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

Re: HUM_FORUM: Re: Hum in Southern Oregon

Expand Messages
  • David Deming
    ... I agree. There are, for example, many documented instances of the Hum plaguing small towns. But large cities which naturally would be home to many
    Message 1 of 12 , May 24 6:43 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Re: HUM_FORUM:   Re: Hum in Southern Oregon
      >
      > From: "edinwoods" <edinwoods@...>
      > To: humforum@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: HUM_FORUM:   Re: Hum in Southern Oregon
      > Date: Mon, May 24, 2004, 8:27 PM
      >
      > As I posted recently, I am not keen on this industrial/traffic noise
      > idea, it just doesn't fit the hum as my wife experiences it.
      >

      I agree.  There are, for example, many documented
      instances of the Hum plaguing small towns.  But large
      cities which naturally would be home to many industrial
      noise sources do not seem to be affected.

      >
      > Both my wife and I can distinguish quite clearly the night sounds of
      > vehicular traffic back home in the country. There is an Air Force
      > base 15 miles away,
      >

      I am also about 10-15 mile from an Air Force Base.  How many
      people are in similar situations?

      >
      > In my humble opinion, the final say for aircraft was on 9/11. I was
      > paying particular attention as my wife's hum had been
      > "on" for some
      > time. The skies were quite eerie as ALL flights except military were
      > grounded nationwide. The hum continued without any variation
      > whatsoever. Surely if aircraft were even part of the cause the hum
      > would have diminished. As a side note, I had wondered if there would
      > be an increase in the hum do to the increased military activity, but
      > it just continued in its same mild, pre-crash state.
      >

      The US Navy operates TACAMO aircraft 24 hours a day as part
      of the US nuclear security.  These aircraft broadcast on the VLF
      band using high-powered transmitters for the purpose of
      submarine communications.

      Exactly where and when the TACAMO aircraft operate are
      classified.  

      But it is my speculation that a mobile source would go a long
      way toward explaining why the source of the Hum can never
      be found.

      --David Deming
      Norman, Oklahoma

    • Kelly Davis
      ... Would it be possible to build some kind of receiver to detect the VLF signals being generated by the TACAMO aircraft? Then it might be possible to compare
      Message 2 of 12 , May 25 6:06 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 21:43, David Deming wrote:
        > > In my humble opinion, the final say for aircraft was on
        > 9/11. I was
        > > paying particular attention as my wife's hum had been
        > > "on" for some
        > > time. The skies were quite eerie as ALL flights except
        > military were
        > > grounded nationwide. The hum continued without any variation
        > > whatsoever. Surely if aircraft were even part of the cause
        > the hum
        > > would have diminished. As a side note, I had wondered if
        > there would
        > > be an increase in the hum do to the increased military
        > activity, but
        > > it just continued in its same mild, pre-crash state.
        > >
        >
        > The US Navy operates TACAMO aircraft 24 hours a day as part
        > of the US nuclear security. These aircraft broadcast on the
        > VLF
        > band using high-powered transmitters for the purpose of
        > submarine communications.
        >
        > Exactly where and when the TACAMO aircraft operate are
        > classified.
        >
        > But it is my speculation that a mobile source would go a long
        > way toward explaining why the source of the Hum can never
        > be found.

        Would it be possible to build some kind of receiver to detect the VLF
        signals being generated by the TACAMO aircraft? Then it might be
        possible to compare power levels of the signals with perceived hum
        strength.
      • edinwoods
        ... variation ... cause ... if ... part ... the ... long ... never ... A quick note of clarification if it is needed; in my post I was refering to aircraft
        Message 3 of 12 , May 25 4:25 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          > On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 21:43, David Deming wrote:
          > > > In my humble opinion, the final say for aircraft was on
          > > 9/11. I was
          > > > paying particular attention as my wife's hum had been
          > > > "on" for some
          > > > time. The skies were quite eerie as ALL flights except
          > > military were
          > > > grounded nationwide. The hum continued without any
          variation
          > > > whatsoever. Surely if aircraft were even part of the
          cause
          > > the hum
          > > > would have diminished. As a side note, I had wondered
          if
          > > there would
          > > > be an increase in the hum do to the increased military
          > > activity, but
          > > > it just continued in its same mild, pre-crash state.
          > > >
          > >
          > > The US Navy operates TACAMO aircraft 24 hours a day as
          part
          > > of the US nuclear security. These aircraft broadcast on
          the
          > > VLF
          > > band using high-powered transmitters for the purpose of
          > > submarine communications.
          > >
          > > Exactly where and when the TACAMO aircraft operate are
          > > classified.
          > >
          > > But it is my speculation that a mobile source would go a
          long
          > > way toward explaining why the source of the Hum can
          never
          > > be found.
          >

          A quick note of clarification if it is needed; in my post I was
          refering to aircraft noise, not communications which is a whole
          different question (and a very interesting one).

          Ed
        • Tobypaws2002@aol.com
          In a message dated 26/05/2004 04:26:39 GMT Daylight Time, edinwoods@yahoo.com ... As is the subject of Constructive and Destructive Interference..... R.M.
          Message 4 of 12 , May 26 2:12 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 26/05/2004 04:26:39 GMT Daylight Time, edinwoods@... writes:


            >On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 21:43, David Deming wrote:
            >>     >In my humble opinion, the final say for aircraft was on
            >>     9/11. I was
            >>     >paying particular attention as my wife's hum had been
            >>     >"on" for some
            >>     >time. The skies were quite eerie as ALL flights except
            >>     military were
            >>     >grounded nationwide. The hum continued without any
            variation
            >>     >whatsoever. Surely if aircraft were even part of the
            cause
            >>     the hum
            >>     >would have diminished. As a side note, I had wondered
            if
            >>     there would
            >>     >be an increase in the hum do to the increased military
            >>     activity, but
            >>     >it just continued in its same mild, pre-crash state.
            >>     >
            >>    
            >>     The US Navy operates TACAMO aircraft 24 hours a day as
            part
            >>     of the US nuclear security.  These aircraft broadcast on
            the
            >>     VLF
            >>     band using high-powered transmitters for the purpose of
            >>     submarine communications.
            >>    
            >>     Exactly where and when the TACAMO aircraft operate are
            >>     classified. 
            >>    
            >>     But it is my speculation that a mobile source would go a
            long
            >>     way toward explaining why the source of the Hum can
            never
            >>     be found.
            >

            A quick note of clarification if it is needed; in my post I was
            refering to aircraft noise, not communications which is a whole
            different question (and a very interesting one).

            Ed




            As is the subject of Constructive and Destructive Interference.....
            R.M.   England.
          • edinwoods
            ... Great point! The hiss in your ANC headset is considered destructive interference by Bose, so they deveoloped the QC-2 that eliminated it. They no doubt
            Message 5 of 12 , May 26 6:21 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In humforum@yahoogroups.com, Tobypaws2002@a... wrote:
              > As is the subject of Constructive and Destructive Interference.....
              > R.M. England.

              Great point! The hiss in your ANC headset is considered destructive
              interference by Bose, so they deveoloped the QC-2 that eliminated
              it. They no doubt were trying to please music lovers who listen to
              Mozart and whatnot while enjoying ANC capabilities that cut down the
              aircraft noise. Little did they know that hum hearers consider the
              hiss helpful and soothing.

              It is rather like online discussions. One can put a great deal of
              thought and effort into communicating an idea, and sometimes a
              reader will take it personal for reason or another. I certainly hope
              that if anything I ever write is taken in that manner, that the
              offended person would write to my Yahoo email box so we could try to
              sort it out.

              At any rate, keep up the good work you do digging about for hum
              info. Your posts often provoke thought, and like other messages on
              the forum, are sometimes ripe for some good dialog.

              Sincerely, Ed
            • Tobypaws2002@aol.com
              In a message dated 27/05/2004 04:53:43 GMT Daylight Time, edinwoods@yahoo.com ... I guess the ANC headsets were not developed with hum hearers in mind. I think
              Message 6 of 12 , May 27 2:13 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 27/05/2004 04:53:43 GMT Daylight Time, edinwoods@... writes:

                --- In humforum@yahoogroups.com, Tobypaws2002@a... wrote:
                >As is the subject of Constructive and Destructive Interference.....
                >R.M.   England.

                Great point! The hiss in your ANC headset is considered destructive
                interference by Bose, so they deveoloped the QC-2 that eliminated
                it. They no doubt were trying to please music lovers who listen to
                Mozart and whatnot while enjoying ANC capabilities that cut down the
                aircraft noise. Little did they know that hum hearers consider the
                hiss helpful and soothing.


                I guess the ANC headsets were not developed with hum hearers in mind.
                I think it would not be the 'hiss' in the headset that would be the destructive interference, but rather the main process of cancelling out (at least partially) the incoming low frequency sounds. I'm not sure where the hiss comes in, whether it's intentional, or just a by-product of the whole process......
                In any case, an ANC headset might be a good way to find out whether a hum is acoustic, that is, if it is loud enough for the headset to pick it up : it has to 'hear' it first, before it can reverse its polarity, to quieten it down.
                When I mentioned Constructive and Destructive Interference, I was mainly thinking about sounds in the environment, that if they overlapped (as it were), you could expect a sort of doppler effect, or a reduction, or increase in volume. One Hum could 'top up' another.
                The hiss in the Sennheiser A.N.C. Headset is , by the way, is rather similar to the sound in a tinnitus masker, which is designed to take the sufferer's attention away from the annoying sound they hear.
                Even if an A.N.C. Headset reduced a Hum by only a little, that would strongly suggest an acoustic source, which would be a valuable clue for tracing the sound, also then , the sufferer would be able to say they had not got tinnitus, as an ANC Headset could not reduce that sort of (internal) sound.
                Best Wishes, keep writing.
                R.M.   England.
              • Angelo Campanella
                ... HARDLY! The noise is in all likelihood just high frequency amplifier hiss , common to all wide band amplifier systems. It does not have to be there,
                Message 7 of 12 , May 27 9:51 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 01:21 AM 5/27/2004 +0000, edinwoods wrote:
                  >Great point! The hiss in your ANC headset is considered destructive
                  >interference by Bose, so they deveoloped the QC-2 that eliminated

                  HARDLY!

                  The noise is in all likelihood just high frequency amplifier
                  "hiss", common to all wide band amplifier systems. It does not have to be
                  there, except for their parsimonious (cheapskate) electronic design. The
                  rationale is that most owners will wear them in very noisy area, where the
                  slight hiss will not be noticeable in the presence of the residual sounds
                  that leak through the headsets in such noisy environments.

                  It is only when owners wear them to get a spin-off benefit; the capability
                  of creating incredible silence (except for the onerous hiss). Some of
                  actually value incredible silence!

                  Angelo Campanella

                  --------- www.CampanellaAcoustics.com ---------

                  "I have simply studied carefully whatever I've undertaken, and tried to
                  hold a reserve that would carry me through." - Charles A. Lindbergh.

                  "As for background noise level; 35 dBA is a good classroom; 45 dBA is a
                  sound masking system!" - Anthony K. Hoover
                • edinwoods
                  ... Agreed. That was an ill advised bit of tongue in cheek written off the cuff in a rush. I regret taking up the bandwidth. Thanks for making something
                  Message 8 of 12 , May 28 4:47 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In humforum@yahoogroups.com, Angelo Campanella
                    <a.campanella@a...> wrote:
                    > At 01:21 AM 5/27/2004 +0000, edinwoods wrote:
                    > >Great point!

                    >
                    > HARDLY!

                    Agreed. That was an ill advised bit of "tongue in cheek" written off
                    the cuff in a rush. I regret taking up the bandwidth. Thanks for
                    making something useful of it with your comments.

                    Ed
                  • Angelo Campanella
                    ... Honestly, we have to get real here. This hum phenomenon overall has been a vexing problem for he acoustical and medical communities for years. Real,
                    Message 9 of 12 , May 29 9:27 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 11:47 PM 5/28/2004 +0000, you wrote:
                      ><a.campanella@a...> wrote:
                      > > At 01:21 AM 5/27/2004 +0000, edinwoods wrote:
                      > > >Great point!
                      > > HARDLY!
                      >
                      >Agreed. That was an ill advised bit of "tongue in cheek" written off
                      >the cuff in a rush. I regret taking up the bandwidth. Thanks for
                      >making something useful of it with your comments.

                      Honestly, we have to get real here. This hum phenomenon overall
                      has been a vexing problem for he acoustical and medical communities for
                      years. Real, constructive inputs are always welcome, I believe.

                      Ang. C.
                    • edinwoods
                      ... overall ... communities for ... It seems in a regrettable ten minute post I have managed to put into question my credibility. Not being pleased with that
                      Message 10 of 12 , May 29 4:58 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In humforum@yahoogroups.com, Angelo Campanella
                        <a.campanella@a...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Honestly, we have to get real here. This hum phenomenon
                        overall
                        > has been a vexing problem for he acoustical and medical
                        communities for
                        > years. Real, constructive inputs are always welcome, I believe.
                        >
                        > Ang. C.


