John Michael Williams wrote:
>> "Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote in message news:<3E3624CE.DCE22F72 at datafilter.com>...
> > 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.
> ?? How does this have anything to do with 0-crossings?
> They still occur, regardless of the wavelength, and
> creating a spike at
> each one still would be nonlinear. It has to
> do with the spike, not with the behavior of the wave.
"Each time a sine wave crossed zero reference in the negative direction."
I don't know what fancy definition of zero crossing you are trying to use, but
that is pretty clear. Each sine wave produces a train of evenly-spaced pulses...
> You reply below with a SPECULATION that voice MIGHT be conveyed.
I replied below with a reasonable interpretation of the experiment that
Justesen described.
> Fact says it doesn't work; speculation says it does. Therefore,
> it doesn't work. Is your idea of "general acceptance", "Generally
> speculative and contrary both to fact and common sense"?
Justesen reports that Sharp and Grove made it work. We're just
discussing signal quality and the exact modulation methods. And
engineering improvements that would be applied in any attempt to get
to a real application.
> Frey discovered microwave hearing, but he has never been able
> to provide anything but speculation about developing it into
> voice transmission. He in fact warns that prolonged exposure
> to microwaves causing the hearing effect caused him headaches
> (Frey, 1998, Environmental Health Perspectives). So, even if
> it did work, it would be harmful to use.
Frey apparently does not share your "certainty" that the effect is
unworkable for sending voice. Nor do other leading researchers in
the field. Justesen apparently read the Guy paper you keep mentioning
and still described the Sharp and Grove experiment. The safety of
devices based on the effect is a different matter.
I don't have Lin's 1978 book _Microwave Auditory Effects and
Applications_, but he and Becker are quoted in the following:
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/mindnet/mn123a.htm
Dr. James Lin of Wayne State University has written a book
entitled "Microwave Auditory Effects and Applications." It
explores the possible mechanisms for the phenomenon, and
discusses possibilities for the deaf, as persons with certain
types of hearing loss can still hear pulsed microwaves (as tones
or clicks and buzzes, if words aren't modulated on). Lin mentions
the Sharp experiment and comments, "The capability of
communicating directly with humans by pulsed microwaves is
obviously not limited to the field of therapeutic medicine."
Dr. Robert O. Becker, twice nominated for the Noble prize for
his health work in bio-electromagnetism, 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,
transmitted via low density microwaves or radio frequencies, or
by other covert methods, might be used to create influence.
For instance, according to a 1984 U.S. House of Representatives
report, a large number of stores throughout the country use high
frequency transmitted words (above the range of human hearing)
to discourage shoplifting. Stealing is reported to be reduced by
as much as 80% in some cases.
> I am repeating what was stated in the Guy, et al 1975 study, which
> I cited in a previous posting. It is an established finding
> that the quality is low, almost ununderstandable. Guy gave up
> on his 1971 study after 9 words; Frey gave up because of
> headaches. Read that paper, and then come back with arguments!
Early telephones had terribly low quality, too. Does that establish
that modern telephones have terribly low quality? While I'm sure
the Guy paper is interesting, and when I have time I'll look it
up, I think you are drawing far too strong a conclusion from it.
You did not describe his actual experiments or modulation method, or
quote his own conclusions.
> Over and above the data, it also theoretically is not possible
> to synthesize sound by microwaves in the cochlea, as assumed
> by many old-time authors in this field. The thermoelastic
> theory is incorrect--or, I should say, inadequate to
> produce enough sound to cause voices above the background
> sizzling of the microwaves. At least, so far as anyone
> has been able yet to show. The old ideas of the 1970's
> about microwave voices simply were wrong. That's progress;
> that's science.
You certainly have not presented any data here. What theory?
That one of yours that you mentioned earlier? If there is a good
theory supplanting or adding to the thermoelastic theory (and there
needs to be one) where is it published? Is it generally accepted
and supported by experiment?
> The underlying problem is that the wavelength of the
> microwaves is 10x or more greater than the size of the cochlea.
> At wavelengths small enough, say 0.1 mm (= 3000 GHz in air), the
> microwaves are absorbed by skin and can't reach the cochlea.
Here you are *assuming* some cochlear effect, i.e., that the effect
comes from the interaction of the microwaves with the cochlea.
That *might* be the case, but then again it contradicts other
explanations for the effect.
> > 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?
>> I don't see the relevance of this mish-mash of stuff. Math is not
> science; it is a tool of science, just as is a pencil, computer or
> graph paper. Yes. There are strong distinctions even in the
> mish-mash. Even so, rocket engineering
> is not science, either. I gave you a von Braun example: All these
> accomplishments depend on science, as well as on engineering.
> And I doubt any of the science was done by anyone in military service.
>> If you think the design of a rocket is "science", I
> can see why you would be confused.
You're the one with the "military people cannot do science" thesis. I
am not going to quibble over definitions of dividing lines between
science and engineering. Even if I bought your thesis, does it really
matter if they hire civilians to do science in secret? Or apply the
science in secret? Do you think *applications* of the basic science
of microwave hearing to sending voices are really "science"?
> > 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*.
>> No, it depends on other factors. A pulse is not
> a square wave. Especially a random pulse.
But you control the pulses... so they are not random. A series of pulses
triggered off a sine wave is hardly random.
> A pulse should be assumed to contain harmonics
> of even and odd orders. A kazoo still sounds
> like a kazoo, even at 3 kHz. I think a kazoo can be
> gotten up to 6 kHz, and it would not sound like a tone.
> It might sound like a mosquito going past ones ear.
A kazoo sound is actually a fairly complex soundform. It has the timbre
of a kazoo due to the sums of many component tones, in a Fourier
sense. It isn't just a sequence of pulses at 3kHz.
> > > 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.
>> No. Play the xylophone. You won't be able to make it sound like
> a voice.
Oh come on, can't you recognize the analogy? Give me the pure tone xylophone
I specified, with bars at the right frequencies, and enough arms to play them
all, and it will sound like the original signal.
> > 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?
>> No. There are no "0-crossings" in frequency space. The only 0
> there is where there is no amplitude at a given frequency. You are
> totally confused. The 0-crossings only
> exist in waveform (time domain) space. They do not map to 0's
> in frequency space and can not be decomposed in terms of frequency
> or phase.
>> They do not exist for components, only for the sum of all
> components.
I don't know what got you off into frequency space and trying to put zero
crossings there. Fourier series: a signal can be decomposed into a weighted
sum of sine and cosine functions. All real-valued and time domain, for the
purposes of this example.
> > 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.
>> I don't follow you here. Fourier analysis is math, not science.
What is your point? Math, science, engineering. How is that distinction useful
here?
> > 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.
Well, it's been an interesting discussion. I don't have any "religious" need for
there to be microwave hearing modulated with speech. We both agree that there are
other ways to send voices to people, both openly and covertly. But the evidence
I have seen indicates that microwaves *can* indeed be voice modulated. What sort
of maximum signal quality can be achieved is a question. I wish I had a good
microwave lab to run some actual experiments, but right now I don't.
--
Mind Control: TT&P ==> http://www.datafilter.com/mc
Home page: http://www.datafilter.com/alb
Allen Barker
