Talk:Schumann resonances

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Schumann resonances was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 31, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid importance within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

A large portion of this article appears to have been copied from thought experiments lain, which was last updated March 4, 2004 as of this writing. The added material (now removed) was added on May 5, 2004 by Fratley. --Eequor 22:34, 29 May 2004 (UTC)


Hey, what a coincidence, I left the article alone for two years and now it is made up almost entirely of things other people plagiarized from other websites. Welcome to Wikipedia.

Anyway, I just removed three paragraphs taken word for word from a conspiracy website, of all things. You can find it at http://2012.com.au/SchumannResonance.html. If anyone has the patience to verify the contents and write something new about it, go ahead. --Fratley 14 July 2006


Contents

[edit] Tesla

I removed the half-sentence: but it was first observed by Nikola Tesla and formed the basis for his scheme for broadcast power and wireless communications.

As Tesla died 1943, it doesn't make much sense to me. If the resonance was observed by Tesla before 1943, how would it be possible for Schumann to first publish about it 1952 and event get it named after himself?

Pjacobi 19:24, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

I don't know, but we've got a source. Perhaps he didn't realize the physical cause or perhaps his PR just wasn't good enough. Remember that the USA is not called the United States of Vinland. Shinobu 02:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Nikola Tesla's 1899 discovery of VLF Earth-resonance was not accepted by the physics community of the time. Researchers believed that radio waves could not follow the curve of the Earth, therefore Tesla's results must be due to incompetence. As far as anyone knows, none of those physicists tested Tesla's claims (or had access to high-power VLF equipment which could replicate Tesla's experiments.) The scientific community also disbelieved Tesla's main goal of the time: to harness the VLF Earth-resonance effect and use it to transmit worldwide electrical power. As Tesla was outside of academia, and did not publish works in physics journals, and had recently claimed to have received intelligent broadcasts from outer space, this made the problem of disbelief far worse.--Wjbeaty 04:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that will be the cause. I've seen this confirmed before, so maybe I should add it to the article. Shinobu 10:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


--Catblack 12:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Hey, I don't see anything backing up this statement:

Since the seventh overtone lies at approximately 60Hz, the cavity is also driven by the North American power grid.

Googling didn't help, and I think this statement is erroneous, as the 7th overtone is at 45 Hertz, not 60Mz. Anyone care to comment?

I once saw a paper on exactly this topic in a conference proceedings. If the 59Hz Schumann resonance (9th overtone) was being driven by the power grid, then there would be strong 60Hz fields in regions far from any power lines. And unlike a noise-driven resonance, phase of the 60Hz fields would be constant. The authors performed measurements in wilderness about 50 miles from power lines and found a strong constant-phase magnetic component at 60Hz. --Wjbeaty 18:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
In fact there seems to be a lot of claims and numbers thrown around in this article. Such as: "The resistance of the atmosphere is 200 ohms." I assume this is the resistance of the ionosphere, otherwise I'm never going near a power outlet again. Any references (besides Tesla) to back up? --Jquarry 01:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
otherwise I'm never going near a power outlet again. :-) Shinobu 16:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I ALWASY THOUGTH THAT THIS WAS JUST AN INVENTION FROM LAIN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.52.200.19 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] north american power grid contributing to resonance

So I removed the sentence about a correspondence between the frequency of North American electricity - 60 Hz - contributing to Schumann Resonance because I looked around on the web and found nothing to back it up and it seemed false from the get go.

I added the frequencies of additional Schumann resonant peaks, as widely cited in academic papers online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7thharmonic (talk • contribs) 7thharmonic 09:16, October 9, 2006 (UTC)

"Looked around on the web?" seemed false? Intuition and googling is nothing like reading up on a subject or talking to relevant researchers. Journal articles don't appear on the www. If you think that certain information is "bad," you need to say why in detail, otherwise it's a claim based on personal opinion. However, the 1980s-era paper I saw about 60Hz pumping of 9th Shumann overtone isn't in the Colorado Springs symposia proceedings as I recalled. I've restored the comment about 9th-harmonic, and I'm looking for the original reference. Also, it's well known in the VLF community that Schumann resonances drop off above 10KHz but are significant up to that range. The worldwide lightning-strike triangulation project based here at the U. of Washington must use much higher frequencies in order to avoid lightning-strike signals which have passed around the earth more than once. --Wjbeaty 23:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] incorrect statement about the relation between 60hz north America power and Schumann cavity

The eighth overtone lies at approximately 59.9 Hz and thus the cavity is also driven by the North American power grid which alternates at 60 Hz.

this statement is incorrect

The synchronization between 60hz and 59.9hz is .1hz this means that at a cycle of .1hz the power lines will go in to phase and out of phase in a cycle of hurt and help.

Also due to the usage of 3phase power any help 1 phase will do will be striped right off by the other 2 phases. This cycle happens at about .3hz.Eadthem (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

i just noticed someone else caught this i'm re removing the sentence referring to this Eadthem (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If the resonance phenomenon is linear, then a cavity tuned on 59.9 Hz can enchance propagation of existing 60 Hz signals, provided its bandwith is more than 0.2 Hz. The cavity is not excited to produce new EM fields on its own resonant frequency. Sv1xv (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

While the article contains a lot of useful, and well-referenced information, I can't say that the article meets the Good Article criteria at this time. I find several significant issues.

First, the lead section is too short. Per WP:LEAD, this section should adequately summarize the article. At present, this lead doesn't even come close to that. The first thing I would recommend is to remove the 'description' section header and move its contents into the lead.

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the 'measurements' section. This section starts out by saying that Schumann resonances are recorded in many stations around the world, but then the next part of it talks about how the antennae to pick these up are "hundreds of kilometers long"? And it says that "special antennaes and receivers are needed to measure Schumann resonances". So in one breath it's saying that the measurements are done pretty commonly and frequently, and in another it's saying that the measurements require very "special" instruments. Furthermore, if an instrument was very common as well as hundreds of kilometers long, I probably would've noticed seeing one somewhere by now,...

Overall, the prose is fairly choppy throughout the article, and could use some serious polishing up. It also overall reads a bit too technical, and could be brought down to laymen's terms a bit better. The 'applications' section also needs work; it seems very long, and the multiple sub-section headers of varying lengths (using 2nd level, 3rd level, 5th level, then jumping back to 3rd level, and so forth) is very confusing. If possible, try to eliminate the use of anything beyond the 3rd level subsection headers.

Eliminate the unreferenced and very short 'popular culture' section.

There's also several manual of style issues with the article. First, the "Basic Theory" section header should be "Basic theory" (or probably just shorten it to 'Theory', IMHO). Second, the inline citations are done incorrectly. When using inline citations, the citation should be placed immediately following the punctuation mark in the sentence, not before it, and not after it with a space between. As an example, the citations should look like this: some text.[1] The exact reference formatting goes a bit beyond Good Article status, so this is less important, but I thought I'd mention it nonetheless.

Hope this helps improve the article. Cheers! Dr. Cash 01:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)