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

RE: HUM_FORUM: Re: New frequency?

Expand Messages
  • Judy Fluhrer
    Because I don t hear the whine myself, I took the liberty of telling him what you said it sounded like. He said he can agree...it does sound just like that. I
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 20 10:32 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Because I don't hear the whine myself, I took the
      liberty of telling him what you said it sounded like.
      He said he can agree...it does sound just like that.
       
      I guess only time will tell whether it will become more
      frequent and widespread.  Oh! I forgot something
      important. He said the frequency of this sound
      should be able to be blocked or reduced by ear
      plugs, but, like the hum,  it isn't. Consequently,
      he doesn't feel it is an acoustic sound.
       
      Judy
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: 8/20/2007 12:24:08 AM
      Subject: HUM_FORUM: Re: New frequency?


      To describe the "whine" I would say it sound like the machining of small parts in a work bench, from distance, a bearly noticeable high frequency pitched sound.


      Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

      .

    • Artisrea1
      Hi Patty, everyone I have had some thoughts as to if the ionosphere heaters could be involved in the melting of the artic. I have read pros and cons about
      Message 2 of 14 , Aug 21 6:44 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Patty, everyone
         
        I have had some thoughts as to if  the ionosphere heaters  could be involved in the melting of the artic.   I have read pros and cons about whether it is involved with the hum or not, but not any as to if it could be involved in the artic heating.  I have been painting  penguins, polar bears and other artic wild life this year,  because a lot of it is disappearing.     Still hum free.   Anne
        ----- Original Message -----

        Seems to me that ionospheric heaters could melt some ice in the
        Arctic, too. Maybe HAARP for example is warming up the earth-globe.
        Patty

        --- In humforum@yahoogroup s.com, "humlobotomist" <humlobotomist@ ...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Forgot to mention in my earlier response; Your friend live in
        > Oregeon, I live in Northern Scandinavia, we hear the sam thing.
        >
        > That is food for mind, imagine how powerful the Hum is, and how evil
        > the perpurtrators are, most likely some part of US and other
        > governments. It is not unlikely, they are playing with weather
        > modification and so on, using ionosheric heaters like HAARP, EISCAT,
        > SURA, Arecibo. The hum has intensified, co-related with the Peru 8.0
        > earthquake, and the looming Dean hurricane, and typhoons in China.
        >
        > --- In humforum@yahoogroup s.com, "Judy Fluhrer" <sierramt7@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Gee, where is everyone? A hummer friend of mine
        > > (Oregon) has reported a new "whine" that is playing along
        > > with his hum. This developed sometime during hurricane
        > > Flossie and a few days before the Peru EQ. There was a
        > > short period when it went away, and now it is back with a
        > > vengeance, he says. At the same time we have hurricane
        > > Dean becoming stronger in the Caribbean. My hum is pretty
        > > intense, but I don't think I am hearing anything new or
        > > unusual.
        > >
        > > When I wondered whether anyone else on the list had
        > > noticed anything similar, I realized it has been several days
        > > since there have been any messages here. The only
        > > reason I bring this up is I have felt for a long time that if
        > > the hum can be correlated to *something*, it might give a
        > > clue about its source.
        > >
        > > Judy
        > >
        >

      • Bill Curry
        Folks, I think you are ignoring the highly directional nature of the ionospheric heater transmissions. Their aim is to deposit RF energy in the ionosphere.
        Message 3 of 14 , Aug 22 10:56 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Re: HUM_FORUM:   Re: New frequency? Folks,

             I think you are ignoring the highly directional nature of the ionospheric heater transmissions.  Their aim is to deposit RF energy in the ionosphere.  Why do you think that would involve melting of ice in the Artctic?

          Regards, Bill

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

             

          on 8/21/07 8:44 PM, Artisrea1 at artisrea1@... wrote:

          Hi Patty, everyone

          I have had some thoughts as to if  the ionosphere heaters  could be involved in the melting of the artic.   I have read pros and cons about whether it is involved with the hum or not, but not any as to if it could be involved in the artic heating.  I have been painting  penguins, polar bears and other artic wild life this year,  because a lot of it is disappearing.     Still hum free.   Anne
          ----- Original Message -----

          Seems to me that ionospheric heaters could melt some ice in the
          Arctic, too. Maybe HAARP for example is warming up the earth-globe.
          Patty

        • Artisrea1
          Bill, I was only pondering this as, I do not know much about the ionosphere heaters. I did read some on them very early on when they were first into use. I
          Message 4 of 14 , Aug 23 6:35 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Bill,
             
            I was only pondering this as, I do not know much about the ionosphere heaters.  I did read some on them very early on when they were first into use.  I do remember reading something about they could be used to reflect heat or waves back to parts of the earth.   It might have been misinformation.  The artic came to mind  with little population, maybe they would be doing something experimental with it, since they are located close.  
             
              It seems to me, as a person who does not have much, If any, absolute knowledge about them and what they can actually do, that something generating so much  light, or RF energy  could also have far reaching effects that we may not understand at this point. 
             
            A voice in the wilderness of all of this.
            Anne
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----

            Folks,

               I think you are ignoring the highly directional nature of the ionospheric heater transmissions.  Their aim is to deposit RF energy in the ionosphere.  Why do you think that would involve melting of ice in the Artctic?

            Regards, Bill

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

               

            on 8/21/07 8:44 PM, Artisrea1 at artisrea1@duracom. net wrote:

            Hi Patty, everyone

            I have had some thoughts as to if  the ionosphere heaters  could be involved in the melting of the artic.   I have read pros and cons about whether it is involved with the hum or not, but not any as to if it could be involved in the artic heating.  I have been painting  penguins, polar bears and other artic wild life this year,  because a lot of it is disappearing.     Still hum free.   Anne
            ----- Original Message -----

            Seems to me that ionospheric heaters could melt some ice in the
            Arctic, too. Maybe HAARP for example is warming up the earth-globe.
            Patty

          • Patty
            Hi Bill, Hopefully science folks are studying potential adverse effects of HAARP because apparently Alaska is heating up faster than any place on earth. Maybe
            Message 5 of 14 , Aug 25 5:57 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Bill, Hopefully science folks are studying potential adverse
              effects of HAARP because apparently Alaska is heating up faster than
              any place on earth. Maybe we're just microwaving the planet, but
              whatever is happening to cause the weather extremes and warming now,
              it will take years for science and government to agree--then of
              course, years more to do something about it--ditto about the hum.

              Are you working on any global warming data? I'd be curious to know why
              you offer that ionospheric heaters can't warm the planet.
              Regards, Patty
              CA
              Hi Anne!


              --- In humforum@yahoogroups.com, Bill Curry <bpcurry@...> wrote:
              >
              > Folks,
              >
              > I think you are ignoring the highly directional nature of the
              ionospheric
              > heater transmissions. Their aim is to deposit RF energy in the
              ionosphere.
              > Why do you think that would involve melting of ice in the Artctic?
              >
              > Regards, Bill
              >
              > ----------------------------------------------------
              > |Bill P. Curry, PhD EMSciTek Consulting Co.|
              > |(630 858-9377 Fax (630) 858-9159 |
              > | Physics is fun! |
              > |__________________________________________________|
              >
              >
              >
              > on 8/21/07 8:44 PM, Artisrea1 at artisrea1@... wrote:
              >
              > Hi Patty, everyone
              >
              > I have had some thoughts as to if the ionosphere heaters could be
              involved
              > in the melting of the artic. I have read pros and cons about
              whether it is
              > involved with the hum or not, but not any as to if it could be
              involved in
              > the artic heating. I have been painting penguins, polar bears and
              other
              > artic wild life this year, because a lot of it is disappearing.
              Still
              > hum free. Anne
              > ----- Original Message -----
              >
              > Seems to me that ionospheric heaters could melt some ice in the
              > Arctic, too. Maybe HAARP for example is warming up the earth-globe.
              > Patty
              >
            • A &J M
              Insolation (amount of energy received from the sun) at the equator is about 1 Kw/m2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power). So, just a single square
              Message 6 of 14 , Aug 25 7:15 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                RE: HUM_FORUM: Re: New frequency?

                Insolation (amount of energy received from the sun) at the equator is about 1 Kw/m2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power).  So, just a single square kilometer will receive about 1,000,000 KW (1000 megawatts) from the sun.  At a first approximation (feel free to correct my math), the earth receives about 510,750,000,000 MW continuously from the sun.  The HAARP diesel generators (the energy source of HAARP, regardless of beam focusing capabilities) are capable of 12.5 MW (http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/status.html).

                I think the point is that the energy HAARP places in the ionosphere is literally a drop in the ocean. 12.5/510,750,000,000 or 0.00000000002 as a fraction.


                Arne
                Central MN USA
                ________________________________

                From: humforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:humforum@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Patty

                ...I'd be curious to know why you offer that ionospheric heaters can't warm the planet.

              • Bill Curry
                Arne and Patty, I agree wholeheartedly with your point Arne, but I want to go a little further. Some time ago, when I read the weather modification parts of
                Message 7 of 14 , Aug 25 10:50 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Re: HUM_FORUM:   Re: New frequency? Arne and Patty,

