puck2017 May 26, 2013
--- 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/NASAâs 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 âcrackpotâ 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 âtheoryâ 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 âcrackpotâ theory is that the
>
> small comet-like image 1 arcminute under the
>
> eclipsed Sunâs 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:
>
>
>
> âFor 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.â
>
> 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 itâs 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 Plyerâs 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 Charlieâs
>
> observations before anybody gives too much
>
> credence to either him or me.
>
>
>
> -Glen
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>