John Michael Williams wrote:
>> "Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote in message news:<3E3B4D52.B92D7268 at datafilter.com>...
> > >
> > > You brought up the Fourier analysis, not I. I am saying it is
> > > irrelevant, because 0-crossings
> > > can not be represented by frequency components.
> > You still either just don't get it or intentionally don't want to. Do you
> > know what a Fourier series, real-valued, in time domain is?
>> Yes. What you are missing, is that I can tell you don't, or
> you would never have suggested it to analyze 0-crossings.
You don't give up, do you? You should have stopped way back, before
*You* brought up the "0-crossing" from your take on Justesen, and then
insisted on dumping it into frequency space. You then argued that it
didn't make sense. Well, it didn't.
Fourier series, real-valued, time domain.
> > > Foil has almost no mass per unit area; thus, it can
> > > be vibrated by momentum of the microwave photons. The
> > > head is too massive to respond AT ALL (measurably)
> > > because of this effect. Vibrating foil then vibrates the
> > > air, like a fly's wings, and can be heard.
> > The momentum of the microwave photons... that's a new one and a
> > calculation I'd like to see.
>> Then read the paper! You are just arguing over stuff you don't
> understand, because of a few words in a second-hand report
> by Justensen which never was published except as a rumor.
Exactly which paper it that? I've apparently read a bit more than
you and I don't even pretend that I'm going to revolutionize the theory of
microwave hearing. I don't doubt there is some tiny momentum effect.
You'll calculate that, maybe correctly, see that it is tiny, and conclude
that it is too small to hear. Meanwhile, you have ignored the thermal
effects of pulsed microwaves on crumpled foil, no less. Anyone with a
> > Sharp also did experiments with
> > something like a jar of water held up to the head (I don't have
> > the article with me right now).
>> That was Foster and Finch (1974). They did nothing with a head
> (except their own). They confirmed an acoustic wave. But they
> did not correctly calculate whether it could
> be heard, because apparently they were not
> aware of the existing data on human hearing.
No, it was Sharp. I read the paper.
> > The thermoelastic effect is a real
> > one. Head size predictions of Lin's model even held across different
> > species of animals, if I recall. (I think that was mentioned in the
> > 1982 survey article referenced below.)
>> Yes, it is physically real. But it is inadequate to explain
> microwave hearing. One has to factor in the sensitivity of the
> auditory system; they didn't. They used a microphone as a substitute.
Well at least you'll recognize that it is physically real. I expect
that you are the one mistaken about the sensitivity of the auditory
system and/or the actual magnitude of the effect (whether by bone
conduction or whatever). I have an open mind on the issue,
but you clearly are working from a political agenda.
> > > The thermoacoustic theory of microwave hearing depends
> > > of heating of the head, thermal expansion, and thus sound waves.
> > > It doesn't work out, if you figure the expansion coefficients
> > > and the postulated temperature rise.
> > Your statements don't mean anything at this point. You're trying
> > to disprove (by handwaving) an established effect -- one with both theory
> > and research behind it. Check out the following survey article, please:
> > C.K. Chou, A.W. Guy and R. Galambos, Auditory perception of
> > radio-frequency electromagnetic fields, J. Acoustic Soc. America 71
> > (1982) 1321-1334.
> > There's Guy again, from 1982 this time.
>> Yes, I know that paper well: They discuss microwave
> hearing, NOT voice. They all had abandoned voice
> communication by the middle 1970's. Where did
> they claim voice communication?
They discuss microwave hearing and the *thermoacoustic model*
explaining it. Cat heads respond to different frequencies
than human ones. Isn't that interesting? It is predicted by
> I again point out that this is 2003, not 1973! You have
> dug up a lot of old stuff about voice communication
> which was abandoned long ago by ALL concerned, whether
> arguing by a "thermoacoustic" effect or not.
I notice you have not provided a reference from 2003. And which of
Maxwell's laws, and what factors of head shape have changed since
the 70s? Aside from deteriorating math skills?
> > You sure are arrogant. From what I've seen you can't back it up, either.
> > I'll take Lin any day over your tripe. You should hope the reviewers of
> > your paper aren't especially familiar with the field.
>> If Lin can't solve Maxwell's equations correctly,
> you shouldn't cite his work depending on it.
You are asserting an error in his calculations? Based on what? Some
assumption of yours that they can't be right? How about his basic
head model and theoretical framework? Have you found where the error
occurs in his calculation? Has a corrected model been published?
Or just more handwaving?
> He also calculates stuff with the speed of sound in the human
> head equal to that of water (~1500 m/s). Bekesy actually measured
> it at under 600 m/s. So much for Lin's calculations.
Would that be a parameter in his model? I'm sure there are improvements
that could be made to his model. But you want to toss the baby with the
bathwater, replace it with handwaving, and disparage Lin as wall. Again,
where are the errors in Lin's calculation? Which parameters need to be adjusted
to better reflect reality? Then turn the crank and see what comes out.
But you just want to do "science" by cheap oratory.
> > > > > > Dr. Robert O. Becker, twice nominated for the Noble prize for
> > > > > > his health work in bio-electromagnetism,
>> Dr. Georg Bekesy, who actually received the Nobel prize, has published
> data making the idea of THERMOacoustic microwave hearing
> untenable. It doesn't stand up to quantification. You are citing the
> work of a would-be winner over that of a real winner.
You little political weasel. It is your interpretation that is doubtful.
You've already plainly misinterpreted the Guy et al. paper for us, ignoring
the effects of different modulation techniques, for example.
> was more explicit in
> > > > > > his concern over illicit government activity. He wrote of
> > > > > > "obvious application in covert operations designed to drive a
> > > > > > target crazy with "voices." What is frightening is that words,
>> But, by 1975, it had been shown that voices could not be
> transmitted by microwave. Anything else was speculation.
> By 1980, voices had been completely abandoned.
First of all, "voices" are only one application of the microwave hearing
effect. So one wouldn't necessarily expect to find them discussed in a
basic scientific paper. Secondly, radiofrequency weapons, if they didn't
entirely go black, at least went a lot darker in the 80s.
> > > No. According to Justesen, Sharp and Grove did not publish
> > > their results. It is an unpublished, personal communication.
> > > Possibly, they were not able to reproduce their 9-word result,
> > > and so they did not publish it. This would be the honest thing
> > > to do. This again casts doubt on the
> > > conclusion that voice communication would be possible.
> > Wonder why they didn't publish that result? They published enough
> > related info for it to be clear, and Justesen described their experiments.
> > Others like Lin and Becker also reported it.
>> Nevertheless, all we have is a rumor of 9 words.
>> I assume they
> didn't publish it because they got all
> excited over what they thought was voice communication,
> tried to actually communicate language, and failed. So, being
> honest, they realized a mistake and held off publication.
>> Unfortunately, Justesen picked up the rumor before it
> was found wrong. This explains the whole mess.
Is it story time now? You don't tell a very convincing one.
> I definitely think telegraphy would be possible. But not voices.
> > [Recall the Soviets microwaving the US Embassy in Moscow for years,
> > while the CIA observed and didn't tell the employees? That all came
> > to a head in the mid-70s.]
>> Why should I recall that?
The fact that you don't know, or claim not to, is telling.
> You presented a rumor, relayed by Justesen, from Guy, that he could
> distinguish 9 words of speech. Later abandoned if not retracted
> (there may be a published retraction somewhere, I don't know). If you know
> of any others, you haven't yet presented them. I agree that someone
> willing to admit a mistake might be trusted to be
> a "leader", but I'm using my head and not following anyone without
> solid proof. 9 words just doesn't cut it. But, you have
> a right to your own standards of evidence . . ..
It is all perfectly testable, even today. (AND JUSTESEN CREDITS SHARP AND
GROVE. For the fourth time.) Are you calling for some open
research to clear up the question of high-fidelity microwave voice
> > You have repeatedly misunderstood even the simple explanations (with Fourier
> > series) that I've given.
>> Well, that you TRIED to give---but got totally fouled
> up. Better to try and fail, then not to try at all.
I'll leave that for the readers with half a brain to decide.
> > You deny the existence of the *established*
> > thermoelastic effect. And you assert, with no backing data, your own personal
> > "cochlea theory."
> > I think that is pretty clear. If I didn't have some morbid enjoyment of this
> > exercise it would be a waste of my time.
>> You should read von Bekesy, then. He used to bring
> human heads home from work. I hate to play cat with you, but
> I can't resist.
Playing copycat now, I see.
Mind Control: TT&P ==> http://www.datafilter.com/mc
Home page: http://www.datafilter.com/alb