Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7152Re: HUM_FORUM: Re: Researcher asks: Anybody try to screen off the Hum with Faraday cage?

Expand Messages
  • Bill Curry
    Oct 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Re: HUM_FORUM:   Re: Researcher asks: Anybody try to screen  off the Hum with Faraday cage? Folks,

         I am very interested to see that Jaxz's experiments seem to rule out external acoustical signals in his area.  When I was part of the Kokomo Hum study (reports from which are somewhere in the archives of this list), Jim Cowan and his people from Acentech, Inc used similar acoustic equipment and found infrasound in a few locations restricted to specific industrial sources.  However, my study (as a consultant for Acentech) suggested (for the Kokomo location) electromagnetic sources.  The prevailing theory of microwave hearing fit the measurement pattern, except for its requirement of two orders of magnitude higher RF radiation energy depostion rate than was apparent from my measurements.  Since that work, I have concluded that someone needs to study whether microwave hearing can be perceived at much lower energy depostition rate when the RF pulses resonate with human brain waves.  On the basis of preliminary experiments carried out by Dr. Gerd Oberfeld (a Public Health doctor in Salzburg, Austria) and his colleagues at the University of Salzburg in 2005, I expect this is true.  Oberfeld and his colleagues found that RF radiation pulses from a GSM digital phone system base station caused measureable changes in the brain waves of human volunteers 80 meters from the antennas, but on the same physical level as the antennas.  GSM RF pulses were earlier predicted to resonate with two types of human brain waves in an article in the Lancet in 2000 by G.J. Hyland.   Further, some of the volunteers in Oberfeld's experiments reported hearing buzzes in their heads when exposed to this radiation.  The measured radiation density was only 0.3 microwatt per square centimeter - 3000 times less than the US FCC's safety limits.  ICNRP has similar limits, but I don't know specifically what they are.  I think that Salzburg has limits of only 0.02 microwatt per square centimeter on the basis of earlier work done by Oberfeld and his colleagues in Austria and in Spain.

         Jaxz, keep making your acoustic measurements, but don't prematurely exclude electromagnetic origin for the Hum.  I don't think we know enough to exclude either possibility, yet.

      Regards, Bill

      ----------------------------------------------------
      |Bill P. Curry, PhD         EMSciTek Consulting Co.|
      |(630 858-9377              Fax (630) 858-9159     |
      |               Physics is fun!                    | |__________________________________________________|

      on 10/2/06 10:38 AM, Dave at Yaahoo at ddrinnan@... wrote:

      Jerry,

      I'm just a bit confused.  Jaxz's post seems to say that he has thus
      far been unable to measure anything with sensitive equipment (which
      I believe is consistent with older research).  So wouldn't this
      support the theory that the sound *is* internal?

      Not that I personally think the Hum is internal, but I'm just not
      clear how you see Jaxz's results as suggesting that the Hum is
      external?

      -dave

      --- Jerry Cummings <futures8@... <mailto:futures8%40bellsouth.net> > wrote:
      >
      > Patty, you are so right - this posting by Jaxz has made my heart sing
      > - I have, personally, absolutely removed any idea that this "hum" is
      > internal
      > in any way. I don't, or can't, give any credence to anyone who
      > implies that it is. So, to get this note from Jaxz - well, yes - it
      > is encouraging.
      > Jerry - Florida Panhandle
      >
      >
      >
      > At 09:26 AM 10/2/2006, you wrote:
      >
      > >Jaxz, Your expertise and accessibilty to sensitive equipment is very
      > >encouraging. Prior messages 6467, 6481, 6496, and 6499 from Rossen/
      > >Bulgaria and Jean/Canada deal with different chambers used in
      > >exeriments in Germany.
      > >(Message 6499 contains a link to the English>research).
      > >Thanks for your work! Patty
      > >CA/US
      > >
      > >--- In <mailto:humforum%40yahoogroups.com>humforum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:humforum%40yahoogroups.com> ,
      > >"andrewyassin" <jaxzjaxz@...> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Hi all,
      > > > I hear the hum and so does my wife. This is in south Lapland,
      > > > North Sweden.
      > > >
      > > > As a research physicist I have access to great instruments to
      > > > attempt to solve this puzzle.
      > > >
      > > > I have read a lot about the hum, and actually done some very
      > > > precise
      > > > acoustic measurements. However, the results were that there was
      > > > NO
      > > > audible signal present at all, even though I could hear it loud
      > > > and clear while measuring.
      > > >
      > > > I could measure down to 6Hz with very high sensitivity (20dB
      > > > L-Eq;
      > > > that is linear response over the entire spectrum - no filters)
      > > > using a Bruel&Kjaer 2260 investigator.
      > > >
      > > > For infra-sound to be perceptible, very high signal levels are
      > > > usually
      > > > required; that is above ca 90dB L-Eq at 16Hz and increasing with
      > > > decreasing sound frequency.
      > > >
      > > > This is a truly amasing piece of instrumentation - in Nort sweden
      > > > it
      > > > could pick up a concorde starting in Paris. However, no luck with
      > > > the hum.
      > > >
      > > > Next week I'll do some vibrational studies as well using either a
      > > > Geophone or an accelerometer. Such data might correlate to
      > > > infra-sound
      > > > loggings made by the IRF at www.irf.se (institute of space
      > > > physics,
      > > > Umea university). Possibly my hum might come from hydroelectric
      > > > power plants. If so I'll surely be able to measure it.
      > > >
      > > > However, if the hum is of electromagnetic origin - it should be
      > > > possible to screen off the perceived sound by creating a Faraday
      > > > cage.
      > > >
      > > > Did anybody yet rule out that possibility?
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Please post if you tried to screen it off using a proper cage!
      > > >
      > > > Best regards,
      > > > Jaxz
       


      ----------------------------------------------------
      |Bill P. Curry, PhD         EMSciTek Consulting Co.|
      |(630 858-9377              Fax (630) 858-9159     |
      |               Physics is fun!                    | |__________________________________________________|
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic