How could you prove Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program exists

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
General distrust of the government is understandable, but does not make it reasonable or rational to jump to conclusions such as the chemtrails idea.
You don't have my experiences . . . you may or may not have seen how the system works and see how special interests get their way within the system . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
One reads the information that shows that the US code puts strict limits on "what it says it is", including the requirement for informed consent.
Not in the original code which was repealed in 1997 . . . Informed Consent was not added until after 1997 . . . in fact I didn't find it until the 2009 version of the Code . . .

"The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States]."
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
You don't have my experiences . . . you may or may not have seen how the system works and see how special interests get their way within the system . . .

Depends on which "system" you mean. I work for a state agency, so I manage my own little part of a "system". But regardless of your experiences or mine, it STILL does not make it rational to jump to conclusions. I've run into this idea with chemtrails activists before, that if the government couldbe doing something like that, then they probably are doing it. It does not logically follow.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Depends on which "system" you mean. I work for a state agency, so I manage my own little part of a "system". But regardless of your experiences or mine, it STILL does not make it rational to jump to conclusions. I've run into this idea with chemtrails activists before, that if the government couldbe doing something like that, then they probably are doing it. It does not logically follow.

My belief also includes the history of geoengineering and the personalities behind the scenes . . .
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
My belief also includes the history of geoengineering and the personalities behind the scenes . . .

So, you have a lot of factors that bias your thinking on the matter. They still don't make it logical to jump to these conclusions.

You seem to agree that the chemtrails idea is lacking in direct evidence, but you say that you can't think of any hypothetical evidence that would convince you otherwise.

Well, I appreciate your honesty.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So, you have a lot of factors that bias your thinking on the matter. They still don't make it logical to jump to these conclusions.

You seem to agree that the chemtrails idea is lacking in direct evidence, but you say that you can't think of any hypothetical evidence that would convince you otherwise.

Well, I appreciate your honesty.
Logic and intuition are not always contradictory, but they often part company . . . I feel I use both . . .
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
George, you would have to connect the dots. Connect what you are saying is happening on the ground with what you are saying is happening in the air. That means a scientifically acquired sample of a trail. You get that and it comes up positive, you'll have something. I think you might then come up with a reason as well... it is the second great flaw of chemtrail theory after lack of evidence; a lack of a cohesive reason to do it. Part of the problem you have is the fringe dwellers... Nubiru? Really?
 

Danny55

Senior Member.
"Not in the original code which was repealed in 1997 . . . Informed Consent was not added until after 1997 . . . in fact I didn't find it until the 2009 version of the Code . . ."

So...... the chemtrail conspiracy was started AFTER the new code was implemented? Most of the Bigger Names in the chemtrail conspiracy claim that chemtrails started around 1999, although the followers have different start dates (which apparently coincide with them hearing about the conspiracy, then noticing the "trails in the sky").
 

Spongebob

Active Member
I am not asking about people in general . . . I am asking you . . . what would convince you a program exists??


Not a chance George.

You are exposing yourself, repeating your MO from thread to thread, attempting to spin out empty rhetoric for page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page...






...After repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page after repeated page
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Not in the original code which was repealed in 1997 . . . Informed Consent was not added until after 1997 . . . in fact I didn't find it until the 2009 version of the Code . . .

"The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States]."

Quite right - not in the old code, which, as you say, WAS REPEALED IN 1997!!!


1997, coincidentally, being almost exactly when "chemtrails" supposedly magically replaced contrails in our skies....

Informed Consent was in this law from 1997-

SEC. 1078. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR
TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.
(a) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary of Defense may not
conduct (directly or by contract)—
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical
agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological
agent on human subjects.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the
prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply to a test or experiment
carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical,
therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or
research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against
toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose
related to riot control.
(c) INFORMED CONSENT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense
may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) only
if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human
subject in advance of the testing on that subject.
Content from External Source
(you find this on page 287 of the document - it is long!)

So in informed consent requirement has existed since at least 1994.

Was there a time when it was not required - certainly. there are lots of old legal provisions that would not be acceptable today - I'm sure you can think of some.

I hope you will agree that he fact that at some stage in the past things were allowed to be done that are not allowed to be done now is definitely NOT evidence that that thing is done now!
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Quite right - not in the old code, which, as you say, WAS REPEALED IN 1997!!!


1997, coincidentally, being almost exactly when "chemtrails" supposedly magically replaced contrails in our skies....

