Questions and Ideas

And do not think only metal. Think to gases for lasers and other. Maibe even helium 3 which is so necessary in reactors. Imagine in 30 years 30 nuclear reactors that offers energy and materials. Uranium could be so abundent so will be put in every tank armours.

Whit lots of energy imagine that could be maked waves that go trought planes tanks and helicopters walls and ignite the fuel....

We know that lasers heat up objects...well could be used a laser to heat a tank whit water then produce water vapors then power a turbine? A 10 kw laser from close range heats up a lot a metal. 10 kw is maibe too much.....

Another way of making cheap energy would be to transform the cosmic waves into electricity. Just use the induction and here we are. We know that two or more waves can unify themselfs to form one single wave. So larger the antenna more power we get. And does not require any substance or whatever to be used extracted and so on.

victor1985 wrote:Another way of making cheap energy would be to transform the cosmic waves into electricity. Just use the induction and here we are. We know that two or more waves can unify themselfs to form one single wave. So larger the antenna more power we get. And does not require any substance or whatever to be used extracted and so on.

Too inefficient....we struggle to even detect these "waves" never mind utilize them.

Why struggling? A big antena capture a lot of them. Pointing all in the same point where they unify each other could lead to a bigger wave who gives a lot of energy. Or we could do something else : just taking the light which is photons then convert them to radio waves then unify waves then by induction obtain electric energy. Or just amplify the photon energy then convert them to waves. Didyou hear about amplifiers for photons? I did. And they are cheap. We just need mirrors to direct photons like in a laser. Free energy....no fusion no nothing complicated

I'm not talking about something for vehicles. But a power station that is fix. Could power up a radar....

To came back to my idea of cheap but powerfull radar or emp. We know are some crystals that amplify lasers. But the opposite? A deamplify thing would help. Just take some photons....make them loose some energy when they hit something and bring them to waves. Then they are high frecvency radio waves. That can fry anything. . and act like radar waves. Bring them to the level ...any level. Include that level that can go throught things.
Now another thing that could help protect the equipment. Why not to USE current induced by a emp?

Look a idea: every missile has a hole trought must communicate to base. But...there is jamming and emp. But how would be that that hole to be covered whit a plastic or something that allows only one specific frecvency whit a specific power? No jamming
No emp...

whir wrote:

max steel wrote:So it can basically jam usa recon Lacros sat in space monitoring russian ground mobile  topol nukes position area ?  But if topols are mobile then how come it can be viewed from recon sat ?

Because it's not rocket science, those transports are accounted at all times and stored in well known locations, they also move over preplanned routes to fixed launch positions during exercises so in theory is fairly easy to locate them knowing when and were to look.

Lets make some calculus. How many sattelites usa have? Not enough for all russia launchers. Lets add that all mobile launchers can be maked look like normal trucks. Lets think that weather not always allow to see from sattelites. Lets think that in case of war half lets say of usa sattelites would be jammed. How that looks is present days when you must know in real time where enemy is. By the way i have a question : a big light could blind the sattelites? Lets say one from a high altitude plane...

victor1985 wrote:

whir wrote:

max steel wrote:So it can basically jam usa recon Lacros sat in space monitoring russian ground mobile  topol nukes position area ?  But if topols are mobile then how come it can be viewed from recon sat ?

Because it's not rocket science, those transports are accounted at all times and stored in well known locations, they also move over preplanned routes to fixed launch positions during exercises so in theory is fairly easy to locate them knowing when and were to look.

Lets make some calculus. How many sattelites usa have? Not enough for all russia launchers. Lets add that all mobile launchers can be maked look like normal trucks. Lets think that weather not always allow to see from sattelites. Lets think that in case of war half lets say of usa sattelites would be jammed. How that looks is present days when you must know in real time where enemy is. By the way i have a question : a big light could blind the sattelites? Lets say one from a high altitude plane...

A-60

And not only blind whit lights. But blind ability of communicate, ability to IR, spectroscophy and so on. All from a big high altitude plane...

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

victor1985 wrote:

whir wrote:

max steel wrote:So it can basically jam usa recon Lacros sat in space monitoring russian ground mobile  topol nukes position area ?  But if topols are mobile then how come it can be viewed from recon sat ?

Because it's not rocket science, those transports are accounted at all times and stored in well known locations, they also move over preplanned routes to fixed launch positions during exercises so in theory is fairly easy to locate them knowing when and were to look.

Lets make some calculus. How many sattelites usa have? Not enough for all russia launchers. Lets add that all mobile launchers can be maked look like normal trucks. Lets think that weather not always allow to see from sattelites. Lets think that in case of war half lets say of usa sattelites would be jammed. How that looks is present days when you must know in real time where enemy is. By the way i have a question : a big light could blind the sattelites? Lets say one from a high altitude plane...

A-60

How many s300 plus s400 launchers are?

victor1985 wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

victor1985 wrote:

whir wrote:

max steel wrote:So it can basically jam usa recon Lacros sat in space monitoring russian ground mobile  topol nukes position area ?  But if topols are mobile then how come it can be viewed from recon sat ?

Because it's not rocket science, those transports are accounted at all times and stored in well known locations, they also move over preplanned routes to fixed launch positions during exercises so in theory is fairly easy to locate them knowing when and were to look.

Lets make some calculus. How many sattelites usa have? Not enough for all russia launchers. Lets add that all mobile launchers can be maked look like normal trucks. Lets think that weather not always allow to see from sattelites. Lets think that in case of war half lets say of usa sattelites would be jammed. How that looks is present days when you must know in real time where enemy is. By the way i have a question : a big light could blind the sattelites? Lets say one from a high altitude plane...

A-60

How many s300 plus s400 launchers are?

Total amount of vehicles built for S-400 system is around 152, 19 of those are launchers.

For S-300, 953 total launchers.

Rough estimates taken from Wikipedia(I know, I know).

A cpu can be made from capacitors that store energy and release them?

Maibe whit multiple capacitors and something that switch to another one when is full. Then a release thus a change in curent voltage

Or maibe just a transistor where the protons atract electrons ....so lots of materials could be used. Greather the coulomb force smaller the transistor could be.

What about a liquid based transistor? Like battery. Would be on and off. And can be as tiny could be.

What is the cost of one s400 and what is the cost of a usa sattelite include the transport?

The changes of properties of chemical reactions products can be written as f(x) functions?
Also the range and changes of physics properties can be writen as f(x) functions? Rate of changes can be in any direction amplitude etc? Interactions between particles can be writen as functions f(x) where also density and energi are put in? Can be all this also as lim f(x)+-f(y)+-f(n)? Or epsilon n=m f(x)?
Why is then take so long time to make a new semiconductor or radar or everything else?
A computer can simulate all by question: "which forces plug in in the equation give x known answer?".
So?

F(x) epsilon i=x.....

Free energy....

There is no such thing as free energy





[/quote]

Exactly and all the conspiracy stuff hoveriing on internet regarding Magrav unlimited energy tech is pure fictional . A propagandapiece  produced by an Iranian scientist .[/quote]

Even consume of fuel can be calculated by functions. Just imagine the place of you attack is a curve shape country. Just make calculus for 0 to + - whatever to x and z axis. And you obtain a average fuel consumption on a average speed. At a average area to cover(density of points you achieve....you dont go to ALL area of that place).