HAARP: Science vs. Myth
I have been investigating HAARP, for a number of years now yet have been reluctant to put out a definitive video on the subject. HAARP stands for High Altitude Active Auroral Research Project. The Aurora they are researching is caused by the warping of solar radiation around the magnetic field of earth, what is commonly called the ‘ionosphere’ and ‘magnetosphere’ and how exactly the Earth’s magnetic field warps this massive flow of solar wind around the earth. Now there are many theories out there on the internet surrounding HAARP, some suggest it can be used to control weather events like Hurricane Katrina, others say it can trigger earthquakes such as the Magnitude 7.0 tremor that shook Haiti in 2010.
So my first question is: How can resonant Ionospheric heating have the kind of pin point accuracy that would be required to control massive atmospheric weather phenomena like Hurricanes and geological events like earthquakes.
Well, by heating the ionosphere above a storm system you can seed the storm with a small amount of energy. I say small here as a relative term, since compared to the amount of energy inside a typical Hurricane, these amounts are small. But in reality facilities like HAARP need to pump enormous amounts of energy into the ionosphere in order to provide the energy which is seeding that cloud, plus all the energy their equipment wastes in the process, from the resistance in the wires to all the energy that goes everywhere spread out all over the planet, as this thing is running. So yeah, I’m not doubting that this could actually work to seed a Hurricane, just realizing that it would be very inefficient and perhaps impractical. As for triggering Earthquakes, it also seems like a very difficult thing to do accurately, sure I know about simple harmonic oscillators and how they can be tuned to the resonant frequency of a structure to produce a standing wave which can be gradually increased in amplitude until it begins resonating violently. This is the same concept behind Tesla’s so called Earthquake machine, that was tested by Myth Busters and shown to actually work. I just don’t see how heating the ionosphere miles off the ground could produce mechanical waves on the ground that would be capable of triggering an earthquake.. I also don’t understand why the Government would want to help create a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina or The Earthquake in Haiti, when both of those turned into PR disasters for the Government and didn’t benefit them in any way that I can see.
Don’t get me wrong… I totally get things like the 9/11 Conspiracy. I understand how Bush’s Carlyle Group and Cheney’s Halliburton, and the Military Industrial Petroleum Banking Intelligence Complex benefitted from 9/11 and the ushering in of the National Security and Surviellance State under the guise of the ‘war on terror’, that stuff is pretty obvious if you do the research, how and why they needed 9/11. I just don’t see HAARP being used effectively for weather wars or as an earthquake machine. Besides which, the Russians have their own HAARP-like facility called SURA which has been operating since 1981. HAARP was built in 1993 and didn’t even become fully functional until 2007-2008. Why didn’t the Russians trigger any massive Weather or Earthquake attacks during the Cold War?’ (Oh wait some conspiracy theorists think they caused those Midwestern floods in the 80s) or how about the Chinese who have the largest Space Weather Research program on the planet known as the Meridian Project? There’s also the European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association (EISCAT) which has a facility in northern Scandanavia. And the HIPAS (High Power Auroral Stimulation) Observatory and Ionospheric heater located in Fairbanks Alaska that is operated by researchers from UCLA. These scientists are not bound under NDAs and have no known affiliations with Black Projects, Special Access Programs, and do not possess special security clearances. I am sure that if you email any of them with a genuine academic inquiry into these subjects like active auroral weather manipulation and the possibility of earth quake machines, that you will get a legitimate response.
From a scientific perspective we must always look at experiments and reproducibility. So scientifically such claims of weather manipulation and the ability to cause Earthquakes can only be proven with repeatable experiments, which would, of course, require much more data need to be collected on such large scale events like hurricanes and earthquakes and the corresponding ionosphere activity at the time.
However there still lurks the question of why the Military are so interested in HAARP and why this shroud of secrecy and mystery surrounding it all? A lot of that may just be due to the way Military Security works? and if you explore the history of ionospheric research, particularly within the military, you’ll find some perfectly legitimate explanations for why the military is so interested in HAARP.
You see the ionosphere also works like a reflective mirror for long range radio signals. In order to send signals long distances, like beyond the curvature of the earth you either have to send the signals through the ground, relay them through a satellite, or bounce them off the ionosphere. Some signals get stuck up in the ionosphere and just circle the earth aimlessly for ages. You can actually go out today and stick an antennae up into the ionosphere and still pick up tiny snippets of signals that were broadcast back in WW2 and whatnot, that are still bouncing around up there.
During the early days of OTH or Over The Horizon radar communications, they noticed that solar storms and other atmospheric conditions would severely affect signal transmissions, and much research was done into ways to improve signal transmission, as well as ways to disrupt enemy signals. In 1958 and 1962 the US detonated several nukes in the ionosphere to asses the impact of high altitude nuclear explosions on radio transmissions. Project Argus and Project Starfish had lasting effects on the Earths magnetosphere and the Van Allen Radiation belts. One witness said the entire sky turned to fire and he thought that the world was about to end.
