[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Fireball sound nonsense
There are legitimate disagreements about the causes of meteor sounds, and
whether all of them we hear about are truly real. Meteor sounds, however,
are not nonsense. Here's a URL with some related links at the bottom:
http://science.nasadot gov/headlines/y2001/ast26nov_1.htm
Regards, Tony
At 05:09 PM 8/14/2002 -0400, Dale wrote:
>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
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
References: