/sci-k/ Science-Weapons related thread

>>34756225
For all intents and purposes, radar can be imagined like light in most analogies.

Your radar is like a spotlight in the dark, you move it around an empty sky and it hits nothing, then you see the light reflecting off something, the amount of light reflected is like the RCS of the object.

Other people can see your light moving in the dark and they can see roughly where you are based on the beam - this is ESM

When the beam points at them the light is brighter and they know you have seen them - this is RWR

The beam might be dazzling - this is jamming

You might be trying to highlight one object in a busy environment, so you use a laser pen to point at it without hitting anything else - this is beam forming.

using different colours of light to detect different coloured types of objects is a very primitive way of looking at radar spectrums.

Ask me a question and i'll try to explain it with light as an example.

>>34756444
can you please explain more RWR and Jamming?

>>34756969
Not him, but Wikipedia has a decent starting point to learn about jamming:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception

It gets complicated pretty fast, of course.

There is a good documentary, "In the Wake of HMS Sheffield", which discusses the issues around radar warning, reception and countermeasures based on the 1982 Falklands War:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgZsCWoGe1Q

It goes into the basics of how a ship is detected, and how detection can be evaded, among other issues.

>>34756969
>RWR
>Radar Warning Receiver
To use his analogy, if someone shines their spotlight right in your eyes, you'll know they can see you.

>Jamming
If you shine a spotlight out in the dark and suddenly you get an extremely bright spotlight back right into your eyes, it will greatly inhibit your ability to see whatever it is your spotlight is lighting up. This is (one of many ways of) electronic jamming.

If someone throws a bunch of reflective things up in the air around them, you'll have to spend some time discerning what is a relevant target and what is just a random reflective thing. This (one way of) mechanical jamming (chaff etc.)

To add to anon's spotlight in the dark analogy:

Imagine an airplane is like a (spherical) disco ball. If you shine a light on it, since it's round, there will be some amount of light that reflects right back at you.

A stealthy airframe is designed to be less of a sphere and more of bunch of flat surfaces. If you shine your spotlight at it, it'll bounce the light away so that you get less light returning to you.

Stealth coatings absorb radar emissions, it's like painting your disco ball with black paint, even if you shine your light at it, less will return to you

>>34756969

What would you like to know?

Radar Warning receivers alert you when someone is using high frequency radar to illuminate you, they can also gather information about the enemies radarts and classify them and provide rough locations.

Jamming is simply preventing the enemy radar/ESAM from working by flooding it with information or false targets.

File: 1498970277.jpg (18KB, 480x311px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x311px

>>34756969
Radar warning is simply a system which tells the aircraft that someone or something is shooting radar waves at you, ie. the system believes its being targeted. An ECM system might then produce jamming waves back to it, for instance sending radar waves with the same/slightly different pulse that it's recieving, "confusing" the missile or whatever and making it "think" that the target is, say 100m in front /behind where it actually is, or that its twice as fast, etc. Just a crude example.

As for stealth, at a basic level it is minimising the radar waves that is reflected in the same direction it comes from. You also use radar absorbant paint, which is really just very matte paint. Just like a matte surface absorbs sunlight, it absorbs radar waves too.

Question for thread:
How does LPI work?
Is it Inherently undetectable, or can you tell that you are being illuminated if you have a good enough RWR.

>>34759117

LPI works in several ways, firstly it uses only short flashes of 'light', this means the enemy has a lower chance of detecting the emission, it also means the radar can't give an up to date picture of what;s going on.

That 'light' is also changing between different colours, ideally picking the colours that the enemy has the hardest time seeing.

Finally, the power output or 'brightness' of the flashes is reduced so that the observer can get the bare minimum view without altering the observed.

>>34759117

Also to follow up on >>34759287

The idea of LPI is to use such small and specific amounts of energy that your RWR will discard it as background noise - like communications or public radio for example.

radars and RWR's pick up huge numbers of contacts from birds, cars, radio towers and civilian radars. The computer will discard everything it thinks is useless by using present contact speed/altitude/frequency/signal strength settings.

LPI seeks to take advantage of this - however in doing so it's own detection capabilities are reduced.

