converting it back to oxygen. This absorbs the UV-C, which is why it never reaches the surface (fortunately! This is a very dangerous frequency of light to us!).

As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We can't destroy the ozone layer without either removing the oxygen from the atmosphere (end of problem...everbody's dead), or removing the sunlight (end of problem...everybody's dead).

A 'hole' in the ozone layer will open up at a pole in the winter of that pole. The reason is simple. No Sun. During winter, the Sun does not rise at all, so you get a hole. Big hairy deal.

This 'hole' will vary in size from year to year depending on upper air winds around that pole, which are driven by Hadley cell action.

The ozone layer never was depleted. That particular scam was perpetuated by the DuPont corporation, which was losing it's patent on R-12 refrigerant. They got the government to pass laws to solve this 'crisis' by forcing everyone to switch to R-134a refrigerant (under a new patent).

If you put CFC's into a tank filled with ozone, nothing happens. CFC's are inert to ozone.
If you say chlorine is set free by the action of sunlight, then chlorine will react with something else long before it reaches the ozone layer. It's a VERY reactive gas.

(funny how no one was making a fuss about chlorine in pools and water supplies...hmmmm. Also funny how the ozone 'depletion' wasn't occurring over the industrialized nations, but rather at the poles...hmmmmm.)

Now to VLF radio.

VLF is a frequency band that is capable of traveling right through the Earth itself. The Earth is essentially almost transparent to these frequencies. This makes them useful for certain specialized types of communications (the low frequencies do not allow a high baud rate). Submarines use single letter code sequences sent on VLF frequencies as A1 transmissions to perform certain instructions, such as surfacing to get further information on a better radio frequency (capable of much higher baud rates, such as voice).

They are also used as A0 beacons, measuring everything from ionosphere effects to the interior of the Earth itself. They do not effect the ozone layer at all, but they can have some effects on the ionosphere.

Hopefully, this clarifies a few things for you once again.

Lewis Carlson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Are you saying that there's no frequency that preferentially stimulates the ionosphere?

No.

That's not what your saying.. or no there isn't?

No, that is not what I am saying.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
If you're saying that no frequency preferentially stimulates the ionosphere, I'd like to slow this debate down and try to uncomplicate things here.

In the mid 80's they launched a rocket called the MINIX experiment to determine the viability of a Solar Power Satellite - SPS system that would collect solar energy and beam it back to Earth's surface using 2.45GHz. When they ran the experiment this is what they had to say:

"A rocket-borne experiment called MINIX was carried out to investigate the nonlinear interaction of a strong microwave energy beam with the ionosphere. The MINIX stands for Microwave-Ionosphere Nonlinear Interaction Experiment and was carried out on August 29, 1983. The objectives of the MINIX is to study possible impacts of the SPS microwave energy beam on the ionosphere such as the Ohmic heating and plasma wave excitation. The experiment showed that the microwave with f = 2.45 GHz nonlinearly excites various electrostatic plasma waves, though no Ohmic heating effects were detected."

Nonlinear interaction of strong microwave beam with the ionosphere MINIX rocket experiment - https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6955190

Plasma is not a wave. There is no such thing as an 'electrostatic plasma wave'.

There is also no such thing as Ohmic heating. Heat is by radiance, convection, or conduction. Nothing else.

Resistors get hot because of conductive heating by electrons flowing through it. That's all.
Food gets hot in a microwave oven due to radiant heating. The radiance is at a the absorption frequency of water.

There is no significant water in the ionosphere.

There is current flowing through the ionosphere. It is not acting like a resistor.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
They found that 2.45GHz would excite the ionospheric plasma --> regardless of altitude <-- this means unlike other frequencies that affect the ionosphere at specific altitudes.

I would tend to discard the story as buzzword 'science', due to the bad terminology.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
I'm not making this up. It's not simple.

No, but the OSTI is.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
AND if that's not what your saying then please elaborate on what you mean. I truly want to understand.

So far you have shown little interest. However, since this is a direct request, I'll explain some of this stuff for you again.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
It's just that your saying it's too complicated,

No, it's actually pretty simple. That's what I've been saying all along.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
but you seem to have a sure answer for how you think this works.

No one completely does, but we have a lot of good information about the ionosphere.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Help me understand your perspective. If you're really here to debate and not just troll, show me you're open to debate please.

The ionosphere exists anywhere from about 35 miles up to about 650 miles up. It crosses several layers of the atmosphere including the mesosphere and the thermosphere. It consists of ionized atoms and some free electrons. It is this ionization that gives the ionosphere it's name and it's characteristic capability to reflect, absorb, or be transparent to different frequencies of light (including radio).

The ionization itself is caused by the solar wind (itself charged particles), UV-C, and x-rays from the Sun striking our atmosphere. These energetic forms of energy do not heat anything, but instead just strip electrons off their atoms leaving ions and free electrons.

There is no gyro, there is no current flowing in the ionosphere, it does not produce NOx, and it does not affect the ozone layer (itself only 9 to 22 miles up, thinning with altitude). The highest (and thinnest) part of the ozone layer is 12 miles from the lowest part of the ionosphere.

As the solar wind passes Earth, electrons get trapped in the Van Allen belts and spiral around the magnetic field lines as they descend toward Earth. The approach Earth closest at the poles and produce the aurora effects at the poles. These effects are circular in nature and centered around the magnetic pole rather than the geophysical pole.

As these electrons enter the upper atmosphere, they light up just like a fluorescent tube, but without the tube. The take on different colors depending on the gases they hit. This is the only time the ionosphere becomes visible.

EPP itself DOES exist. Occasionally, electrons will 'fall out' of the spiral and become free electrons, joining those already in the ionosphere. The effect is essentially nil. There simply isn't enough power in them to do anything significant. We measure it because it's an interesting phenomenon, and because they can give us a measurable aspect about the solar wind itself, which varies with the output of the Sun. It is this measurement and others that allow us to forecast 'space weather', or the affects of the changing solar wind things like satellites and longwire systems on the ground like power distribution systems.

Another good indication of solar activity is the Auroras themselves. Higher activity expands the aurora pattern so that they are seen further south.

EPP can measure solar activity, but it cannot predict it. Like a rain gauge (using electrons instead of water droplets), it tells us what is happening now. It cannot predict the future.

Solar activity follows an 11 year cycle. This also happens to be the orbital period of Jupiter, our largest planet. There is a theory that suggests that we CAN predict solar activity by calculations based on the positions of all the planets in the solar system. To be completely accurate, we would have to include the positions of each asteroid in the asteroid belt, which is not practical. We could get a general idea though, theoretically.

The ozone layer is created by the action of UV-B sunlight on oxygen. This takes place relatively deep in the atmosphere, near the tropopause. This is an endothermic reaction, which is why the tropopause is the coldest place in our atmosphere. This action absorbs the UV-B preventing much of it from getting any deeper into the atmosphere (very little reaches the surface).

As ozone drifts upward, more and more UV-C, which can't penetrate as deeply into the atmosphere, is encountered. UV-C acting on ozone destroys the ozone, converting it back to oxygen. This absorbs the UV-C, which is why it never reaches the surface (fortunately! This is a very dangerous frequency of light to us!).

As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We can't destroy the ozone layer without either removing the oxygen from the atmosphere (end of problem...everbody's dead), or removing the sunlight (end of problem...everybody's dead).

A 'hole' in the ozone layer will open up at a pole in the winter of that pole. The reason is simple. No Sun. During winter, the Sun does not rise at all, so you get a hole. Big hairy deal.

This 'hole' will vary in size from year to year depending on upper air winds around that pole, which are driven by Hadley cell action.

The ozone layer never was depleted. That particular scam was perpetuated by the DuPont corporation, which was losing it's patent on R-12 refrigerant. They got the government to pass laws to solve this 'crisis' by forcing everyone to switch to R-134a refrigerant (under a new patent).

If you put CFC's into a tank filled with ozone, nothing happens. CFC's are inert to ozone.
If you say chlorine is set free by the action of sunlight, then chlorine will react with something else long before it reaches the ozone layer. It's a VERY reactive gas.

(funny how no one was making a fuss about chlorine in pools and water supplies...hmmmm. Also funny how the ozone 'depletion' wasn't occurring over the industrialized nations, but rather at the poles...hmmmmm.)

Now to VLF radio.

VLF is a frequency band that is capable of traveling right through the Earth itself. The Earth is essentially almost transparent to these frequencies. This makes them useful for certain specialized types of communications (the low frequencies do not allow a high baud rate). Submarines use single letter code sequences sent on VLF frequencies as A1 transmissions to perform certain instructions, such as surfacing to get further information on a better radio frequency (capable of much higher baud rates, such as voice).

They are also used as A0 beacons, measuring everything from ionosphere effects to the interior of the Earth itself. They do not effect the ozone layer at all, but they can have some effects on the ionosphere.

Hopefully, this clarifies a few things for you once again.

Thanks Into the Night. There's a lot to unpack there buddy, some I disagree with, some I don't necessarily. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your perspective. I'm not going to dive into arguing various aspects of this as there's just too much to unpack.. so I guess for the time being I'd say we can agree to disagree on various points here and there. This is fine too. Feel free to chime in as you do with your perspective and I'll continue to discuss the points relevant to this topic.

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Just getting back into town after a lil R&R in the woods. It was nice to unplug for a bit.

Just a couple of notes as James was asking about how this broadcast theory jives with the temperature drop in the late 40's - to early 50's

IF and that's a bit IF here.. If AM broadcast used in the gyrofrequency range was stimulating Electron Precipitation, hence ozone depletion and influencing global temperature. The simulation around this frequency causes cyclotron plasma waves to travel from the ionosphere to the polar regions along magnetic field lines where density ducts form in the ionospheric plasma. Though EEP does occur at most any latitude, most of it occurs in the polar regions.

Once we started using higher frequencies to broadcast television.. the electromagnetic energy travels upward through the E layer of the ionosphere, but isn't high enough to couple with or go through the F layer of the ionosphere so it reflects off of it and comes back down on the E layer of the ionosphere at an angle causing what's called 'hybrid wave suppression' along the magnetic field lines that typically conduct the cyclotron plasma waves to the polar regions in the EEP-NOx process. 'Hybrid Wave Suppression' has been seen to occur on multiples of the gyrofrequency above the second gyroharmonic.



Then when FM came over the airwaves over taking AM, I wonder if it might have overloaded the ionosphere creating cyclotron maser plasma turbulence in the F layer, which has been recorded, and resumed the EEP-NOx ozone depletion process.



Again.. all apart of the theory as it goes.. IF there's anything to it all.

What about CFC's other than the NOx you believe is generated by radio waves?

I can't invalidate CFC's and won't attempt to. I truly don't know what of the various processes contribute significantly, but if I look at that temperature graph put out by the WMO, from what I see the rise in temperature that hits the half way mark started around the time of broadcast.. ie. before CFC's were widely used.

In fact the historical trends of our use of both CFC's and CO2 don't fit this temp curve at all. The only thing that fits these global temp anomalies is our historic use of broadcast, especially when you take into consideration how those frequencies used at the time interact with the ionosphere --> AM --> cyclotron plasma waves --> EEP-NOx

I think the warming that started around 1910 was caused by earthquakes somewhere between Greenland and the mouth of the Hudson Bay. There was excessive glacial calving followed by the waters south of there suddenly warming. Radio waves can't account for that.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
One of my questions here has been:
How significant is EEP-NOx? Is it reasonable to suspect it is significant?

The answer here appears to be:
"With such a magnitude, it is reasonable to suspect that EEP could be an important part of solar influence on the atmosphere and climate system."

EEP-NOx - Missing driver in the Sun–Earth connection from energetic electron precipitation impacts mesospheric ozone

"Energetic electron precipitation (EEP) from the Earth's outer radiation belt continuously affects the chemical composition of the polar mesosphere. EEP can contribute to catalytic ozone loss in the mesosphere through ionization and enhanced production of odd hydrogen. However, the long-term mesospheric ozone variability caused by EEP has not been quantified or confirmed to date. Here we show, using observations from three different satellite instruments, that EEP events strongly affect ozone at 60–80 km, leading to extremely large (up to 90%) short-term ozone depletion. This impact is comparable to that of large, but much less frequent, solar proton events. On solar cycle timescales, we find that EEP causes ozone variations of up to 34% at 70–80 km. With such a magnitude, it is reasonable to suspect that EEP could be an important part of solar influence on the atmosphere and climate system."