                     I agree wholeheartedly with your point Arne, but I want to go a little further.  Some time ago, when I read the weather modification parts of the patents that Humlobotomist always brings up, I realized that there is a fatal flaw in the arguments presented in the patents by Bernard Eastland, whose work was the foundation on which HAARP was based.  As I have said previously on this Forum, using electron cyclotron resonances as the means to get the transmitted energy from HAARP into heating the electrons in the ionosphere is reasonable, but one must also consider the energy loss mechanism of these excited electrons radiating energy away by synchotron radiation.  Thus, the progessive elevation of regions (of constant electron density) of the ionosphere that are irradiated by HAARP will not occur, in my opinion.  This ionospheric lifting mechanism is what Eastland based his notion of modification of earth's weather on, as far as I know.  He assumed that lifting a region of the ionosphere (again, keeping constant electron density during the elevation process), would affect motion of ionospheric particles, because other ionospheric particles would fill in the void left by moving the excited electrons and the ions that would drift with them in ambipolar diffusion.  If that occurred, the patents suggest that terrestrial wind patterns would be affected, though I don't understand how that coupling between ionospheric particle motion and atmospheric particle motion would occur.  Since I think that the neglect of radiation by the heated electrons invalidates the prospect that any weather modification would occur, I don't see how ionospheric heating can have any effect on global warming.

                     The green house effect has been understood for about 100 years by scientists as being a way that the earth - atmospheric system traps more heat energy than it radiates away until the temperature of both warms up and reaches an equilibrium state.  Atmospheric particles complicate the picture, but for about 15 years, scientists have been including ice particles, dust particles, and water droplets in their calculations - as far as I know.  I recall a meeting about 13 years ago in the Chicago area in which the aerosol research community considered how these atmospheric particles might affect the impact of global warming on the climate.  What I remember the most was the suggestion that global warming with aerosols being present was likely to produce climatic extremes.  The reason is that global warming occurs most strongly in equatorial regions, but atmospheric cooling by aerosol pollution associated with human activity occurs mostly in the temperate zones.  This affects the large scale atmospheric currents.  I don't think we yet have enough data to determine whether the extremes of weather we have seen is the last few years is mainly due to global warming or part of natural cyclic changes, but I do think that global warming is definitely occurring and climate changes are beginning.

                  Regards, Bill Curry

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




                  on 8/25/07 9:15 PM, A &J M at stonehollow@... wrote:

                  Insolation (amount of energy received from the sun) at the equator is about 1 Kw/m2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power).  So, just a single square kilometer will receive about 1,000,000 KW (1000 megawatts) from the sun.  At a first approximation (feel free to correct my math), the earth receives about 510,750,000,000 MW continuously from the sun.  The HAARP diesel generators (the energy source of HAARP, regardless of beam focusing capabilities) are capable of 12.5 MW (http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/status.html).

                  I think the point is that the energy HAARP places in the ionosphere is literally a drop in the ocean. 12.5/510,750,000,000 or 0.00000000002 as a fraction.

                  Arne
                  Central MN USA
                  ________________________________

                  From: humforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:humforum@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Patty

                  ...I'd be curious to know why you offer that ionospheric heaters can't warm the planet.
                • eleanor@shoestringradio.net
                  To: humforum@yahoogroups.com From: Patty Date sent: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:57:41 -0000 Subject:
                  Message 8 of 14 , Aug 26 4:37 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To: humforum@yahoogroups.com
                    From: "Patty" <sugarpineinc@...>
                    Date sent: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:57:41 -0000
                    Subject: HUM_FORUM: Re: New frequency?
                    Send reply to: humforum@yahoogroups.com

                    >Hi Bill, Hopefully science folks are studying potential adverse
                    >effects of HAARP because apparently Alaska is heating up faster
                    >than any place on earth. Maybe we're just microwaving the planet,
                    >but whatever is happening to cause the weather extremes and
                    >warming now, it will take years for science and government to
                    >agree--then of course, years more to do something about it--ditto
                    >about the hum.
                    >
                    >Are you working on any global warming data? I'd be curious to
                    >know why you offer that ionospheric heaters can't warm the
                    >planet. Regards, Patty CA Hi Anne!

                    I'd put my bet on the CHEMTRAILS as the main
                    cause of global warming effects as seen here at
                    the surface. Even if solar output has increased.

                    Reason: They are semi-transparent and let gobs
                    of solar energy in daytime, but at night, they keep
                    that heat in instead of letting it radiate into space,
                    as Nature originally designed.

                    I'm a wildlife watcher, and on my early morning
                    walks, I can tell you that here in Hamilton,
                    Ontario, Canada, not far from Buffalo, NY, that
                    we have had virtually no morning dew since the
                    chemtrails started in earnest around 1998.

                    Before '98, I had to wear rubber hunting boots
                    in the morning, now, ordinary shoes stay
                    completely dry.

                    Morning dew only happens when heat can
                    radiate sufficiently at night.

                    Daytime chemtrails do not settle out at night; it
                    seems to take a few days. That's why the night
                    heat is kept sealed in. Scientists who think
                    chemtrails can stop global warming surely know
                    that, so I suspect chemtrails are being sprayed
                    for different reasons.

                    Very occasionally, we have maybe 3 to 5 days
                    with zero chemtrails, the norm here being seeing
                    them sprayed every day.

                    Those 3-5 day periods consistently show a
                    noticeable drop in *nighttime* temperatures, and
                    toward the end of the longer breaks, we actually
                    see a small amount of residual dew forming.

