PHOTON~GATE is basically your standard inter-planetary version of fiber optics, that fiber being free space itself along with the streams of coded packets of binary data, where light (various spectrums thereof) is the backbone of life's communication instincts and skills, inclusive of more then 90% of all recorded Earth life, even of those without eyes seemingly have developed an evolutionary sense of what illumination is all about (a worm knows when the IR spectrums and most certainly when the IR spectrums of sunlight or even from an overcast day are upon it's back, thereby UV spectrums may even be perceptible to that worm).

I can hardly believe what's next. Just when I thought those piss poor Apollo issues were entirely out of the way, now there seems an issue or two dealing with fundamental illumination considerations, all because of that original 40 watt laser that supposedly planted a 7 km diameter laser beam onto the lunar surface, so as to benefit from all those supposedly left behind laser retroreflectors (several of them, I believe 5).

It's further odd that non-NASA moderated efforts at achieving a valid lunar laser reflection, those utilizing massively larger and far better optics so as to further narrow a laser beam down from that original 7 km (area = 38.5^6 m2) to a mere 2 km diameter, then also enhancing the source from that mere 40 watts to these days a full gigawatt, pulsed or sort of coded packets at that, then based further upon countless hours of such transmission efforts, can't seem to obtain much better results, if anything other then lunar surface reflection. Actually CW laser rather then laser micro bullets is likely far superior as to obtaining lunar surface reflection then of anything pulsed that is more so dependent upon a laser retroreflector, as photon count is nearly everything and, that's where the CW or continuous analog delivery and subsequent detection is far more likely as to obtaining a random lunar soil and thereby average surface reflection then that of any gigawatt pulsed packets utilizing a mere 1" worth of laser bullets, unless of course that 2 km beam concentration of representing a bazillion gazillion candela established any valid contact or return fire from any one of those 1 m2 retroreflectors (especially with requiring albedo around .15 worth of directional retroreflection), which by the way is a fairly narrow window of opportunity unless one can somehow stop Earth from spinning.

Try your hand and brain at your following up on this valent project and, please do report back, as others and I would truly like to know the greater details of their efforts and accomplishments (as a taxpayer, I would at least like to believe we're getting our moneys worth): http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0115024.htm

Next, try keeping in mind;  This continuing (seemingly never ending) lunar laser effort and a few other associated experiments are costing the taxpayers (that's you and me) yet another 5 years worth of this guy's expertise plus, how about all of those associated with this project, plus of course all that no-so-cheap equipment and of it's associated infrastructure that's going to be tied up. No apparent word on the price tags for all this but, I'll just bet it's in the millions, knowing NASA, this could easily be exceeding 10 million and, if NSA/DoD are to become in anyway involved, count on 100+ million and, even that's as long as those true totals are not being accounted for by ENRON/Andersen.

My renewed interest in the above project was not to criticize the efforts of others, as I was merely attempting to obtain knowledge, as well as to get others seemingly qualified (at least they nearly always say they are far more so qualified then I) and ultimately interested in relating their abilities, as to review the potentials of utilizing such lasers or even xenon (including UV spectrum) light as for planetary communications. Surely a 2 km spot as delivered onto the lunar surface, as that generated by a full gigawatt laser pulse should offer something worthwhile (especially as to anyone intended as receiving that signal while situated on the moon). I fully understand that these minute pulses of this particular laser beam are such as to represent a mere micron stream of 1" laser bullets and, that this level or pulse width would not ever be perceived visually by anything living (such GW pulses could still however impale and thereby kill off optical rods and damage sensitive UV cones or worse). Obviously for Venus we'll need something more like a strobe length of a 300 km spear or javelin, rather then any micro 1" bullet (a beam delivery of roughly 1/1000 sec or initially much longer pulses). Irregardless of the pulse length, the amount of such illumination reaching the moon would be essentially the same and, because space diminishes little of said light, the added range of 0.271AU (as for targeting Venus) is certainly not going to shift/alter those results, but just by the greater diameter (a factor approximately of 105, that's roughly producing a 210 km diameter delivery zone). Thereby a laser source illumination output equivalent of even 100^9 candlepower will in fact represent a rather serious form of communications signal per/m2 (that level can be accommodated right now, I'm told by a mere 25 watts worth of 5 watt lasers offering 0.4 milliradian without additional optics and, easily sixteen times better impact [64^9 cd/w] at 0.1 milliradian with optics).

Unfortunately, all this Apollo reference has put nearly everything right back at the table, simply because others (my undying critics) claiming as being so vastly superior to either you or I combined, such as Paul Smuck criticizing my syntax and form rather then helping with nearly every aspect of my discovery research and, perhaps even the same results will be forthcoming as from the above lunar/laser wizards, as they have been so far offering null or only what appears as blatant disinformation. At best these critics have been disclosing only the most limited formats of illumination information (on a "need-to-know" basis at that) as formulated upon complex standards which only an avid astronomer having a physics masters degree could comprehend. God forbid any of these smart ass astronomers types could ever provide something as common as humanly or lizardly viewing just the visible light spectrums and, get all of that a little more down to standards such as fc/cd/lux, which (thanks to our nearly worthless American education) is still outside of what 99% of the general public can possibly understand. All this reluctance or dismay is fairly odd because, seems a search of their other contributions has had a great deal to offer with regard to illumination and magnitudes, yet my applications for such and subsequent questions are suddenly becoming too hard or perhaps simply incorrectly applied syntax as for their present knowledge or expertise to handle, so then, I'll suppose it'a all my fault.

Don't keep getting me wrong but, I would have to believe that a full KW or at least a megawatt of CW laser pulse (latest diode type lasers providing 680+ lumans per watt and raw candlepower delivery of 4^9 cd/w without additional optics), especially as those capable of delivering a narrow 2 km diameter zone onto the dark lunar surface could become easily detected. Such as a mere 1 second pulse at 1 kw and, perhaps just one such pulse (that should be at least 4^12 cd) and not of the hours, let alone years worth, which NASA experiments seem to require, would do that trick. Certainly a full blown gigawatt (folks, that sort of pulse is one million times greater yet or 1000 megawatts or how about that being worth 4^18 cd). This is where a 0.001 second pulse should become entirely humanly visible as just reflecting itself off the dark moon, as to the naked human eye on Earth, especially when that's being projected onto a tight 2 km diameter worth of 10% reflective lunar soil. First subtract at worst 20% for that beam exiting Earth's atmosphere and then taking a mere 10% (a qualified lunar reflective factor) of the remaining 80% seems to yield 8% as coming back at Earth, lose another 20% penetrating Earth's atmosphere again and we have a remainder of at least 6.4% (more likely 7.2%). Lets see; 6.4% of 1 GW = 64 million watts. Now somewhere in that returning signal target area, especially as within that supposed laser retroreflected 15 km diameter zone, one should see something or at least easily measure something because, that's simply a great deal of returning photon energy (that's not even accounting for the added efficiency of all those lunar laser retroreflectors). Remember; if this is the dark area of the moon as shadowed by Earth, as otherwise illuminated only by Earth's solar reflection, so thereby the greatly improved contrast should be more then sufficient.

Folks; save it and don't plan upon holding your breath waiting around for NASA. This is what I learned in just the last couple of weeks.

August 13, 2001;  a conventional 20" 4 kw spot or searchlight offers a raw 1.14^9 cd (the xenon gap is roughly 6.5 mm). If the application for this fixture and xenon lamp was to become 10% pulse, then we can safely overdrive this lamp by 5X. Pulsed or binary driven @20 kw = 5.7^9 cd plus obtaining a whole lot more in the UV spectrum with multiple peaks exceeding by 10 fold the CW visible spectrum output (that's potentially 57^9 cd worth of certain UV spectrums plus adding another 20% to that by merely having the rhodium reflector replaced by an aluminum coated reflector).

Guess what folks? I do so hate having to always be the one saying "I told you so" but, it certainly looks entirely feasible as to apply as few as three of these 20" xenon fixtures, pulse overdrive it's lamp by 5X and expect to obtain 150+^9 worth of UV cd. 16 such fixtures configured into one array could deliver 100+^9 cd worth of 550 ~ 750 nm and subsequently 100+^10 worth of UV spectrum.

A conventional CW power supply (say 5 kw) could easily become modified with the necessary output capacitors and by electronically switching this lamp current through a relatively low cost power MOSFET. The lamp starter power supply would essentially remain the same, as the gap remains merely 6.5 mm thus insuring a darn good focus capability.

At the initial cycle-on period, the lamps would be driven at slightly above normal CW performance for perhaps 30 seconds or 2X for perhaps 10 to 15 seconds, then the actual binary or morse coded packet would be comprised of 0.1 to 0.25 sec. outputs, having 0.1 up to a 0.5 second pause between each illumination. The typical hourly duty cycle could thereby remain at something under 10%. If need be the pulse can be reduced to as little as 0.001 and apply 0.01 second as break or pause between illuminations (this could apparently permit greater UV spectrum delivery as well as extending lamp performance).

Multiple sites (separated by 2 hour intervals) would be synchronized via a network link. Because the baud rate is initially so low, signal timing is not a significant factor. Because as many as 5 sites can be targeting Venus, the net result of focus would become extremely good, perhaps obtaining the effect of 0.1 divergence.

Regarding outdoor illumination as related to what the human eye detects (this is based upon what a flat and clean white surface reflects), based upon the foot candle power standards and you guessed it, that's a damn candle situated at a distance of one foot. This obviously is not so absolute because, that candle could represent a fairly wide variation, a birthday cake candle or the damn thing could a foot in diameter with a wick the size of your whatsit. Never the less, the "fc" and subsequent "lux" have become a standard for over a century, from which most other forms of illumination standards have been derived and/or calibrated upon and, you don't have to be any rocket wizard nor a mad scientist so as to figure them out.

Much of this info was offered from: http://www.tpromo.com/ssmag/cctv/cctv4.htm

Outside natural illumination references:

Direct sunlight = 10,000 to 13,000 fc
Full daylight = 1,000 to 2,000 fc
Overcast day = 100 fc
Dusk = 10 fc
Twilight = 1 fc
Deep twilight = 0.1 fc
Full moon = .01 fc
Quarter moon = .001 fc
Moonless (star light) night = .0001 fc
Full overcast night = .00001 fc

Lux conversion example; Full moon (typical) = .01 fc or 0.1 lux
(maximum measured lunar illumination = 0.0265 fc or roughly 0.25 lux)

Next topic is regarding "Surface Reflectance"

A fairly common nocturnal species will seriously outperform the astronomers visual disadvantage by a magnitude of at least 5. In layman's terms; that's a visual sensitivity improvement of 100 times. In other words; a nocturnal capable eye would view a purely star lit night as what you or I see as a full moon illuminated scene.

Now, I certainly don't want to be the continual wet blanket here but, on Earth I believe there are nocturnal animals that one might classify as having better then a magnitude 5 advantage, those which I believe can easily be 1,000 times above the best night vision of you or I. In which case, that purely star lit night would offer nearly full twilight and a full moon would more likely represent an overcast day.

From NOVA;  "an owl's night vision, it can spot a mouse creeping through the underbrush more than a football field away on a moon less night."   Now folks, at that sort of distance that's 0.0001 lux and not by locating anything that's pure white, more likely a dark mousey gray (somewhat like what our lunar surface was supposed to be like), 10% reflective at best, so that net reflective lux figure is actually 0.00001 lux, and that's at least a good magnitude of 5 or 100 times better then what our best sight impaired humans have to offer and, more then likely 1000 times better then you or I.

On a truly dark planet (I know, I know, it also damn hot), such as Venus nighttime, where their seasons of night last a whopping 2900 hours (that's 3 months worth of thermally conductive CO2 within a great deal of vertical action) still under those relatively thick and (25% H2O) dense clouds, where sunrise is even somewhat diminished by a good magnitude of 5 or rather a human factor of 100 (that's roughly 1% as bright as viewing fully unobstructed sun illuminated surfaces) and even that 1% amount of solar illumination would likely trigger a migration towards anything nocturnal heading underground or as to traveling by airship to their sunset territories of Venus. Thus Darwin's evolution would clearly have had ample motivation from heat buildup as from too much greenhouse impact over thousands to millions of years, certainly gives life sufficient time so as to cultivate upon the necessary DNA alterations, just so that any truly nocturnal capable forms of sight would have matured.

Such a capable species, likely having larger then human build and eyes of somewhat further added dimension, containing mostly IR rod type and even somewhat greater UV sensitive cone characteristics, might have by now obtained a magnitude 10 advantage over pathetic Earth humans. In other words, 10,000 times greater visual sensitivity, which places the humanly perceived insufficient levels of artificially transmitted illuminations from Earth clearly at an entirely perceptible level, easily detected by that naked lizard eye.

It is entirely reasonable to suggest that any capable Venus species having sufficiently large eyes of nocturnal capability would have long ago easily surpassed anything Earth like, such as that owl having the 1000X advantage over humans could easily be beat by any Venus nocturnal lizard's vision having a true magnitude 10 improvement over mankind, that's a multiplier factor of 10,000 over our best sensitivity to light and, more likely as that being further receptive to UV/IR spectrums as well.

If such a survivor managed to climb or take an elevator to the top of any one of those 17+km mountains, at night when those (20:1 ratio) clouds are at their thinnest and lowest altitude (possibly even below 17 km), then as viewing through the more transparent/thin or remaining partial cloud patterns might enable a fairly good look-see at Earth. A whole lot better yet, if those survivors merely utilized a capable airship, as such technology being capable of offering 64 kg/m3 buoyancy and of obtaining sufficient altitude along with whatever astronomy apparatus, then obviously there's no contest, just a clear laser/xenon shot to/from Earth.

I'm not saying that there's strikingly good or bad looking lizard types dashing about Venus (especially in daylight) because, even at night it's still rather toasty, perhaps somewhat lessor toasty at 10 km and then certainly much hotter below 5 km and downright smoking hot below zero. If you or I were to visit Venus, we would likely remain on that airship or at least a scout airship variation, cruising just above those cool nighttime clouds which are floating on top of that virtual ocean of CO2, while we recline inside a depressurized cabin, fully air conditioned by direct (simple cycle) CO2 refrigeration and breathing in 10% O2 as that's being provided by the CO2-->CO/O2 combustion that's been fueling the massive turbine engines.

Back to photon~gate or illumination~gate;  According to one recent expertise: "Earth has a candela of roughly around 1.1 to 2 billion billion candlepower towards Venus, depending on angle between lines from the Sun to each of the 2 planets. Closer to 2 billion billion at both conjunctions." Of course that's representing the entire globe plus that of our atmosphere's clouds to reflect sunlight and, not accounting for the fact that a naked lizard eye might perceive as little as 1000 km resolution come October 30, 2002.

In a further response to my request for a better understanding of what level of artificial illumination could be produced that might outperform such solar illumination, as for any given area or spot on Earth.

"100 million candela is only about as much beam candlepower as a roughly 200 foot diameter circle of cloud top in Earth's atmosphere illuminated by sunlight." Ten of those 200 foot diameter zones would then represent 1^7 cd and 1000 of those 200 foot circles would have to become 1^9 cd.

OK, this being true; Then by having ourselves a 100 billion candela (100^9 cd) as an additional source, as that being pointed directly at Venus (actually there would be a minimum of 3 such transmitters at any one time), this should obviously outproduce anything solar illuminated by a very large factor, especially if we start ourselves off at 10 meters worth of array beam diameter, where 90% of that source leaves Earth's atmosphere at an ideal divergence of 0.01º, ending us at 725 km, of which this coverage of 41.28^12 m2 would represent slightly more then half of Venus and subsequently deliver that added or pulse differential of 2 mcd/m2 per 100^9 source (such visibly as equal to our perceiving 20 cd because of those highly evolved nocturnal eyes having that magnitude 10 advantage as well as whatever IR sensitivity).

