Electrophonic Meteors

I'd appreciate your comments on the following...

Electrophonic Meteors are meteors where the observer reports hearing a
sound simultaneously with seeing the meteor. As the visual meteor
generally occur at heights in excess of sixty kilometres, sound
generated at the meteor will take many seconds to reach the observer.
Hence the mechanism is something of a mystery.

See the following site for additional details:

http://www.gefsproject.org

There are a couple of theories which attempt to explain the phenomena.
The best know is that of Colin Keay - Geophysical Electrophonics. See:

http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~ddcsk/gelphonx.htm

However, this theory only applies to major events and isn't applicable
to fainter meteors. Having looked for an alternative mechanism, I've
come up with the following. Unfortunately I'm no physicist and would
welcome any pointers, comments and corrections from u.s.astro members.
Here's the outline of my view, it may not be original and it could be
wrong, but it is a start...

I feel that an explanation needs to incorporate some form of stored
energy source, and not rely on direct energy from the bolide itself.

From my layman's point of view, one possible explanation seems to be
that the energy is built up in the Earth's upper atmosphere. The gas
molecules are ionized by the Sun's radiation and then the positive and
negative ions are subjected to opposing electromagnetic forces by the
Earth's magnetic field. In certain areas of the atmosphere, such as in
the transition from day to night, the forces will have a net effect and
result in the separation of electrical charge. I'm no atmospheric
scientist, but I can't see how the above can be other than true, to some
extent.

Given the above, it then seems feasible that the above mechanism should
result in areas of the upper atmosphere with an excess of positive, or
negative charge. These areas will continue to be subject to
electromagnetic force from the Earth's magnetic field and will migrate
around the globe, eventually discharging when they re-combine with areas
carrying the opposite charge.

If you then introduce a long thin electrically-conducting tube of
ionised gas, caused by the passing meteor, to the above dynamic
environment, there's the distinct possibility that you'll get a sudden
massive re-distribution of charge. As areas of excess opposite charge,
which had been electrically isolated, are joined by the ionised gas left
in the wake of the meteors path.

The observer senses the consequence of that distribution of charge. The
energy released isn't limited to that provided by the bolide itself. The
bolide only provides the trigger for a discharge of energy stored in the
upper atmosphere which has been generated by the Earth's magnetic field
over the proceeding hours.

As mentioned pointers, comments and corrections welcome.
--
David Entwistle

Lots of words.

But you forgot about the spacealian nanobunnies in the lepuferous layer
of the atmosphere. Excited by the passing meteor, these cute little
nanocritters emit excited squeaking noises as they're warmed by the hot
atoms and ions in its wake. It's this that observers hear, occasionally
doppler shifted, if any significant number of them get dragged along
for a ride.

....aliEn...

But you forgot about the spacealian nanobunnies in the lepuferous layer
of the atmosphere. Excited by the passing meteor, these cute little
nanocritters emit excited squeaking noises as they're warmed by the hot
atoms and ions in its wake. It's this that observers hear, occasionally
doppler shifted, if any significant number of them get dragged along
for a ride.

In message , David Entwistle
writes
I'd appreciate your comments on the following...

Electrophonic Meteors are meteors where the observer reports hearing a
sound simultaneously with seeing the meteor. As the visual meteor
generally occur at heights in excess of sixty kilometres, sound
generated at the meteor will take many seconds to reach the observer.
Hence the mechanism is something of a mystery.

See the following site for additional details:

http://www.gefsproject.org

There are a couple of theories which attempt to explain the phenomena.
The best know is that of Colin Keay - Geophysical Electrophonics. See:

http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~ddcsk/gelphonx.htm

However, this theory only applies to major events and isn't applicable
to fainter meteors. Having looked for an alternative mechanism, I've
come up with the following. Unfortunately I'm no physicist and would
welcome any pointers, comments and corrections from u.s.astro members.
Here's the outline of my view, it may not be original and it could be
wrong, but it is a start...

I feel that an explanation needs to incorporate some form of stored
energy source, and not rely on direct energy from the bolide itself.

To be honest, I'm not sure why you need this. The energy in a meteor is
quite considerable. The problem seems to be delivering it to the
observer in the form of sound.
--
"Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of
void"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Couldn't it also be that in some cases the mind adds a noise to the image?
Are there electronic recordings of the phenomenon?

Larry

"David Entwistle" wrote in message
...
I'd appreciate your comments on the following...

Electrophonic Meteors are meteors where the observer reports hearing a
sound simultaneously with seeing the meteor. As the visual meteor
generally occur at heights in excess of sixty kilometres, sound
generated at the meteor will take many seconds to reach the observer.
Hence the mechanism is something of a mystery.

See the following site for additional details:

http://www.gefsproject.org

There are a couple of theories which attempt to explain the phenomena.
The best know is that of Colin Keay - Geophysical Electrophonics. See:

http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~ddcsk/gelphonx.htm

However, this theory only applies to major events and isn't applicable
to fainter meteors. Having looked for an alternative mechanism, I've
come up with the following. Unfortunately I'm no physicist and would
welcome any pointers, comments and corrections from u.s.astro members.
Here's the outline of my view, it may not be original and it could be
wrong, but it is a start...

I feel that an explanation needs to incorporate some form of stored
energy source, and not rely on direct energy from the bolide itself.

From my layman's point of view, one possible explanation seems to be
that the energy is built up in the Earth's upper atmosphere. The gas
molecules are ionized by the Sun's radiation and then the positive and
negative ions are subjected to opposing electromagnetic forces by the
Earth's magnetic field. In certain areas of the atmosphere, such as in
the transition from day to night, the forces will have a net effect and
result in the separation of electrical charge. I'm no atmospheric
scientist, but I can't see how the above can be other than true, to some
extent.

Given the above, it then seems feasible that the above mechanism should
result in areas of the upper atmosphere with an excess of positive, or
negative charge. These areas will continue to be subject to
electromagnetic force from the Earth's magnetic field and will migrate
around the globe, eventually discharging when they re-combine with areas
carrying the opposite charge.

If you then introduce a long thin electrically-conducting tube of
ionised gas, caused by the passing meteor, to the above dynamic
environment, there's the distinct possibility that you'll get a sudden
massive re-distribution of charge. As areas of excess opposite charge,
which had been electrically isolated, are joined by the ionised gas left
in the wake of the meteors path.

The observer senses the consequence of that distribution of charge. The
energy released isn't limited to that provided by the bolide itself. The
bolide only provides the trigger for a discharge of energy stored in the
upper atmosphere which has been generated by the Earth's magnetic field
over the proceeding hours.

As mentioned pointers, comments and corrections welcome.
--
David Entwistle

"Larry" wrote in message
...
Couldn't it also be that in some cases the mind adds a noise to the image?
Are there electronic recordings of the phenomenon?

Larry

Those questions are very much to the point. I was just going to say this...

The main puzzle is why the sound is heard at the time of the meteor, rather
than being delayed like thunder from lightning. That leaves open 3 main
possibilities:

(1) The sound is a perceptual illusion caused by a visual stimulus (the
meteor).

(2) The sound is generated somewhere near the observer; the energy that
causes it to be generated takes another form (electromagnetic?) until it
gets into the observer's vicinity.

(3) There is never any sound, but the observer perceives some other stimulus
(electrical?) as sound.

In cases (1) and (2) the sound could not be recorded by a tape recorder. In
case (2) it could.

Are there any experimental results that are relevant?

Slightly off topic, but it almost certainly made a noise!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3146692.stm

Tony
Central England

--
Remove the extra 'f' from ffree-online to reply!


"Michael A. Covington" wrote
in message ...

"Larry" wrote in message
...
Couldn't it also be that in some cases the mind adds a noise to the
image?
Are there electronic recordings of the phenomenon?

Larry

Those questions are very much to the point. I was just going to say
this...

The main puzzle is why the sound is heard at the time of the meteor,
rather
than being delayed like thunder from lightning. That leaves open 3 main
possibilities:

(1) The sound is a perceptual illusion caused by a visual stimulus (the
meteor).

(2) The sound is generated somewhere near the observer; the energy that
causes it to be generated takes another form (electromagnetic?) until it
gets into the observer's vicinity.

(3) There is never any sound, but the observer perceives some other
stimulus
(electrical?) as sound.