Informed Consent was in this law from 1997-

SEC. 1078. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR
TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.
(a) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary of Defense may not
conduct (directly or by contract)—
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical
agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological
agent on human subjects.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the
prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply to a test or experiment
carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical,
therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or
research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against
toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose
related to riot control.
(c) INFORMED CONSENT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense
may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) only
if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human
subject in advance of the testing on that subject.
Content from External Source
(you find this on page 287 of the document - it is long!)

So in informed consent requirement has existed since at least 1994.

Was there a time when it was not required - certainly. there are lots of old legal provisions that would not be acceptable today - I'm sure you can think of some.

I hope you will agree that he fact that at some stage in the past things were allowed to be done that are not allowed to be done now is definitely NOT evidence that that thing is done now!
Simple . . . the existence of the original wording in the US Code . . . is disgusting . . . it demonstrates a disregard for the safety and well being of US citizens by the Congressional Military Industrial Complex . . . I can come up with no logic which justifies it ever existing . . . IMO that mentality did not disappear in 1994,1997 or later . . . had it been in 1897 I might have been less disturbed . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So far it seems your responses lean toward some type of 'in situ' sampling and testing in a controlled and verifiable manner . . .

-- this has been done on selected contrails, persistent and non persistent as well . . . the research is available . . . I have read quite a few myself, they found what is expected . . .
-- so individuals who have taken the time to investigate know that random sampling of jet exhausts has not been fruitful
-- the reasons for this may be many . . .

1) an injection program does not exist
2) the injection program does not include all aircraft leaving persistent trails
3) the managers of the program have such good intel they know when testing is scheduled and ceases operation
4) the injection only occurs at altitudes in the stratosphere where to my lnowledge these tests have not been conducted
5) the program is episodic and sporadic and random selection of aircraft has not resulted in a hit
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
How was the sampling done? I would have thought modern spectroscopy would be ideal. Cheaper than hiring a Learjet as well!
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
How was the sampling done? I would have thought modern spectroscopy would be ideal. Cheaper than hiring a Learjet as well!
Are you referring to remote spectroscopy? To my knowledge it is of limited capability . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Are you referring to remote spectroscopy? To my knowledge it is of limited capability . . .
They can ID elements and molecules but quantification is a different issue . . . also there is an issue of isolating a target . . . a planet, star, galaxy, or even the surface of the earth is one thing . . . a vapor trail is different . .


Hyperspectral imaging


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperspectral_imaging

Engineers build sensors and processing systems to provide such capability for application in agriculture, mineralogy, physics, and surveillance. Hyperspectral sensors look at objects using a vast portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Certain objects leave unique 'fingerprints' across the electromagnetic spectrum. These 'fingerprints' are known as spectral signatures and enable identification of the materials that make up a scanned object. For example, a spectral signature for oil helps mineralogists find new oil fields.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
How was the sampling done? I would have thought modern spectroscopy would be ideal. Cheaper than hiring a Learjet as well!
This was the focus of satellite imaging which went down with failed rocket launch in 2011 . .

" On the Taurus rocket was . . . Raytheon’s Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor (APS) which was to measure aerosols in Earth’s atmosphere to provide scientists and policy makers a better understanding of how those aerosols affect global climate change.


More importantly . . . “The Glory Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor can distinguish between various types of aerosols and reveal the different role each plays in either warming or cooling our planet,” said Bill Hart, vice president, Space Systems. “Since black carbon aerosols generally contribute to warming, and sulfate aerosols to cooling, the concentrations of these aerosols and others must be determined to ensure accurate climate modeling.”
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/gloryaps/

On Fri, 4 March, 2011 at Vandenberg AFB Launch Facility the Taurus Rocket Fairing Glitch Doomed NASA’s Glory Mission
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I think that George is actually only interested in being a foil for endless debate. Chemtrails may have been a belief of his at one time that he has had trouble with, and has seen the writing on the wall which shattered his belief, and he is having great difficulty dealing with it. As a result, he is engaging in this sort of troll activity where he engages in pseudo-debate trying to find reasons to stick with what he used to believe. The result here and at GLP and who knows where else is threads of 5-40 pages of endless unproductive debate. Its pretty clear that he is not a man of action, except when it comes to these threads, to the contrary, his MO is whipping a dead horse forever .

George, you need to realize that you can't continue this forever. It gets old, boring, and isn't productive for anyone, not even for yourself. Most of us are tired of you, can't you tell?

You need to choose a course of action, real action, not endless debate. There isn't a future in what you are doing.

As for the question you pose at the beginning of this thread, the chemmies, and I consider you still one of them, need to move forward from debate and get to work. It would help if you could actively show you are interested in getting the bunk out of what is being claimed at present, which is what this forum is about. Until I see you personally working to bring to them this message, I don't consider you more than just a troll.

