ELFRAD detection of incoming space bodies?

Glen Deen May 25, 2013

Bill and others,



There could be a much less expensive way to detect

incoming space bodies than radar.



BTW, I found JPL/NASA’s Asteroid Radar Research.

http://echo.jpl.nasa.gov/

http://echo.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroids/index.html



I wonder if any of you know about ELFRAD.

http://elfradgroup.com/

This group was active from about 1999 to 2002 I think.



They built an extremely low frequency radio receiver.

Low f limit = 0.01 Hertz. The signals that would

interest us are the frequency, which implies a

wavelength, and the Doppler shift, which would yield

a closing speed.



They were looking for earthquake precursor signals

from inside the Earth. But in August 1999 there was

a side effect that puzzled everybody and caught my

interest.



My ‘crackpot’ theory is that every star, planet,

comet and asteroid has an electric charge. If so,

there should be a standing electromagnetic wave

between the Earth and the Moon (nobody looked for

that signal) and between the Earth any nearby

asteroid or comet.



If the charges have the same sign, the distance

between them should be a full wavelength. If the

charges have opposite signs, the distance should

be a half wavelength.



Maximum λ = c/f_min = 300,000/0.01 = 30 million km.

Max range = 0.20 AU = 78 Moon distances (full wave).

Max range = 0.10 AU = 39 Moon distances (half wave).



My ‘theory’ should be easy to falsify because it

predicts a persistent signal corresponding to the

instantaneous Moon distance.



Using 60Re = 382,700 km as the average Moon distance,

the full-wave frequency (same signs) would be



f = c/λ = 300,000/382,700 = 0.784 Hz.



This frequency would have to be inversely

proportional to the actual Earth-Moon distance on an

instantaneous basis to confirm my theory. Otherwise

my theory is refuted.



I sent the owner, Charlie Plyer, an e-mail last

February 3, and he never replied. But the e-mail

did not bounce either. I cited the late Kent

Steadman's conversation with him in August 1999,

and he may want to distance himself from Steadman.

http://cyberspaceorbit.com/CBJD/elfrad/incomin3.html

Kent was a UFO guy, so you can imagine that Charlie

might want to distance himself from UFOs. Still, an

unrecognized comet that manages to hide from the

observations of comet hunters would meet the

definition of a UFO.



What comet? My other ‘crackpot’ theory is that the

small comet-like image 1 arcminute under the

eclipsed Sun’s limb at about 175° CW from North

in this photo taken by the Exploratorium at Amasya,

Turkey on August 11, 1999 at 11:28:48 UT is an

actual small comet located on that line of sight

at a range of a few Moon distances from the Earth.

http://tinyurl.com/eclipse-08-11-99-shows-comet



Evidence to support this theory is given

unwittingly by Charlie Plyer when he said:



“For some unknown reason to us as of yet,

the signal was the strongest when the moon

was beginning to eclipse the sun and grew

weaker as the sun reappeared from behind

the moon.”

http://tinyurl.com/email-Plyer-to-Steadman



My theory would suggest that the signal dropped

in magnitude when the Moon moved in front of the

comet, thereby eclipsing it’s signal.



Charlie posted other frequency observations at

earlier times. I have not read all of his material,

but if someone else (not me) would contact him,

we might get an observation arc of sorts.



The eclipse photo is a plausible and a precise

observation, and I am aware of two other actual

optical observations of a speculative nature.

The speculation is in relating them to this

hypothetical comet. Believe me, they will seem

to be a real stretch. Eyes will roll when I

describe them.



One is an unconfirmed visual observation in a small

telescope 3.5 days after the eclipse. The timing

could have an error of a couple of minutes, since

the observer just glanced at his watch and recalled

the number from memory later. But the celestial

coordinates of the path is very precise over a

5-minute span of time because of an extraordinary

celestial reference.



The other observation took place on April 6, 2000

with a double star as a coordinate reference, and

the timing is precise. The observation was taken

with a CCD camera, but that 13-year old image is

now lost. I confirmed it with the astronomer who

took it. He was imaging an asteroid occultation

at the time, and he observed an unexpected

nebulosity nearby. He remarked on the nebulosity

at the time, but he did not save the image. Too

bad. That nebulosity appeared to be static then,

but it is certainly gone now.



My plan is to attempt to create an ephemeris using

these three optical observations. Then I would

plot the range and the radial velocity of this

object over the days leading up to the eclipse to

see if they agree with Charlie Plyer’s observations.



I think Charlie is an engineer attempting to do

science and get some respect from scientists.

But his project withered because of a lack of

financial support. And that might be because it

was too ambitious.



An open letter from Charlie Plyer asking for help

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/123934

was published in May, 2008. Since ELFRAD's website

shows no activity past 2007, I guess his letter did

not produce the response that he was seeking.

http://www.elfradgroup.com/infof.htm

http://www.elfradgroup.com/Quake/solar.htm



If I could talk to Charlie, I would try to tell him
that detection of incoming Near Earth Objects may

be at least if not more important that predicting

earthquakes, and it would require just a few

monitoring stations, not a global network.



But maybe I should work out my ephemeris and see

if its range and radial velocity matches Charlie’s

observations before anybody gives too much

credence to either him or me.



-Glen



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]