John Michael Williams wrote:
>> "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.
Then do you understand that your whole Fourier-domain analysis (vs. Fourier
series in time domain) has nothing to do with the basic experiment? That
Justesen just triggered pulses off Fourier series sine wave components?
Nothing to do with frequency-space 0-crossing?
> 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.
NO, JUSTESEN CITES SHARP AND GROVE. For the third time.
> 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.
Because foil has no cochlea? But the same technique works?
Is the head not basically a water container? Why no sound
waves there?
> 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.
Here, you are now playing word games with what will be called
"microwave hearing." There are likely a couple of effects at work,
at least Frey has suggested as much, but hearing is hearing.
> > > 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.
Sharp and Grove were reported to have *produced* voices in the
head that sounded like an artificial larynx. That is an experimental
data point. It will not go away just because you want it to. The
theory has to fit the data. This whole business, for that matter,
should be based on a lot more *experiment*.
> 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.
That is your *assumption*. (After dismissing the whole foil thing...)
Again, there may be more than one mechanism at work. Such direct microwave
effects on human tissue would have some implications that are in some ways
more interesting than the thermoelastic effect.
> 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.
This is supposed to tarnish Lin's large body of work? Especially his
theoretical work starting with a physical, mathematical model? Some
of his work *started* with a model of the human head and derived some
thermoelastic effects, for example. If you hope to publish a brand,
spanking new theory explaining everything you might want to at least
look over his book.
Here's his list of publications from his home page:
http://www.ece.uic.edu/~lin/publications.htm
Perhaps you should contact him.
> > 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.
Like you know what it refers to by magic. It is from his book _Body
Electric_, and refers to microwaves, *not* ultrasound. SHARP's experiment
in particular.
> > 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).
This is presumably all based on your personal cochlea theory.
> > 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.
So Guy et al. didn't explicitly state the same conclusion that you drew
from it? Were the Sharp and Grove experiments and modulation method
discussed? Presumably not.
> 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.
But enough thermoelastic displacement to cause foil and other objects to
audibly vibrate? Or are we not calling that microwave hearing anymore?
Several levels of theories and calculations in there. Which
need correction? What is the right correction?
> > 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.
Good luck with it...
> > > 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!
So you are working on the grand unified microwave hearing theory? If
there's *any* thermoelastic effect you'll still have to deal with it.
> 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 military can do that lowly engineering, but cannot touch the pure
goddess Science?
> 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.
Your repeated stating of that *assumption* of yours does not make it
fact. Again, the data says it has already been done.
> 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).
"Good" voice now? And again, just because state it? Sorry, that's not
convincing me much at this point. It's like you're *working* to
specifically discredit the notion of microwave voice.
> For actual sounds, the cochlea's substructure allows finer
> discrimination of sounds above 5 kHz. This substructure is
> inaccessible to microwaves.
Actual sounds like... thermoelastic ones?
> 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.
You just won't give up that 0-crossing misinterpretation you went off on
earlier. Fourier series. Real-valued, time domain.
> You are implying that Fourier analysis might somehow
> be "science"; it isn't, so, whatever you are TRYING to say
> will be wrong.
How you contorted anything I said into that implication is beyond me.
> > 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 . . ..
If you want to work out the grand theory of microwave hearing I hope you
at least know some experimentalists. Some good, hard data from a trusted
source would clear up a lot of questions...
--
Mind Control: TT&P ==> http://www.datafilter.com/mc
Home page: http://www.datafilter.com/alb
Allen Barker