File: file[1].jpg (39KB, 710x263px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 710x263px

>>34759117
Something that the other guys missed a little - LPI isn't a specific technology; you could exchange the term LPI with "stealthy emissions" and it'd mean the same thing, but just in a dumber way.

So besides what's been mentioned above there's also things like using narrow beams and AESAs / PESAs with small sidelobes (so that your radar is more like a laser than flashlight - meaning enemies to your side are vastly less likely to see your radar emissions. The black stuff around the F-35's radar in this pic is RAM designed to help prevent that for example.

Even doing things like illuminating enemies at irregular time intervals is also an LPI technique, because more advanced RWRs will partly look for patterns in time to try and distinguish LPI transmissions from noise.

Speaking of colours like >>34759287, LPI radars can also have a wider operating band, allowing them to even transmit in a wider colour spectrum and making it harder for the RWR to identify all this noise as a single threat. It's like looking for a red laser, or a blue laser, or a green laser, but instead receiving a faint white-ish laser because the LPI radar is also transmitting some blue and green.

File: 1240550871236.png (296KB, 476x351px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 476x351px

>>34758388
>yellow beams from different angles
>white beams are all perpendicular to the sea

>>34760247
That picture is okay to post on the net?

>>34761687
NG released it; all you have to do is Google Image search this stuff.

>>34761659
He's pointing out that because conventional ships have corner reflectors, radar energy that comes from any elevation is reflected back at that same elevation.

>>34756444
Kinda okay metaphor, if you treat metal like glass.

File: fastmover.jpg (57KB, 696x647px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 696x647px

>>34756225
>this will never be declassified
why even live?

>>34756225
speaking of stealth, there's a cool thing that not many people know about: there are materials that exist that have emission spectrums that can be tuned with small voltages. Using PWM, you can effectively cancel out half of any radio signal that strikes the material.

>>34762903
>Using PWM, you can effectively cancel out half of any radio signal that strikes the material.

How does that work? Is it like rubber or something?

File: Capture.png (13KB, 500x271px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 500x271px

>>34761687
There are wikipedia pages on both the AN/APG-77 (F-22) and AN/APG-81 (F-35) with pictures.

It's basically just a phased array radar (right?), they've been around since the beginning of the 20th century. They're just getting smaller, like all technology does.

>>34763062
I would assume the materials he's talking about can emit radio frequencies when small voltage is applied. That way, if you know the frequency with which you're being illuminated/painted/scanned or whatever the word is, you can tune this material to produce the same frequency but phase-shifted 180 degrees. That way the peaks of your wave coincide with the troughs of the wave that is lighting you up, effectively cancelling it out, see pic related.

That being said, radars are incredibly powerful and it seems incredibly difficult to me to create a material that can work as panels on an sea- or aircraft and also emit high-powered, very precise radio waves, but I'm sure that's a nut that'll be cracked soon.

>>34763182
Power isn't too much of an issue; because of the inverse square law the amount of power that reaches the skin of a jet (from a radar at BVR distances) is pretty small (IIRC it's in the milliwatts).

The issue with the tech that >>34762903 is talking about is that if it's not switched on or malfunctions, it works against you (because you're now covered in reflective material), plus like most antenna systems it has optimum bands / frequencies and becomes less effective as you stray further from it - so such a system might be able to respond well between say 5GHz and 15GHz, but become less effective as you stray further outside that range. You also need some form of control system that changes the voltage to match the incoming frequency. So if every pulse from an enemy radar is different, you'll always be playing catch-up. You don't need to provide an exact response, because you don't need to perfectly cancel their signal to stay hidden, but if the enemy's radar(s) can jump frequency dramatically then the system won't work.

Here's a video from a guy from Australia's version of DARPA talking a little about it (skip back to catch the full description):

https://youtu.be/eUUlIOiliOo?t=1734

>>34763230
I didn't think about that regarding the power, you're right. You know way more about this than I do, thanks for expanding a little and thanks for the video!

>>34763062
basically, any material that exists will have certain frequencies that it is effectively opaque to. A certain stealth coating might be 100% transparent to band X and absorb 100% of band Y but there might be a band Z that it emits like a perfect mirror. If the enemy radar knows about band Z, the material is effectively useless. Certain materials (graphene is the first to come to mind) can take band Z and change its emission frequency, so that if the enemy radar is looking for band Z, it won't see band Z, it'll see band Z + x MHz. The problem with this is that by shifting the emission frequency of band Z, it might also shift the frequency of band X into a frequency that the enemy radar is searching for, so in order to combat this, pulse-width modulation (PWM) is used to ensure that the frequencies are shifted only half the time, ensuring that band X and Z only return 50% of the incident energy each as opposed to 0% Z and 100% X, which helps to greatly reduce the detection range.

>>34756225
Blacks & Mexicans.

>>34762355
It's an excellent analogy since both light and radar are electromagnetic waves.

>>34756444
>radar can be imagined like light in most analogies.
did you even graduate fucking highschool?

This is the level of knowledge on /k/, ladies and gentlemen.

>>34764818
you're retarded.

>>34764833
Haha- I'm so smart,
Even though anon's metaphor makes sense, I'm going to be a colossal douche just so everyone knows I'm smarter.

File: EM_spectrumrevised.png (135KB, 2000x1070px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 2000x1070px

>>34764838
It's clear your understanding of science is so limited that basic scientific principles seem like nonsense to you.

>>34759287
>the power output or 'brightness' of the flashes is reduced
wrong.

It's about energy accumulation and masquerading as ambient radiation.

Listen fuckface. First impressions last, especially for idiots like OP. You have a duty to present a concise and technically accurate explanation, not some layman garbage. If you can't do that, then stfu. Perpetuating incorrect/insufficient understanding is one of the biggest reasons why we have so many fucking retards.

>>34764875

>thinks LPI radars don't scale emission strength based on target range

>despite the fact most phased arrays do this anyway

Maybe if you type harder it will stop you from being stupid like in your other posts

>>34756444
>Other people can see your light moving in the dark and they can see roughly where you are based on the beam - this is ESM
Just to add to the analogy:
ESM also includes them noting what color your flashlight is, how wide the beam is, and how powerful it is. This gives them a good idea of what flashlight you have, and therefore who you are.
It's also used to see what you're doing- imagine you have 2 flashlights. One is a large floodlight, which you wave around to find thing to look at. This is your volume search radar. It can be expected to light up everything a little, so there's nothing much to worry about if you get hit by one.
Your second light is a narrow, concentrated beam mounted to your rifle. You point it directly at a point of interest to figure out what's there and shoot them. If you have one of these pointed at you, you'll know it and it may be time to panic.
ESM is also useful for comms tracking.
Instead of being alone, you're now part of a team. You communicate in morse with small lights, and every team has their own color. If you see someone flashing their lights, you can know whose team they are on (unless they stole a light), and and with context an indicatiob of current activity- if you get flashed by a surface-search and then the source starts "talking", he may have seen you and is sending a friend to get a closer look.

Is a ESM receiver (part of an EW system), and a RWR the same thing?

Also is it true that a T/R module's size is based on the wavelength type?
>e.g. a TR module's size in a S-band radar around 7.5x7.5cm to 15x15cm?

>>34764896
maybe you should have been more concise in the first place, tard. Low Probability of Intercept from an AESA perspective, which is what LPI almost always refers to, isn't just about beam agility/multimean/variable output. It's also about a significantly finer resolution, significant processing power increase, ambient adjustments, sidelobe reduction, and a WHOLE HOST of improvements over "traditional" radar systems.

What you described isn't LPI, it's publicly perceived advantages of AESA.

Like I said, either be technically accurate and concise, or stfu.

>>34764916
>Is a ESM receiver (part of an EW system), and a RWR the same thing?
ESM usually implies much greater capabilities.
An RWR will alert at the presence of a enemy radar, perhaps classifying its type (volume search, conical-scan fire control, SARH illuminator) and bearing. ESM will usually do far more, including monitoring comms, identifying specific radar models, estimating range and so on.

>>34764864
so you're telling me you can us LIDAR engineering principles to describe RADAR engineering principles?

>>34764916
>Is a ESM receiver (part of an EW system), and a RWR the same thing?

Most of it is terminology, both ESM and RWR are essentially the same thing, it's their use that dictates the name.

ESM is traditionally a tool/technique for observing and classifying emissions and localising them.

RWR is more for alerting the user when they are being investigated. is was traditionally a simpler device to give a bearing to an incoming threat.

RWR's have been supplemented in recent times by laser/UV detecting equipment to provide MAWS (missile approach warning system)

But the hardware is essentially the same nowdays, the names just depend on how you use the information.

>>34764986
>But the hardware is essentially the same nowdays
no. ESM is significantly larger.

>>34764968
Are you telling me you can't?

>>34764992

Not really, the RWR on 5th gen aircraft perform all the duties of a dedicated ESM aircraft.

Obviously the larger you make it the more sensitive it becomes, But they aren't fundamentally different devices. Like the difference between a spotlight and floodlight.

>>34764993
show me a collimated radar emitter.

>>34764993
do you think a LIDAR and a SAR are the same thing?

>>34758388
>Burke Vs Renhai stealth.jpg

>>34765025
>collimated radar emitter


Show me a visible spectrum radar and i will.

You came in here throwing insults in what was a productive thread, you made a fool of yourself pretending that light and radar are unrelated.

And now you're trying to pick unique characteristics of each EM band to try and prove that the general principles that are accepted in science are inaccurate.

Light is an excellent analogy for an introduction to how radar works as it is visible and behaves almost exactly like other EM wavelengths. Had you ever studied radar at an institution then you would be very familer with using light as an analogy.

So i won't stfu, i'll keep posting and helping the OP understand radar, and there's not a single thing you can do to stop me other than get mad from the sidelines and throw insults.

>>34764862
>Even though anon's metaphor makes sense,
It only makes "sense" because you don't even have a working knowledge of radar systems. If I were you, I would be demanding a higher level of education, because you're clearly a retard.

>I'm going to be a colossal douche just so everyone knows I'm smarter.
That's because I AM smarter.

>>34765086
>That's because I AM smarter.
T I P P

>>34765080
>visible spectrum radar and i will.
Lol nice way of admitting you're wrong.

>You came in here throwing insults in what was a productive thread
There is nothing productive about perpetuating incorrect/incomplete understanding.

> you're trying to pick unique characteristics of each EM band to try and prove that the general principles that are accepted in science are inaccurate.
This is exactly my point. Signature masking in the microwave realm is not the same thing as in the visible spectrum, so why would you pick an "analogy" that is, at it's fundamental level, scientifically incompatible with the topic at hand?

>Light is an excellent analogy for an introduction to how radar works as it is visible and behaves almost exactly like other EM wavelengths.
It's not. And it is an ESPECIALLY poor reference point for EM.

What you should have done if you really wanted to instill some rudimentary knowledge of radar to a newcomer are:
1) Reflection principle (starting with RMS), with a word on reflection geometry
2) Spectrum of emission and their uses
3) atmospheric attenuation
4) twist cassegrain vs scanning array
5) evolution of scanning array

And after that, tell him to go read some journal articles.

Incorrect and incomplete instructions breeds false assumptions and outright misunderstandings. I'm not even going to mention that you have probably never read a textbook on EM emissions.

>>34765179

you're such an autist it hurts.

>>34765080
>visible spectrum radar
what does this even mean

>Light is an excellent analogy for an introduction to how radar works as it is visible and behaves almost exactly like other EM wavelengths

...no? visible light is a very small spectrum and is very unique in the way that it behaves compared to all the other spectrums. This is like saying microwaves and gamma rays are the same because they can make things hot.

>>34765204
probably doesn't hurt as much as you being a gigantic retard.

>>34765179
Let me guess, you also believe in teaching kids to swim by throwing them into the deep end, without practice in the wading pool.
This is /k/ ffs, it's safe to assume that if they wanted a high fidelity answer they'd have looked elsewhere.

>>34765207
MUH. NIGGA.

>>34765207
>what does this even mean

It doesn't exist, which is the point.

>>34765210
>you also believe in teaching kids to swim by throwing them into the deep end
for fatties I do.
And while we're using swimming as an analogy...I don't think you can swim either.

>>34765208
sawse pls

>>34764818
>>34764864
>>34765080
holy fuck diz nigga is getting BTFO left, right, and center.

>34765227
Ok the other anon was right you are autistic. You don't even deserve a (You).
>I don't think you can swim
>Implying
Out of interest, do you consider yourself a Supreme Gentleman?

