(meteorobs) Electrophonics?

[Swift, Wesley R. (MSFC-NNM05AB50C)[RAYTHEON]]

	My experiences with sensitive electrometers is that they can
detect almost ANYTHING... walking about, waving, someone entering the
room, whatever.   The challenge is to find an actual, convincing
correlation.   As for electrophonics, if any electrostatic field is
varying at some frequency, there is an easier to detect electromagnetic
field associated with it of the same frequency.   Although there are
definite electromagnetic effects with meteors (ionization, ionization
noise, field line interactions, RF reflection, etc.) meteor sounds are
not sufficiently correlated with these to form a cause-and-effect
relationship.   Therein lies the puzzle.

	I think the answer lies more in what can possibly excite the
observer into thinking that what they hear is a mechanical vibration
sound.  Although delusion is possible, I believe the question is FAR
more interesting than that!   A catalog of things that are perceived as
sounds or can affect tinnitus would be interesting.

Wes


-----Original Message-----
From: meteorobs-bounces at meteorobs.org
[mailto:meteorobs-bounces at meteorobs.org] On Behalf Of Nikola Biliskov
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 5:54 AM
To: Global Meteor Observing Forum
Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Electrophonics?

stange34 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> 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.
Off course, this is of crucial importance if one wants to prove
correlation of EF sounds with some other meteor-related phenomena. I
just want to say that here, in Croatia, a group of enthusiasts are
developing such an instrument, which will be very sensitive when
completed. In this moment I can not tell you about details, because this
is now in test phase.. I hope that soon we will have first results.
This project is continuation of our '90-ties efforts, which finally
resulted in Leonid 1998.success.
> 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.
Our results shows that theory of production of VLF emission, which
induces electromagnetic sound in the observer's environment, is not good
enough. First, we recorded sound of -7m meteor, without any evidence of
VLF emission. Limiting magnitude for EF sound, according to theory, is
about -12m. It seems that perturbation induced by meteoroid penetration
into the atmosphere triggers a cascade of processes which finally
produces several times stronger signal. We believe that it MUST be
detectable with a sensitive electrometer.
Best wishes,
Nikola

---
Mailing list meteorobs: meteorobs at meteorobs.org To UNSUBSCRIBE, email:
owner-meteorobs at meteorobs.org
http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs