IUBio

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

John Michael Williams jwill at AstraGate.net
Fri Jan 31 21:26:08 EST 2003


"Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote in message news:<3E3A4EBD.9E73FBF8 at datafilter.com>...
> 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?

You brought up the Fourier analysis, not I.  I am saying it is
irrelevant, because 0-crossings
can not be represented by frequency components.

> 
> > 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.

Very good.  Substitute "Sharp and Grove" in mine above.  Still, being
barely able to distinguish 9 words does not justify calling something
"voice communication".

> 
> > 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?

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 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.

There ARE sound waves, as shown with a bucket of water by
Foster and Finch (1974); however, the amplitude is too low 
to account for microwave hearing.  The human ear CAN use
head-conducted (bone-conducted) vibrations, but the inner
ear is impedance matched to air, not bone, so it takes
orders of magnitude higher amplitudes to produce audible
sensations in the head vs. in the air leading to the
eardrum.

> 
> > 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.

No, this wasn't intended.  By "microwave hearing", I mean
audition clearly caused by microwave irradiation
of just the head (and maybe body).  No fillings, crystals,
diodes, or other artificial apparatus.   All these latter I
would call not microwave hearing, but hearing of SOUNDs
initiated by microwaves--as, for example, sounds from
a radio tuned to a station.  No radio sets.

The claim is that one can HEAR microwaves, with no transduction
apparatus of any kind.   Maybe the head vibrates (I think
not significantly), but in any case, no fillings (which can
act as diode detectors, like a crystal radio) which create
sounds to hear through the air.

I am saying that one can imagine apparent microwave
hearing when actually semiconducting fillings are creating noises.
This is NOT microwave hearing.  It is something else.

>  
> > > > 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*.

I have no idea what an "artificial larynx" is.  I assume the words
were barely understandable.  Thus, one had to compare them to 
something exotic.  The numerical data reported was that 9 words
could be distinguished.  Not much of a vocabulary,
and who knows whether these 9 words were explicitly chosen
so as to be far more easily distinguished
than any 9 words at random in normal speech?

>  
> > 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*. 

No, it's not an "assumption":  It is based on knowledge of
the penetration depth of microwaves as a function of
wavelength.  Even 10 GHz irradiation (3 cm) is attenuated by
about 3 or 4 orders of magnitude/cm in the head.  Any 
dosimetry handbook will show this.  Check out the Brook 
AFB handbook referenced in my PDF posting.  To get
to 1/10 mm microwaves is off the charts, but maybe one can 
put it in perspective by considering that plain infrared radiation
has a wavelength of maybe 1 micron, which is 1/1000 mm.

So, to stimulate the cochlea in a sound-like pattern would 
require getting infrared radiation to penetrate the flesh and
bone of the side of the head.   Not likely, as anyone knows that
one sheet of black paper will block all the infrared radiation 
of sunlight.

>  (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.

Yes.  I think so.

> 
> > 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?  

No, only that relating to microwave hearing.   We are past Lin's
calculations, in the year 2003.

> 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.

Maybe I should, but I have other things to do first.

> 
> > >    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.

The book may refer to microwaves, but the quote says, "a large 
number of stores throughout the country use high
frequency transmitted words (above the range of human hearing)";
so, it refers to ultrasound.  Also, it seems false.  Or, at least
confused, in not understanding the difference between microwaves
and ultrasound.

> 
> > > 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.

To some extent.   I gave you the wavelengths above; those
aren't theoretical at all.   The numbers just don't add up.

Apparently, the reason the microwave hearing sounds weird,
is because it doesn't correspond to the patterns of excitation of
normal sounds (air or bone conducted) in the cochlea.

> 
> > > 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.

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.

> 
> > 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?

The foil showed that there was no thermal response to
hear things with a piece of foil.  It was entirely explained
by radiation pressure; momentum of the microwaves.

You are confused about the foil experiment:  It was just
another way of building an apparatus to convert microwaves
to sound; like a crystal radio.  The Sharp, et al experiments
with foil, and the Guy et experiments with plastic discs, as well
as the Foster & Finch experiment with a water tank, had nothing
to do with hearing anything:  They just demonstrated
experimentally some properties of materials.  The foil sounds could
have been registered with a microphone on an oscilloscope.

> 
> > > 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?

Anyone spending a long time in military service will not
be able to discover anything scientifically worthwhile.  It
isn't a matter of quality, but of environment.

The same kind of environment which makes possible
the kind of conspiracy I described previously also
eliminates good science.  But, engineering
doesn't require discovering new things; it
requires only insight into how they work, so 
as to use them to solve a problem.  With an
engineer in charge, closely constrained engineers
can do a good job.  Of engineering, not of science.

Now, if you look at the regimented society of
Fascist Germany, you see the same effect.  This is what wore down
Heisenberg to just a good engineer, but someone unable to
compete with British or Americans in discovering new things.

I'm referring to the 1920's - 1938 here, not the war
period itself, when everything became regimented and ran down
to a halt--except that Allied science started from a higher
point.

> 
> > 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.

The only "data" you have produced is a spoken rumor relayed
by Justesen, of 9 words.  That isn't speech.  I'm willing
to believe that 9 words were communicated, and that neither Justesen
not Sharp and Grove were purposely exaggerating.  However,
most people would want more than 9 words to substantiate 
a claim of speech.

Guy, et al, a year or two after Justesen and Sharp & Grove,
say that they had NOT been able to achieve speech, but that they
hoped someday they might.  They report "chirpy tones" could
be heard (which would fit what we have been discussing on pulses).
Meanwhile, Frey writes in 1998 that
he quit fiddling with microwave hearing in the 1960's 
because of microwave induced headaches.  Many users of cell
phones have also reported headaches, and at least one 
epidemiological study has supported this effect (Mild, et al 1998).

> 
> > 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.

Yes, of course I am.  I think the claims are false.

> 
> > 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.

Here is my reason; see if you agree.  It's from one of 
your messages.  Maybe I am hitting on a passing comment which
didn't mean anything to you, but which I saw as a serious
mistake, worth spending some time on:

 From: Allen L. Barker (alb at datafilter.com)
 Subject: Re: Terms Other Than "Mind Control" (Revised Jan 22, 2003) 
 Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience, sci.psychology.misc
 Date: 2003-01-25 12:56:25 PST 
 ... You write:
  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.
  ...

> 
> > >   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...



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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