>>34765207
>>34765179

Once again using the unique characteristics of each band to try and prove that there is no relation between the behavious of the diferent EM bands.

You can post all the bare science you like, by my analogy stands, it was helpful to the annon and until your autism came along this was a great thread that furthered peoples understanding how how radars work.

We're not trying to teach them how to be radar engineers ffs.

So keep bleating from the sideline. If people have more questions i'll answer them, and i'm going to ignore you.

>>34765252
>samefagging without realising the poster count hasn't changed from 19

kek

>>34765270
No, but I do consider myself the Supreme Chancellor.

>>34765274
Oh look, blind leading the blind.
Typical /k/.

>34765285
*spins autistically

>>34765274
>it was helpful to the annon

I'm not even the OP, but after reading some of what you said and what is in this thread, when I go back and read some other things on Wikipedia, they make a lot more sense than they did before.

The retard you're speaking with doesn't understand analogies, they're aren't meant to be metaphors that can be taken parallel with what they're trying to explain or portray.

Thanks for bringing some semblance of quality to the board.

This guy (>>34765179) doesn't realize that to most people, 2/3 of his post was gibberish, and the even more technical explanations when those things are googled is even worse. GOD FORBID you try to give someone a basic, conceptual understanding that was never portrayed as anything but, so that they can use that to learn on their own.

For shame.

>>34765329
>Thanks for bringing some semblance of quality to the board.

You're welcome :)

>>34765365
>You're welcome :)
The amount of people who just wait for someone to say something "wrong" so they can jump in with their own knowledge (legit or not) for some weird, twisted sense of being superior is fucking astounding.

>>34765329
>when I go back and read some other things on Wikipedia, they make a lot more sense than they did before.
so you have a reading problem. Ok.

why does /k/ attract an inordinate amount of dumb people?

>>34765329
>GOD FORBID you try to give someone a basic, conceptual understanding that was never portrayed as anything but, so that they can use that to learn on their own.

I'm sorry is this fucking kindergarten? You have to use a dumbed down and fundamentally incompatible analogy to understand some basic radar principles?

GOD FORBID someone forces you to solve a fourier transform by hand.

>>34765426
It isn't a reading problem, it's a lack of being able to put technical explanations into a concept that you can understand and adapt into real life, ie: reading a technical explanation and being able to visualize how things work. The light analogy helped with this, at least for me. This is probably half of being dumb, and half of having literally zero experience when it comes to radar. The difference between me and most people is I don't come here pretending to be anything other than someone who comes here to learn things.

This isn't some esoteric board full of people who completely understand something the first or even second time they read it.
Don't be so arrogant.

>>34765486
that's a fair explanation.

I apologize for my rudeness, but only to you.

>>34765473
>guy is explaining something that anyone can understand, and the basic concepts of his analogy can be use to give yourself a better understanding of the mechanics of radar

Then there's you, who pretends that everyone is as smart as you, or should be, and if they aren't, they are less than people. You've got to get used to the real world, where people have differing levels of intelligence and differing ways of processing and understanding information. Some things that are exceptionally easy for others, they won't understand how something that is so simple for them could be anything but for anyone else. This is a failure on your part to consider how other people interpret information. I don't give a rat's ass what you think, all I'm trying to say is coming here flaming the response to the OP did nothing to help further anything in this thread. Instead of trying to explain why it was a poor way of explaining it and doing better, you went all high and mighty and threw out a bunch of terms and technical explanations that the average person (which is what most of this board is, believe it or not) is not going to understand.

Take a breath, and take a second to consider how other people think for once. My degree in organic chemistry doesn't transfer over to radar, but you can bet if someone posted a question about chemistry here (or in /sci/) I'm not going to start using words and phrases like nephelometric turbidity unit, because most people are not going to be able to use that to help themselves understand the point I'm trying to make.

>>34765504
This was posted before this: >>34765534


I got a little ahead of myself. I apologize in advance.

>>34759117
>How does LPI work?
To answer that question, you need to answer the following: How does radar detection work?
Most detector distinguish a radar from background noise based on the following measures:
Transmission frequency
Pulse width
Pulse repitition frequency
And of course power within those limits.
Transmission frequency is the frequency of radar you use, which is often expressed using wavelength (as λ=f*c and c is constant). For most antannae, this is fixed and cannot be changed on the fly.
Pulse width is the dime the radar spends transmitting per pulse. The choice of pulse width is affected by the radar's expected purpose, sensitivity, and range. A short PW requires a sensitive reciever and gives a poor signal-to-noise ratio; a long one requires less sensitivity but increases minimum range and limits pulse repitition frequency.
On old radars this was mostly a fixed value, with AESAs it can easily be varied.
Pulse repetition frequency is the frequency at which the radar sends out pulses. too far apart limits accuracy, too close limits range.
So the RWR sits around waiting to detect a signal of that type. In effect, a Fourier transform of the real time signal will give you 2 peaks, one for each frequency. 3 if you include the mechanical scan of thr radar. Once this is done you have recognized a radar is scanning you.
If you vary the PRF, pulse width, and scan pattern, while the peak of the transmission frequency remains, the others disappear. If you also vary the power to get minimal return, the first will recede as well. There are more specialized tricks, but these are the basics.

File: 1495561208313.jpg (59KB, 658x528px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 658x528px

My brain is about to explode, we need more threads like these

>>34765901
But only if we can stray from analogies about light.

File: 1481416763912.webm (765KB, 616x710px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 616x710px

Jesus christ, this fucking thread. Is this what /sci/ is like?

>>34765697
How many people here do you think actually have dsp experience? I'm pretty sure it's less than 10.

>>34766331
I'd assume fairly few, which is why i tried to explain the basic details and use easily-googleable terms. I don't think that particular question could have been adequately answered with less detail without downgrading it unacceptably.
(I'm not the threadly autist btw)

>>34766295
the fuck is that

>>34766378
Well, I am the threadly autist, and I find your explanation concise and adaquetly accurate.

>>34766405
My interpretation of what radar autism-chan looks like.

>>34766295
Asking someone to explain something in simple terms on an image board filled to the brim with google-happy autists is the oldest bait in the book

>>34766412
Thanks m8

>>34765274
Thanks for giving analogies ITT. I'm not OP but your explanations seem helpful to beginners like me. I've never asked anyone to use a trip before, but could you use one for this thread? The other autist is still posting youtube-tier comments

>>34766295
This is exactly what /sci/ is like. There are occasional high quality, informative, helpful posters drowned out by autistic shrieking from a sea of bitter, over educated shut-ins who need validation from people like themselves and look down on anyone whose knowledge is not at an advanced level like their own. In fact, I'm pretty sure the autistic fuck making angry posts in this thread came over from /sci/ and thought he could pull the same stunt here

>>34760247
How exactly does a radome on a stealth aircraft not attenuate its own radar?

>>34767244
Also, how is it radar transparent enough to work, yet not transparent enough for other radars to bounce off the antenna it covers? This has always blown my mind.

>>34767193
Trying to reduce a complex engineering problem to something retards like you can understand takes so much away from the original topic that any understanding you derive is flawed at best.

You must differentiate between PRINCIPLES and SOLUTIONS. One can be covered in relatively broad strokes, the other must be approached in a more rigorous manner.

And I've never been on /sci/.

>>34767493
Do you think the same person has been responding to you this whole thread? I'm a completely different anon who came in at the tail end of this thread and saw, on one hand, someone being helpful to the uninitiated and on the other hand saw you shitposting in the extreme like a massive faggot. I have a decent understanding of how radars work since I have a degree in ECE but read this thread out of curiosity to find something new or interesting. Instead the thread has been graced with your self righteous, smug shitposting. People like you ruin /k/. Why don't you go check out /sci/, or better yet reddit or some other echo chamber because I'm sure you'll be right at home you worthless piece of shit

>>34767702
Yawn. Dumb people gonna dumb.

What secret new tech is there in Area 51 that we never even heard about or imagined

>>34768115
Velcro that's completely silent.

>>34765473
holy crap, get help

>>34767193
>This is exactly what /sci/ is like

This, as well as FlatEarth treads, P/NP, bait-posting about Musk for some reason, and every now and then some kind of moonhoax/chemtrail nutter pops by

>>34767244
>>34767268
Bump, also intrigued by this.

>>34768288
>P/NP
What's there to argue about?
Either you've got a proof one way or the other, or you can't do anything but pointlessly spitball.

>>34762789
not real