Here I was asking about a KECK-II modification: "A 30 meter diameter mirror with a xenon short arc lamp at the focus, with the lamp intermittently overpowered to produce surges in light output 2.5 times its norm, with surface brightness (after attenuation by the Earth's atmosphere) about 60% of that of the Sun, at a distance of .23 Au would have an apparent magnitude of roughly +7.5. Beam candlepower (or more officially "candela") would be roughly 400-500 billion." Folks, any way you cut it, that's certainly seems bright enough by itself.

So far so good. Except now I've also been informed of a 5 watt laser having better then a 0.0004º divergence and, along with some fine diamond optics that could possibly hone this down to 0.0001º. This lone 5 watt raw laser delivers 20^9 candela and, I'm told further that this amount of illumination could be humanly viewed as from Venus (obviously from above those clouds) by utilizing an 18" telescope. Of course, if one calculates for the fact that Earth will soon appear to Venus as nearly 4% the size of our moon and, that's being viewed by a vastly superior nocturnal eye, evolved for that of surviving within nearly total darkness, thereby much larger eyes and obviously chuck full of those IR and UV sensitive rods and perhaps even a few highly advanced cones to boot, in which case you don't need any stinking 18" telescope because, the naked lizard eye already sees our cloud cover patterns, polar caps, blue oceans and some of the brownish landscape of "dinner's on" land ho. Such a naked eye resolution worthy of differentiating perhaps as little as 1000 km (that's roughly 1/13 of Earth). True, Earth might even be appear too damn bright as to be looking directly at, but that's where spectrum filters (natural or otherwise) become real handy.

I've gone through too much and, I'm running low on medication, so don't start off telling or re-informing about all those terrible nasty issues that makes for life on Venus so impossible. I've read and heard it all, have for decades fully understood that pathetic Earth humans can't possibly manage Venus (just like we can't live on Mars), some of us are so freaking stupid that we can't even manage Earth. However, with the lingering problem being that Venus was simply not always so freaking hot plus obviously not so greenhouse and, besides all of that, we can now see what's been done or modified as to those elevated areas of Venus, those situated at 5+km altitude and perhaps higher. I can further prove the Magellan SAR imaging was not a joke like our pathetic cold-war era of Apollo, not anything modified freehand by NASA technicians or manipulated through any secondary scanning (all sorths of scale and resolution reductions and enlargements yes, but all that's entirely traceable and even reversible, especially when the raw original SAR files are available). I'll demonstrate, just as others can, that the image was and still is vastly superior to anything photographic, with the 3D perspective capabilities which are there to be utilized, unless you're one of those looking for a job and/or keeping your job at NASA's planetary image interpreting club, in which case the image is merely random patterns of common Venus territory, in fact, according to many pro-NASA types, that deep channel/canyon or rille isn't even really there, in fact the image most likely isn't even of Venus because there's not one iota of anything graphically identifying it as Venus (sort of like those Apollo lunar shots, no legible signpost), other then the associated documentation which you and I both should realize by now, NASA fools around all the time with such matters, just like they successfully fooled you and me into believing Apollo-11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and possibly even 17 walked on the moon (these guys are certainly good, damn good, far better then merely having the right stuff).

Sorry about all that anti-Apollo flak;  It's just that I as well as others can prove the Venus image is exactly what it is and, my opposition, including NASA for some pathetic reasons, can't seem to prove much of anything about any of those thoroughly piss poor Apollo mission photos (sort of like asking the bloated fox about those missing chickens).

As I endeavor to learn more about xenon light emission capabilities and potential use of lasers for planetary communications, I'll return to this page and share that with you. For some previous information and ideas, please refer to LASER-COM.HTM or HELLO.HTM