(meteorobs) Electrophonics?

[stange34 at sbcglobal.net]

It is possible that whatever forces are causing the Electrophonic "sounds" 
has been detected inadvertantly, but if not recoqnized by a close timing to 
a meteor event that data would be discarded as you say to noise or perhaps 
circuit transient characteristics.

Therein lies the difficulty.... establishing both events at the same time 
for proof. It is further complicated by the requirement of a momentary 
force(pertebration) sufficiently massive to create this "sound" at ground 
level.

To date, NOTHING has been found that is strong enough to create "sound" at 
ground level from a meteor high in the atmosphere. It has only been 
conjectured/theorized that some form of electromagnetic energy propogation 
is responsible. But if that is true... why have not lessor energy levels 
from smaller meteors been detected regularly? Therein is the flaw I think.

The first step in establishing Dick Spaldings' newer hypothesis as a 
possibility, is to DETECT any change however small, in one or more of the 
(local) force fields with a meteor event.

The second step is to find what magnitude of that force change is required 
to produce electrophonic "sound" and/or what size of meteor can produce that 
change which results in "sound".

If electrostatics is not the answer, then the next force which should be 
examined is geo-magnetics. (All possible protective shielding from local 
transients has been given thought here). I do not know if I am on the 
correct path. There are no prior documented efforts in this area of research 
except in electromagnetics which fail the amplitude requirement.

Larry
YC Sentinel


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Powers" <dave at minutemancomm.com>
To: <meteorobs at meteorobs.org>
Sent: 2007/04/05 19:37
Subject: (meteorobs) Electrophonics?


> With the myriad of electronic systems currently in use on our planet. is 
> it
> possible that vast quantities of useful "electrophonic" data has already
> been collected?
>
> But, simply discarded?  As "noise."
>
>
>
> All communications systems are prone to interference.  With filtering, 
> error
> correction, shielding, etc the important signals are extracted.  The
> un-wanted signals are ignored.
>
>
>
> Are there clues in "the chaos of interference?"
>
>
>
> I'm sure this principle has been investigated.
>
> Just curious!
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Mailing list meteorobs: meteorobs at meteorobs.org
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email: owner-meteorobs at meteorobs.org
> http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs
>