This project or goal is intended for that of accomplishing relatively long range alternative communications (short range or local area code as far as interplanetary laser technology goes), as an attempt of Earth establishing our "first contact", as that being directed towards our sister planet Venus (yes, I already know, among so many other nasty things, Venus is always far too damn humanly hot; so what I say, as you will obviously either get accustomed to it or die, thus Darwin's evolution strikes home again, by appropriately exterminating all of us feeble and pathetically stupid Earth humans in favor of empowering those superior Islamic or perhaps Cathar lizard folks of Venus).
Another somewhat related page that's more focused upon utilizing the Boeing/TRW (ABL) as in application for accomplishing interplanetary communications is somewhat equally confusing but, somewhere within are the basic ideas and honest notions that this is yet another "can-do" situation.
I've had to reconsider this as yet another lost window of opportunity for all of humanity, as to have started this communications program as of no later then September 01, 2002 and, to carry it through to at least December 24, 2002. The near pass of Venus at 0.27AU will come at the end of October (it'll pass by the sun at roughly 6 degrees below center), where our existing solar monitoring Earth based stations and satellites such as TRACE, and of SOHO as situated at Earth L1, will enable a maximum view of the dark side of Venus, where at this opportunity the darken disc area of Venus (as viewed from Earth's L1) will represent a relatively large black dot of 3.5% solar diameter (from Earth vantage we're seeing Venus as roughly 3.25% the diameter of our moon), offering a sufficient view as to be monitored for signs of any replies, via random and/or hopefully similar coded laser or at the very least, soft focused illumination packets, as that represented by some sort of coded visible light coming from where it's supposedly too damn hot (in other words; establishing our "first contact").
Some of the previous pages offering confusing alternatives and updates are:
Laser Call 101
Light Communications Universal Light
Quantum Binary Packets
and just good old Hello Venus
What this opportunity has been looking for all along; besides support towards our obtaining access to some of those good CW capable lasers (communication laser cannons), of those capable of operating somewhat within the visible spectrum, having sufficiently focused output of perhaps as much as 1 kw to 1 MW if we're talking about a 5 milliradian beam from Earth's surface and/or of simply multiple smaller (1 kw) lasers as linked, with a tracking stability of at least 0.001º and otherwise a dispersion angle of preferably (ideally) not more then 0.001º (0.5 milliradian), so as to deliver upon a reasonably tight target diameter worthy of not more then 750 km, as for being focused at Venus from a distance of roughly 0.27+AU (25+ million miles). Push coming down to shove, I'll certainly take whatever you have to offer, even that of an older prototype laser device/cannon or of the modern solid state 5 watt units that I've been informed offer a 0.5 milliradian raw output.
As an initial reference for such potential communications; this is what I've put together so far. Remember that's I've been asking those supposedly know-it-all astronomy types to take this and run with it, but no way has that happened nor are there any signis of concessions for doing such, so this is my estimate or conclusion as developed from the information at hand.
As a "can-do" example; our moon is supposedly reflecting at roughly 150 watt/m2 of solar illumination. According to Kodak, the Earth's illumination from that lunar source is providing a measurable lux of 0.1 to as much as 0.25 lux as shining on a horizontal (presumably white) surface. That 0.25+ lux is most likely when the moon is at the optium position plus receiving further illumination as from Earth.
Now excuse me folks; if roughly 150w/m2 of reflected solar liumination is producing a typically measurable 0.1 lux upon Earth (obviously that's quite humanely viewible), then by effectively doubling that to 300 w/m2 should be something we could easily realize as being 20% reflective. Obviously if a mere 300 w/m2 were produced from one square meter on that moon, that little spot we may not see, but then I'm speaking of more like what 3 kw of focused xenon illumination as might be viewed as a rather noticible speck of light to the naked eye. That 3 kw could be easily focused sufficiently to 1º, in which instance we're looking at a 375+^6 candle power illumination source that's otherwise residing on a lunar surface that's emitting 150 watts/m2, of which the solar color is going to be somewhat different than that of the artificial 3 kw xenon lamp that's been focused to 1º as to be delivering those 375^6 cd, much greater yet if that illumination source were to be accommodated by a substantially greater diameter reflector/concentrator, like a 1 meter mirrored emitter should easily puch that 3 kw initial illumination source might offer more then a billion candlepower per m2.
I've been informed by many, that free space (such as what's between planets) generaly does not impeed or further dispurse light (just atmosphers or other matter does that). I've also learned that we have lasers capable of much lessor divergence, those capable of delivering as tight as a 100 km target zone onto Venus do exist, as I recently stumbled upon just such a NSA/DoD IR/UV laser team. So once again, what's all the fuss about? Where exactly is the missing technology that's needed for accomplishing this communications?
Let us presume that Earth is reflecting 50% of the measured solar influx illumination which I believe I've identified off the internet as roughly 1400 w/m2 (that's presumably inclusive of UV to IR) as that recorded from the ISS platform. That's perhaps worth 700w/m2 of combined surface & atmospheric illumination reflection as being viewed from Venus. Roughly, anything that's exceeding 700 MW/km2 (in terms of illumination candela or UV spectrum delivery per km2), where a raw visual resolution of 1000 km is entirely possible, as from the naked lizard eye as looking at Earth, especially October 30, 2002 should detect a 100^9 cd worth of sparkle and, especially more so if 4 sites were simultaneously sinked into delivering a combined 400^9 cd.
I'm not absolutely certain but, I do somehow believe that a billion cd, not to mention what 100 billion might accomplish, that this ott to beat whatever is of solar illuminated contents of what any km2 worth of lunar surface has to deliver, as that's at best (Sunsine + Earthshine) only 150 million worth of entirely unfocused watts.
If each illumination source on Earth were to be 100 billion candlepower, a Venus lizard would perceive that as a hot damn spot of illumination. Remember, that of looking at Earth from the nighttime side of Venus (presumably that's being above those cool nighttime clouds), Earth's size is nearly 3.5% the size of our moon appears to us (no optics required, as just the human eye might perceive a target resolution of 1000 km2, especially if within that area was emitting light) and do remember, that I'm not speaking of our having to detect nor measure one damn micro lumen of any of our reflected light as derived from those Venus clouds as affected by our previous transmissions, as that aspect would be pathetically stupid, but perhaps duh, that's apparently as far as the brain cells in most of the "everything's negative as long as it's not my idea" astronomy types ever gets. No folks, I'm seriously thinking about a global network of at least 12 to as many as 24 Earth based stations, capable of sustaining a few packets of worthy xenon signal, delivered from at least 3 to as many as 6 simutanious 100^9 cd illuminations, as each focused to 0.01º upon Venus. Buy the freaking way once again, I have been informed that Xenon arc produces somewhat more UV content than visible, so that even without help from the xenon emissions within the infrared, it looks as though my previous consideration that nocturnals having superior UV sensitivity could in fact view this spectrum without further optical aid.
Per Earth emitter station were talking of consuming an average hourly power consumption of perhaps 100 kw/hr (much lessor if KECK-II's were configured as emitters). That's because this is not a continuous CW output, but a series of short packets with a 15 minute pause between initating each cycle. Thus perhaps an average of 10% duty cycle, further increasing only as packets of smut are being exchanged. So, I still don't understand the pathetic opposition.
Obviously CO2 laser cannons such as the Boeing/TRW (ABL) could be offering something far better as far as delivering a tight and brilliant (mostly IR) diameter (as tight as 750 km), although the per station energy consumption, at 10% duty cycle, for doing that would be more like an average of 400+kw/hr, plus the investment for each station would be as much as 1000 times greater than anything xenon. Of course, we already have such tactical and multiple prototype lasers just sitting around (seriously bought and paid for many times over), in fact, some are just flying around and looking for targets to shoot at, except those flying are of multi gigawatt class which would most certainly place Venus at DEFCON-4 (higher levels of 3, 2 or even DEFCON 1 may unfortunately prove my point to somewhat of a surprise, sort of like 9/11 was an unfortunate surprise to many, including myself, but apparently no so surprising to NSA/DoD types).