Can you show any evidence of a practical solution to this?

If not, why not?
If not, what the hell are you doing here and elsewhere working 30 page threads of BS?
Why do you never participate in any of the other threads on metabunk except your own?
Are you just an attention whore whose sole purpose is to keep your personal thread at the top of the board?
If so, you are a sad sick MF.

A year and 1/2 ago, I wrote this:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/100-14-Years-of-Chemtrails-Comments-and-Suggestions

It outlines what I thought could be a first step towards bringing some sanity to this hoax, and yes, by watching it from it's inception, I know that is exactly what it is, a hoax from the very beginning and up to the present.

Yes, insitu testing showing something unusual and actual photos of apparatus would come closest to proof.

But before insitu testing could be practical, you'd have to have some means of selecting a flight. No sense wasting flight time chasing planes leaving ordinary persistent contrails, burning up your budget before you find something other than an ordinary commercial flight leaving water vapor.

No sense at all. Baby steps, George, no connect the-dots rambles for 30 pages, rather action leading to solutions.

Stop whipping the dead horses of speculation, get on a REAL horse and RIDE!

So, unless and until you show some action towards organizing or convincing the believers like yourself to begin a positive plan of action leading to a solution, there is no reason for further discussion. If you won't, you show yourself to be a perverse attention-seeking whore of no use to either side.

Prove me wrong, I really mean it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Belfrey

Senior Member.
So far it seems your responses lean toward some type of 'in situ' sampling and testing in a controlled and verifiable manner . . .

-- this has been done on selected contrails, persistent and non persistent as well . . . the research is available . . . I have read quite a few myself, they found what is expected . . .
-- so individuals who have taken the time to investigate know that random sampling of jet exhausts has not been fruitful
-- the reasons for this may be many . . .

1) an injection program does not exist
2) the injection program does not include all aircraft leaving persistent trails
3) the managers of the program have such good intel they know when testing is scheduled and ceases operation
4) the injection only occurs at altitudes in the stratosphere where to my lnowledge these tests have not been conducted
5) the program is episodic and sporadic and random selection of aircraft has not resulted in a hit

For a presence/absence survey, a random sampling design is often not the best method. Instead, you can choose your sample based on what you think is the most likely to give you a positive result if the target is present. The chemtrails believers seem sure that they can identify "spray days" - so they could do the sampling then.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think that George is actually only interested in being a foil for endless debate. Chemtrails may have been a belief of his at one time that he has had trouble with, and has seen the writing on the wall which shattered his belief, and he is having great difficulty dealing with it. As a result, he is engaging in this sort of troll activity where he engages in pseudo-debate trying to find reasons to stick with what he used to believe. The result here and at GLP and who knows where else is threads of 5-40 pages of endless unproductive debate. Its pretty clear that he is not a man of action, except when it comes to these threads, to the contrary, his MO is whipping a dead horse forever .

George, you need to realize that you can't continue this forever. It gets old, boring, and isn't productive for anyone, not even for yourself. Most of us are tired of you, can't you tell?

You need to choose a course of action, real action, not endless debate. There isn't a future in what you are doing.

As for the question you pose at the beginning of this thread, the chemmies, and I consider you still one of them, need to move forward from debate and get to work. It would help if you could actively show you are interested in getting the bunk out of what is being claimed at present, which is what this forum is about. Until I see you personally working to bring to them this message, I don't consider you more than just a troll.

Can you show any evidence of a practical solution to this?

If not, why not?
If not, what the hell are you doing here and elsewhere working 30 page threads of BS?
Why do you never participate in any of the other threads on metabunk except your own?
Are you just an attention whore whose sole purpose is to keep your personal thread at the top of the board?
If so, you are a sad sick MF.

A year and 1/2 ago, I wrote this:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/100-14-Years-of-Chemtrails-Comments-and-Suggestions

It outlines what I thought could be a first step towards bringing some sanity to this hoax, and yes, by watching it from it's inception, I know that is exactly what it is, a hoax from the very beginning and up to the present.

Yes, insitu testing showing something unusual and actual photos of apparatus would come closest to proof.

But before insitu testing could be practical, you'd have to have some means of selecting a flight. No sense wasting flight time chasing planes leaving ordinary persistent contrails, burning up your budget before you find something other than an ordinary commercial flight leaving water vapor.

No sense at all. Baby steps, George, no connect the-dots rambles for 30 pages, rather action leading to solutions.

Stop whipping the dead horses of speculation, get on a REAL horse and RIDE!