From my own personal scientific research, I have come to question whether or not these rumors of mind control, storm seeding and earthquake weapons were not in fact just cover stories being used to throw researchers off the trail of what HAARP can REALLY be used for? ? So I began exploring other possibilities, and what I found might surprise you.
You see… The HAARP Technology, and the idea of using what are today called ‘Schuman Resonances’ and tapping into this iono-magnetospheric resonance cavity, were first theorized and developed by none other than Nikola Tesla himself and his Wardencliffe tower technology, which was subsequently shut down by J.P. Morgan once he found out the gist of what Tesla was really up to.
Tesla knew an awful lot about waves, frequencies, and resonances. Tesla had discovered the Schuman Resonance cavities long before Winfried Otto Schumann ever did. Tesla just never cared to name his discoveries after himself or publish his findings.
What Tesla knew, was that there is a massive stream of energy being emitted from the sun that is diverted around the earth, by the Earth’s own magnetic fields, and that this massive flow of radiant energy represents an unlimited, ever present, abundant, non-polluting, sustainable source of energy for the entire planet, available to anyone with the machinery to tap into it. We merely need to invent the ‘paddle wheel’ that can tap into this massive energy flow and harness it for conversion into unlimited free electrical power for the entire planet. and Tesla was working on building just that, before he was shut down. Wardencliffe Tower was Tesla’s great attempt at inventing this so called ‘Paddle wheel’, the project was also used to research wireless power transmission. Both of these ideas could not be ‘metered’, and were thus of no interest to the bankers funding Tesla’s research and so the project was shut down as the now infamous history goes.
Since the ionosphere is spherical in shape, the resonances which disrupt the ion flux are spherical resonances which have spherical harmonics, which set up interference patterns specific to geometry of the sphere, and also specific to the location of the emitting device and the frequencies it is emitting. As a result HAARP is useful for radar, communication, and geolocation purposes, all of which serve a military interest. Hence the present interest of the USAF and DOD. Doesn’t this sound a bit more logical and rational than weather and earthquake weapons?
Something Tesla understood, was that these ionospheric resonances were related to all the lightning on the planet, and that Earth’s atmosphere was electrically active, similar to a giant capacitor that would build up electric charge until electrostatic discharges would occur as lightning in the atmosphere. Tesla also saw the massive power that lightning contained, and he viewed it as a potential power source that could provide limitless free energy to the entire planet.
The energy of an average 3 mile-long lightning strike is one billion to ten billion joules. Which is enough to light 116 hundred-watt light bulbs for one day. Evidence shows that lightning strikes hit earth 100 times every second which is over 8.5 million lightning strikes per day occurring on the planet, more than enough electrical power to serve all mankind’s energy needs for the foreseeable future.
Of course that’s all assuming you could figure out a way to directly convert that energy from the electrical potential energy stored in a thundercloud or inside the earth’s ionosphere and turn it into a stable, storable, usable supply of energy. So far attempts at harnessing the energy directly from a lightning bolt have been highly unsuccessful. In the summer of 2007 a company called Alternative Energy Holdings Inc. did some experiments to test a design plan for a lightning generator that the company had recently purchased from Illinois inventor Steve LeRoy who reportedly powered a small 60 Watt lightbulb for 20 minutes off of energy harvested from an arc in a laboratory. LeRoy’s lightning harvester concept was essentially an array of towers with grounding wires to shunt most of the discharge, and a capacitor to store a small portion of the energy from the bolt. But according to the CEO of the company who bought and tested the technology, they just couldn’t make it work. It quickly became apparent that this was not the best approach to the problem. Some have looked into building better capacitors, which would be more suited with the capabilities to absorb the energy of a lightning strike. Research into new anode materials such as Spinel anodes, have shown some promising leads, and material scientists are discovering new dielectric and semiconductor materials every day.
But there are other researchers and inventors who think that these people are all wasting their time trying to reverse engineer the lightning bolt? They think that by the time the arc of the lightning bolt happens it’s already too late. They think that the real power source is up there in the clouds themselves, rather than on the ground. These critics argue that electrical potential energy stored up in the clouds is much more attainable and useable than trying to harness the kinetic energy within a lightning bolt itself. They compare a lightning bolt to a high speed bullet train, while inventors like Steven LeRoy try to engineer what essentially amounts to a crash pad which can effectively absorb the entire impact of the colliding train, these other researcher are instead thinking outside the box, to imagine riding on the train itself. Trying to imagine ways to tap into the clouds themselves and harvest the energy directly from the atmosphere. But this approach has some problems of its own. It’s extremely difficult to build towers that are 3 miles tall, and no one seems to have any better idea of how else you could plug a lead wire directly into the upper atmosphere [ionosphere], to complete such a circuit. But what if we didn’t need wires or a circuit at all in order to tap into this massive energy source? At least… Tesla didn’t think that wires would be necessary. In fact, he had envisioned an entire world wide wireless power transmission system, and was experimenting with ways to actually make it work up until his project was shut down.
What do you think the world would be like today if he had succeeded?
While I don’t have all the answers just yet on how to build such a hypothetical paddlewheel, and most of Tesla’s notes and ideas are now lost to History, it is a problem that I am thinking about and working on. This is one potential source of free energy that is real and will work, if the right people can put their scientific problem solving minds towards a solution.
Perhaps someone can invent a new way to sap wireless electrical energy from thunderclouds and other atmospheric weather systems? Perhaps a whistleblower from HAARP will come forward with some information on how to use Active Auroral Research to pull electricity from the ionosphere or magnetosphere? Perhaps a backyard inventor will figure it all out (on his or her own) and then release it to the world overnight? Who knows?
All I can tell you is that this is one of the few valid directions that free energy or alternative energy researchers should be exploring. Here we have an absolutely massive source of energy in the Earth’s ionosphere just waiting for some genius to come up with a way to tap into it. Stop looking for sources of Free Energy where there are none, and start trying to figure out way to tap into the ones that are real and sitting right over our heads.
High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program
This global electromagnetic resonance phenomenon is named after physicist Winfried Otto Schumann who predicted it mathematically in 1952. Schumann resonances occur because the space between the surface of the Earth and the conductive ionosphere acts as a closed waveguide. The limited dimensions of the Earth cause this waveguide to act as a resonant cavity for electromagnetic waves in the ELF band. The cavity is naturally excited by electric currents in lightning. Schumann resonances are the principal background in the electromagnetic spectrum between 3 and 69 Hz, and appear as distinct peaks at extremely low frequencies (ELF) around 7.83, 14.3, 20.8, 27.3 and 33.8 Hz.
In the normal mode descriptions of Schumann resonances, the fundamental mode is a standing wave in the Earth–ionosphere cavity with a wavelength equal to the circumference of the Earth. This lowest-frequency (and highest-intensity) mode of the Schumann resonance occurs at a frequency of approximately 7.83 Hz, but this frequency can vary slightly from a variety of factors, such as solar-induced perturbations to the ionosphere, which comprises the upper wall of the closed cavity. The higher resonance modes are spaced at approximately 6.5 Hz intervals, a characteristic attributed to the atmosphere’s spherical geometry. The peaks exhibit a spectral width of approximately 20% on account of the damping of the respective modes in the dissipative cavity. The eighth overtone lies at approximately 59.9 Hz.
Observations of Schumann resonances have been used to track global lightning activity. Owing to the connection between lightning activity and the Earth’s climate it has been suggested that they may also be used to monitor global temperature variations and variations of water vapor in the upper troposphere. It has been speculated that extraterrestrial lightning (on other planets) may also be detected and studied by means of their Schumann resonance signatures. Schumann resonances have been used to study the lower ionosphere on Earth and it has been suggested as one way to explore the lower ionosphere on celestial bodies. Effects on Schumann resonances have been reported following geomagnetic and ionospheric disturbances. More recently, discrete Schumann resonance excitations have been linked to transient luminous events – sprites, elves, jets, and other upper-atmospheric lightning. A new field of interest using Schumann resonances is related to short-term earthquake prediction.
Lightning discharges are considered to be the primary natural source of Schumann resonance excitation; lightning channels behave like huge antennas that radiate electromagnetic energy at frequencies below about 100 kHz. These signals are very weak at large distances from the lightning source, but the Earth–ionosphere waveguide behaves like a resonator at ELF frequencies and amplifies the spectral signals from lightning at the resonance frequencies. In an ideal cavity, the resonant frequency of the n-th mode fn is determined by the Earth radius a and the speed of light c. The real Earth–ionosphere waveguide is not a perfect electromagnetic resonant cavity. Losses due to finite ionosphere electrical conductivity lower the propagation speed of electromagnetic signals in the cavity, resulting in a resonance frequency that is lower than would be expected in an ideal case, and the observed peaks are wide. In addition, there are a number of horizontal asymmetries – day-night difference in the height of the ionosphere, latitudinal changes in the Earth magnetic field, sudden ionospheric disturbances, polar cap absorption, etc. that produce other effects in the Schumann resonance power spectra.
The real Earth–ionosphere waveguide is not a perfect electromagnetic resonant cavity. Losses due to finite ionosphere electrical conductivity lower the propagation speed of electromagnetic signals in the cavity, resulting in a resonance frequency that is lower than would be expected in an ideal case, and the observed peaks are wide. In addition, there are a number of horizontal asymmetries – day-night difference in the height of the ionosphere, latitudinal changes in the Earth magnetic field, sudden ionospheric disturbances, polar cap absorption, etc. that produce other effects in the Schumann resonance power spectra.
Today Schumann resonances are recorded at many separate research stations around the world. The sensors used to measure Schumann resonances typically consist of two horizontal magnetic induction coils for measuring the north-south and east-west components of the magnetic field, and a vertical electric dipole antenna for measuring the vertical component of the electric field. A typical passband of the instruments is 3–100 Hz. The Schumann resonance electric field amplitude (~300 microvolts per meter) is much smaller than the static fair-weather electric field (~150 V/m) in the atmosphere. Similarly, the amplitude of the Schumann resonance magnetic field (~1 picotesla) is many orders of magnitude smaller than the Earth magnetic field (~30–50 microteslas) . Therefore, special receivers and antennas are needed to detect and record Schumann resonances. The electric component is commonly measured with a ball antenna, suggested by Ogawa et al., in 1966, connected to a high-impedance amplifier. The magnetic induction coils typically consist of tens- to hundreds-of-thousands of turns of wire wound around a core of very high magnetic permeability.
