HESSDALEN 2001:
VLF Radio Report and
some further proposals for the next Missions


by Flavio Gori

gori@mail630.gsfc.nasa.gov

December, 2001

 

In this report, I'll give some basic information about the work done in the Hessdalen valley.
First of all I'll take this opportunity to recall what we were looking for from VLF research in the field.
The most important fact was to realize which kind of VLF electromagnetic natural noise situation should be to define as standard in order to understand if and when something may arise to influence in any way such local EM environment, in particular when
Hessdalen Phenomena lights appearing. This job was done using two VLF receiver: ELFO, with 2 square antennas, each arm 2 meters long, (1) and the portable WR3 with its 60 cm whip antenna. Moreover an Inspire VLF receiver (http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/inspire/) was set up in the Blue Box station, connected to a 50m dipole. Both WR3 than Inspire are broadband audio amplifiers, able to deal with about 12 kHz down to 300 Hz.

Ths first two nights, at Vista Point-Aspaskjolen (2), WR3 was used, since ELFO was not ready to work. In the first recording session we experienced a very particular "Whistler battle". Seldom was possible record so many Whistlers in just one night. This was probably due to the local very rainy night and, moreover, a similar weather condition was probably in the magnetic coniugate point in the southern emisphere. These two special conditions in the same time, and at these high latitude, created a lot of Whistlers and 2 Hop Whistlers (3).
The second night was a more usual one, since weather turned clear with small electrical activity in the atmosphere.
Both nights were free from Hessdalen lights, at least from our eyes, so was not permitted to understand if lights may create any connection in VLF.

In the further nights recording sessions, we used the ELFO system in order to collect VLF data, from the BlueBox, the metallic box where are sited radio and optical instruments. Antennas used were the two Square, able to cover toward 203° the first and 140° the second. During these sessions, most of them with Eng. Andrea Cremonini from CNR/IRA of Medicina Italy, two portable computers were used to store data digitally directly. These were a GEO PC Pentium 3/700 mHz (Andrea) using software Spectrogram (beyond ELFO software), while the other was an Apple Power Book 3400/180 mHz (myself) with SoundEdit software to create and analyze as a Spectrogram the audio file recorded. Since SoundEdit is not able to show Spectrogram in real time, when system is recording, sometime we have used MacTheScope software, able to create such a real time in Spectrogram mode (time vs. frequency) as well as Spectrum Analyser (frequency vs. amplitude).

During these ELFO recording sessions, a very high number of unknown digital manmade signals were recorded. Most of them have nothing to share with the ones recorded during EMBLA2000 Mission. Very unfortunately these ones hide frequency between 2.5 to 8 kHz most of the time and sometime even10 kHz. Therefore the very low amplitude emissions we were looking for, resulted almost invisible, if present.
Since ELFO has a filter to cut away all below 1 kHz, the frequencies range we can analyse in a good shape are between 1 and 2.5 kHz and, sometime 8 to 12 kHz. Lowest range appear to be the most interesting for our purpose.
Anyway we are analysing it at our best, in order to observe any clue might be correlated with Hessdalen Phenomena.

Sometime the very first impression about recording sessions was later changed and after many weeks spent analysing those files, I feel to say that we don't need to analyse in the closest detail about manmade or natural known emissions. That's just in order to monitor the natural standard white noise, that have to be seen as a carpet where something will walk on. This is the situation may arise in the Hessdalen valley in the VLF/ULF radio range.
We have to observe what is arriving to influence the very local EM environment, though it may be extremely faint and not so easy to be recognized. In my opinion these influences may be very important to understand H.P.

During our very useful Group Conversations at the School where we lived, Eng. Bjorne Gitle Hauge (4) told me about a Dr. Massimo Teodorani's interesting Hypothesis (5): lights, as self-contained energy balls, may exists also when not visible. They should turn visible when "something" happen. Many hypothesis we can add to understand what is the particular phenomena that "break" those balls, though at this time is not understood for sure, why that break is happening.

 

Hypotesis

I'd like put our attention, anyway, on that Teodorani's hypotesis:

 

self-contained energy balls, may be around us, though not visible (5)

 

This intriguing idea is walking with me since then. And that's the way I'm thinking.
If such a ball (or Self-Contained-Energy-Bag &endash; SCEB) is around me, is probably moving as does when it is visible, so its kind of movement is random. Its speed is random as its colours and altitude. But it is and, as happen when visible, may be more than one SCEB moving together as well each SCEB may be composed by more internal lights rolling together inside (5).
If it is and all conditions just said are real, we may consider that such a SCEB may influence the very local EM standard condition, though with very low intensity, even lower than when SCEB turn visible lights. It is important underline that the inside composition of the SCEB, beyond what appear to be the external light, is very important in order to detect them in VLF, or in any other range. Optical, infrared and physics research about it, will give us a decisive help. We like propose an example as follow:
we should think to a still sea-water surface (as the local EM field): when a fish will pass close to our position we can even not see the fish (the signal, in our example) but we will see the perturbation in the sea surface created by the fish passing. Just the way we are expecting to find out: SCEB are invisible for our eyes but their passage can create some perturbations in the local electromagnetic field that we are trying to detect.
If SCEB may be detected in VLF, we should observe, in the Spectrogram (time vs. frequency), unsharp emissions like Doppler (when SCEB approach or outbound the antenna site), Whirl (when the rotating SCEB, is in the very vicinity of antenna, sometime turning to appear as a), Ball, all noise-like; as if noise should get around in particular Spectrogram points, creating no sharp signals, due to the very low amplitude of those supposed and randomly travelling (though not randomly composed) SCEB. As if EM environment is tracking SCEB flight and its behavier, though such a SCEB are not creating a "real" VLF signal, just a perturbation in VLF EM field. We should observe SCEB intermodulate with standard natural noise condition in a way able to create very faint geometrical figures/perturbation earlier described.

If this hypotesis is right, we should observe the VLF EM situation all day long, no matter if lights are visible or not, in order to realize if such unsharp emissions are really in the spectrogram. If this hypothesis may turn correct, we have to observe a dramatic change in such EM condition when SCEB go to break themselves. Observing in the radio waves Spectrogram that sudden change will help us to go one more step ahead.
VLF situation may change in this way:
when SCEB going to break themselves, in the spectrogram may appear a blast-like signal, such as an EM bang all along the VLF frequency range. As soon as it happen we should observe everything back as just before. Something like a sismogram during a quake event. Being, at that point, an optical emission, its likely that such a bang may lay in the ULF field, as well as in the VLF range at least in very beginning. That's why we could set up a parallel UHF monitoring station as well as an infrared one, being a heat emission. Especially during the search for SCEB, it should be very important measure the infrared emissions in a coordinate session with VLF/ULF radio range.
In the VLF radio range, as an afterward, after such a blast-like emission, we should not observe any perturbation from that point on, being that SCEB opened, with no more energy inside to detect. In the same time we should still observe other SCEB moving around: are these SCEB influenced in any way by such a blast-like phenomena?

One more hypotesis arise, at this time: when lights turn off, disappearing optically, are they getting back in a way such as happen when SCEB? Can they be detected in VLF again?

To observe these unsharp emissions (but also the blast event), VLF Station have to be established as close to the phenomena as possible. Extremely performing antennas and software we'll need to carefully reproduce those probably very faint signs. In this way our knowledge might get a quantum leap.
Two dipole frames antenna, formed by 5 wires each I propose to be installed, at the site statistically more involved in the lights/SCEB appearance, at a distance of 1 meter each other, in order to be hit by the lights/SCEB to understand if such matter can create different situation when is hit or not, though at very close distance. Each dipole has to be connected to one instrument, so when lights/SCEB hit one, the others can tell us such amplitude/shape difference, able to inform us which kind of data are arising from them. Moreover if SCEB/lights will hit 1 more wire after 1 meter, we can realize if and how anything may has changed, in its energy, from the first hit to the second, as measured by our tools.
Also, a deep research have to be done in the software field. In our opinion, to realize if SCEB hypotesis is correct (or just to realize how lights are acting), we need a software filter able to understand background electro-magnetic noise and filter it from any other perturbation arising, even if much lower in amplitude, going below the noise threshold as deep as we can, in order to better understand what it is in the very low amplitude EM field. Other manmade emissions are not important at this point and we have to coordinate our work in the noise carpet ruffles direction. Moreover it will be extremely important to understand the correct time-window in our Spectrogram, in order to show the better way to evaluate those faint ruffles. In a too compact time window spectra, ruffles will remain compressed in all the other noise and emission, being invisible. On the other hand a too large time window, spectra will be enlarged too much ruffles, being again not visible, at first sight.

 

Analysis

Our time spent over spectograms for analysis purpose, lead us to find out the right time-window to show such a ruffles. We'll say again that such ruffles are extremely faint and we have to observe spectrogram very carefully to see those ones, at least with the instruments we are using at this moment.
We have enclosed some VLF Spectrogram recorded in the Hessdalen valley where we can actually observe perturbations in the VLF electromagnetic radio field. As you can realize we are facing with figures, such the ones we have just hypothesised. We hope you will look very carefully at these spectra in order to understand what we mean.

Watching and analysing those recorded files, we can see Doppler (fig.1) incoming (fig.2) as well as outcoming (fig.3). Sometime as a singular wave, other as a multiple events (fig.4) as if more than one (fig.5) SCEB may be travelling (fig.6) around (fig.7).

(fig.1)


(fig-2)


(fig.3)


(fig.4)


(fig.5)


(fig.6)


(fig.7)

 

Of course we are not in any position to affirm that these perturbations are from SCEB for sure, rather than some other origin, though it is an interesting starting point to realize that what we have believed as a theoretical possibility it was actually observed, right in all the conditions hypothesised.

More observations, more recording sessions have to be set up, in order to confirm or less my hypotesis that, anyway, may be an important EMBLA2001 result: in this way we have a real VLF (and lower) path to follow. After the needed time spent to analyze the incoming data, we could establish if this way is a selfsustained hypotesis or not. At that point we'll have real data to propose. Moreover this kind of VLF/ULF perturbations in the way we have proposed are, at the time we are writing and for what it at our knowledge, not before reported in the open literature.

SCEB (as not visible energy bags) may be, at this point, a not so unusual World Atmospheric Condition, not confined in the Hessdalen valley only. But in that place (maybe in some more sites) SCEB may get the particular environment that drive to break themselves. Such an environment may be formed by a mix of conditions able to broke SCEB: Space Particles, Atmospheric Particles, as Earth Geological Composition (in Hessdalen there are copper miners and water stream flowing in and out from the ground), beyond manmade activity in the area and its consequence in the ground and in the atmosphere. I mean not just the present manmade activity but also a past manmade activity may create condition for later SCEB break. But we have another item to look for: may exists a gravimetric anomaly able to contribute to break in some way the SCEB? Are any measurement done in the gravimetric field in the valley or in any other area in the world where similar phenomena appear? We should work this way, with data collected by satellite directly over the sites as well as from the ground moreover we should ask for data from the southern Atlantic area, a well known area affected by a strong and large gravimetric anomaly. Satellites could again supply important data. Also should be helpful have a way to talk with ships crews usually travelling along that area. They could give important informations.
In order to understand if different atmospheric condition can give different results about SCEB, we confirm that, as proposed in the School, should be extremely useful have one receiving VLF Station flying on a Balloon, working at about 400/500 meters high from the ground, able to collect VLF data over the ground station area, experiencing a different electron averaged content per meter/square, facing the ground Station. Probably we should set up at least 2 more portable stations to be established in the valley in the sites where, statistically, lights has been observed more often. I believe that one more portable VLF receiving Station should be established in another valley (not so far from Hessdalen, say 5km), in order to compare the two VLF conditions, in the same time. We should see about the same unsharp emissions, both in the Hessdalen station as well as in the other valley receiving station, though the supposed change in the spectrogram may be shown in the site where SCEB has been break down, where the standard noise condition has been changed, only. We should also reach an agreement to use satellite data, got directly over the Hessdalen Valley, again for comparing purpose. T.E.C. (Total Electron Content) data from G.P.S. satellites may supply useful data too. All these kind of data may be transmitted from the Valley through the Internet, in order to give to the Research Community involved important and real time data to analyse. This will lead a step ahead in all the Research Fields, giving us the possibility to grow in every field (optic, radio, infrared) at the same time, without the need to be there personally every day, but for instruments maintenance purpose as well as for scientifical update and local community contacts.

