(Oops. I had private-emailed this one initially, but I think it s pertinent enough to post to the group itself.) ... did the same thing myself ... In aMessage 1 of 22 , Aug 1, 2004View Source(Oops. I had private-emailed this one initially, but I think it's
pertinent enough to post to the group itself.)<jma> ... did the same thing myself ...In a message dated 7/30/2004 8:16:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mtriggs886@... writes:
I'm still more convinced of the 7.83 HZ value, but I'm willing to
give the devil his due.<jma> ... a couple of years ago I built a tone generator for a doctor who was exploring peoples response to 'Schumann Resonance' frequencies ... I did not follow the details, but his subjects had no trouble recogognizing .001 Hertz differences and we ended up using .00015 Hertz steps at which point most had reached the point that there was no single 'best' setting ... probably a good thing since that was as close as the particular hardware would go ... I don't know what the outcome was, once the desired threshold was reached I was no longer involved ... Jim
... update link is down on the page I last sent a link to. Is that the same one he was talking about Mike? Anyways this provides some actual ... anybodyMessage 1 of 22 , Aug 18, 2004View Source--- In email@example.com, saturnn <saturnn25@y...> wrote:
> This link may also be of interest. And the Berkley FTP Schumannupdate link is down on the page I last sent a link to. Is that the
same one he was talking about Mike? Anyways this provides some actual
7.8, 14, 20, 26, 33, 39 and 45 Hertz?
Might be interesting.