Dependence on global lightning activity
From the very beginning of Schumann resonance studies, it was known that they could be used to monitor global lightning activity. At any given time there are about 2000 thunderstorms around the globe. Producing ~50 lightning events per second, these thunderstorms create the background Schumann resonance signal.
Determining the spatial lightning distribution from Schumann resonance records is a complex problem: in order to estimate the lightning intensity from Schumann resonance records it is necessary to account for both the distance to lightning sources as well as the wave propagation between the source and the observer. The common approach is to make a preliminary assumption on the spatial lightning distribution, based on the known properties of lightning climatology. An alternative approach is placing the receiver at the North or South Pole, which remain approximately equidistant from the main thunderstorm centers during the day. One method not requiring preliminary assumptions on the lightning distribution is based on the decomposition of the average background Schumann resonance spectra, utilizing ratios between the average electric and magnetic spectra and between their linear combination. This technique assumes the cavity is spherically symmetric and therefore does not include known cavity asymmetries that are believed to affect the resonance and propagation properties of electromagnetic waves in the system.
The best documented and the most debated features of the Schumann resonance phenomenon are the diurnal variations of the background Schumann resonance power spectrum.
A characteristic Schumann resonance diurnal record reflects the properties of both global lightning activity and the state of the Earth–ionosphere cavity between the source region and the observer. The vertical electric field is independent of the direction of the source relative to the observer, and is therefore a measure of global lightning. The diurnal behavior of the vertical electric field shows three distinct maxima, associated with the three “hot spots” of planetary lightning activity: 9 UT (Universal Time) peak, linked to the increased thunderstorm activity from south-east Asia; 14 UT peak associated with the peak in African lightning activity; and the 20 UT peak resulting for the increase in lightning activity in South America. The time and amplitude of the peaks vary throughout the year, reflecting the seasonal changes in lightning activity.
In general, the African peak is the strongest, reflecting the major contribution of the African “chimney” to the global lightning activity. The ranking of the two other peaks – Asian and American – is the subject of a vigorous dispute among Schumann resonance scientists. Schumann resonance observations made from Europe show a greater contribution from Asia than from South America. This contradicts optical satellite and climatological lightning data that show the South American thunderstorm center stronger than the Asian center., although observations made from North America indicate the dominant contribution comes from South America. The reason for such disparity remains unclear, but may have something to do with the 60 Hz cycling of electricity used in North America (60 Hz being a mode of Schumann Resonance). Williams and Sátori suggest that in order to obtain “correct” Asia-America chimney ranking, it is necessary to remove the influence of the day/night variations in the ionospheric conductivity (day-night asymmetry influence) from the Schumann resonance records. On the other hand, such “corrected” records presented in the work by Sátori et al. show that even after the removal of the day-night asymmetry influence from Schumann resonance records, the Asian contribution remains greater than American. Similar results were obtained by Pechony et al. who calculated Schumann resonance fields from satellite lightning data. It was assumed that the distribution of lightning in the satellite maps was a good proxy for Schumann excitations sources, even though satellite observations predominantly measure in-cloud lightning rather than the cloud-to-ground lightning that are the primary exciters of the resonances. Both simulations – those neglecting the day-night asymmetry, and those taking this asymmetry into account, showed same Asia-America chimney ranking. As for today, the reason for the “invert” ranking of Asia and America chimneys in Schumann resonance records remains unclear and the subject requires further, targeted research.
Influence of the day-night asymmetry
In the early literature the observed diurnal variations of Schumann resonance power were explained by the variations in the source-receiver (lightning-observer) geometry. It was concluded that no particular systematic variations of the ionosphere (which serves as the upper waveguide boundary) are needed to explain these variations. Subsequent theoretical studies supported the early estimations of the small influence of the ionosphere day-night asymmetry (difference between day-side and night-side ionosphere conductivity) on the observed variations in Schumann resonance field intensities.
The interest in the influence of the day-night asymmetry in the ionosphere conductivity on Schumann resonances gained new strength in the 1990s, after publication of a work by Sentman and Fraser. Sentman and Fraser developed a technique to separate the global and the local contributions to the observed field power variations using records obtained simultaneously at two stations that were widely separated in longitude. They interpreted the diurnal variations observed at each station in terms of a combination of a diurnally varying global excitation modulated by the local ionosphere height. Their work, which combined both observations and energy conservation arguments, convinced many scientists of the importance of the ionospheric day-night asymmetry and inspired numerous experimental studies. However, recently it was shown that results obtained by Sentman and Fraser can be approximately simulated with a uniform model (without taking into account ionosphere day-night variation) and therefore cannot be uniquely interpreted solely in terms of ionosphere height variation .
Schumann resonance amplitude records show significant diurnal and seasonal variations which in general coincide in time with the times of the day-night transition (the terminator). This time-matching seems to support the suggestion of a significant influence of the day-night ionosphere asymmetry on Schumann resonance amplitudes. There are records showing almost clock-like accuracy of the diurnal amplitude changes. On the other hand there are numerous days when Schumann Resonance amplitudes do not increase at sunrise or do not decrease at sunset. There are studies showing that the general behavior of Schumann resonance amplitude records can be recreated from diurnal and seasonal thunderstorm migration, without invoking ionospheric variations. Two recent independent theoretical studies have shown that the variations in Schumann resonance power related to the day-night transition are much smaller than those associated with the peaks of the global lightning activity, and therefore the global lightning activity plays a more important role in the variation of the Schumann resonance power.
It is generally acknowledged that source-observer effects are the dominant source of the observed diurnal variations, but there remains considerable controversy about the degree to which day-night signatures are present in the data. Part of this controversy stems from the fact that the Schumann resonance parameters extractable from observations provide only a limited amount of information about the coupled lightning source-ionospheric system geometry. The problem of inverting observations to simultaneously infer both the lightning source function and ionospheric structure is therefore extremely underdetermined, leading to the possibility of nonunique interpretations.
The “inverse problem”
One of the interesting problems in Schumann resonances studies is determining the lightning source characteristics (the “inverse problem”). Temporally resolving each individual flash is impossible because the mean rate of excitation by lightning, ~50 lightning events per second globally, mixes up the individual contributions together. However, occasionally there occur extremely large lightning flashes which produce distinctive signatures that stand out from the background signals. Called “Q-bursts”, they are produced by intense lightning strikes that transfer large amounts of charge from clouds to the ground, and often carry high peak current. Q-bursts can exceed the amplitude of the background signal level by a factor of 10 or more, and appear with intervals of ~10 s, which allows to consider them as isolated events and determine the source lightning location. The source location is determined with either multi-station or single-station techniques, and requires assuming a model for the Earth–ionosphere cavity. The multi-station techniques are more accurate, but require more complicated and expensive facilities.
Williams  suggested that global temperature may be monitored with the Schumann resonances. The link between Schumann resonance and temperature is lightning flash rate, which increases nonlinearly with temperature. The nonlinearity of the lightning-to-temperature relation provides a natural amplifier of the temperature changes and makes Schumann resonance a sensitive “thermometer”. Moreover, the ice particles that are believed to participate in the electrification processes which result in a lightning discharge have an important role in the radiative feedback effects that influence the atmosphere temperature. Schumann resonances may therefore help us to understand these feedback effects. A strong link between global lightning and global temperature has not been experimentally confirmed as of 2008.
Upper tropospheric water vapor
Tropospheric water vapor is a key element of the Earth’s climate, which has direct effects as a greenhouse gas, as well as indirect effect through interaction with clouds, aerosols and tropospheric chemistry. Upper tropospheric water vapor (UTWV) has a much greater impact on the greenhouse effect than water vapor in the lower atmosphere, but whether this impact is a positive, or a negative feedback is still uncertain. The main challenge in addressing this question is the difficulty in monitoring UTWV globally over long timescales. Continental deep-convective thunderstorms produce most of the lightning discharges on Earth. In addition, they transport large amount of water vapor into the upper troposphere, dominating the variations of global UTWV. Price  suggested that changes in the UTWV can be derived from records of Schumann Resonances.
Schumann resonances on other planets
The existence of Schumann-like resonances is conditioned primarily by two factors: (1) a closed, planetary-sized spherical cavity, consisting of conducting lower and upper boundaries separated by an insulating medium. For the earth the conducting lower boundary is its surface, and the upper boundary is the ionosphere. Other planets may have similar electrical conductivity geometry, so it is speculated that they should possess similar resonant behavior. (2) source of electrical excitation of electromagnetic waves in the ELF range. Within the Solar System there are five candidates for Schumann resonance detection besides the Earth: Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and its moon Titan.
Modeling Schumann resonances on the planets and moons of the Solar System is complicated by the lack of knowledge of the waveguide parameters. No in situ capability exists today to validate the results, but in the case of Mars there have been terrestrial observations of radio emission spectra that have been associated with Schumann resonances. The reported radio emissions are not of the primary electromagnetic Schumann modes, but rather of secondary modulations of the nonthermal microwave emissions from the planet at approximately the expected Schumann frequencies, and have not be independently confirmed to be associated with lightning activity at Mars. There is the possibility that future lander missions could carry in situ instrumentation to perform the necessary measurements. Theoretical studies are primarily directed to parameterizing the problem for future planetary explorers.
The strongest evidence for lightning on Venus comes from the impulsive electromagnetic waves detected by Venera 11 and 12 landers. Theoretical calculations of the Schumann resonances at Venus were reported by Nickolaenko and Rabinowicz  and Pechony and Price . Both studies yielded very close results, indicating that Schumann resonances should be easily detectable on that planet given a lightning source of excitation and a suitably located sensor.
