• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

54 Kiss-ass

About mikewof

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

18,001 profile views
  1. Russia cyberattacks on US nuclear power stations

    I read it, I just doubt the full accuracy of the report.
  2. Russia cyberattacks on US nuclear power stations

    I'm no expert on nuclear plants and I've no doubt that someone, maybe Russians, were able to hack some internet-connected nuclear operations, like staffing, emails, procurement, requisitions, etc.. But that part about them being able to shut down plants or threaten them, that sounds like fike news to me. As far as I know, the actual logical backbone of those plants, from a coal plant in Des Moines to a nuclear plant in McIntosh, is not internet connected. They're controlled by humans-in-the-loop. Those humans get orders to tweak frequencies, open ports, add feed, cut feed, adjust load, etc.. If someone gave them a wacky demand to screw with the grid, I'm pretty sure that they would see it didn't match with their load demands. I believe that internet thermostats like the Nest are a greater threat to grid stability and security than anything in.that story.
  3. Craig Mack dts ...

    He was huge back in the day, had a ton of talent, but bad luck. I think that Tupac was on his way to sign Mack to his label when he was shot and killed. I guess it would have been worse luck if he was shot instead of Pac, but still.
  4. Give him credit, he's an environmentalist. Recycling 1300s-era science into contemporary, effective policy.
  5. Stephen Hawking.

    Terrific mind, was it Albert Einstein who said that he sounds like Wall-E having sex with a Speak & Spell?
  6. Craig Mack dts ...

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/13/entertainment/craig-mack-dead/index.html When he was new, he sounded like nobody else, he took an unusual turn at the end, got into some strange fundamentalist Christian church, but even before that, he took a path that was very different from most hip hop guys of the time, definitely unique.
  7. A Gentleman

    neither releases the hostages in a reverse Doagan nor top decks them in the presence of a lady.
  8. I kind of like that. Either he is actually stupid, or he has a sense of humor about himself. I hope it's the latter. This North Korea thing is interesting ... nobody could reason with North Korean heavies, except for someone very much like them. They'll probably get along famously. I hope that those two can work something out, get North Korea onboard with the NPT again.
  9. Except that the military -- for the most part -- isn't doing the engineering on these things. They delivery some specs, and hire contractors to make it happen. The military delivers impossible specs all the time, sometimes out of design.
  10. And how many of those airplanes have been purchased or will be purchased with your Aussie tax dollars?
  11. 1. Yes, the F-35 is real. I guess we'll see how stealthy they are. Probably not in Australia or Europe, or in wargames over Arizona, but we'll find out soon enough in places where aircraft are actually targeted by actual things that actually shoot down airplanes. 2. I contributed to HITRAN. I am quite sure that HITRAN is not just used in the U.S.A. for weapons systems, but in China, and Russia as well. It's an open source database, but it's the best and most complete in the world, and there isn't a long-range missile that can correctly target without it. 3. Instead of writing what you think others can and can't do, maybe you should write, what have you done that cements your qualifications in this area? If you went to MIT, then you studied some form of EM, but you won't even commit to an EM education. 4. Your whole Russian thing is adorable, but it's a diversion. Russia has nothing to do with us having to eventually pay $1,500,000,000,000 for a highly visible system of airplanes.
  12. 1. The antenna is proportional to the wavelength, which is inversely proportional to the frequency, so yes, sorta, but there are things you can do to the feature size, like coiling. 2. Scattering doesn't lend itself to quick answers like that, you want to know about "plane appendages" do you mean stuff sticking out of an airplane, or do you mean complexities to the surface plane topology? 3. Ditto on #2, I'm not going to try to simplify scattering, it's not simple, it's nonlinear. 4. No. 5. Your previous one was wrong, so I can't answer this one. 6. Yes, detection and targeting are different, obviously. 7. This is phrased weird, please rephrase. 8. see #7 9. I don't believe that the F-35 is all that stealth, so I can't answer this. 10. It reduces the detection size, but I can't comment on the targeting range, because a characterization is a characterization, if it's enough to target something, then it's enough. This is the age-old question with radiation oncology, can we target a single cancer cell if we can characterize it? The characterization of the cell is determined by knowing the velocity and the position. But like an airplane, there is some chaos, either a person behind the stick, or fluid turbulence. So the characterization is either sufficient with the cross section, or it isn't. That isn't necessarily related to its detection.
  13. You seem oddly preoccupied with trying to determine who is "real". Jack, I'm a physicist, my credentials are established. When you accuse people of not being who they are, you are more likely drawing attention to you not being who you say you are. 100 GHz is my estimate for about the limit of a metamaterial in that application, what bothers you so much about that? 100 MHz?!? WTF? At a half-wavelength metamaterial that would be a five foot (!) structure. How in the world are you going to randomly orient 5 foot feature lengths in an aircraft coating? At 100 GHz (just an estimate) you're looking at about a 1 millimeter half-wavelength feature length for the metamaterial, It's still a little chunky, but I think there are ways of orienting those strands with magnetic fields in the coating. And there are ways of coiling the feature. There are little tricks they can do, but eventually, you're bound by Maxwell's equations. But then again, what the fuck do I know, maybe the guys at Lockheed Martin have figured out a way to get around Maxwell? You apparently have found a way, care to clue me in on your secret?
  14. Anarchist Hacks

    Huh. Turns out that this works really well.
  15. 1. I'll still address your questions from two days ago, I just need some time in front of a computer, rather than a phone. 2. Light is light. Only someone non-technical would assume that light is restricted to just visible bands. And even non-technical radar guys use the term "shine" and "light up" and "illuminate" a target. They're obviously not talking about visible light only. Light is energy conveyed by photons, across all wavelengths, radio, microwave, UV, visible, IR.. 3. The atmosphere is definitely NOT a strong attenuator to the visible light bands, that's the whole point of evolution, our eyes have evolved to see this tiny little notch light around 500 nanometers or so, because that's the transitional domain before the multipole resonances of the atmospheric dimers (line N2 and O2) and somewhat differently for H2O, kick in. This is the famous panorama of absorption, notice that glorious little notch right at the visible specta? If you used J.D. Jackson's Electrodynamics at MIT, you would be intimately connected to that panorama. 4. To the rest of that paragraph, the F-35s facets are designed to interact with light of specific wavelengths coming from a certain direction, but how do they interact with phase array light coming from above and below it at the same time? And to what you wrote about the radar absorbing materials, how do those materials interct with a wide range of wavelengths? Are you under the assumption that these materials are magically able to interact with light with wavelengths longer than half their feature lengths? Do you know about the basics of metamaterials? If that plane had absorbers in the surface coatings that were able to interact with light below about 100 GHz, it would look all bumpy and cancerous, because the feature length of the absorbers would be too big, it would have the aerodynamics of a popcorn ball. Yeah, read to your heart's content about RF chambers, but this is just basic electrodynamics here. You would be better suited spending your reading time in an elementary EM textbook like Griffiths. Seriously, just buy yourself a copy. 5. Yeah, detection is not interception. But the F-35 is being sold to us taxpayers as very, very difficult to detect. So you want to maybe admit that it's not so difficult to detect? As far as interception, that's well out of my area of expertise. Maybe the enemy has to shoot four $3 million missiles to knock down the $250 million plane instead of one $3 million missile like in the old days? That's progress? That's worth $1,500,000,000,000 of lifetime cost? 6. I'm still waiting for your link to the Russian plasma thing. Did you make that up? Maybe didn't read what I actually wrote?