                    There have been suggestions one of the chemtrail
                    functions is to channel radio signals. I haven't
                    seen any solid evidence of that, but the difference
                    in solar heat retention is remarkable.

                    I've done some flying as well, and many of today's
                    cloud formations are bizarre - not in any pre-90s
                    textbook, although a casual glance by someone
                    who has not studied weather wouldn't make the
                    bizarre-ness obvious. I've often wondered if
                    HAARP has something to do with those clouds.

                    SOMETHING is messing them up, and that
                    something I would suspect of possibly having
                    some relationship to some recent Hum cases, as
                    that "something" obviously can generate heavy
                    duty influence.

                    Eleanor White
                  • Bill Curry
                    Eleanor, I have heard much about chemtrails and most of it I don t believe has any credibility! I live within a few miles of Chicago s O hare airport, so I
                    Message 9 of 14 , Aug 26 2:00 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Re: HUM_FORUM:   Re: New frequency? Eleanor,

                         I have heard much about "chemtrails" and most of it I don't believe has any credibility!  I live within a few miles of Chicago's O'hare airport, so I see many contrails - not chemtrails.  Contrails occur naturally because of two primary reasons, in my opinion.  These are the production of wing tip vortices as a result of the generation of lift by high speed airflow over wings.  The other reason is the turbulence of the air produced by jet exhausts.  I don't think that contrails are being generated deliberately with the intention to affect atmospheric heating or cooling.  They are a natural consequence of the fluid mechanics of powered flight.  Incidentally, when there are many contrails they often merge into cirrus clouds.  These are clouds composed of tiny ice crystals and they usually occur at high altitude.  The contrails are a result of stirring supersaturated air by the vortices I mentioned and by turbulence.  Supersaturated means that the amount of humidity in a given parcel of air is more than that parcel can normally hold.  Stirring the parcel of air results in precipitation of the moisture from vapor to solid water particles.  Usually, the phase transition is directly from vapor to ice at the conditions of high altitude, instead of vapor to liquid to ice.  This process is called inverse sublimation.

                         In the early1980's, I was in charge of an experiment at an Air Force laboratory to determine the particle sizes resulting from squirting a pressurized jet of water into a large chamber at high vacuum.  Using measurements of the polarization of ultraviolet laser light that had been scattered by the cloud of particles that formed around the water jet near where it emerged into the vacuum, we determined that the particles were about one tenth the size of a typical atmospheric dust particle.  This is about 10 times larger than the size of condensation nuclei that are involved in the inverse sublimation process.  The particles were also about 10 times smaller than typical water droplets in atmospheric clouds, so we concluded that the particles were probably tiny ice droplets.  We were granted a patent for the US Air Force on our method of measuring these particles at multiple locations simultaneously.  With another optical technique, we also found much fewer particles had sizes comparable to the diameter of the orifice through which the water jet flowed.  We did not find particles in other size ranges.

                         Cloud seeding experiments have sometimes used silver iodide crystals sprayed into a parcel of moist air to provide condensation nuclei.  You can demonstrate this technique by striking a match whose head is coated with iodine and letting the smoke enter an opened freezer.  You will get a few ice crystals precipitating out in the freezer.  Silver iodide is not the only substance that can be used for condensation nuclei, but I don't what other substances work as well as condensation nuclei.

                      Regards, Bill

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


                      on 8/26/07 6:37 AM, eleanor@... at eleanor@... wrote:

                      To:             humforum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:humforum%40yahoogroups.com>
                      From:           "Patty" <sugarpineinc@... <mailto:sugarpineinc%40yahoo.com> >
                      Date sent:      Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:57:41 -0000
                      Subject:        HUM_FORUM:   Re: New frequency?
                      Send reply to:  humforum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:humforum%40yahoogroups.com>

                      >Hi Bill, Hopefully science folks are studying potential adverse
                      >effects of HAARP because apparently Alaska is heating up faster
                      >than any place on earth. Maybe we're just microwaving the planet,
                      >but whatever is happening to cause the weather extremes and
                      >warming now, it will take years for science and government to
                      >agree--then of course, years more to do something about it--ditto
                      >about the hum.
                      >
                      >Are you working on any global warming data? I'd be curious to
                      >know why you offer that ionospheric heaters can't warm the
                      >planet. Regards, Patty CA Hi Anne!

                      I'd put my bet on the CHEMTRAILS as the main
                      cause of global warming effects as seen here at
                      the surface.  Even if solar output has increased.

                      Reason:  They are semi-transparent and let gobs
                      of solar energy in daytime, but at night, they keep
                      that heat in instead of letting it radiate into space,
                      as Nature originally designed.

                      I'm a wildlife watcher, and on my early morning
                      walks, I can tell you that here in Hamilton,
                      Ontario, Canada, not far from Buffalo, NY, that
                      we have had virtually no morning dew since the
                      chemtrails started in earnest around 1998.