On Mars detection of lightning activity has been reported by Ruf et al. . The evidence is indirect and in the form of modulations of the nonthermal microwave spectrum at approximately the expected Schumann resonance frequencies. It has not been independently confirmed that these are associated with electrical discharges on Mars. In the event confirmation is made by direct, in situ observations, it would verify the suggestion of the possibility of charge separation and lightning strokes in the Martian dust storms made by Eden and Vonnegut  and Renno et al. . Martian global resonances were modeled by Sukhorukov , Pechony and Price  and Molina-Cuberos et al. . The results of the three studies are somewhat different, but it seems that at least the first two Schumann resonance modes should be detectable. Evidence of the first three Schumann resonance modes is present in the spectra of radio emission from the lightning detected in Martian dust storms.
It was long ago suggested that lightning discharges may occur on Titan, but recent data from Cassini-Huygens seems to indicate that there is no lightning activity on this largest satellite of Saturn. Due to the recent interest in Titan, associated with the Cassini-Huygens mission, its ionosphere is perhaps the most thoroughly modeled today. Schumann resonances on Titan have received more attention than on any other celestial body, in works by Besser et al. , Morente et al.  , Molina-Cuberos et al.  , Nickolaenko et al.  and Pechony and Price . It appears that only the first Schumann resonance mode might be detectable on Titan.
Jupiter is the only planet where lightning activity has been optically detected. Existence of lightning activity on that planet was predicted by Bar-Nun  and it is now supported by data from Galileo, Voyagers 1 and 2, Pioneers 10 and 11 and Cassini. Saturn is also expected to have intensive lightning activity, but the three visiting spacecrafts – Pioneer 11 in 1979, Voyager 1 in 1980 and Voyager 2 in 1981, failed to provide any convincing evidence from optical observations. The strong storm monitored on Saturn by the Cassini spacecraft produced no visible lightning flashes, although electromagnetic sensors aboard the spacecraft detected signatures that are characteristic of lightning. Little is known about the electrical parameters of Jupiter and Saturn interior. Even the question of what should serve as the lower waveguide boundary is a non-trivial one in case of the gaseous planets. There seem to be no works dedicated to Schumann resonances on Saturn. To date there has been only one attempt to model Schumann resonances on Jupiter. Here, the electrical conductivity profile within the gaseous atmosphere of Jupiter was calculated using methods similar to those used to model stellar interiors, and it was pointed out that the same methods could be easily extended to the other gas giants Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Given the intense lightning activity at Jupiter, the Schumann resonances should be easily detectable with a sensor suitably positioned within the planetary-ionospheric cavity.
Speculation about Schumann resonance effects in non-geophysics domains
Interest in Schumann resonances extends beyond the domain of geophysics where it initially began, to the fields of bioenergetics and acupuncture. Critics[who?] claim that the studies which support these applications are inconclusive and that further studies are needed.
A small study in Japan found that blood pressure was affected positively by the Schumann resonance, with the effects on human health needing to be investigated further.
- ^ O. Heaviside (1902). “Telegraphy, Sect. 1, Theory”. Encyc. Brit.10th ed.. . London 9: 213–218.
- ^ A.E. Kennelly (1902). “On the elevation of the electrically-conducting strata of the earth’s atmosphere”. Electrical world and engineer 32: 473–473.
- ^ Appleton, E. V. , M. A. F. Barnett (1925). “On Some Direct Evidence for Downward Atmospheric Reflection of Electric Rays”. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 109 (752): 621–641. doi:10.1098/rspa.1925.0149.
- ^ N. Tesla (1905). “The Transmission of Electrical Energy Without Wires As A Means Of Furthering World Peace”. Electrical World and Engineer January 7: 21–24.
- ^ Watson, G.N. (1918). “The diffraction of electric waves by the Earth”. Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) Ser.A 95: 83–99.
- ^ a b Schumann W. O. (1952). “Über die strahlungslosen Eigenschwingungen einer leitenden Kugel, die von einer Luftschicht und einer Ionosphärenhülle umgeben ist”. Zeitschrift und Naturfirschung 7a: 149–154.
- ^ Schumann W. O. (1952). “Über die Dämpfung der elektromagnetischen Eigenschwingnugen des Systems Erde – Luft – Ionosphäre”. Zeitschrift und Naturfirschung 7a: 250–252.
- ^ Schumann W. O. (1952). “Über die Ausbreitung sehr Langer elektriseher Wellen um die Signale des Blitzes”. Nuovo Cimento 9: 1116–1138. doi:10.1007/BF02782924.
- ^ Schumann W. O. and H. König (1954). “Über die Beobactung von Atmospherics bei geringsten Frequenzen”. Naturwiss 41: 183–184. doi:10.1007/BF00638174.
- ^ a b Balser M. and C. Wagner (1960). “Measurement of the spectrum of radio noise from 50 to 100 c/s”. J.Res. NBS 64D: 415–418.
- ^ Balser M. and C. Wagner (1960). “Observations of Earth–ionosphere cavity resonances”. Nature 188: 638–641. doi:10.1038/188638a0.