                        It seems in a regrettable ten minute post I have managed to put into
                        question my credibility. Not being pleased with that thought, I will
                        address the issue this last time and take the consequences.

                        Let me assure you I know the seriousness of the hum issue having
                        dealt with my wife's situation for 20 some odd years. Several
                        years
                        ago she despaired of life itself during a prolonged, incredibly
                        intense period (this is not hyperbole). We have faced the very
                        complex and frustrating issue of a forced move, complex as we have
                        other serious issues which would create their own problems in other
                        environments, and one cannot be sure where the hum is and is not
                        anyway. All this and the frustration of neither hearing the hum nor
                        being able to substantiate its existence (though I am convinced of
                        it).

                        I have posted a number of times on this site in an effort to share
                        the experience of many years, offering long term perspective in an
                        attempt to balance short term observations. I have no way of knowing
                        how these posts are perceived, but have put much time and thought
                        into their composition (though lacking a scientific background). I
                        put effort towards accuracy, try to articulate clearly, and
                        generally add something profitable to the discussion. Sadly in one
                        post I allowed myself to be rushed, and thoughtlessly dashed out
                        what I considered to be a humorous twist in a frustrating dialog. I
                        did not know it to be misleading, having succumbed to a certain
                        amount of ANC marketing hype, and at the time even considered the
                        overall posting to have a point and value in certain situations
                        (however limited).

                        I made a mistake, regret it, and apologize to those who were
                        affected.

                        Ed
                      • Tobypaws2002@aol.com
                        In a message dated 30/05/2004 01:39:51 GMT Daylight Time, edinwoods@yahoo.com ... No problem, please don t worry. We are here to put points, and in a free
                        Message 11 of 12 , May 29 8:41 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 30/05/2004 01:39:51 GMT Daylight Time, edinwoods@... writes:

                          I have posted a number of times on this site in an effort to share
                          the experience of many years, offering long term perspective in an
                          attempt to balance short term observations. I have no way of knowing
                          how these posts are perceived, but have put much time and thought
                          into their composition (though lacking a scientific background). I
                          put effort towards accuracy, try to articulate clearly, and
                          generally add something profitable to the discussion. Sadly in one
                          post I allowed myself to be rushed, and thoughtlessly dashed out
                          what I considered to be a humorous twist in a frustrating dialog. I
                          did not know it to be misleading, having succumbed to a certain
                          amount of ANC marketing hype, and at the time even considered the
                          overall posting to have a point and value in certain situations
                          (however limited).

                          I made a mistake, regret it, and apologize to those who were
                          affected.

                          Ed



                          No problem, please don't worry. We are here to put points, and in a free country, we are all allowed to make faux-pas, no-one's perfect.
                          I wouldn't pounce on something that sounded a bit off-the-mark, as this whole problem is being discussed, from  the standpoint of not knowing what it is, so all views are put into the melting pot.
                          Anyone who would take any offence at your post,  I'd say needs to be a little more easy- going, you did no wrong as far as I can see....don't worry! No aplogy needed in my view....please keep writing!
                          R.M.   England.
                        • Demonbusters
                          ... I live in a metropolitan area of 1.1 million population, with a variety of industrial operations, and I hear the hum . I don t know how many other people
                          Message 12 of 12 , Jun 1, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            "David Deming" <profdeming@e...> wrote:
                            >
                            > > From: "edinwoods" <edinwoods@y...>
                            > > To: humforum@yahoogroups.com
                            > > Subject: HUM_FORUM: Re: Hum in Southern Oregon
                            > > Date: Mon, May 24, 2004, 8:27 PM
                            > >
                            > > As I posted recently, I am not keen on this industrial/traffic
                            > > noise idea, it just doesn't fit the hum as my wife experiences it.
                            >
                            > I agree. There are, for example, many documented
                            > instances of the Hum plaguing small towns. But large
                            > cities which naturally would be home to many industrial
                            > noise sources do not seem to be affected.

                            I live in a metropolitan area of 1.1 million population, with a
                            variety of industrial operations, and I hear the "hum". I don't know
                            how many other people in the area hear it, but I've only asked a
                            handful.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.