                      Before '98, I had to wear rubber hunting boots
                      in the morning, now, ordinary shoes stay
                      completely dry.

                      Morning dew only happens when heat can
                      radiate sufficiently at night.

                      Daytime chemtrails do not settle out at night; it
                      seems to take a few days.  That's why the night
                      heat is kept sealed in.  Scientists who think
                      chemtrails can stop global warming surely know
                      that, so I suspect chemtrails are being sprayed
                      for different reasons.

                      Very occasionally, we have maybe 3 to 5 days
                      with zero chemtrails, the norm here being seeing
                      them sprayed every day.

                      Those 3-5 day periods consistently show a
                      noticeable drop in *nighttime* temperatures, and
                      toward the end of the longer breaks, we actually
                      see a small amount of residual dew forming.

                      There have been suggestions one of the chemtrail
                      functions is to channel radio signals.  I haven't
                      seen any solid evidence of that, but the difference
                      in solar heat retention is remarkable.

                      I've done some flying as well, and many of today's
                      cloud formations are bizarre - not in any pre-90s
                      textbook, although a casual glance by someone
                      who has not studied weather wouldn't make the
                      bizarre-ness obvious.  I've often wondered if
                      HAARP has something to do with those clouds.

                      SOMETHING is messing them up, and that
                      something I would suspect of possibly having
                      some relationship to some recent Hum cases, as
                      that "something" obviously can generate heavy
                      duty influence.

                      Eleanor White
                    • eleanor@shoestringradio.net
                      To: From: Bill Curry Date sent: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:00:00 -0500 Subject: Re: HUM_FORUM: Re: New
                      Message 10 of 14 , Aug 26 3:04 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        To: <humforum@yahoogroups.com>
                        From: Bill Curry <bpcurry@...>
                        Date sent: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:00:00 -0500
                        Subject: Re: HUM_FORUM: Re: New frequency?
                        Send reply to: humforum@yahoogroups.com

                        >Eleanor,
                        >
                        > I have heard much about "chemtrails" and most of it I don't
                        > believe has
                        >any credibility!

                        Some are able to see them, some are not.

                        I raised the topic because there may be a
                        connection with either Hum hearing, or the
                        new version of the Hum. Something IS going
                        on up there.

                        I'm a rare bird of sorts who has been a very
                        keen cloud watcher since early grade school,
                        and the chemicals are blatantly obvious to
                        me.

                        Especially when the spray aircraft begins the
                        spray pattern some distance away from your
                        vantage point.

                        It becomes more obvious too when both vapour
                        trails and chemtrails appear in the same sky.

                        Shocked looks on the faces of the general
                        public when you point that out.

                        > I live within a few miles of Chicago's O'hare
                        >airport, so I see many contrails - not chemtrails. Contrails
                        >occur naturally because of two primary reasons, in my opinion.

                        Contrails behave entirely differently than chemtrails.
                        They are not at all the same thing.

                        Some chemtrail observers have photographed or
                        video'd the chemicals emanating from parts of the
                        aircraft other than the engines.

                        >These are the production of wing tip vortices as a result of the
                        >generation of lift by high speed airflow over wings.

                        Wing tip vortex vapour is entirely different from
                        chemtrails.

                        > The other
                        >reason is the turbulence of the air produced by jet exhausts. I
                        >don't think that contrails are being generated deliberately with
                        >the intention to affect atmospheric heating or cooling.

                        There is apparently a patent regarding a countermeasure
                        for solar heating using chemtrails.

                        > They are
                        >a natural consequence of the fluid mechanics of powered flight.
                        >Incidentally, when there are many contrails they often merge into
                        >cirrus clouds. These are clouds composed of tiny ice crystals
                        >and they usually occur at high altitude. The contrails are a
                        >result of stirring supersaturated air by the vortices I mentioned
                        >and by turbulence. Supersaturated means that the amount of
                        >humidity in a given parcel of air is more than that parcel can
                        >normally hold. Stirring the parcel of air results in
                        >precipitation of the moisture from vapor to solid water
                        >particles. Usually, the phase transition is directly from vapor
                        >to ice at the conditions of high altitude, instead of vapor to
                        >liquid to ice. This process is called inverse sublimation.

                        As a mechanical engineer, where the properties of
                        water, gases, and heat transfer are big items, I do
                        understand what contrails are. Chemtrails are
                        entirely different, look different, and behave different.

