E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jabulani Barber and Ludovico Cademartiri / Harvard
A methane flame shooting out from a burner is deflected by a wire electrode. Moments later, the flame went out.
Last updated 10:15 p.m. ET:
Researchers say they've found a new way to snuff out flames using an electric field-generating wand — and the seemingly magical technique just might be put to use in future fire rescues.
"What we are excited about is that this presents a new capability in the control of flames," Harvard researcher Ludovico Cademartiri told me today.
Cademartiri presented a report on the flame-quenching method on Sunday at a national meeting of the American Chemical Society in Anaheim, Calif. He has been working on the technique as a member of Harvard Professor George M. Whitesides' research group, along with Penn State's Kyle Bishop.
The technology sounds a bit like the fictional flame-freezing charm or the Aguamenti spell mentioned in J.K. Rowling's series of Harry Potter books, and the fact that it's done with a wand-like electrode makes the story even better. "The best geometry of the electrode is in the form of a thin wire, which journalists creatively labeled a wand," Cademartiri said.
For two centuries, scientists have known that electric fields can interact with flames, but the effect from a continuous DC electric field was too small to have practical applications. "By applying oscillating fields, the effect was much, much larger," Cademartiri said.
In the lab, researchers set up a 600-watt amplifier — with about the same power as a high-end car stereo system — and hooked it up to the wand. Then they pointed the wand at the base of a methane-fueled flame emanating from the orifice of a burner. Cademartiri said the wand's electric field disrupted the flame and snuffed it out, even when the flame was cranked up to a height of 20 inches (50 centimeters).
"The electric field interacts with the charged particles in the flame — the electrons, ions and soot particles — and this collective motion of the charges in the electric field can lead to movement of the gas within the flame," Cademartiri explained. "The mechanics of suppression is that the flame gets detached from the fuel source, so it gets pushed away. This is somewhat different from blowing on the flame."
Bishop said that the flame-taming effect isn't all that noticeable at low voltages. "The one thing that is new is the ability to use large, time-varying electric fields. ... It's only been recently that the high-voltage power supplies that make this kind of perturbation possible have become commercially available," he told me.
In their most successful experiments, the researchers turned the dial up to 40,000 volts, Bishop said.
The research could eventually lead to the development a new gizmo for the firefighter's toolbox, in addition to tried-and-true methods such as water from fire hoses, powder from a fire extinguisher and flame-suppressing foam from a tank. In contrast with those methods, the electro-blaster does not need to put any material in contact with the flames themselves. Cademartiri imagines that such gizmos could be attached to the walls or ceilings of buildings or ships, or carried by a firefighter in a backpack. Electric wands could help fire crews open an escape path for people trapped in an enclosed space. However, Cademartiri noted that the system wouldn't be as suitable for quelling flames in open spaces, such as in the midst of a forest fire.
The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy have been funding this research for a couple of years now, but the flame-freezing wand isn't ready for prime time yet.
"We want to really completely understand this interaction," Cademartiri said. "It's a novel thing. People have not seen it before, and it's really complex. ... The second thing is that we are starting to look at how these effects scale with the size of the flame."
Bishop said he and his colleagues were already getting ready to submit research papers to a number of scientific journals. "There should be publications forthcoming within the next six months," he said.
In the longer term, the technology could be applied not only to future rescues, but also to industrial applications ranging from better welding torches to more efficient automotive engines and power plants. "Ninety percent of our energy comes from combustion," Cademartiri noted.
All things considered, it sounds like a technology worth waiting for. Making combustion more controllable would add to a long list of advances that go all the way back to, well, the mastery of fire itself.
More about mastering fire:
- Firefighting safety equipment makes debut
- NASA eyes next-gen firefighting gear
- Slimy fire-retardant gel can save homes
- Burning issue: When did humans master fire?
- Chimps master first step in controlling fire
Join the Cosmic Log community by clicking the "like" button on our Facebook page or by following msnbc.com science editor Alan Boyle as b0yle on Twitter. To learn more about Alan Boyle's book on Pluto and the search for planets, check out the website for "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
"The flame-tamer could help fire crews open an escape path for people trapped in an enclosed space."