The latest information on laser beam divergence is that we could in fact deliver a target diameter of 2500 km as from Earth and more likely 1000 km if that were being shot from a space platform. Otherwise from a good conservative laser source; "Let's say 5 watts offering a .4 milliradian circle, that's wide enough to illuminate the entire planet Venus, of creating about 20 billion candlepower. Visibility (Venus looking back towards Earth) would require a mere 18 inch telescope at superior conjunction". Obviously by focusing this 5 watt laser from covering the entire 12,100 km planet as to a mere 2500 km target zone (I believe that's capable of nearly 400^9 cd) is going to produce valid results, either that or a whole lot of hate mail as a reply from Venus.
I now understand that of a new laser along with top notch optics can target our moon and achieve a 2 km target zone. With Venus being merely 110 times further away mean that such laser and optics could deliver a spot of a little as 220 km. Folks, that's a laser of 57 times more concentration, making the 5 watt laser capable of delivering 1^12 cd (one trillion visible [555 to 655 nm] candela). I do believe this most recent of laser capability places communications range well beyond 1 AU.
I've recently re-applied some other fundamental calculations;
All of this is also a great deal more then most pro-NASA types have been willing to share, concede and/or publicly accomplish on their own, as perhaps this is another one of those God forbid, someone other then their pagan God has developed along the lines of achieving not only a far better idea along with the "extraordinary" proof to boot and furthermore, not costing but 1% of what NASA's normal mode of operation would run (how downright embarrassing).
If to be going by a fairly avid (non-NASA) laser wizard; as taken from those lunar laser bounce experiments, those which supposedly delivered a 7 km lunar dot, and somewhere within this dot was at least one circular meter worth of containing either of those reflector panels, where at best this reflector was receiving 1.4e-7 worth of that original 40 watts and that was calculating with zero losses due to the transmitting optics and of Earth's atmosphere imposing it's diffraction coefficient. So, if we were to toss in a few extremely conservative factors, we're easily down to at least 1.0e-7
That's at best delivering a 0.1 millionth of a laser watt/m2. If this 0.1 millionth of a watt was then sufficient as to reflect back towards Earth and be detected at something like 0.0001 billionth of a watt (as that perceived by yet another 1 m2 optical collector), then just think what 100 kw could have achieved upon purely targeting (one way) onto those Venus clouds. I understood that the lunar return laser fire was not but half as capably focused, thereby adding yet other zeros might seem appropriate (as doubling the reply target diameter is somewhat of a serious signal degrade, as now we're realistically looking at our having to detect 0.0001 trillionth of a laser watt/m2, which I seriously believe is simply more likely lunar surface reflection, as any 7+km diameter (38.5^6 m2) of a 10% reflective lunar surface is one whole hell of a lot more effective then any 1 m2 by any supposed laser reflector).
Since Venus will come within as little as 110 times further away than our moon, thereby, that same lunar laser dot, if being limited as to that same old laser beam focus/divergence technology, will become more like 710 km (that's 4^11 m2). And, the illumination (based upon using a 100 kw CW laser transmitter) at that distance (0.271AU) should become roughly 2.5^-6 or 0.0025 mw/m2.
I'm not saying that I fully understand all this laser stuff or that all my math is even correct (I'm nearly always having trouble with the basic math having to include all those zeros). For example, I now realize that CO2 lasers can offer 33% energy efficiency (thereby a 100 kw output would require at least 300 kw input and, that's not including the surrounding human/machine infrastructure aspects, so perhaps 25% overall efficiency is more true to life and, I've read somewhere that even 10% efficiency can be expected of certain power lasers) however, I still have no absolute idea as to how many lumens or cd can be delivered per CO2 laser output watt, as those NASA/NSA/DoD moles were not about ready to help little old me nor anyone else figure this one out. A good laser diode, as I recently uncovered in all this info, might achieve a result of 650 lumens per watt and, that's merely 26,000 lumans as derived from that NASA/lunar 40 watt laser, although my math could certainly have become a little off, but then, all anyone has to do, is point that out and, (unlike NASA) I'll not only make those corrections but give that person all the credits for educating me.