- ^ Balser M. and C. Wagner (1962). “Diurnal power variations of the Earth–ionosphere cavity modes and their relationship to worldwide thunderstorm activity”. J.G.R 67: 619–625. doi:10.1029/JZ067i002p00619.
- ^ Balser M. and C. Wagner (1962). “On frequency variations of the Earth–ionosphere cavity modes”. J.G.R 67: 4081–4083. doi:10.1029/JZ067i010p04081.
- ^ Balser M. and C. Wagner (1963). “Effect of a high-altitude nuclear detonation on the Earth–ionosphere cavity”. J.G.R 68: 4115–4118.
- ^ a b Volland, H. (1984). Atmospheric Electrodynamics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
- ^ Price, C., O. Pechony, E. Greenberg (2006). “Schumann resonances in lightning research”. Journal of Lightning Research 1: 1– 15.
- ^ a b Ogawa, T., Y. Tanka, T. Miura, and M. Yasuhara (1966). “Observations of natural ELF electromagnetic noises by using the ball antennas”. J. Geomagn. Geoelectr 18: 443– 454.
- ^ Heckman S. J., E. Williams, (1998). “Total global lightning inferred from Schumann resonance measurements”. J. G. R. 103(D24): 31775–31779. doi:10.1029/98JD02648.
- ^ a b Christian H. J., R.J. Blakeslee, D.J. Boccippio, W.L. Boeck, D.E. Buechler, K.T. Driscoll, S.J. Goodman, J.M. Hall, W.J. Koshak, D.M. Mach, M.F. Stewart, (2003). “Global frequency and distribution of lightning as observed from space by the Optical Transient Detector”. J. G. R. 108(D1): 4005. doi:10.1029/2002JD002347.
- ^ Nickolaenko, A.P. (1997). “Modern aspects of Schumann resonance studies”. J.a.s.t.p. 59: 806–816.
- ^ a b Shvets A.V. (2001). “A technique for reconstruction of global lightning distance profile from background Schumann resonance signal”. J.a.s.t.p. 63: 1061–1074.
- ^ Williams E. R., G. Sátori (2004). “Lightning, thermodynamic and hydrological comparison of the two tropical continental chimneys”. J.a.s.t.p. 66: 1213–1231.
- ^ a b Sátori G., M. Neska, E. Williams, J. Szendroi (2007). “Signatures of the non-uniform Earth–ionosphere cavity in high time-resolution Schumann resonance records”. Radio Science in print.
- ^ a b c Pechony, O., C. Price, A.P. Nickolaenko (2007). “Relative importance of the day-night asymmetry in Schumann resonance amplitude records”. Radio Science in print.
- ^ Madden T., W. Thompson (1965). “Low-frequency electromagnetic oscillations of the Earth–ionosphere cavity”. Rev. Geophys. 3 (2): 211. doi:10.1029/RG003i002p00211.
- ^ a b Nickolaenko A. P. and M. Hayakawa (2002). Resonances in the Earth–ionosphere cavity. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht-Boston-London.
- ^ Sentman, D.D., B. J. Fraser (1991). “Simultaneous observations of Schumann Resonances in California and Australia – Evidence for intensity modulation by the local height of the D region”. Journal of geophysical research 96 (9): 15973–15984. doi:10.1029/91JA01085.
- ^ Pechony, O., C. Price (2006). “Schumann Resonances: interpretation of local diurnal intensity modulations”. Radio Sci. 42 (2): RS2S05. doi:10.1029/2006RS003455.
- ^ Yang H., V. P. Pasko (2007). “Three-dimensional finite difference time domain modeling of the diurnal and seasonal variations in Schumann resonance parameters”. Radio Science 41: RS2S14. doi:10.1029/2005RS003402.
- ^ a b Boccippio, D. J., E. R. Williams, S. J. Heckman, W. A. Lyons, I. T. Baker, R. Boldi (1995). “Sprites, ELF transients, and positive ground strokes”. Science 269 (5227): 1088–1091. doi:10.1126/science.269.5227.1088. PMID 17755531.
- ^ Price, C., E. Greenberg, Y. Yair, G. Sátori, J. Bór, H. Fukunishi, M. Sato, P. Israelevich, M. Moalem, A. Devir, Z. Levin, J.H. Joseph, I. Mayo, B. Ziv, A. Sternlieb (2004). “Ground-based detection of TLE-producing intense lightning during the MEIDEX mission on board the Space Shuttle Columbia”. G.R.L. 31.
- ^ Hu, W., S. A. Cummer, W. A. Lyons, T. E. Nelson (2002). “Lightning charge moment changes for the initiation of sprites”. G.R.L. 29 (8): 1279. doi:10.1029/2001GL014593.
- ^ a b Williams, E.R. (1992). “The Schumann resonance: a global tropical thermometer”. Science 256 (5060): 1184–1186. doi:10.1126/science.256.5060.1184. PMID 17795213.
- ^ Williams, E.R. (1989). “The tripole structure of thunderstorms”. J. G. R. 94: 13151–13167. doi:10.1029/JD094iD11p13151.
- ^ Hansen, J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russel, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy, J., Lerner (1984). “Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms”. Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, J.,E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, eds.. AGU Geophys. Monograph 29: 130–163.