So, unless and until you show some action towards organizing or convincing the believers like yourself to begin a positive plan of action leading to a solution, there is no reason for further discussion. If you won't, you show yourself to be a perverse attention-seeking whore of no use to either side.

Prove me wrong, I really mean it.
My belief is the only productive investigation is high tech (emphasis on HIGH) as in the satellite observation category . . . since that is beyond most normal citizens the only avenue would be a dialog with NASA or NOAA which I have danced around a bit with . . . the key is maintaining open communication while asking questions that are productive but won't make the interchange crash and burn . . . this is good practice . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
For a presence/absence survey, a random sampling design is often not the best method. Instead, you can choose your sample based on what you think is the most likely to give you a positive result if the target is present. The chemtrails believers seem sure that they can identify "spray days" - so they could do the sampling then.
If I were to target a subset of potential targets . . . I would identify the areas where the highest percentage of flights transverse the stratosphere . . . not sure how to identify such targets except to study polar routes . . . difficulty is the military flights are off limits . . . and that is a big problem . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
By-the-way, my days of organizing and charging windmills is over . . .my activities are now restricted to talking and not doing . . . that chore is for others . . .
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
My belief is the only productive investigation is high tech (emphasis on HIGH) as in the satellite observation category . ..
No, you've already closed that door, George. You believe that a satellite was destroyed to stop any such data from being collected. No evidence that it was destroyed, just speculation.

George B said:
my activities are now restricted to talking and not doing

I figured as much. Enough waste of my time, again. You aren't intersted in solutions or action towards one at all.

All you want for food is talk, eh?

I for one aren't interested in do-nothing BS speculators.
Starve for all I care...... I suggest that everyone else put you on the same diet.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No, you've already closed that door, George. You believe that a satellite was destroyed to stop any such data from being collected. No evidence that it was destroyed, just speculation.



I figured as much. Enough waste of my time, again. You aren't intersted in solutions or action towards one at all.

All you want for food is talk, eh?

I for one aren't interested in do-nothing BS speculators.
Starve for all I care...... I suggest that everyone else put you on the same diet.
Jay, I have been most kind toward you . . . I can see that is not reciprocated . . . I could have been very hard on you with your multiple errors . . . never-the-less, by all means . . . if posters refuse to participate it is their right to do so . . . I am here to engage in a dialogue . . . I don't run and hide when confronted by hostile participants . . . if people stop responding so will I . . .
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Spectroscopy... at 3.04.

[video=youtube_share;lVFuOZu7Xhg]http://youtu.be/lVFuOZu7Xhg[/video]
 

Spongebob

Active Member
Jay, I have been most kind toward you . . . I can see that is not reciprocated . . . I could have been very hard on you with your multiple errors . . . never-the-less, by all means . . . if posters refuse to participate it is their right to do so . . . I am here to engage in a dialogue . . . I don't run and hide when confronted by hostile participants . . . if people stop responding so will I . . .



If only...
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Simple . . . the existence of the original wording in the US Code . . . is disgusting . . . it demonstrates a disregard for the safety and well being of US citizens by the Congressional Military Industrial Complex . . . I can come up with no logic which justifies it ever existing . . . IMO that mentality did not disappear in 1994,1997 or later . . . had it been in 1897 I might have been less disturbed . . .

I am glad you accept that it does not constitute evidence of anything - I regard that as progress for you.

Of course it is also only 50 years sicne the USA had legal race discrimination, stopped citizens from voting, stopped citizens from marrying, and it still discriminates against people who are not hetero-normal.

You are right about attitudes not changing quickly.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Spectroscopy... at 3.04.

[video=youtube_share;lVFuOZu7Xhg]http://youtu.be/lVFuOZu7Xhg[/video]

As I said remote Spectroscopy can ID signatures but it has limited use in quantification . . . in this video Dr. Wayne Evans, Atmospheric Scientist . . . said he had occasionally pointed his land-based spec at contrails . . and found nothing unusual . . .. exactly what I would expect . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I am glad you accept that it does not constitute evidence of anything - I regard that as progress for you.

Of course it is also only 50 years sicne the USA had legal race discrimination, stopped citizens from voting, stopped citizens from marrying, and it still discriminates against people who are not hetero-normal.

You are right about attitudes not changing quickly.
To me it demonstrates the arrogance of power and the willingness to ignore the need to inform and get approval for acts that geoengineering could represent . . . not unlike the decision to detonate the first hydrogen bomb . . . no public debate . . . just . . . we know better than you . . . even if it meant an unstoppable chain reaction that could have destroyed the entire world . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Spectroscopy... at 3.04.
]
I would love to see some of this man's research . . .


http://www.nwra.com/resumes/evans/wayneevans.pdfBiographical Sketch
Wayne F. J. Evans
NorthWest Research Associates
4118 148th Ave NE, Redmond, WA 98052 USA
ph.: 425-556-9055, fax: 425-556-9099,wayne@nwra.com
Dr. Evans at NorthWest Research Associates in Redmond is an American citizen and resides in the Seattle area. He was a professor of Environmental Science and Physics at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario for 15 years. He has a D.Sc. and a Ph.D. from the University of Saskatchewan and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. He taught courses on climate change, air pollution, thermodynamics and energy technology. His primary research interests include the study of the climate radiative forcing responsible for climate change and the depletion of the Arctic stratospheric ozone layer, in both of which, he has conducted pioneering measurements. His work has led to the development of a number of novel atmospheric remote sensing techniques from satellites and from the ground. As a member of six satellite science teams, he has extensive space experience. He is the author of over 200 publications with 138 in peer reviewed journals. He was a reviewer of the IPCC 2001 and 2007 Assessment Reports and is an expert on the interaction of the energy industry
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Belfrey

Senior Member.
As I said remote Spectroscopy can ID signatures but it has limited use in quantification
But again, even a presence/absence analysis (rather than quantification) with positive results would go a long ways towards bolstering your beliefs, wouldn't it?
George B said:
. . . in this video Dr. Wayne Evans, Atmospheric Scientist . . . said he had occasionally pointed his land-based spec at contrails . . and found nothing unusual . . .. exactly what I would expect . . .
So, you believe these geoengineering efforts are taking place on a presumably massive scale, but you not only accept that no evidence has been found, but you expect that no evidence will be found when people look.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But again, even a presence/absence analysis (rather than quantification) with positive results would go a long ways towards bolstering your beliefs, wouldn't it?

So, you believe these geoengineering efforts are taking place on a presumably massive scale, but you not only accept that no evidence has been found, but you expect that no evidence will be found when people look.
1) Looking occasionally at contrails doesn't constitute a scientific sample . . . now if I could read some of his research about the arctic . . . I might change my mind . . .
2) geoengineering sulfur injection most likely wouldn't even leave a trail of any persistence . . . so what would you target??? We already know sulfur compounds are found in the stratosphere . . .
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
George keeps mentioning "mass spectroscopy" when it's mass spectrometry that he should be talking about...
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George keeps mentioning "mass spectroscopy" when it's mass spectrometry that he should be talking about...

No, we are in essence both wrong and both right . . . the terms are used interchaingeably . . . however, what I really think we are talking about is . . .

Hyperspectral imaging


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperspectral_imaging

Engineers build sensors and processing systems to provide such capability for application in agriculture, mineralogy, physics, and surveillance. Hyperspectral sensors look at objects using a vast portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Certain objects leave unique 'fingerprints' across the electromagnetic spectrum. These 'fingerprints' are known as spectral signatures and enable identification of the materials that make up a scanned object. For example, a spectral signature for oil helps mineralogists find new oil fields.


The tools below require a sample of the unknown . . . the similarity to the above is the use of detecting different deflections of light energy . . .


Mass Spectroscopy Definition
Definition: Mass Spectroscopy is an analytical laboratory technique to separate the components of a sample by their mass.


The sample is vaporized into a gas and then ionized. The ions are then accelerated through a potential difference and focused into a beam. The ion beam passes through a magnetic field which bends the charged stream. Lighter components or components with more ionic charge will deflect in the field more than heavier or less charged components. A detector counts the number of ions at different deflections and the data can be plotted as a 'spectrum' of different masses.
Also Known As: Mass Spec, mass spectrometry


http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/g/Mass-Spectroscopy-Definition.htm

-------------

Spectroscopy . . . General not needing sample of unknown . .
http://www.physics.uc.edu/~hanson/AstronomicalSpectroscopy.pdf
Spectroscopy is one of the fundamental tools at an astronomer’s disposal, allowing one to determine the chemical compositions, physical properties, and radial velocities of astro- nomical sources. Spectroscopy is the means used to measure the dark matter content of galaxies, the masses of two stars in orbit about each other, the mass of a cluster of galaxies, the rate of expansion of the Universe, or discover an exoplanet around other stars, all using the Doppler shift.

http://www.physics.uc.edu/~hanson/AstronomicalSpectroscopy.pdf
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Oh man...

Where is the image of Putin doing a face-palm when you need it?
 

Latest posts

Top