All said, what really arise from the Hessdalen valley is that our knowledge about our atmosphere and its connections with space particles and Earth it is not complete. When it will be, the Hessdalen phenomena may be understood or, if you prefer, the Hessdalen Phenomena may give important clues to understand the just said connections.

 

 

REFERENCE

1) A. Cremonini: Ricevitore VLF a correlazione per monitoraggio di fenomeni elettromagnetici in atmosfera Università degli Studi di Bologna, Anno Accademico 1999/2000; Tesi di Laurea in Ingegneria Elettronica
2) E. Strand: Project Hessdalen at
http://www.hessdalen.org
3) R. Helliwell: Whistlers and Related Phenomena, Stanford University Press 1965.
4) B.G. Hauge: Project EMBLA, Proceeding of the "International Conference on Engineering Education"; 6-10 August Oslo, Norway;
5) M. Teodorani; Erling Strand; Bjorn Gitle Hauge: The EMBLA 2001 Optical Mission;
http://www.itacomm.net/ph


Acknowledgements.

There are some people I would like thank, deeply. They are the persons who had the patience to listen to me and give me friendship, precious advises, technical assistance and even the financial possibility to be in the wonderful Hessdalen valley. Here are their names:

Massimo Teodorani for his help to let me be in the EMBLA project and his great scientifical assistance during the time I was in the Valley and during the data analysis;
Renzo Cabassi and ICPH/CIPH (Italian Commitee for Projetc Hessdalen or Comitato Italiano per il Progetto Hessdalen), for their assistance and financial support to let me be in Hessdalen;
Erling Strand, leader of Hessdalen Project, for all the informations he gave me during my days in the valley and during data analysis. Moreover he gave me the use of one car, as well as the place to live with my family in Hessdalen;
Andrea Cremonini, Bjorn Gitle Hauge, Simona Righini for their very important scientific conversations at the school and her help with sweet Marina;
Dennis Gallagher from NASA Marshall Space Flight Center for his scientific advises
William Taylor and William Pine from NASA-INSPIRE Project, Goddard Space Flight Center for their scientifical assistance during data analysis;
Luigi Ciraolo, Luciano Cianchi and Paolo Moretti, all from CNR-IROE-Firenze; as well as Cesare Tagliabue, I5TGC; for their scientific support before and after my Hessdalen time;
Peder Skogaas for his friendship and important help to coordinate our work with the inhabitants, an important item to be more developed in the future;
Stelio Montebugnoli and Jader Monar from CNR-IRA-Medicina, Bologna, for their scientifical assistance.
Jonathan Tisdall AFTENPOSTEN daily Journalist, for his help in find out news about the valley and Norway;
Caroline Korsvoll DAGLBLADET WEEKLY Journalist, for her fine article about our works in the valley;
Ellin Brattas with her husband Birger and Bjiorne Lillevold with his wife Hallfrid, Hessdalen valley residents, for giving us so many informations about lights in the valley and how inhabitants feel about, even in the previous times;

 All the norwegian people greeting us during our time in the valley.

 

-----------------------------------------------------
© Copyright (2001-2002) Flavio Gori e LoScrittoio.it - Edizioni in Rete
© Copyright (2001-2002) Comitato Italiano per il Progetto Hessdalen

Quale espressione dell'attività intellettuale dell'autore, questo materiale è protetto dalle leggi internazionali sul diritto d'autore. Tutti i diritti riservati. Nessuna riproduzione, copia o trasmissione di questo materiale può essere eseguita senza il permesso scritto dell'autore. Nessun paragrafo e nessuna tabella di questo articolo possono essere riprodtti, copiati o trasmessi, se non con il permesso scritto dell'autore. Chiunque utilizzi in qualsiasi modo non autorizzato questo materiale è perseguibile a norma delle vigenti leggi penali e civili.