- ^ Rind, D. (1998). “Just add water vapor”. Science 28: 1152–1153. doi:10.1126/science.281.5380.1152.
- ^ Price, C. (2000). “Evidence for a link between global lightning activity and upper tropospheric water vapor”. Letters to Nature 406 (6793): 290–293. doi:10.1038/35018543. PMID 10917527.
- ^ a b c Ruf, C., N. O. Renno, J. F. Kok, E. Bandelier, M. J. Sander, S. Gross, L. Skjerve, and B. Cantor (2009). “Emission of Non-thermal Microwave Radiation by a Martian Dust Storm”. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36: L13202. doi:10.1029/2009GL038715.
- ^ Nickolaenko A. P., L. M. Rabinowicz (1982). “On the possibility of existence of global electromagnetic resonances on the planets of Solar system”. Space Res. 20: 82–89.
- ^ a b c Pechony, O., C. Price (2004). “Schumann resonance parameters calculated with a partially uniform knee model on Earth, Venus, Mars, and Titan”. Radio Sci. 39 (5): RS5007. doi:10.1029/2004RS003056.
- ^ Eden, H. F. and B. Vonnegut (1973). “Electrical breakdown caused by dust motion in low-pressure atmospheres: consideration for Mars”. Science 180 (4089): 962. doi:10.1126/science.180.4089.962. PMID 17735929.
- ^ Renno N. O., A. Wong, S. K. Atreya, I. de Pater, M. Roos-Serote (2003). “Electrical discharges and broadband radio emission by Martian dust devils and dust storms”. G. R. L. 30 (22): 2140. doi:10.1029/2003GL017879.
- ^ Sukhorukov A. I. (1991). “On the Schumann resonances on Mars”. Planet. Space Sci. 39 (12): 1673–1676. doi:10.1016/0032-0633(91)90028-9.
- ^ Molina-Cuberos G. J., J. A. Morente, B. P. Besser, J. Porti, H. Lichtenegger, K. Schwingenschuh, A. Salinas, J. Margineda (2006). “Schumann resonances as a tool to study the lower ionosphere of Mars”. Radio Science 41: RS1003. doi:10.1029/2004RS003187.
- ^ Lammer H., T. Tokano, G. Fischer, W. Stumptner, G. J. Molina-Cuberos, K. Schwingenschuh, H. O. Rucher (2001). “Lightning activity of Titan: can Cassiny/Huygens detect it?”. Planet. Space Sci. 49: 561–574. doi:10.1016/S0032-0633(00)00171-9.
- ^ Besser, B. P., K. Schwingenschuh, I. Jernej, H. U. Eichelberger, H. I. M. Lichtenegger, M. Fulchignoni, G. J. Molina-Cuberos, J. A. Morente, J. A. Porti, A. Salinas (2002). “Schumann resonances as indicators for lighting on Titan”. Proceedings of the Second European Workshop on Exo/Astrobiology, Graz, Australia, 16–19 September.
- ^ Morente J. A., Molina-Cuberos G. J., Porti J. A., K. Schwingenschuh, B. P. Besser (2003). “A study of the propagation of electromagnetic waves in Titan’s atmosphere with the TLM numerical method”. Icarus 162: 374–384. doi:10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00025-3.
- ^ Molina-Cuberos G. J., J. Porti, B. P. Besser, J. A. Morente, J. Margineda, H. I. M. Lichtenegger, A. Salinas, K. Schwingenschuh, H. U. Eichelberger (2004). “Shumann resonances and electromagnetic transparence in the atmosphere of Titan”. Advances in Space Research 33: 2309–2313. doi:10.1016/S0273-1177(03)00465-4.
- ^ Nickolaenko A. P., B. P. Besser, K. Schwingenschuh (2003). “Model computations of Schumann resonance on Titan”. Planet. Space Sci. 51 (13): 853–862. doi:10.1016/S0032-0633(03)00119-3.
- ^ Bar-Nun A. (1975). “Thunderstorms on Jupiter”. ICARUS 24: 86–94. doi:10.1016/0019-1035(75)90162-1.
- ^ Sentman D. D. (1990). “Electrical conductivity of Jupiter’s Shallow interior and the formation of a resonant planetary-ionosphere cavity”. ICARUS 88: 73–86. doi:10.1016/0019-1035(90)90177-B.
- ^ a b Irina Cosic (2006). “Human Electrophysiological Signal Responses to ELF Schumann Resonance and Artificial Electromagnetic Fields”. FME Transactions.. 34 (2): 93–103. http://www.mas.bg.ac.rs/istrazivanje/biblioteka/publikacije/Transactions_FME/Volume34/2/6%20Irena%20Cosic%2093-103.pdf.
- ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16275477
External articles and references
- General references
- Schumann resonance reference from University of Oulu
- Schumann Resonance Measurements as a Sensitive Diagnostic for Global Change (fixed)
- Magnetic activity and Schumann resonance
- Well illustrated study from the University of Iowa explaining the construction of a ULF receiver for studying Schumann resonances.