                        > In the early1980's, I was in charge of an experiment at an Air
                        > Force
                        >laboratory to determine the particle sizes resulting from
                        >squirting a pressurized jet of water into a large chamber at high
                        >vacuum. Using measurements of the polarization of ultraviolet
                        >laser light that had been scattered by the cloud of particles
                        >that formed around the water jet near where it emerged into the
                        >vacuum, we determined that the particles were about one tenth the
                        >size of a typical atmospheric dust particle. This is about 10
                        >times larger than the size of condensation nuclei that are
                        >involved in the inverse sublimation process. The particles were
                        >also about 10 times smaller than typical water droplets in
                        >atmospheric clouds, so we concluded that the particles were
                        >probably tiny ice droplets. We were granted a patent for the US
                        >Air Force on our method of measuring these particles at multiple
                        >locations simultaneously. With another optical technique, we
                        >also found much fewer particles had sizes comparable to the
                        >diameter of the orifice through which the water jet flowed. We
                        >did not find particles in other size ranges.
                        >
                        > Cloud seeding experiments have sometimes used silver iodide
                        > crystals
                        >sprayed into a parcel of moist air to provide condensation
                        >nuclei. You can demonstrate this technique by striking a match
                        >whose head is coated with iodine and letting the smoke enter an
                        >opened freezer. You will get a few ice crystals precipitating
                        >out in the freezer. Silver iodide is not the only substance that
                        >can be used for condensation nuclei, but I don't what other
                        >substances work as well as condensation nuclei.

                        I know all about that, Bill, but I'm referring to the
                        spraying of chemicals, emanating from parts of the
                        aircraft other than the engines. I sincerely hope
                        you find a day where chemtrails and contrails are
                        side by side.

                        It seems some people are unable to see them
                        because they simply don't believe an entity with
                        resources to spray chemtrails would do so.

                        These bizarre activities of recent years are a major
                        pointer to the types of things that could be
                        responsible for the Hum.

                        Eleanor White
                        Hamilton, Ontario
                        Canada
                      • Ken Smith
                        Hi Eleanor, Here is a good web site that shows a lot of data on various subjects at the same time. This person, Stan, has also figured out where earthquakes
                        Message 11 of 14 , Aug 26 3:34 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Eleanor,
                          Here is a good web site that shows a lot of data on various subjects
                          at the same time. This person, Stan, has also figured out where
                          earthquakes would happen but the maps were pulled off the internet. He
                          is now trying out a new system to locate the earthquakes.
                          http://www.standayo.com/index1.html
                          Go down to "Earth Changes Talking Points" in the center of the screen.

                          For people that don't believ in Chem trails, look at this site.
                          http://www.carnicom.com/conright.htm

                          I still see these trails and normally that is when they are modifying
                          the weather over your area. I don't know if any of this relates to the
                          Hum that people hear. I do not hear it here in WV and don't know of
                          any one complaining about it.