In cases (1) and (2) the sound could not be recorded by a tape recorder.
In
case (2) it could.

Are there any experimental results that are relevant?

"Michael A. Covington" wrote
in message ...
(3) There is never any sound, but the observer perceives some other
stimulus
Are there any experimental results that are relevant?
In my previous location I was plagued by a low humming or booming sound, a
bit like a large truck engine on idle in the street outside. The sound was
audible to me in and around our house especially at night but sometimes also
in daytime. I could never decide what direction it was coming from but the
amplitude seemed to vary as I moved around the house. The odd thing was that
no-one else in our house could hear it and the only place I was aware of it
was at my home location. It was weird to return after a trip and be
instantly aware of the "hum" as I walked down the drive. I never did find
out what the cause of this was and I have not heard it since we moved house
three years ago. Since then I have heard of other people suffering from the
same problem, around Somerset it has been known as the "Bristol Hum" and
many people have put it down to simple tinnitus or other medical conditions.
I'm sure that it is some sort of real stimulus affecting the hearing organs
or auditory nerves.
Sally

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 22:16:14 +0100, "Sally"
wrote:



In my previous location I was plagued by a low humming or booming sound, a
bit like a large truck engine on idle in the street outside. The sound was
audible to me in and around our house especially at night but sometimes also
in daytime. I could never decide what direction it was coming from but the
amplitude seemed to vary as I moved around the house. The odd thing was that
no-one else in our house could hear it and the only place I was aware of it
was at my home location. It was weird to return after a trip and be
instantly aware of the "hum" as I walked down the drive. I never did find
out what the cause of this was and I have not heard it since we moved house
three years ago. Since then I have heard of other people suffering from the
same problem, around Somerset it has been known as the "Bristol Hum" and
many people have put it down to simple tinnitus or other medical conditions.
I'm sure that it is some sort of real stimulus affecting the hearing organs
or auditory nerves.
Sally




I had a similar problem in the last house I lived in. My wife could
not hear it but I found it quite annoying. It was caused by an
underground power cable with a loose outer screening layer. The 50Hz
mains hum could not be heard but it caused the metal banding in the
cable to produce higher frequency noises. At night it was audible
because the ambient noise was low and during the day it was audible
when the cable was conducting a high current. It was fixed by
replacing the cable.


Steve
--
EasyNN-plus. The easy way to build neural networks.
Build networks from numeric, text and image files.
http://www.easynn.com

I had a similar problem in the last house I lived in. My wife could
not hear it but I found it quite annoying. It was caused by an
underground power cable with a loose outer screening layer. The 50Hz
mains hum could not be heard but it caused the metal banding in the
cable to produce higher frequency noises. At night it was audible
because the ambient noise was low and during the day it was audible
when the cable was conducting a high current. It was fixed by
replacing the cable.

If you've ever owned an oscilloscope, and put your finger on the
probe, you'll have seen that the waveform is VERY dirty [1]. Yes, it's
50 Hz, but it's polluted by MUCH higher frequency, but consistent
noise. It's jagged and rough. If you listened to it, it would be
easy to hear that noise, it'd be way easier to hear than just
pure 50Hz. To get an idea of it, unplug your CD player from
your amp, and touch the centre pin of the RCA phono plug. There
are much sharper components there which render it easy to hear.
It's a buzzing noise. Pure sinusoidal 50 Hz would not be perceived
as a buzzing, but as a very low, almost warm, humming sensation.

I don't know _why_ those components are present in the induced signal on
the body, but they surely are. They're very consistent; the signal on the
'scope does not jump around, or flicker rapidly, it's just a constant,
jagged, messed-up 50Hz sinusoid with a load of noise on it. I guess
nearby electrical equipment, like fridge motors, lights, etc. all add
noise and radiate their own noise in addition to the pure 50Hz. It never
fails, try looking some time if you get a chance. If you wrap a few turns
of current-carrying mains cable around your hand/arm, you can get a really
good few volts there.

Anyway, these higher-frequency components may be related to why the cable was
so audible.


Martin

[1] That's not to say that the _actual_ mains waveform is dirty; it's not.
If you measure mains itself, it's quite clean. It's just that the signal
on your body is messy.
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk