[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) "Electrophonic" Fireball sound nonsense
--- Dale <biscayne@snappydsldot net> wrote:
> mike
> there is a difference between not being able to find
> in one's own vast
> knowledge a solution to a problem, and the
> declaration of the problem to be
> "nonsense"
> there is clearly some phenomenon lurking here
You are missing the main point! Nobody has addressed my primary concern with "electrophonics" from meteors. Its based on simple logic and elementary Physics. (1) The RF signal generated by the meteor is below background, yet is "detected". AND, (2) ubiquitous RF signals in our daily
lives far more powerful than "meteor electrophonics" are NOT detected. Without an adequate explanation, the claimed "meteor electrophonics" must be ruled out!
Copy of previous post on the power levels:
> > Simply doing a back-of-envelope calculation will
> make it clear this is
> ridiculous. Assuming a big fireball produces maybe
> 100kW of RF power briefly
> (I doubt it would be that high anyway), at a
> distance of 60km this would be
> just 0.0002uW/cm^2. The ambient background RF
> exposure is estimated to be
> around 0.003uW/cm^2. (Mantiply, 1997) Thats the
> stuff we all are exposed to
> everyday from the radio waves from earth and space.
> So how can these reports
> claim to be detecting signals less than 1/10th of
> the background levels? So,
> I would like someone to explain how these weak
> signals are being picked up
> by "detectors" swamped by background?
> > Not to mention the RF near cell towers is
> 1-10uW/cm^2 and the 800-900Mhz
> cell phone standard (ANSI/IEEE) is 579uW/cm^2. Why
> are we not bombarded by
> people reporting hearing buzzing and whistling from
> their teeth or glasses
> whenever they use their portable phones?
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: