[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: (meteorobs) Fireball sound nonsense



i do not normally post and i realize that michael is an old-hand here
however, it is known that dental work, for example, can and has acted as an
rf detector for am radio stations
clearly this requires a critical configuration of dental work (!) and
presumably it is 'tuned' to some (small band of) rf frequencies
also admittedlt it is not a frequent occurrence
i am all for the elimination of nonsense from this list or any place else,
except in fun
i am just as adamant however that scientists, professional or otherwise,
keep open minds

regarding the topic that started this thread, it seems clear to me that
there are enough reports to establish the 'smoke' and that, for whatever
reasons (lack of resources?) it is up to the scientists to establish what
the fire is, objectively, or debunk it, objectively

else we have simply a continuation of non-sense
imho
dale botwin
miami fl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Linnolt" <mlinnolt@alum.mitdot edu>
To: <meteorobs@atmob.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 4:54 PM
Subject: (meteorobs) Fireball sound nonsense


> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Graham & Amy Palmer" <gramy@globedot net.nz>
> > I am no expert, but I have heard a theory that would
> > explain the sound
> > observed during your fireball... It involves
> > ionisation around the bolide
> > somehow transmitting a signal in radio(?)
> > wavelengths which can then be
> > re-converted to sound if there is something to act
> > as an antennae...
> > (eye-glasses are a good one...) This allows you to
> > hear the fireball in
> > real-time..!!
>
> To convert radio signals to audio you need a detector. Classically a
simple diode can act in such a fashion as you may recall from elementary
school projects where kids build such simple radios. People dont normally
walk around with diodes or semiconductors in their eyeglass, teeth, etc.
which could act in this fashion. An "antennae" alone is not sufficient to
detect RF!
>
> I suspect these reports are bogus, because if this kind of RF detection
occured, everyone would be hearing buzzing when they pass by cell phone
towers, TV transmitters, inside airplanes, using cell phones, etc, etc.
which are much more potent and common sources of high RF flux than a grain
of sand at 60km away!
>
> I think this list has been saturated with too much of this nonsense
already, IMHO.
>
> Mike Linnolt
> The archive and Web site for our list is at http://www.meteorobs.org
> To stop getting all email from the 'meteorobs' lists, use our Webform:
> http://www.meteorobs.org/subscribe.html
>

The archive and Web site for our list is at http://www.meteorobs.org
To stop getting all email from the 'meteorobs' lists, use our Webform:
http://www.meteorobs.org/subscribe.html

Follow-Ups: References: