John Michael Williams wrote:
>> "Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote in message news:<3E347731.67AA88B8 at datafilter.com>...
> > John Michael Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > "Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote in message news:<3E32FBBA.1077BD at datafilter.com>...
> > > >
> > > > According to Justensen, "The electrical sine-wave analogs of each word
> > > > were then processed so that each time a sine wave crossed zero reference
> > > > in the negative direction, a brief pulse of microwave energy was triggered."
> > > > Sounds like a Fourier representation, but it is not entirely clear.
> > >
> > > It's not related directly to any Fourier operation. It is just
> > > frequency modulation: The frequency of the pulses depends on the
> > > frequency of 0-crossings, which is just twice the frequency of
> > > the input wave. One might see it as a sort of rectification.
> >
> > How do you suddenly "know" this, when before you just had some ideas
> > about how you *thought* they were doing it? Why mention sine waves at
> > all, if it is just frequency modulation?
>> I didn't know it: You were kind enough to give enough of a technical
> reference to make the electronics clear: "0-crossing" is a meaningful
> technical term. A pulse at every 0-crossing IS a
> frequency modulation. Because the pulses are unidirectional, whether
> positive or not, it is electrically a rectification. The higher the
> frequency, the more frequent the 0-crossings; therefore, the pulses
> come out frequency modulated. It's just common sense.
>> Rectification is a nonlinear operation; Fourier manipulations
> are linear; so, creating pulses from 0-crossings is independent
> of any Fourier (or other linear) transform.
Zero crossing is definitely nonlinear. So a zero crossings on the
components of a Fourier series is *not* the same as a zero crossing
operation on the original signal. Consider a simple counterexample,
the sum of a wave and another wave at twice the wavelength (octave).
What happened to the zero points of the second wave after the
summation?
See the later xylophone comment for more discussion.
> > I never described any Guy
> > experiment; Justesen credits Sharp and Grove. Perhaps the Soviets in Moscow
> > should get the real credit, who knows.
>> I think you quoted Guy's 1971 study of "9 different words". In 1975, Guy
> and others (in the Discussion section of the NYAS paper) denied any
> success in voice transmission. Frey at that time said he thought it
> might be possible (but not because he had tried).
Again, I never described any Guy experiment; Justesen credits Sharp and
Grove.
> The quality of voice by direct microwave transmission is so pitifully
> low, noone seriously would consider it. Not to mention the
> likelihood of development of cataracts or other disability because of
> long-term microwave irradiation. Even in 1970, one would simply
> carry a tiny electronic receiver, maybe located in the ear.
You are stating this, as far as you have substantiated, based only
on your speculations. See the below xylophone comments.
> > In this very recent news article, Frey even speculates on sending voices
> > by millimeter waves:
> >
> > http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/e20010327questions.htm>> You misread it. Microwave hearing, according to a review in 2000
> by Foster, can occur only up to about 10 GHz, which means a
> wavelength in air of maybe a few cm.
Which part of this did I *possibly* misread:
In fact, Frey and Hackett said the microwave hearing effect does
not occur with millimeter waves (which range from 3 to 300 GHz).
"On the other hand, if your millimeter waves have enough energy
density, are powerful enough, there are other phenomena where you
could cause sort of a concussion kind of effect which could
conceivably be heard by bone conduction. It would transfer through
skin to bone and bone into the inner ear," Frey said. He said it
might be possible to modulate such energy to create the perception
of some intelligible sounds. "But off hand, I can't tell you what
kind of power levels you might need to do that," he said. Hackett
dismissed the idea of transmitting intelligible sounds to the head
with MMWs as pure speculation.
> To see how to get this, c = L*f, where c, the speed
> of light, is 3*10^8 m/s, L is wavelength in m, and f is fequency
> in Hz.
>> So, 10 GHz => f = 10^10 Hz. L = c/f; so, L = about 3 cm. 30 mm.
A useless calculation, without sufficient explanation even if it did
address the point -- which was based on the plain English of the
article.
> I quote from the above link:
>> "Hackett [mm wave weapon proponent] said the non-lethal
> MMW ray project is not seeking to create that kind of
> talking effect in people's heads.
>> "In fact, Frey and Hackett said the microwave hearing effect
> does not occur with millimeter waves (which range from 3
> to 300 GHz)."
If only you had read *one* paragraph more!
> I can't emphasize enough that military organizations are good
> at ADAPTING valid research, but generally they are incompetent
> at doing it. It isn't in their area of expertise. You want
> military personnel to guard a perimeter or shoot rockets at
> someone; you don't want them developing new drugs or microwave
> devices. Or passing judgement on scientific papers.
The NSA employs more mathematicians than any other organization.
Secret labs like Lawrence Livermore employ some highly talented
people. Even those NASA guys managed to get a Saturn V to the
moon. Never mind Groom Lake, etc. Do those count as military?
Is that really a useful distinction?
Not that any of them have any business suppressing open scientific
research in a free society, and *certainly* not in violating the human
rights of researchers. Repressive governments tend to target writers
and intellectuals, for obvious reasons. A larger problem in the US
is completely *naive* "intellectuals" who have only a terribly narrow
expertise and cannot -- or purposely do not -- see beyond it.
When does "just following orders" cease to be an excuse for
complicity in human rights abuses? When does ignorance of the
law (and the obvious applications and intentions of the technology)
*become* an excuse?
> > > The sound would resemble that of a playing-card in
> > > bicycle spokes: You know that children will try to make a
> > > bicycle sound like a motorcycle by mounting a card on the fork,
> > > so it rubs against the spokes. So it produces a "BRRRPT" sound,
> > > a little like a small engine. That's what the microwave "voice"
> > > would sound like. Now, I agree that one could modulate the
> > > pulses and make out words (especially if preselected from
> > > a population of a few), but I wouldn't call it voice.
> >
> > Here you are speculating. Presumably based on that theory of yours that
> > you were mentioning earlier. And contrary to what experts in the field
> > have been quoted as saying.
>> If you would read the 1975 NYAS paper I cited in a
> previous posting, you would see that what I am saying
> is just based on it and papers cited in it.
>> Use common sense: If you can hear a pulse as a "click" or a "pop",
> then what would 100 or 1000 clicks per second sound like?
The bicycle spoke analogy was not a bad one, but did not address the
actual frequency of the "square wave" signal. A square wave at an
extremely *low* frequency sounds like a succession of bursts. At higher
frequencies it blurs into a *tone*. It is like the audio equivalent of
two-flash fusion experiments. Assume a bicycle wheel with a diameter of 2/3m,
and 100 spokes. Then the circumference is ~3*2/3m = 2m. So at 1000
hz pulse rate the wheel would be turning at 10rev/sec. That is 20m/sec.
At 3600sec/1hour and 1km/1000m (last I checked) that gives 72kph. Which
is just a little beyond the ordinary experience of cards in spokes. But
the example is good in that people can imagine such a wheel speeding up
and the sound blurring into a frequency/pitch tone.
I have a digital delay pedal in my guitar rig. That pedal only goes down
to ~10ms delay, which would correspond to ~100hz audio signal. At that
level -- and really even a bit above -- the pulses blur together to give the
sound more of a tone than a series of echoes.
> I agree that for purposes of harassment, microwave hearing would be
> more effective than a tiny receiver. But the hope in the 1970's
> was not for harassment, but for communication. Microwave hearing
> has been shown ineffective for communication, and it may be
> dangerous to the person hearing it. Frey and many others have
> reported headaches from microwave irradiation in the range
> (about 200 MHz to 10 GHz) in which microwave hearing can be
> demonstrated.
"Has been shown ineffective" is a strong statement, and completely
unbacked by research. Proving a negative, even. Ineffective with what
modulation method, and in what context, and for what purpose? Health
concerns are certainly an issue for people aiming at consensual, ethical
applications. But there is a real subset of out people there who do not
fit that profile.
> > > > Here's a quote from a short article by Lin (presumably relating to
> > > > pitch):
> > > >
> > > > http://www.datafilter.com/mc/c_linAcm99.htm> > > >
> > > > "A train of RF pulses could be perceived as a tune corresponding to
> > > > the pulse repetition rate"
> > >
> > > One might call a drum beat or xylophone "music". But not "voice."
> >
> > You surely are not a musician if you do not know the difference between
> > a xylophone and a drum beat. A xylophone has *pitch*. If you have pitch
> > you can surely send voice.
>> OK, let's see you play a xylophone and create words with it!
You are generous. I do get to choose the frequencies of the xylophone "bars,"
and the amplitude of the signals by how hard they are struck. In that case,
I'll first do a Fourier decomposition of the soundform containing the words.
Next, I'll choose the "bars" according to the necessary frequencies. Then,
I'll simply have the xylophonist play according to that "score." Voila!
Essentially perfect reproduction of the original sound.
Now, back to the Justesen description of the Sharp and Grove experiment.
Suppose you have a Fourier decomposition of the original signal. A pulse
on each zero crossing of each sine wave component could be seen as an
approximation of a sine wave at that frequency. Doing this all at once,
for each sine wave, could be seen as a rough summation of all the individual
sine waves. See what I'm getting at?
Now, if the scientist has shown this principle, what happens when it gets
passed along to engineering? First, they do research to find the the
psychophysical vs. physical curve -- as per the article that started this thread.
If you can get the psychophysical sine waves perfect (including their additive
properties) then you can stop there. Otherwise, you might look for other ways
to approximate a sine wave using the parameters of the physical wave: amplitude,
pulse rate, pulse width.
Even if you cannot truly approximate a sine wave (which you probably can)
you have characterized the sorts of psychophysical waveforms that
you *can* create -- as well as things like their "addition" properties
in the psychophysical realm. You then look for good approximate signal
decomposition methods that most efficiently convert the original signal
into something you can microwave modulate.
Wavelet decompositions are a recent fad, and may even be applicable here.
> Highly unlikely. Totalitarians are retardants, not
> catalysts, of knowledge. The poor, dumb physicists who
> knuckled under and stayed in Germany during Hitler's rule
> essentially were smothered and discovered little new.
> Heisenberg, probably the greatest living physicist at the time
> after Einstein, couldn't even understand fission after ten
> or twenty years of Naziism. But von Braun, who could apply
> existing technology quite well, didn't suffer.
That is surely true for the lowest-level scum totalitarians. I wish it
were true in general, but it tends not to be. The higher-level fascists
tend to throw morality and human rights overboard. But they are still
running on a sort of mob-baboon psychology, with its own primate "logic."
The Heisenberg thing has whole books written about it. The saying about
when good people do nothing includes scientists who bury their heads in the
sand, ostrich-like, oblivious to the applications to which their research is
being put. Hey, they are "good" Americans with mortgages. And every ostrich
knows the US empire does not torture its own people or act as the primary
impediment to *real* human rights in the world.
--
Mind Control: TT&P ==> http://www.datafilter.com/mc
Home page: http://www.datafilter.com/alb
Allen Barker