                          Ken Smith
                          Parsons, WV

                          --- In humforum@yahoogroups.com, eleanor@... wrote:
                          >
                          > To: <humforum@yahoogroups.com>
                          > From: Bill Curry <bpcurry@...>
                          > Date sent: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:00:00 -0500
                          > Subject: Re: HUM_FORUM: Re: New frequency?
                          > Send reply to: humforum@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          > >Eleanor,
                          > >
                          > > I have heard much about "chemtrails" and most of it I don't
                          > > believe has
                          > >any credibility!
                          >
                          > Some are able to see them, some are not.
                          >
                          > I raised the topic because there may be a
                          > connection with either Hum hearing, or the
                          > new version of the Hum. Something IS going
                          > on up there.
                          >
                          > I'm a rare bird of sorts who has been a very
                          > keen cloud watcher since early grade school,
                          > and the chemicals are blatantly obvious to
                          > me.
                          >
                          > Especially when the spray aircraft begins the
                          > spray pattern some distance away from your
                          > vantage point.
                          >
                          > It becomes more obvious too when both vapour
                          > trails and chemtrails appear in the same sky.
                          >
                          > Shocked looks on the faces of the general
                          > public when you point that out.
                          >
                          > > I live within a few miles of Chicago's O'hare
                          > >airport, so I see many contrails - not chemtrails. Contrails
                          > >occur naturally because of two primary reasons, in my opinion.
                          >
                          > Contrails behave entirely differently than chemtrails.
                          > They are not at all the same thing.
                          >
                          > Some chemtrail observers have photographed or
                          > video'd the chemicals emanating from parts of the
                          > aircraft other than the engines.
                          >
                          > >These are the production of wing tip vortices as a result of the
                          > >generation of lift by high speed airflow over wings.
                          >
                          > Wing tip vortex vapour is entirely different from
                          > chemtrails.
                          >
                          > > The other
                          > >reason is the turbulence of the air produced by jet exhausts. I
                          > >don't think that contrails are being generated deliberately with
                          > >the intention to affect atmospheric heating or cooling.
                          >
                          > There is apparently a patent regarding a countermeasure
                          > for solar heating using chemtrails.
                          >
                          > > They are
                          > >a natural consequence of the fluid mechanics of powered flight.
                          > >Incidentally, when there are many contrails they often merge into
                          > >cirrus clouds. These are clouds composed of tiny ice crystals
                          > >and they usually occur at high altitude. The contrails are a
                          > >result of stirring supersaturated air by the vortices I mentioned
                          > >and by turbulence. Supersaturated means that the amount of
                          > >humidity in a given parcel of air is more than that parcel can
                          > >normally hold. Stirring the parcel of air results in
                          > >precipitation of the moisture from vapor to solid water
                          > >particles. Usually, the phase transition is directly from vapor
                          > >to ice at the conditions of high altitude, instead of vapor to
                          > >liquid to ice. This process is called inverse sublimation.
                          >
                          > As a mechanical engineer, where the properties of
                          > water, gases, and heat transfer are big items, I do
                          > understand what contrails are. Chemtrails are
                          > entirely different, look different, and behave different.
                          >
                          > > In the early1980's, I was in charge of an experiment at an Air
                          > > Force
                          > >laboratory to determine the particle sizes resulting from
                          > >squirting a pressurized jet of water into a large chamber at high
                          > >vacuum. Using measurements of the polarization of ultraviolet
                          > >laser light that had been scattered by the cloud of particles
                          > >that formed around the water jet near where it emerged into the
                          > >vacuum, we determined that the particles were about one tenth the
                          > >size of a typical atmospheric dust particle. This is about 10
                          > >times larger than the size of condensation nuclei that are
                          > >involved in the inverse sublimation process. The particles were
                          > >also about 10 times smaller than typical water droplets in
                          > >atmospheric clouds, so we concluded that the particles were
                          > >probably tiny ice droplets. We were granted a patent for the US
                          > >Air Force on our method of measuring these particles at multiple
                          > >locations simultaneously. With another optical technique, we
                          > >also found much fewer particles had sizes comparable to the
                          > >diameter of the orifice through which the water jet flowed. We
                          > >did not find particles in other size ranges.
                          > >
                          > > Cloud seeding experiments have sometimes used silver iodide
                          > > crystals
                          > >sprayed into a parcel of moist air to provide condensation
                          > >nuclei. You can demonstrate this technique by striking a match
                          > >whose head is coated with iodine and letting the smoke enter an
                          > >opened freezer. You will get a few ice crystals precipitating
                          > >out in the freezer. Silver iodide is not the only substance that
                          > >can be used for condensation nuclei, but I don't what other
                          > >substances work as well as condensation nuclei.
                          >
                          > I know all about that, Bill, but I'm referring to the
                          > spraying of chemicals, emanating from parts of the
                          > aircraft other than the engines. I sincerely hope
                          > you find a day where chemtrails and contrails are
                          > side by side.
                          >
                          > It seems some people are unable to see them
                          > because they simply don't believe an entity with
                          > resources to spray chemtrails would do so.
                          >
                          > These bizarre activities of recent years are a major
                          > pointer to the types of things that could be
                          > responsible for the Hum.
                          >
                          > Eleanor White
                          > Hamilton, Ontario
                          > Canada
                          >
                        • eleanor@shoestringradio.net
                          To: humforum@yahoogroups.com From: Ken Smith Date sent: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:34:21 -0000 Subject:
                          Message 12 of 14 , Aug 26 4:17 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            To: humforum@yahoogroups.com
                            From: "Ken Smith" <kensmith52@...>
                            Date sent: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:34:21 -0000
                            Subject: HUM_FORUM: Re: New frequency?
                            Send reply to: humforum@yahoogroups.com

                            >Hi Eleanor,
                            >Here is a good web site that shows a lot of data on various
                            >subjects at the same time. This person, Stan, has also figured
                            >out where earthquakes would happen but the maps were pulled off
                            >the internet. He is now trying out a new system to locate the
                            >earthquakes. http://www.standayo.com/index1.html Go down to
                            >"Earth Changes Talking Points" in the center of the screen.
                            >
                            >For people that don't believ in Chem trails, look at this site.
                            >http://www.carnicom.com/conright.htm
                            >
                            >I still see these trails and normally that is when they are
                            >modifying the weather over your area. I don't know if any of this
                            >relates to the Hum that people hear. I do not hear it here in WV
                            >and don't know of any one complaining about it.
                            >
                            >Ken Smith
                            >Parsons, WV

                            Thanks, Ken -

                            I know those sites and have listened to many
                            broadcasts by those two researchers, however
                            being a Hum forum, I didn't feel it would be
                            appropriate to go into lots of detail here.

                            The main point is that one really bizarre thing
                            is happening over our heads, visibly. That
                            in turn makes it likely other bizarre things are
                            happening, and whether chemtrails are taking
                            part in the Hum or not, they do at least hint at
                            a man-made cause.

                            Eleanor White
                            Hamilton, Ontario
                            Canada
                          • Tobypaws2002@aol.com
                            In a message dated 26/08/2007 06:51:26 GMT Standard Time, bpcurry@worldnet.att.net writes: I don t see how ionospheric heating can have any effect on global
                            Message 13 of 14 , Aug 30 10:07 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated 26/08/2007 06:51:26 GMT Standard Time, bpcurry@... writes:
                              I don't see how ionospheric heating can have any effect on global warming.
                              (R.M. agrees, thanks Bill.)


