Hello Gamma,
You wrote, "
... Earth's field NMR of the materials quoted by Georesonance are in the same range as ELF (extremely low) signals chosen for submarine communication, precisely because such low frequencies CAN penetrate deep seawater. There are concerns based on signal-to-noise considerations, but given that the method is claimed to have a military pedigree, technical sophisitication and ingenuity is likely to be quite high."
It won't save them. Trust me.
The strength of the geomagnetic field in the Bay of Bengal is around 44 uT. At this field strength the Larmor frequency is on the order of 2 kHz and so, yes, the frequency of an EFNMR signal at that location falls within the ELF band. And yes, the ELF band is used for (one-way) submarine communication because of its ability to penetrate seawater somewhat, the useful depth depending on the particular frequency used.
The ELF frequencies used by the U.S. and Russia are both under 100 Hz. The U.S. used a frequency of 76 Hz and Russia, 82 Hz. Yet even at these extremely low frequencies the useful depth in seawater is limited to around 200 metres or so. According to Google Earth, the depth at the 'wreckage site' claimed by GeoResonance is around 660 metres, roughly three times deeper than the depth at which a much-lower frequency (by two orders of magnitude) is detectable by the latest state-of-the-art military receivers. Moreover, 660 metres for the depth at the wreckage site is conservative given that some sources are quoting up to 1100 metres' depth at that location.
Because of its high conductivity seawater strongly attenuates EM radiation. The higher the frequency, the more pronounced the attenuation. How much? Let's look at the numbers:
For a 2 kHz signal the attenuation is around 4.9 dB/meter. Multiplying that by the depth gives us a net attenuation of
3226 dB! So what does this mean?
What it means is that for every 3 dB of attenuation the signal strength decreases by half. Another 3 dB attenuation, half again, and so on until we've halved the original signal 3226/3 ~ 1075 times. In other words, by the time that signal has traveled through 660 metres of seawater its strength is, for all practical purposes,
zero.
No amount of ingenuity now or in the forseeable future will be able to detect such a signal. Nor is this their only problem. It gets worse.
GR claims to have identified the composition of various materials at the 'wreckage site,' some materials
inside what they're guessing is an aluminium fuselage and wings. Copper, for instance, suggesting copper wire. Now, even
if they were using EFNMR and even
if they were sitting on the very fuselage itself, they would not detect anything inside. Not using EFNMR they wouldn't. Why not? Basic physics: what is an aluminium fuselage to a radio wave originating inside? A
Faraday cage?
Most of us have a Faraday cage sitting on our kitchen counters: a microwave oven. The one in my kitchen is an 1100-watt unit. It is so effective as a Faraday cage that, in spite of the power levels inside, scarcely enough leaks out to pose a hazard. The same principles apply to a 2 kHz EFNMR signal - a very weak signal to begin with, even under ideal circumstances - originating inside a metallic aircraft fuselage. You'll never see it, even if you were there at the wreckage site directly. One might object, "But what of the windows? Won't it leak it out those?" No, and for the same reason it does not leak out the little holes in the window of a microwave oven: the holes are too small for the wavelengths in question.
These same problems apply to detecting hydrocarbons indicative of jet fuel, jet fuel presumably still in the tanks? If those tanks contain jet fuel, then they're not leaking, and if they're not leaking, then they must be intact, yes? And assuming they are intact, those tanks are also Faraday cages,
very good ones in fact. Nor are these their only problems. It gets worse.
That EFNMR instrument must actually
be there, on site to ping the sample with an EM pulse in order to get that telltale 2 kHz signal. In the case of GR's claims of having detected copper and jet fuel, that pinger has to be
inside the fuselage and
inside the fuel tanks where the signal is. As far as I know GR hasn't so much as dipped their toes in the water, much less sent hardware to the bottom to collect their data (and if so, where are the photos?). Those materials are not going to radiate 2 kHz signals
all by themselves, and pinging them from the surface will have the same problems with attenuation as we discussed earlier, even if it were practical.
Given these obstacles, GR could not have used
any form of NMR to identify the composition of that wreckage through 660 metres of seawater. They would have to be magicians, magicians able to bend the laws of Physics and, if they are magicians, then this raises other questions as well. For instance:
If GR can remotely detect aircraft wreckage at the bottom of the sea with such clarity and to such an extent as to actually identify the composition of materials in that wreckage,
then why aren't the world's militaries clamoring for their technology to detect and ID submerged submarines - most which operate at much shallower depths than that at which this presumed wreckage lies? Governments have spent hundreds of billions on ways to locate The Other Sides's subs and would they pass up the chance to acquire such a marvelous technology as GR claims they possess? Hopefully before the Other Guys do?
Why aren't GR using their technology to locate valuable mineral and hydrocarbon deposits and
securing these tenements for their own gain? Oil? Diamonds? Gold? Platinum? Uranium? According to their website they've found them all. Are GR in business for purely altruistic reasons?
"
Here, Chevron, for a small fee how's about we find you a billion-dollar patch of oil somewhere so that you can get rich off our efforts? Waddayasay? (oh, by the way, we're not in it for the money)."
So many things about GR's claims make no sense. It all smells so fishy that even my cats are interested!
Best,
Tex
—
"I was going to change my shirt, but I changed my mind instead" -- Winnie the Pooh
Tex Pepper | 05/15/14 | 03:50 AM