Now everyone knows how those Jews (in Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) the Old Testament were in the midst of the flame but not burned. Everything is slowly coming to light when it comes to this longstanding ET tampering with our world. Yes, that is right, these ET's have long had this technology to suppress flame, and they have used it to surreptitiously tamper with our world. - RC
As much as I want to tell you to pull your tinfoil hat on a bit more snugly, I can't say I haven't had similar thoughts when reading certain parts of the Bible.
WOW! any opportunity you can find to turn pure science into a religous experience is mind-boggling. Face it. Religion is dying because science is, and has been, for hundreds of years explaining how nature works and finding new ways to work with it.
@Russ: Science doesn't explain what is Eternal. I take it you are an atheist and do not believe in the existence of the soul. However, you can't rationally justify that "nothing is eternal" is true, and you can't rationally justify that "the material world is eternal" is true.
So until you do, please stop telling people that "science explains how the world works" if it can't even explain how the universe came to be. (being from non-being is impossible)
Good luck with that Russ. You guys believe we all crawled out of, uh, nothing, and we believe we came from something. Both require huge leaps of faith, and neither can be proven or dis-proven.
In today's world it is difficult to find a scientist not beholding to someone or something. You trust in your guys and I'll trust in mine - yea, us backwoods religious nutcases also have legitimate scientists on our side.
I personally was brought up in a very religious family and have chosen to separate myself from it because of the way many religions are run. One has to question how religion came into being and for what purpose. I agree that everyone has a right to believe in whatever they chose and should not be judged for it, unless those beliefs are being forced upon someone. Many things that were thought impossible by scientists in decades past are possible now. Who's to say one way or the other. I believe that religion served a purpose in the beginning steps of man as an explanation for the unexplainable. It is actually in decline all over the world in recent years because of science being able to explain the unexplainable. They don't know everything though. Steven Hawking is a brilliant mind & he has a belief in a higher power. Ben Franklin had his beliefs too, "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.".
There's much more evidence to support us coming from dust than there is to say some super-powerful, yet to show himself being created us 6,000 years ago.
interesting choice to defend "a higher power"... hawking has this to say -
Has Stephen Hawking ended the God debate?
Stephen Hawking has declared that his latest work shows there was no creator of the universe.
(www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7979211/Has-Stephen-Hawking-ended-the-God-debate.html)
Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe
(www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html)
interesting - i read that quote as the only way to be religious is to be blind.
there have to be better examples of scientists who support religion, yes?
> I say "Ni"! <
Its funny to me when someone says "well science proved this one thing was done this one way" well so what. That doesn't disprove that God wasn't the one responsible for it, to me all science is doing is trying to explain the ways in which God works. Science will never know everything and neither will man. The science channel has had a few shows showing how certain biblical experiences happened. Once again, all they are doing is explaining or trying to explain the means in which God does what God does. Chill Ross, we haven't reached the singularity of religion just yet. Even if that point is reached, I think and would hope that man realizes that God does exists and its been man that has manipulated religion to control the masses. Space is eternal and so is man, live long and prosper.
Right, Mr. Pink. Man manipulates religion to control others. Read the actual Bible and you'll find out that's not what most of those who claim to represent it are doing. Is it God's fault that mankind uses its free will to misrepresent God? No! Then the relatively few people that sincerely try to learn and teach what the Bible teaches are oppressed by those afraid of being exposed and of losing power.
@ Knight Who Says Ni
"Hawking takes an agnostic position on matters of religion. In other words, he isn't sure. He has repeatedly used the word "God" to illustrate points made in his books and public speeches. However, his belief in God is more from a deist point of view than Christian." I guess I should have said he isn't sure either way.
And I chose that Ben Franklin quote to illustrate the fact that I too do not believe in reason through a higher power. I had already explained I was an atheist.
Pink I am sory but your post isnt based on any common sense because you and anyone else cannot prove that God Exists and is responsible for the things science is trying to explain, on the same level Science cannot disprove that God exists. Your argument is Moot because it disproves both views.