                                 The green house effect has been understood for about 100 years by scientists as being a way that the earth - atmospheric system traps more heat energy than it radiates away until the temperature of both warms up and reaches an equilibrium state.  Atmospheric particles complicate the picture, but for about 15 years, scientists have been including ice particles, dust particles, and water droplets in their calculations - as far as I know.  I recall a meeting about 13 years ago in the Chicago area in which the aerosol research community considered how these atmospheric particles might affect the impact of global warming on the climate.  What I remember the most was the suggestion that global warming with aerosols being present was likely to produce climatic extremes.  The reason is that global warming occurs most strongly in equatorial regions, but atmospheric cooling by aerosol pollution associated with human activity occurs mostly in the temperate zones.  This affects the large scale atmospheric currents.  I don't think we yet have enough data to determine whether the extremes of weather we have seen is the last few years is mainly due to global warming or part of natural cyclic changes, but I do think that global warming is definitely occurring and climate changes are beginning.

                              Regards, Bill Curry

                               Thanks , Bill.
                              We have heard many opposing views about whether global warming is
                              due to human CO2 (etc) emissions, or , as Bill says, whether it is due to natural fluctuations,
                              over a longer geological time span.
                              England, I hear, was at one time under 300 (?) feet of ice, and at another time,
                               under a shallow sea,. and yet at one time was more tropical in climate than temperate,
                               as it is now.
                              The long-term view suggests caution in attributing the current trends towards more extreme weather,
                              to OUR activities, but I cannot think that the millions of tons of rubbish we put into the atmosphere
                               has no effect at all....  I tend to take seriously the warnings about Global Warming....
                              I recall the Biosphere experiment in USA where they tried to set up a self-regulating climate, and failed because the concrete under the domes/enclosures was giving off CO2, and upsetting the balance.
                              There was a programme, I think maybe on the U.K.'s  'Open University' about it.
                              Now I must wonder, if they got that calculation wrong, and hadn't thought of
                              the total effects involved, what else have they got wrong ?!
                              But I have to conclude that we ought, as a species, to try to get back to
                              a state where the total environment is more like the natural , more stable state of the earth...
                              it seems only common sense to me to notice how much we are exploiting the earth,
                              and upsetting the delicate balance of nature...
                              I believe this Hum problem only got underway once the population and density of human
                              activity had reached a certain point, and that before that,
                               the acoustic environment was probably much less noisy than it is now.
                               
                              Didn't someone write here, that after 9-11, when all flights were stopped,
                               the Hum went right down, or fell silent?
                              When I think of how many thousands of planes are chugging across the world all the time,
                               especially overnight, long-haul, their noise is floating through the sky,most of the time,
                               and probably accumulating to raise the general background levels of noise....
                               
                              If we could reduce our obsessions for faster travel, further travel,
                              and all the consumer 'goodies' that we have learnt to desire,
                               then maybe we could reverse the trends we have started....
                               
                              Most of our problems on this earth come from there being too many people.
                              When the earth had far fewer people on it, I would think the climate might have been  less extreme,
                              although, I acknowledge there have always been extreme events like earthquakes,
                              etc., it's just that communications are so much quicker now, and we hear of most events quickly.
                              This Hum problem I would suggest, is an example (or a 'symptom') of how our human activities
                              are pushing the general environment further and further away from the 'natural'
                              state of things, i.e., clean air, clean seas, clean rivers, quiet acoustic environment....
                               
                              Just tossing some thoughts around !
                               
                               Hoping this helps in some small way.
                               
                              I am so very sorry that so many people are suffering with L.F.N.,
                               
                               I know how bad it makes you feel when you are oppressed by constant noise....
                               
                              Stay strong !
                               
                              Best Wishes,
                              R.M.
                              LFNS Helpline,
                              England..
                               
                            • Tobypaws2002@aol.com
                              In a message dated 26/08/2007 23:06:55 GMT Standard Time, eleanor@shoestringradio.net writes: I m referring to the spraying of chemicals, emanating from parts
                              Message 14 of 14 , Sep 4, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 26/08/2007 23:06:55 GMT Standard Time, eleanor@... writes:
                                I'm referring to the
                                spraying of chemicals, emanating from parts of the
                                aircraft other than the engines. I sincerely hope
                                you find a day where chemtrails and contrails are
                                side by side.

                                It seems some people are unable to see them
                                because they simply don't believe an entity with
                                resources to spray chemtrails would do so.

                                These bizarre activities of recent years are a major
                                pointer to the types of things that could be
                                responsible for the Hum.

                                Eleanor White
                                Hamilton, Ontario
                                Canada

                                Hi Eleanor,
                                 Could you please give an idea of how chemtrails
                                 could possibly cause a hum at ground level?
                                Thanks,
                                R.M.
                                LFNSH,
                                England.
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.