John Michael Williams wrote:
>> "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.
You still either just don't get it or intentionally don't want to. Do you
know what a Fourier series, real-valued, in time domain is?
> Very good. Substitute "Sharp and Grove" in mine above. Still, being
> barely able to distinguish 9 words does not justify calling something
> "voice communication".
People with artificial larynxes seem to "communicate" quite well.
> > > 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 momentum of the microwave photons... that's a new one and a
calculation I'd like to see. Sharp also did experiments with
something like a jar of water held up to the head (I don't have
the article with me right now). The thermoelastic effect is a real
one. Head size predictions of Lin's model even held across different
species of animals, if I recall. (I think that was mentioned in the
1982 survey article referenced below.)
> 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.
Your statements don't mean anything at this point. You're trying
to disprove (by handwaving) an established effect -- one with both theory
and research behind it. Check out the following survey article, please:
C.K. Chou, A.W. Guy and R. Galambos, Auditory perception of
radio-frequency electromagnetic fields, J. Acoustic Soc. America 71
(1982) 1321-1334.
There's Guy again, from 1982 this time.
> I have no idea what an "artificial larynx" is. I assume the words
> were barely understandable.
I know you assume that. You assume all sorts of things and assert
them as facts.
> > > 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":
Yes it is an assumption. It is based on your assumption of cochlear
effects, for starters.
> > 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.
You sure are arrogant. From what I've seen you can't back it up, either.
I'll take Lin any day over your tripe. You should hope the reviewers of
your paper aren't especially familiar with the field.
> > > > 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.
You are the one who is confused, not the writer who quoted three
different sources in a paragraph.
> 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.
Wonder why they didn't publish that result? They published enough
related info for it to be clear, and Justesen described their experiments.
Others like Lin and Becker also reported it.
[Recall the Soviets microwaving the US Embassy in Moscow for years,
while the CIA observed and didn't tell the employees? That all came
to a head in the mid-70s.]
> > > 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 are really grasping at straws here. You've long left the realm
of scientific discussion. You call me "confused" and then talk about
"could have been registered with a microphone on an oscilloscope"?
You obviously have no idea.
> >
> > > 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.
Was that in the Guy paper that Justesen *referenced* in his article?
> 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).
I have presented quite enough data, from recognized leaders in the field.
Both for microwave hearing effects and the modulation of such signals
with speech.
You have repeatedly misunderstood even the simple explanations (with Fourier
series) that I've given. You deny the existence of the *established*
thermoelastic effect. And you assert, with no backing data, your own personal
"cochlea theory."
I think that is pretty clear. If I didn't have some morbid enjoyment of this
exercise it would be a waste of my time.
--
Mind Control: TT&P ==> http://www.datafilter.com/mc
Home page: http://www.datafilter.com/alb
Allen Barker