Re: ELFRAD detection of incoming space bodies?

puck2017 May 26, 2013

Hi Glen,

I like that your theory offers a method for disproving it, and I certainly want to encourage curiosity and experimentation. However, I think you've set you're sights too high in hoping for detection with ELF radar right off the bat. It seems like an expensive test, and I think we can come up with a simpler one.

First off, I don't buy the claim that the Moon has a net electric charge. If it did, it would attract particles of opposite charge (from the solar wind, say) until it became neutral again. And if the net charge were significant, we'd need to take it into account to correctly predict the orbital period of the Moon; gravitational forces alone would not suffice. I'm short, we expect macroscopic bodies to be electrically neutral, in general.

Also, our current understanding of electromagnetism does not include the prediction of standing EM waves between charges. When standing waves do occur in physics, what we need to know is whether each end is a node or antinode, i.e., whether it is open or closed/fixed. But there's not just one standing wave allowed, any number of harmonic waves are also allowed. So a 1-meter organ pipe closed on both ends can support a sound of wavelength 2 meters, but also harmonics at 1 m, 2/3 m, 1/2 m, 2/5 m, etc. And if the pipe were open at one end but closed at the other, it could support a max wavelength of 4 m, but also harmonics at 4/3 m, 4/5 m, 4/7 m, etc. So if ELF frequencies are hard to detect, why not look for the higher-frequency harmonics?

But if you're predicting that any pair of charged objects has a standing EM wave between them, why not start with a smaller-scale experiment? If I've done my math correctly, then a standard FM radio should be able to detect an EM wavelength of about 3 meters. Why not set up a pair of charges 3 meter apart (or according to my argument above, 1.5 meters) and see if your FM radio goes crazy? Or better, every hydrogen atom in the universe is a pair of opposite charges that should support a standing EM wave between them. The separation is about 0.8 angstroms, which would be what we call X-rays (0.1-10 angstroms). Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, so is the universe aglow with X-rays? X-ray telescopes haven't observed it.

Andy


--- In find_orb@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Deen" <glen.deen@...> wrote:
>
> 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]
>