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6197?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20141018

Lewis Carlson wrote:
"From below, the ionosphere ... is also irradiated by the electromagnetic waves from the tens of thousands of broadcast, TV, utility and radar stations that are in use on the surface on the Earth. The radiated powers from the more powerful of these stations range from a few hundred kilowatts to a few megawatts. The handful of research radio facilities that use radio waves for studying the environment use the same type of transmitters with the same powers, but are so few that they contribute negligibly to the total man-made radiation."

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/25321698/atmosphere-ionosphere-mission-swedish-institute-of-space-

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
"From below, the ionosphere ... is also irradiated by the electromagnetic waves from the tens of thousands of broadcast, TV, utility and radar stations that are in use on the surface on the Earth. The radiated powers from the more powerful of these stations range from a few hundred kilowatts to a few megawatts. The handful of research radio facilities that use radio waves for studying the environment use the same type of transmitters with the same powers, but are so few that they contribute negligibly to the total man-made radiation."

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/25321698/atmosphere-ionosphere-mission-swedish-institute-of-space-

None of these stations are allowed more than 50kW input power to their transmitters.

By the time any of them get to anywhere near the ionosphere, the signal can be measured only in milliwatts or microwatts. The square distance law is why.

A 50kW lamp can't even be seen from space with the naked eye.

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
One of my questions here has been:
How significant is EEP-NOx? Is it reasonable to suspect it is significant?

The answer here appears to be:
"With such a magnitude, it is reasonable to suspect that EEP could be an important part of solar influence on the atmosphere and climate system."

EEP-NOx - Missing driver in the Sun–Earth connection from energetic electron precipitation impacts mesospheric ozone

"Energetic electron precipitation (EEP) from the Earth's outer radiation belt continuously affects the chemical composition of the polar mesosphere. EEP can contribute to catalytic ozone loss in the mesosphere through ionization and enhanced production of odd hydrogen. However, the long-term mesospheric ozone variability caused by EEP has not been quantified or confirmed to date. Here we show, using observations from three different satellite instruments, that EEP events strongly affect ozone at 60–80 km, leading to extremely large (up to 90%) short-term ozone depletion. This impact is comparable to that of large, but much less frequent, solar proton events. On solar cycle timescales, we find that EEP causes ozone variations of up to 34% at 70–80 km. With such a magnitude, it is reasonable to suspect that EEP could be an important part of solar influence on the atmosphere and climate system."

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6197?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20141018

There isn't any. EEP is incapable of producing NOx.

Lewis Carlson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
"From below, the ionosphere ... is also irradiated by the electromagnetic waves from the tens of thousands of broadcast, TV, utility and radar stations that are in use on the surface on the Earth. The radiated powers from the more powerful of these stations range from a few hundred kilowatts to a few megawatts. The handful of research radio facilities that use radio waves for studying the environment use the same type of transmitters with the same powers, but are so few that they contribute negligibly to the total man-made radiation."

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/25321698/atmosphere-ionosphere-mission-swedish-institute-of-space-

None of these stations are allowed more than 50kW input power to their transmitters.

By the time any of them get to anywhere near the ionosphere, the signal can be measured only in milliwatts or microwatts. The square distance law is why.

A 50kW lamp can't even be seen from space with the naked eye.

Nope

1) If you take FM for example, it depends on the zone.

The U.S. is divided into Zone I (roughly the northeastern quarter of the U.S. mainland, excluding the far northern areas), Zone I-A (California south of 40 degrees latitude, U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico), and Zone II (all other locations). The highest-power stations are class C in zone II, and class B in the others. There are no B stations in zone II, nor any C stations in the others. (See the list of broadcast station classes.) Canada is also divided in this manner, based on the most highly populated regions.

High power is useful in penetrating buildings, diffracting around hills, and refracting for some distance beyond the horizon. 100,000-watt FM stations can regularly be heard up to 100 miles (160 km) away, and farther (e.g., 150 miles, 240 km) if there are no competing signals.

A few old "grandfathered" stations do not conform to these power rules. WBCT (93.7) in Grand Rapids, Michigan, runs 320,000 watts ERP, and can increase to 500,000 watts ERP by the terms of its original license.

2) Satellites are designed with top of the line instrumentation that are actually quite sensitive. They can and do pick up stations. There's plenty of info on this. The DEMETER satellite was even designed for this.

3) There are three of the tallest towers in the US in Walnut Grove California with a total of 29.66MW!!

The tallest of which is the KXTV/KOVR Tower at 2,049ft and is the 4th tallest guyed mast in the world. Total ERP 2.7MW

The second tallest is the Channel 40 Tower standing at 2000ft and is home to KTXL and KVIE with a total ERP of 6.8MW

Last but not the least by far is the powerful Hearst-Argyle Tower at 2000ft. Home to KCRA, KMAX, KQCA, and KSPX for a whopping total ERP of 20.1MW

I have all of the FCC documentation on these towers, all stations and antennas, coverage maps and power ratings.

If you don't believe me.. look it up yourself.

Lewis Carlson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
One of my questions here has been:
How significant is EEP-NOx? Is it reasonable to suspect it is significant?

The answer here appears to be:
"With such a magnitude, it is reasonable to suspect that EEP could be an important part of solar influence on the atmosphere and climate system."

EEP-NOx - Missing driver in the Sun–Earth connection from energetic electron precipitation impacts mesospheric ozone

"Energetic electron precipitation (EEP) from the Earth's outer radiation belt continuously affects the chemical composition of the polar mesosphere. EEP can contribute to catalytic ozone loss in the mesosphere through ionization and enhanced production of odd hydrogen. However, the long-term mesospheric ozone variability caused by EEP has not been quantified or confirmed to date. Here we show, using observations from three different satellite instruments, that EEP events strongly affect ozone at 60–80 km, leading to extremely large (up to 90%) short-term ozone depletion. This impact is comparable to that of large, but much less frequent, solar proton events. On solar cycle timescales, we find that EEP causes ozone variations of up to 34% at 70–80 km. With such a magnitude, it is reasonable to suspect that EEP could be an important part of solar influence on the atmosphere and climate system."

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6197?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20141018

There isn't any. EEP is incapable of producing NOx.

Isn't any what?

EEP doesn't "produce" NOx in and of itself I agree.
Instead it reacts with stratospheric Nitrogen to form NOx.
This is well documented.
Look it up.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Blah Blah Blah

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
"From below, the ionosphere ... is also irradiated by the electromagnetic waves from the tens of thousands of broadcast, TV, utility and radar stations that are in use on the surface on the Earth. The radiated powers from the more powerful of these stations range from a few hundred kilowatts to a few megawatts. The handful of research radio facilities that use radio waves for studying the environment use the same type of transmitters with the same powers, but are so few that they contribute negligibly to the total man-made radiation."

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/25321698/atmosphere-ionosphere-mission-swedish-institute-of-space-

None of these stations are allowed more than 50kW input power to their transmitters.

By the time any of them get to anywhere near the ionosphere, the signal can be measured only in milliwatts or microwatts. The square distance law is why.

A 50kW lamp can't even be seen from space with the naked eye.

Nope

1) If you take FM for example, it depends on the zone.

The U.S. is divided into Zone I (roughly the northeastern quarter of the U.S. mainland, excluding the far northern areas), Zone I-A (California south of 40 degrees latitude, U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico), and Zone II (all other locations). The highest-power stations are class C in zone II, and class B in the others. There are no B stations in zone II, nor any C stations in the others. (See the list of broadcast station classes.) Canada is also divided in this manner, based on the most highly populated regions.

High power is useful in penetrating buildings, diffracting around hills, and refracting for some distance beyond the horizon. 100,000-watt FM stations can regularly be heard up to 100 miles (160 km) away, and farther (e.g., 150 miles, 240 km) if there are no competing signals.

A few old "grandfathered" stations do not conform to these power rules. WBCT (93.7) in Grand Rapids, Michigan, runs 320,000 watts ERP, and can increase to 500,000 watts ERP by the terms of its original license.

2) Satellites are designed with top of the line instrumentation that are actually quite sensitive. They can and do pick up stations. There's plenty of info on this. The DEMETER satellite was even designed for this.

3) There are three of the tallest towers in the US in Walnut Grove California with a total of 29.66MW!!

The tallest of which is the KXTV/KOVR Tower at 2,049ft and is the 4th tallest guyed mast in the world. Total ERP 2.7MW

The second tallest is the Channel 40 Tower standing at 2000ft and is home to KTXL and KVIE with a total ERP of 6.8MW

Last but not the least by far is the powerful Hearst-Argyle Tower at 2000ft. Home to KCRA, KMAX, KQCA, and KSPX for a whopping total ERP of 20.1MW

I have all of the FCC documentation on these towers, all stations and antennas, coverage maps and power ratings.

If you don't believe me.. look it up yourself.

KXTV is currently licensed to operate at 28kW, not 2.7MW.

A 28kW lamp cannot be seen from space with the naked eye.
The power of a source diminishes with the square of the distance from the source, you see.

Wake wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Blah Blah Blah

At what point are you psuedo scientists going to get the idea that coincidence is not cause?

World agricultural output matches the same curve. World energy useage matches the same curve.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=OtgkxgU8&id=52A63D277325DCD8FF6F311428FA027F75347646&thid=OIP.OtgkxgU8DnDARYQ1LSiSSQAAAA&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fupload.wikimedia.org%2fwikipedia%2fcommons%2fthumb%2f2%2f22%2fHistoric_world_GDP_per_capita.svg%2f300px-Historic_world_GDP_per_capita.svg.png&exph=250&expw=300&q=chart+show+historic+world-wide+agricultural+output&simid=607992111381087180&selectedIndex=17&ajaxhist=0

This is an extremely course chart of world wide production and it doesn't show political factors. South African produced most of the continents agricultural products until the white government was overthrown. The Great Depression and WW II killed most agricultural production for the world since a very large part came from the USA. After the war and particularly with automation of farming circa 1960 the production went up sharply.

As I said - coincidence is not causation.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
James.. the plot thickens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzN0LbZXX1s

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
James.. the plot thickens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzN0LbZXX1s

I don't think it does. One issue with the ozone hole is that CCl4 is a banned CFC.

James___ wrote:
It's now at 10% of it's pre-ban levels with no known source.

James___ wrote:
I have suggested to a chemistry professor that I know that it might be occurring in our upper atmosphere. He has expanded what his laboratory does so he can monitor trace gases in the upper atmosphere. Because I don't have his Ph.D. I have to be careful about what information I send him.

James___ wrote:
With me, o think that chlorine used for things like water treatment and washing clothes makes it into our upper atmosphere and bonds with carbon.

James___ wrote:
Since it's known that CH2O (HCHO) naturally occurs in the upper atmosphere such chemical processes can provide the carbon element needed for CCl4 to occur.

James___ wrote:
In the scenarios examined (see table above), CCl4 human-related emissions from 2015 through 2050 are comparable to those of the HCFCs in terms of ODP-weighted emissions and are about 10% in terms of GWP-weighted emissions. It is expected that future emissions of CCl4 will remain an important factor in the evolution of EESC.

...deleted Holy Link...

James___ wrote:
I have mentioned to a professor that chlorine we're using might be what's allowing CCl4 to occur in our atmosphere. He has started monitoring trace gases in the upper atmosphere. It'd be ground breaking work as far as atmospheric chemistry goes.

Into the Night wrote:

It is FREE chlorine that attacks ozone, James. Chlorine compounds do not. Free chlorine will bond pretty fast with just about anything. It's a very reactive gas.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

It is FREE chlorine that attacks ozone, James. Chlorine compounds do not. Free chlorine will bond pretty fast with just about anything. It's a very reactive gas.

Why does it seem like a dirty word when you say my name?

Lewis Carlson wrote:
"This brief resume of the experiments carried out in 1946 shows clearly how a resonant effect did really exist in the interaction of the radiowaves and also that this resonance was much greater than that predicted by V.A.Bailey. In fact, the resonance has been generated by an electromagnetic power of only 400-500 watts and not the 1 or 2 kw as Bailey predicted."


https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-e91acf36c60a5ac43b304a37a08506b9/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-e91acf36c60a5ac43b304a37a08506b9.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1oAV7eLWW8dFDfBInAmM3Arjt9Gac6gBbSGeW5Oq8z3X0SwSOBtmzhQOs