I'm certainly not an illumination nor any laser expert however (don't believe I need to be); it seems that 0.00235 mw/m2 (2.35 uw/m2) as received at Venus is quite a bit greater then of the lunar's laser experment of delivering at best 0.1 millionth of a watt, in fact roughly 24 times greater product and, that's by utilizing but one source transmitter of the same old technology. 10 such 100 kw synchronized lasers (1 MW) would obviously create 250 times as bright or 0.025 mw/m2 (no special optics nor detectors required, that's because Earth would likely appear as a blinking safety light and, perhaps even better yet in the IR spectrum).
Obviously anything much over 1.0 mw/m2 should manage to get something thoroughly irritated on Venus, as even at the 0.1 mw/m2, if that were to be received as looking back at Earth through a good set of optics, something like their version of KECK-II, 0.1 mw/m2 should burn a hole in their optical detector or IR/UV sensitive nocturnal lizard eye, perhaps giving just cause for their Islamic lizard war lords as to declaring war against Earth (seems we can't help but piss off those Islamic types).
About that massive airship consideration; as that which I've re-constructed a rudimentary outline of, as based upon what is viewed at "GUTH Venus" site No.1, has since become entirely capable of sustaining navigation (surplus buoyancy) above those cool nighttime clouds and certainly as massively stable enough for that of hosting such astronomy equipment. Stabilized tracking should not impose a problem, as weight and energy consumption are not likely of any major concern (returning back through those acidic clouds could on the other hand be altogether a real bitchy experience, but this is an enclosed and depressurized rigid airship so, the interior should be just fine).
So, I'm thinking; we should limit our initial message delivery at not more then 1 MegaWatt of combined laser output (for argument sake, that's at least 500^6 lumens worth of sparkle and/or at least a bazillion worth of candela/km2), for fear of instigating an inter planetary revolt, the likes of which we have not seen before, as they might even be Islamic or Cathars and not looking forward to enduring another bad (hot as hell) day, and do try to remember that their day or preferably night is like 2900 hours worth.
In looking about for a somewhat non-laser technology, as for their generating a reply; Just for this exercise, I've identified a Xenon lamp HMI-2500W @240,000 lumens @5600°K rated for 500 hrs (nearly 100 lumens/watt) and of a commercial compact searchlight of 3 KW that delivers 364^6 cd, I've even heard of a 4 KW lamp capable of delivering a directed 1.5^6 Lumens, that's 375 Lumens/watt (better then half of what a good pinpoint laser diode can achieve). Consider; if that 4 KW Xenon were to be directed towards Earth by utilizing even a relatively broad 0.1 degree of focus, we should be able to easily see this because, at least once we block out the nearby sun, we're looking at their dark side (an especially good look as from Earth's L1) and not at any solar illuminated surface such as Earth appears to Venus. Obviously, what's truly needed is that Venus L2 platform, I've been speaking of such for well over a year, which I believe if NASA ever realized what artificial considerations were on Venus, we could have had this nearly a decade ago, that is, if Club NASA weren't cloaking and gratifying so much on behalf of NSA/DoD and, now having to support picking up after 9/11.
It might be of further interest, how KECK-II could manage to deliver a tight beam worth of lumens from such a 4000 watt Xenon lamp (there being much higher power lamps yet and/or clusters or arrays which could easily represent 120+ KW and upwards towards 250 KW X 2.5 pulse output = 600+ kw), as for creating a very capable illumination emitter from having a 10 meter illumination beam capable of exceeding a delivery of 500 billion candlepower. Obviously this is not laser but, a whole lot cheaper (like 0.1% of laser) and so much more energy efficient. As sort of a broad pre-laser, where the CW duty cycle could be fairly high (continuous if need be), especially if the lamp(s) were being supplied with either new gas or a shield of CO2 or N2. If each xenon lamp focused onto those KECK-II mirrors were to produce 1.5^6 raw lumens, then what with all of those adaptive KECK mirrors (say we allocate three mirrors per lamp), what do you suppose we could have as an end result (37.5k < 375k lumens/watt?). For one thing I'll just bet, we'll have ourselves a troop of thoroughly pissed off astronomers, as God forbid we should ever utilize their precious KECK's for humanitarian uses (other then benefiting their own humanitarian egos and pockets), let alone as any multi hundred billion candlepower giant MagLite, as for that of achieving 500+ billions worth of pulsed candlepower of binary data streaming. At least that's certainly a great deal of live smut exchanges and, for at least 8 months per year we could at have something worthwhile on TV.
