I now get the same 404 error as you did Dee- but [ earlier ] I did some light analysis on Johns data and posted the files on our files list here [ find them - Above right, & below Pages] I've now added a shortened clip of the Hum sound John picked up as well - JD Hum.wav. All these recent files are prefaced JD. I hope that's OK John?
On Jul 1, 9:34 am, dboots <[email protected]> wrote: > But this method you speak of sounds very plausible. Because in > essence the Hum is a form of a vibration. > > On Jun 18, 7:41 am, John Dawes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > This experiment was purely mechanical, the recording was taken from > > the movement of a vibrating mass, there was no connection with radio > > transmissions of any kind. > > > On Jun 18, 12:22 pm, Trev <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > What do you attribute the approx 5KHz bandspread to? > > > It seems to have a sharp cut off indicating perhaps that this an > > > equipment limit -but this would need an analysis of the mechanics > > > involved in the measurements- whilst the source stays out of the > > > picture. > > > I suggest the LF cut off could be due to the higher amounts of energy > > > increasingly needed to drive natural mechanisms at LF whereas there's > > > a lot HF free energy flying about from the Sun and upper atmosphere > > > lightning activity. > > > I have to allow that cloud charges are static and unipolar until they > > > discharge- but that would be mostly a stable state. > > > Your results seem to show a stable presentation though- over time very > > > little deviation apart from the LF modulation @ 200ms shown on the Mod > > > trace. > > > The 9 ms chopping effect looks how I imagine the switched Police radio > > > channels[Tetra] would present. > > > Is that a possibility ? - though the p.r. frequency's a bit out from > > > 16 Hz. > > > It's quite possibly a secondary system running or an unpublished > > > switch of channel hopping freq would explain this. > > > I know you have stated: this energy is neither a sound wave or a > > > radio wave > > > - but the parallels are there. > > > Other [unknown] mechanisms could interface the modes of energy > > > transfer. > > > > On Jun 18, 5:01 am, John Dawes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > As I have tried to make clear, it was not my to intension to mimic the > > > > sound we hear. > > > > The experiment is very simple, to set a small mass into vibration over > > > > the range of frequencies from about 20 to 100 cycles per second and > > > > observe the motion that takes place. > > > > I found that a 2 points above and below 50 cycles per second the > > > > vibrating mass exhibit’s a modulation that should not be there and the > > > > only conclusion can be that some form of energy is effecting what > > > > should be the simple harmonic motion of the vibrating mass and that > > > > this energy is neither a sound wave or a radio wave. > > > > > I think it would be difficult if not impossible to determine if > > > > everybody perceives exactly the same noise, this is a very complicated > > > > subject, for some sufferers experience the effects throughout the > > > > whole of their body. > > > > > On Jun 18, 3:00 am, Trev <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Something else I meant to mention in the SA file ,apart from the > > > > > repetitive freq spread (indicating either some possible aliasing or > > > > > even artifact in the source), is that the 'cut offs' of the > > > > > fundamental are limits of what many people report as Hum. > > > > > > Mine , at the low end of 27 Hz, and upper- at 80 Hz, as the usual max > > > > > of others where it tangles (intermodulates?) with mains supply freq. > > > > > causing the annoying beat 'throb', that wears so. > > > > > This is shown as the wide yellow band at the base of the the spectrum. > > > > > > Yes!, wideband, repetitive and suspiciously clean- all in all, coupled > > > > > with the unique measurement technique makes this more than a chance > > > > > occurence. > > > > > > What are your thoughts John? > > > > > > On Jun 17, 11:39 pm, Pete <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I've got my computer output wired up to a NAD amplifier with some > > > > > > good > > > > > > bass responsive Acoustic Research loudspeakers out putting the > > > > > > sound. > > > > > > So, if the volume is turned right down until I just about hear this > > > > > > MP3, and the imagine it's in my head rather than coming from the > > > > > > speakers, then it's pretty damn close. If it went up and down > > > > > > randomly > > > > > > as it does, or as it does as I perceive it, then it'd be spot on.- > > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hum Sufferers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hum-sufferers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
