IUBio

Terms Other Than "Mind Control" (Revised Jan 22, 2003)

John Michael Williams jwill at AstraGate.net
Thu Jan 30 18:17:43 EST 2003


"Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote in message news:<3E3891CC.1025CE26 at datafilter.com>...
> 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...

OK.  I understand this.  But there can't be any Fourier decomposition
of 0-crossings.  So, trying to deal with 0-crossings in
terms of Fourier components I think would be wrong.

The underlying problem can be seen in terms of units: In
the time domain, one plots amplitude (or, phase, which I think should
be ignored here) on Y and time on X.   So, it makes sense to say
that 0-crossings occur (occasionally; or, regularly, in time).

However in the transform space, one plots amplitude vs. FREQUENCY.
So, there is no time.  There can't be any 0-crossing if there
is no time for it to occur.  0 in the frequency domain just means 0
amplitude (or 0 phase) at that frequency.

You are right about summing waveforms of different 
frequencies:  The 0-crossings of the higher f's get lost.  But,
one can not represent any 0 crossing with the frequency components;
one has to sum ALL f components (& phases) to get something
showing the 0-crossings in the time domain.

> 
> > You reply below with a SPECULATION that voice MIGHT be conveyed.
> 
> I replied below with a reasonable interpretation of the experiment that
> Justesen described.

Yes, I agree that, based on the Justesen paper it was reasonable.
But he cites 9 words from Guy at al.  The fact that they could go no
more than 9 distinguishable words would not seem to bode well for
communication by microwave hearing.

Sharp has performed experiments in which microwaves
created sounds in objects EXTERNAL to the head (aluminum foil, for 
example); these sounds could be heard by bystanders, by sound 
through the air and into the ears.  But, if the 
microwave beam had been directed at the head and not the foil,
they would have caused microwave hearing, not sound waves.

These external-object experiments, I don't consider
relevant; they are just a different kind of equipment to
substitute for microwave hearing.  Actually, though, I don't
know whether voice could be transmitted by aluminum foil, either.
It should be possible.

Also, maybe fillings in the teeth might make voice possible;
but, again, this isn't microwave hearing, proper.

> 
> > 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.

No.  That's the problem.  That's exactly the idea that they had
in the 1970's.  They came up with an incorrect thermoelastic
theory; and, according to it, one might hope to synthesize
voices in the head.

In actuality, there is no hope for improvement.  The reasons
reduce to the long wavelengths of the microwaves.

This isn't correct physically, but consider an analogy:
Do you think that, with progress, we will be able to use
visible light to expose semiconductor masks and get
them to details, say, 1/100 of the light wavelength?

No.  I hope not.  Heisenberg's principle forbids it
with almost the same strength that other principles forbid
perpetual-motion machines.  No amount of progress or
engineering can produce a perpetual-motion machine.

The problem is that the microwave hearing effect
is not a hearing of sounds, but a direct effect of
the microwaves on the inner ear.  Sounds require
detailed effects inside the cochlea, on the order of
distances of 1/10 to 1/100 mm.  No microwave of this
wavelength can penetrate to the inner ear without
destroying the skull and surrounding tissue.

> 
> > 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."

I assume this is the same Lin who, in an IEEE publication in
the mid-1970's, used Maxwell's equations to calculate that the
human inner ear could detect displacements of 10^-14 m?  See
actual data by Bekesy below.

> 
>    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 skeptical of this; anyway, it refers to ultrasound, not
microwaves.

> 
> > 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?  

No.  But there is no fundamental reason why a telephone should
not be improved to CD quality; the wavelengths of hearable 
microwaves fundamentally prevent further improvement of 
microwave hearing.  This would not be so, if
the thermoacoustic hypothesis were tenable (it isn't).

> 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.

It's a collection of experiments, and a review.
The paper ends with a Discussion including Frey and Foster,
the latter being a major proponent of the incorrect thermoelastic
theory.  Science progresses, and theories always are changing.  

Foster was not aware, apparently, of research by Bekesy
on the minimum mechanical displacement possible for
the auditory system to detect (about 10^-11 m).  Doing
some arithmetic with his and Finch's hypothesis (1974)
shows that thermoacoustic components of microwave 
hearing have to be negligible--barely above absolute
detection threshold, if at all present.

> 
> > 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?

It is in preparation for publication.

> 
> > 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.

Actually, it REPLACES them.  Even Foster, in his 2000 review
of bioeffects, said that the thermoacoustic component of
microwave hearing was probably not the only one.  That was an
understatement!

> 
> > > 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"?

I have nothing to say about civilian vs. military rocket ENGINEERING.
They both do a good job.  But, it isn't science, and the distinction
is not trivial.

The underlying problem of microwave hearing, is that the science
does NOT allow voice communication; therefore, NO amount of 
engineering can make it do so.

> 
> > > 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.

No, it wont.  The vibrations would take too long to die off in most
of the tubes.  This is the problem with microwave hearing,
in another view:  The summation interval of the
inner ear is a fair fraction of a millisecond.  So, changes
in frequency can't occur fast enough to produce good voice.
Microwave pulses of over, say, 5 kHz merge, and they are no 
longer detected (except the first and last of a train of them).

For actual sounds, the cochlea's substructure allows finer
discrimination of sounds above 5 kHz.  This substructure is
inaccessible to microwaves.

> 
> > > 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.

The same argument applies:  The components have (each) no 0-crossing; only
the sum of them, with phase, has a 0-crossing mapping to the 0-crossing
of the original waveform.  Of course, the lowest-frequency component
will TEND to determine the 0-crossings, but this also depends on
assumptions of relative amplitude.

> 
> > > 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?

You are implying that Fourier analysis might somehow
be "science"; it isn't, so, whatever you are TRYING to say
will be wrong.

If you correctly distinguish these words, what you say MIGHT be
meaningful (but maybe incorrect anyway, of course).

If you want to avoid fine distinctions, use words without them!

> 
> > > 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.

If we return to the "mind control" issue, I can see an important
implication:  One can't depend on microwaves alone
to harass someone to the extent of "hearing voices" (distinctly
and understandably).  Thus, someone showing
symptoms of microwave harassment and hearing clear voices must
be experiencing harassment in addition in some other way, or
must be imagining the voices for some reason.

>   I wish I had a good
> microwave lab to run some actual experiments, but right now I don't.

Then again, if you did, you might be developing cataracts, or
taking morphine for the headaches . . ..



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net