In order to roughly calculate upon a focused delivery of visible light (candlepower per lumen), let's apply 1 lumen as focused so as to achieve 1 cm^2 target at 10m (that's roughly 0.057 degrees divergence), of which this corresponds to (10)m^2/(0.01)m^2 lumens/steradian = 10^6 candlepower per lumen and, remembering that a really good laser diode is capable of pumping out 680 lumen/watt. Now here again, I'm certainly not any searchlight nor optic expert but, those adaptive mirrors of KECK-II, along with some primitive optics should be capable of some sort of serious (near laser) illumination. Even without further optics (just by those existing mirrors), KECK-II chould be xenon outfitted so as to be delivering 30 meters worth of several hundred billion candlepower, where after consulting with other expertise, I would have to believe 500+ billion candlepower is within reach. Based upon some recalculations from Paul Smuck, even the net result of 100^9 cd could deliver 0.000485 lux/m2, and that's taking into account for a 20% loss and further based upon obtaining an initial 0.01 degree beam having an end result of projecting a target diameter of 14,500 km due to further beam dispersion. If the beam were not further diverged, then a diameter of 7,250 km would offer nearly 0.002 lux/m2, multiplying that by a factor of having 5 and we're now at 0.01 lux, as a binary signal created by just one 30 meter source projecting 500^9 cd (quite possibility more yet if one considers the UV spectrum delivery).
Obviously our esteemed friend; Paul Smuck (by the way, that's not his real name), as he asked to not to be associated with anything suggesting any possibility of life on Venus, or is more likely not wanting any responsibility for his contributions. I have to conclude that Paul is either nowhere as smart as he want's you and I to believe or, he has been feeding you and me intentional disinformation. If supposedly he's so damn smart, then Paul already knew all of this illumination stuff and much more, so his recent statements as to requiring a million times greater illumination then the 100^9 candela were obviously intentionally bogus, perhaps just like his statement that it rains acid on Venus. As first of all, Earth as appearing to a Venus lizard eye is viewed as nearly 4% the size of our moon, which clearly means that one could see our polar caps, land mass, oceans and cloud formations and thereby realize upon the contrasting differences as those between a brightly solar illuminated (80% reflective) cloud cover and that of a really bright spot of pulsing illuminations as emitting from an otherwise dark (15% reflective) land mass. Even without a telescope, a Venus astronomer (especially if having a superior nocturnal eye) could visualize and/or detect at a raw viewing resolution of perhaps 1000 km because, towards the end of October and into November 2002, Earth is only 0.271AU away (roughly 105 times as far as our moon is from Earth).
As for serious armature astronomers; their telescopes could be rather economically outfitted with a 1 kw Xenon lamp (at not 0.1% the cost of any 1 kw laser) and achieve some rather interesting results (perhaps better then laser as far as visible and of UV spectrum delivery). A micro 1 kw Xenon lamp could easily become economically outfitted within as little as a 9" refraction telescope, along with a rudimentary lens should obtain a bare minimum of 100 million candlepower. An 18" reflector should be capable of easily developing 400 million candlepower per kw and, a 1 meter reflector having a 10 kw lamp should be that capable of delivering 10^9 cd, and so on, as the more diameter and the more kw the better.
Even the compact commercial "SKY-EYE" searchlight @3 kW, this xenon illumination cannon product delivers 121,667 candlepower/watt (that's focused so as to produce 365 million candlepower) and, that's certainly little more then a MagLite toy as compared to something like the KECK-II having all those individually adaptive mirrors (possibly each individually outfitted with it's own xenon lamp source).
By utilizing greater power (even via clusters of xenon cannon lamps), we may have the option of applying a far greater dispersion angle, thereby lessor tracking stability demands. This will simply require somewhat greater CW performance, as perhaps that easily provided eventually by 1+ GigaWatt laser cannons (that's 1000+ megawatts), as this would allow as much tracking error as < 0.01º if utilizing the initial dispersion of < 0.01º, which would essentially deliver the acceptable target illumination diameter of 14,500 km (accounting for a doubling of the intended focus due to Earth's atmosphere), a delivered illumination per laser GW (if my math is still all that correct) worthy of 2.35 mw/m2 (that much illumination as based upon obtaining as much as 375 lumens/watt, 0.8+ lumens/m2, even we could see this effect from Earth observations upon those Venus nighttime clouds and, I'll just bet those on the surface of Venus will realize a good cloud illuminating light show when their nocturnal UV sensitive eyes see one, especially if some of that spectrum is near-UV, as those clouds are at the very least 20:1 thinner in spots as well as somewhat lower throughout much of their extended nighttime season).