In the end only a person and the faith in thier belief in God is what makes God real or not real for them. I will tell you this If God really does exist then he sucks at publishing books and needs to fire his editor/proof reader and learn how to write a book that doesnt contradict itself and one that can translate thru time and not be stuck in the time frame it was written in.
Paul F, you state, "You guys believe we all crawled out of, uh, nothing, and we believe we came from something. Both require huge leaps of faith, and neither can be proven or dis-proven."
When you state that you came from something, God had to have come into being at some point, meaning he came from nothing. Science states (sometimes) the Universe started from nothing and we were made from supernova dust, so we came from somewhere. Science or religion, everything, including God, has to start somewhere.
@Pirate you know, it's interesting that you say the Bible contradicts itself, since the only reason it would seem that way is if you've been lied to about what the Bible really says. Pagan beliefs have crept into mainstream Christianity over time, and one who holds these pagan beliefs finds that the Bible contradicts those beliefs. Also, anything the Bible says must be considered in context with the rest of the Bible. It all must agree. Therefore, if something doesn't seem to agree with the rest of the Bible, your slant on the scripture is false, not the scripture itself. One could say a scripture means anything, but the only interpretation that is true will agree with the rest of the Bible. Unfortunately, most try to distort what the Bible says to meet their own ends or explain some doctrine that doesn't originate with the Bible.
Also, you say the Bible is out of date. Even though the Bible was written many centuries ago, we can use Principles found in the Bible to apply to modern situations (sexting, smoking, internet usage, etc). Interestingly, now that most have turned away from that "out of date" Bible Guidance, we wonder why families are falling apart and STDs are more prevalent than ever.
We can use the principles in modern life. Let's stone witches and adulterous females.
And STD's are not more prevelant than they used to be, they are just in the news more.
You seriously believe that STD's are not more prevalent? Wow. Now that people can openly live however they want, they are more likely to engage in multiple casual sexual encounters. Which equals more encounters with more people, which equals one person's STD's being spread to more people, and they spreading it to others.
Now, as to your stoning comment. Capital Punishment is nothing new. Furthermore, for such a serious punishment, there had to be at least two witnesses with harmonious testimony. Any false witnesses would be given the punishment they were scheming to have put on the accused. The case was always to be thoroughly investigated. This is not the mob mentality of the dark ages you may be thinking of. This was the established law of ancient Israel, and those appropriate judges and courts were used in passing sentence. Now that we live under the law of other countries, we follow the laws set forth by those who act as the law. The Principle to follow is this: God does not approve of those who are adulterers and those who practice spiritism. He felt so strongly about it that he believed those who practiced such things were deserving of death (Deuteronomy 13:5, 10, 11; 22:22-24). Jesus and his Apostles repeated that those practicing such things were not approved of (Galatians 5:19-21). In Israel, under the Law, such ones convicted of such things were removed from the people's midst by stoning them. In Jesus' day, with his followers living under many governments and law systems, it was made clear they were to be removed by expulsion from the congregation and by not associating with people like them (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).
And yet Jesus was first to be there with the sinners. Funny how the Apostles state to stay away from sinners, yet when Jesus is questioned as to why he is sitting with sinners he states something to the effect of: who needs a doctor more, the sick or the healthy?
Even the New Testament is full of people preaching that we should do the opposite of what was taught.
Also, STDs were quite prominent in the 1400's. Sailors would spread the diseases from the brothels to other ports of call. Men would take it home from the brothels to their wives. Wives would spread it to their lovers. And so on and so forth.
Jesus was around sinners for the purpose of teaching them. The religious leaders of the day would have nothing to do with the common people, so much so that the the common people were starved of spiritual things (Matthew 9:35-38). The people were sick (physically and spiritually), and Jesus was there to heal them physically and teach them the way God's people should walk. Similarly, Jesus disciples preached and taught people of all walks of life. The warning refers to association outside trying to teach them Bible standards and working with them at our jobs [compare (1 Corinthians 15:33)].
Also, notice that your STD 1400s reference is talking about people not living by Bible standards.
But your original position was on STDs being more common because people are not following Bible standards. So the 1400s are different from now how?
Also, Corinthians are letters that Paul wrote to the Corinth church, not actual teachings of Jesus. These letters convey a lot of Paul's personal biases.
"STDs being more common because people are not following Bible standards." 1400s and today= times when people aren't following Bible standards. We see similarities between the two. It's different because the morals are even worse today. It's glamorized, promoted by media and the rich and famous. People are blinded from seeing right and wrong. I'm not surprised at this, either, because of what it says at 1 John 5:19; 2 Corinthians 4:4; and Ephesians 6:12. Satan's influence is easily seen today.
Your suggestion that Paul's letters are invalid because he wrote them and not Jesus makes no sense. Jesus did not write any of the books of the Bible. His followers did, including Paul. These people were inspired by Holy Spirit to write these books for the benefit of those who lived then, and for us today [Compare (2 Timothy 3:16) with (John 14:26) and 2 Peter 1:21).] All of what Paul says harmonizes with the rest of the Bible. We are encouraged at 1 John 4:1 to test the inspired expression to see if it originates with God. Where is this bias, this expression that conflicts with the rest of the Bible? You say there is but cite no examples. Repeatedly, I've showed scriptures that agree with different parts of the Bible, even when at first it may appear when they do not.
But you are not absorbing scripture. You have learned to spout individual Bible verses (verse, meaning single line). You do not show how the entire text of the work relates. You pick a single line of the Bible and try to apply it to a situation even though it is out of context.
You do not take into account the context based on the time frame that the work was written.
You ignore the fact, -fact-, that much of the Bible has been mis-translated by error AND/OR has been mistranslated deliberately to push the agendas of the folks in power. In addition, there are passages in the Bible that are clearly the work/words of people who came after Jesus and attributed what they were preaching to him, which is quite easy to do when most of the common people are illiterate (which most were 1900 to 2000 years ago).
You can show that certain scriptures agree with other parts of the Bible. I can show just as many that contradict each other.
Jesus taught great things that are ignored by most Christians. Also, a lot of Christians miss the forest (teachings) because they cannot see past the trees (scripture verses).
You're right that many Bible translations have been mistranslated intentionally to support false ideas. However, when one uses the oldest manuscripts to create a translation based on one the Bible says, and then determines what teaches come from it (verses deciding teaches and then translating the Bible to suit them), you get a very accurate translation. The dead sea scrolls were a wonderful find that indicated how the accuracy of the scriptures was preserved over hundreds of years. Minor scribal errors of little consequence were found, but that was it. If you've ever looked at the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, you'll notice some verses (especially in the new testament) are removed based on the fact they are not found in the oldest manuscripts. These removed verses are spurious, added later by those who wanted to cloud the meaning of some scriptures. The Bible clearly speaks against this act (Revelation 22:18).
I also have been noticing that you have not supported any of your thoughts with scripture, even though you continually offer to do so. You also claim that the scriptures I quote are not what they really seem based on their context. If you wish to see the entire text, look up the scriptures and read the surrounding verses. You will find that it does not negate what those verses say. In many cases, it expounds on them further.
Interestingly, in your reference to Jesus' talking about the sick needed a physician, notice the context indicates the Pharisees and scribes, not the Apostles, were murmuring against him for eating with sinners (Mark 2:13-17; Matthew 9:9-13). In fact, the disciples were reclining with the tax collectors with Jesus.
Considering how this article has nothing to do with what we have been discussing, I'd recommend discussing this in a more organized manner in the real world with one of Jehovah's Witnesses, instead of talking in the comments section. A lot more information can be conveyed that way.
Well, one reason I have not quoted scripture is that I am at work, and last night was at my part-time job, which was very slow that night. (lunch now). Most of my resources are at home (not wikipedia).
I don't memorize scripture, I learn the points. Note my reference to Jesus sitting with sinners. Why memorize the verse, line and sinker when you should be learning the lesson? Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars. I don't know the book, Chapter and verse. I know the lesson.
But I do agree that this is not the format.
I understand. Wikipedia is definitely not the place to look. I had resources at my disposal, otherwise I would waited until I could research specific points.
Of course, learning the lesson is the important part of learning the scriptures (Jesus and his followers usually just quoted the scriptures.) However, when one notes where the scripture can be found, it makes it easier to consider the context (like you have been saying). Also, I mentioned about you not using any scriptures to back up the 'contradictions' because those statements don't carry much of any weight without the actual scriptures in question being specifically mentioned. That is also why I mentioned specific scriptures; I could say anything of my own opinion, but what matters is what the Bible says. I was backing up what I said with the scriptures in question. That way they are identifiable for you to compare in your Bible.
I will not be responding again; it's best to talk to somebody person to person in real life. What you do next is up to you, but it is clear you believe there are serious concerns about the Bible's accuracy. Again, I recommend next time one of Jehovah's Witnesses stops by your house, let them in and have a meaningful Bible discussion (both sides talking, an organized discussion on specific scriptures you have issues with). You'll have your resources, and they'll have theirs. If you really want an in-depth discussion, let them do research ahead of time; you'd be amazed at what there is to find.
Dang. I wanted to see the video...
Yeah, was hoping for a video as well... Alan, any chance you can ask Harvard to send you a vid of this in action? Definitely an awesome discovery with a lot of potential!
Right, I asked about the video ... apparently there's a short clip that was made, but Ludovico couldn't get permission from his colleagues to make it available. Maybe they're hanging onto it to accompany one of the publication opportunities that Kyle was talking about.
Cool, thanks for trying Alan :-D
Leave it to corporations to take a possible breakthrough in fire fighting and turn it into a profit motive. Set up the backpacks now and supply fire fighters with them to "test" in situations AS they conduct their test on WHY it works. Better automobile engines BULL CRAP, WE NEED FIRE SUPPRESSION MACHINES IN FOREST FIRES, WHICH WILL BE HAPPENING MORE OFTEN DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE. Profit first, right?
Of course profit first, if it wasn't for greed we would all be laid back in a nice park stoned out of our minds watching the beautiful clouds floating by, listening to The Greatfull Dead. Oh wait, there wouldn't be any music players, or much music, (the Greatfull Dead got paid didn't they?), or enough food, or pot, for 6 billion people. Well back to work!
Did you read the article Ray?
It's a government funded project being conducted by Harvard, not big profit hungry corporations.
They want to test and understand the effect thoroughly before they begin to develop it specifically for fire fighters.
They said it won't work on large open fires like forest fires. It's potentially suitable as a tool for fire fighters who need to enter a burning building and clear a path through flames.
All of this was clearly stated in the article, take a course in reading comprehension.
I wonder if Ray would volunteer to be set on fire and have 40,000 volts of electricity aimed at him?
I was wondering if it was something leftover from one of Nikola Tesla's experiments...
Wouldn't surprise me. Wonder if there is a specific type of electric field needed to do the trick, or if this is something that wouldn't be that hard to replicate in the garage?
I was wondering if there is an honest researcher left. These experiments were taking place in the 1800's. Energy field mitigations of atomic and molecular compositions in both solid and gaseous states has been tabled numerous times before. This study is nothing more than a different way to express a constant that was well known near 2 cenutries ago.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/148250-Sound-Waves-When-Fire-Strikes-Stop-Drop-and-Sing-
As they mentioned, frequency and amplitude of energy dispersions is the meat of the matter. Soon to follow should be the feeze ray, or wand, as it precipitates surrounding gasses, and causes inverse excitation like the antipodal of our common microwave. Then some off the wall 'researcher' can call it a discovery, in lieu of his pending grant. PFFFFTTTTTT !!!!
Is it time to reinvent the wheel? Can I call it a biplanar sectioning of a spherical mass to insure my name finds it's way onto the new Newtonian litany of scholars in need of funding? My toys are expensive too.
I made a similar comment last night, although in response to the regilious who-ha up top, but failed to log in and didn't feel like re-typing it.
Thank you for bringing up Tesla, at least. This sounds a lot like a simple compacted Tesla Coil.
Hatchet, you bring up a good point. I wonder where the point is, in science, where we stop "discovering" things and are regulated to refining and tinkering with what we have? Then, though, that raises the question, what exactly is needed to "discover" something? I think, in science, that everything progressive builds off of past experiements and theories, either proving or disproving them, and moving the world forward one invention at a time.
The hard part is, really, that the basics of science have been all but tapped out and discovered. What we doing now is manipulating and refining existing processes for new results. The technology may have been out for decades, even centuries or millenia, but it's the refinement that really advances the field.
space travel through the Sun?
*gets crsuhed by gravity* "$30 trillion well spent!
I'm not sure the effect wouldn't be over powered by the sun's electromagnetic field.
I think that's how the Sun spits out all those solar flares, electro-magnetic waves, or some variations of such.
...yikes! With enough power, one might be capable of disable-ing a jet or rocket engine exhaust (flame) in flight ... both interesting AND scary ...
magic? Stand back! we're from the government, WE'RE here to HELP!! (unmistakable whine of 40 kev generator in the background in between the crackling and popping.....)
No darn magic...but I wonder how many color filters the photographer used on that bunsen burner..nice color in the photo. Hey alan, were alll well past basic science here, how's about a little speculation on how the thing works? Since they arn't saying.
Anyways, back in the mid 1960's there was a popular science issue with a drawing of a fire truck with a generator on it...a concept figure to go along with the article, science puts out hot fire with cold electrons..at least that was the gist of it....I still remember the concept because many times I have thought cold electons might point me to the way of the magnetic monopole...no magnetic monopoles, I like pam diracs theory but now relegate it to the bueaty of mathmatics...all numbers and no substance...like a monet...either the magnetic field acts like a force field repelling oxygen or it induces vortices in the electron layer at the interface of combustion, starving the reaction of oxygen....as I recall, both cute little laboratory demo's but not novel nor extensible...I agree with the above poster...start field testing them in bad situations now....detroit, dc or maybe even fukishima....no need to keep the tech secret...just about every air base in the world has fire training where they simiulate a jp-x spills and stand around dousing a burning pit with everything they got...well...show us that test, not a bunsen burner....heck you can extinguish that by clamping the lit end of the wick between your fingers very quickly (very, very quickly I might add)....darpa's got a lot of cool tech going on, see if they got anything really cool they wanna show ya.....
Well said. However you could have left Monet out of it.
Once they figure out the flames are getting smothered by ozone from the spark, there will be some hushed shame..and then we'll never hear about this idea again. :)
What sparks? This is the effect of the electromagnetic field on the flame. It's basically a superpowered electromagnet, and when they wave it past a flame the flame goes out, simply because the magnetic field disrupts the chemical reaction of the fire. They've apparently known for ages that electricity can effect flame, but until they hooked up a huge oscillating current (which was only available recently) it wasn't enough to be useful.
Spielman - Wrong. Tesla was experimenting with Alternating Currents in the late 1800's. He was the father of AC motors and with Westinghouse's funding supplied the 1893 World's Fair with AC power, beating out Thomas Edison's attempt using DC power.
I think this is such old-tech, I wonder why it never came to be earlier.
I think the reason why old tech as you described it elfried, never came to light earlier is due to the fact that when Nikola Tesla died all of his research papers and equipment were seized by government agents and taken to a remote repository where they were hidden away; to be later studied by lesser scientific minds to attempt to unravel some of their mysteries. Most of Tesla's work and experiments is still classified above top secret with only very limited access to a few who are sworn to secrecy about the contents.
@mspielman - Please reread the article and note mention of 'electric' fields and not electromagnetic. They are not the same thing. A 40KV potential in air will ionize it, at such a presumably small gap.
"simply because the magnetic field disrupts the chemical reaction of the fire" ???
come on now, you just made that up. Publish your own paper! :)
I understand an unfortunate side effect is some uncontrolable anal leakage if your body gets in the field.
Can such a field surrounding a pellet of deuterium focus a concentrated collection of laser light into a smaller point? Perhaps add it to the light beams?
see above
Magnetics is a field that needs to be more deeply probed. The secret of gravity and its applications needs to be unlocked.
In the meantime...a lot of these "waves" are also shooting through us as we speak. Ever hear the "boom-boom" coming from some "brain-dead's" car? How do you think he got to be "brain dead"?
Electro-magnetics has been probed much more deeply than you think Bob. You should watch a video on HAARP sometime, and see what it explains about the fourth state of matter which is plasma. Plasma can be used for a multitude of things including direct attacks on a specific part of our planet which can easily cause disruptions like earthquakes and ensuing seismic sea waves (tsunami's-Japanese word).
Most people are probably unaware that a technology as simple as radio wave transmissions and reception which was only rediscovered about a century ago can have. The slightly higher frequencies which gave us television a couple of decades later, and then microwave ovens a few decades after that barely scratch the surface of what is a part of primarily at most frequencies an unseen force of nature.
HAARP - Nature Modification Weapon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPusHeDlBxQ
youtube is NOT a valid primary source.
HAARP does not cause earthquakes, tsunamis, or the heartbreak of psoriasis.
HAARP DOES cause silly youtube videos.
> I say "Ni"! <
You believe what you want Knight; the facility has been run the navy and the air force for many years 30 miles north of Anchorage.
You tube is a much more valid source of information than what the mind control bots put out here on msnbc. Software running on all vines telling lies about everything imaginable.
If I read correctly the article only talks about a methane fueled project. Interesting science, however any gas state combustible is more of a hazard than a visible one. Once extinguished, depending on the product would dictate it's true hazard whether lighter or heavier than air. Unable to see it's direction of travel makes this a dangerous attempt of extinguishment. Hazardous material crews would be required to meter for flammability levels and hope the source that travels unseen doesn't strike an ignition source and cause an explosion. Realistically this fire would not be extinguished, the leak or source would be shut off or disconnected from a valve if possible. I would like to see more studies with Class A materials, Wood, paper and normal house hold products which burn when the products hit it's ignition temperatures and begin to burn the fuel. In addition to class A materials, how effective could it be assisting with rescue in a confined space such as a house in smoke filled conditions and minimal ventilation. What elements would this "wand" require to be effective in a "normal house fire conditions" where lives are the majority of the time at stake.
Although this is an article discussing a scientific phenomenon, the faith crowd has, again, attempted to hijack the discussion. Faith versus science should not be the contentious polarization it has become. The fact really is that faith was humanity's first recognition of the scientific method.
Scientific curiosity began as faith that we could offer explanations for the world we lived in.
Today, we can see the history of scientific discovery is a pattern where better tools (including microscopes and research) allow us to abandon previously held understandings that needed to be replaced by current ones, only to be replaced later by more discovery as the knowledge-base grew. In its basic form, that is really the way a child learns ("...the stairway looks fun ... oops, gravity makes me fall on the stairway if I am not careful").
Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, many people could not come to abandon their original beliefs. Those reasons include loneliness, need for power, comfort with a simpler explanations, and so on. Earlier science (read: 'faith') got stuck in time. Under the flag of "I was taught this, I believe it, that settles it" (better also add, "...and so will you, dammit!") large populations were also forced to be stuck in time.
"Moving on" is how humanity makes progress, even with the admission that not all progress is automatically good for humanity (read: nuclear weapons, etc). But, at the end of the day... faith WAS the science of the day.
I personally believe that educated people who are still stuck in what are old 'truths' can step away from the dogma for a moment and realize that "moving on" is not akin to being a traitor to their beliefs but rather celebrating the opportunity to know more about this wonderful life we have been experiencing.
We Earthlings, for the most part, are truly winners of the 'cosmic lottery'. We need to spend our winnings wisely.
Science fiction coming true........I noticed the defense department is involved in the research.........I suspect this technology will be used for military purposes..........Suffing out jet planes ......disabaling motors of all kinds........Good and bad in all of this kind of stuff.
DARPA has had a lot of pans in the fire so to speak for quite a long time now.
Remember the first internet system called arpanet, that was them before they put defense in front of their name.
I fail to see why God was included in any of these discussions.
I happen to believe, so to me, God established this physical property within a flame that reacts to a powerful electric field, which we were unaware of, until now. If you don't believe, that is fine also, since the science doesn't change in the discovery. Science won't prove or disprove the existence of God, that is why there is faith. But religion should not downplay the importance of these types of discoveries, but rather use them to re-enforce the magnificience of the world around us. Presumably created by you-know-who.