As for the laser performance or of xenon alternatives issue; either should be such as to providing a duty cycle capable of maintaining a packet burst/sequence of typically 50% CW per minute packets and, if for 12 minutes per hour, that's representing as little as 10% duty per hour as based upon sending those short (3 minute) packets initiated every 15 minutes (if push comes to shove, I'll certainly take whatever we can get), such as xenon transmitters are not only quite efficient, they should also have little trouble in delivering extremely high duty cycle performance (obviously 100+% at 100% CW, thereby 1000% peaks at 10% duty cycle).
The laser or Xenon transmitter must be capable of being remotely triggered by accepting a sustained sequenced or packet message/phrase as intended to cause a pulsed/coded string of initially low bad rate CW outputs, thereby capable of producing a string of perhaps 0.25 sec. < 1.0 sec. bursts forming a chain of morse code like illumination packet discharges, where such a basic message could require as much as 3 minutes to complete. The message/phrase is to be repeated upon every 15 minutes (synchronized to Universal Time) unless otherwise directed to alter this cycle period. If the available CW laser/xenon is for some reason not capable of creating a sufficiently short burst or pulse sequence mode, a somewhat longer sequence consisting of 1.0 sec. < 4 sec. durations may become acceptable (up to a maximum of 5 minutes per phrase or message packet) .
BASIC LASER/XENON CANNON REQUIREMENTS
Laser targeting stability (ideally) not to exceed +/- 0.001º
Xenon targeting may be allowed to a great as +/-0.1º
A rated CW output of not less then 100 kw (unless using multiple units for a maximum combined effort of 1 MW) or otherwise as little as 100 KW and/or a minimum of 100 billion candlepower/xenon format.
A CW pulsed duty cycle of not less then 50% per minute < (maximum 15% per hour and more likely 10% duty cycle), that's 3 minutes worth of morse or binary packet transmittions upon 15 minute intervals.
A laser dispersion of not more then 0.001º (0.01º if above 1 MW), or as wide as 0.1º if having to rely upon utilizing multiple xenon emitters.
Consideration for satellite as well as aircraft and even bird safety will allow for the individual site interruption of sequenced coded data. All other pertinent considerations that could adversely impact upon existing astronomy and/or NSA/DoD syp programs, including spy satellite counterparts will be addressed (unless those are Chinese or Islamic considerations, then as far as our Club NASA is concerned, they're entirely on their own).
The selection of applying one primary airborne laser transmission (ABL) as primary source may become designated in place of multiple Earth ground based laser units of lessor power (as linked and synchronized to UT) because of obvious concerns over potential aviation, wildlife and even satellite safety issues. The ability to insure the utmost degree of safety and security addressing all issues can best be managed if the single source airborne laser method is employed. Although, existing NSA/DoD and ISS based laser capabilities may not likely become all that available for consideration (even though they may certainly exist and at considerable energy levels) however, since their applications for humanitarian goodwill is not likely to ever become a reality any time soon (it's just damn hard to even think of using something that's a killing machine for peaceful considerations, without having to take a substantial amount of flak from NSA/DoD input).
Planet Venus (specific) targets:
The primary target center = Latitude/Longitude (deg): -16.00/095.00
Secondary target center = Latitude/Longitude (deg): +31.00/278.00
The third target center = Latitude/Longitude (deg): -30.00/279.00
Since this is a truly international opportunity, please disregard any discouragements and/or threats coming from our NASA/NSA/DoD and, forward all of your comments and research links onto: Brad Guth 1-253-8576061
Direct mail: 4410 SE Nelson Rd. Olalla, WA 98359
My alternate/backup URL site: guthvenus.tripod.com