Terms Other Than "Mind Control" (Revised Jan 22, 2003)

John Michael Williams jwill at AstraGate.net
Wed Jan 29 19:48:52 EST 2003


"Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote in message news:<3E3624CE.DCE22F72 at datafilter.com>...
> John Michael Williams wrote:
> > 
> > "Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote in message news:<3E347731.67AA88B8 at datafilter.com>...
> > > John Michael Williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote in message news:<3E32FBBA.1077BD at datafilter.com>...
> > > > >
> > > > > According to Justensen, "The electrical sine-wave analogs of each word
> > > > > were then processed so that each time a sine wave crossed zero reference
> > > > > in the negative direction, a brief pulse of microwave energy was triggered."
> > > > > Sounds like a Fourier representation, but it is not entirely clear.
> > > >
> > > > It's not related directly to any Fourier operation.  It is just
> > > > frequency modulation:  The frequency of the pulses depends on the
> > > > frequency of 0-crossings, which is just twice the frequency of
> > > > the input wave.  One might see it as a sort of rectification.
> > >
> > > How do you suddenly "know" this, when before you just had some ideas
> > > about how you *thought* they were doing it?  Why mention sine waves at
> > > all, if it is just frequency modulation?
> > 
> > I didn't know it:  You were kind enough to give enough of a technical
> > reference to make the electronics clear:  "0-crossing" is a meaningful
> > technical term.  A pulse at every 0-crossing IS a
> > frequency modulation.  Because the pulses are unidirectional, whether
> > positive or not, it is electrically a rectification.  The higher the
> > frequency, the more frequent the 0-crossings; therefore, the pulses
> > come out frequency modulated.  It's just common sense.
> > 
> > Rectification is a nonlinear operation; Fourier manipulations
> > are linear; so, creating pulses from 0-crossings is independent
> > of any Fourier (or other linear) transform.
> 
> Zero crossing is definitely nonlinear.  So a zero crossings on the
> components of a Fourier series is *not* the same as a zero crossing
> operation on the original signal.  Consider a simple counterexample,
> the sum of a wave and another wave at twice the wavelength (octave).
> What happened to the zero points of the second wave after the 
> summation?

?? How does this have anything to do with 0-crossings?
They still occur, regardless of the wavelength, and
creating a spike at
each one still would be nonlinear.  It has to
do with the spike, not with the behavior of the wave.

> 
> See the later xylophone comment for more discussion.
> 
> > >  I never described any Guy
> > > experiment;  Justesen credits Sharp and Grove.  Perhaps the Soviets in Moscow
> > > should get the real credit, who knows.
> > 
> > I think you quoted Guy's 1971 study of "9 different words".  In 1975, Guy
> > and others (in the Discussion section of the NYAS paper) denied any
> > success in voice transmission.  Frey at that time said he thought it
> > might be possible (but not because he had tried).
> 
> Again, I never described any Guy experiment; Justesen credits Sharp and 
> Grove.

Justesen also denies being able to hear microwaves, which I
find dubious (but possible).  He never says whether his hearing
was normal in other respects.

Regardless of Justesen, on what basis are you claiming some
unspecified "general acceptance" of the idea of conveying voice by
microwaves?  Guy has established that it is NOT possible,
at least to the extent there was actual data gathered.  The
others in that discussion, including Frey, could not report having
achieved anything better.  You should read that peper; it
really isn't very technical.

You reply below with a SPECULATION that voice MIGHT be conveyed.

Fact says it doesn't work; speculation says it does.  Therefore, 
it doesn't work.  Is your idea of "general acceptance", "Generally
speculative and contrary both to fact and common sense"?

Frey discovered microwave hearing, but he has never been able
to provide anything but speculation about developing it into
voice transmission.  He in fact warns that prolonged exposure
to microwaves causing the hearing effect caused him headaches
(Frey, 1998, Environmental Health Perspectives).  So, even if
it did work, it would be harmful to use.

> 
> > The quality of voice by direct microwave transmission is so pitifully
> > low, noone seriously would consider it.  Not to mention the
> > likelihood of development of cataracts or other disability because of
> > long-term microwave irradiation.  Even in 1970, one would simply
> > carry a tiny electronic receiver, maybe located in the ear.
> 
> You are stating this, as far as you have substantiated, based only
> on your speculations.  See the below xylophone comments.  

I am repeating what was stated in the Guy, et al 1975 study, which
I cited in a previous posting.  It is an established finding
that the quality is low, almost ununderstandable.  Guy gave up
on his 1971 study after 9 words; Frey gave up because of
headaches.  Read that paper, and then come back with arguments!

Over and above the data, it also theoretically is not possible 
to synthesize sound by microwaves in the cochlea, as assumed
by many old-time authors in this field.  The thermoelastic 
theory is incorrect--or, I should say, inadequate to
produce enough sound to cause voices above the background
sizzling of the microwaves.  At least, so far as anyone
has been able yet to show.  The old ideas of the 1970's
about microwave voices simply were wrong.  That's progress;
that's science.

The underlying problem is that the wavelength of the 
microwaves is 10x or more greater than the size of the cochlea.
At wavelengths small enough, say 0.1 mm (= 3000 GHz in air), the
microwaves are absorbed by skin and can't reach the cochlea.
It's basically infrared light.

> 
> > > In this very recent news article, Frey even speculates on sending voices
> > > by millimeter waves:
> > >
> > >    http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/e20010327questions.htm
> > 
> > You misread it.  Microwave hearing, according to a review in 2000
> > by Foster, can occur only up to about 10 GHz, which means a
> > wavelength in air of maybe a few cm.
> 
> Which part of this did I *possibly* misread:
> 
>    In fact, Frey and Hackett said the microwave hearing effect does 
>    not occur with millimeter waves (which range from 3 to 300 GHz).

Wrong.  Frey reports that it DOES occur ar 4 GHz (Frey, 1962) and
I think maybe he went higher yet, possibly to 6 GHz.

The author of the paper, or maybe the editor, has misquoted Frey.
He has quoted Frey and then substituted a false definition of
"mm waves" to make Frey appear to have said something he apparently
did not.   Maybe it's just technical ignorance.

See my posting above about the "Air Force arithmetic".  Waves
on the order of 1 mm, also called "MM waves", begin around a few mm,
which corresponds to a frequency of about 50 - 100 GHz, being generous
with what the medium might be.

This is why we can't let military people be passing judgement on
scientific matters:  They aren't qualified, no matter what their
previous education or training.

> 
>    "On the other hand, if your millimeter waves have enough energy 
>    density, are powerful enough, there are other phenomena where you 
>    could cause sort of a concussion kind of effect which could 
>    conceivably be heard by bone conduction. It would transfer through 
>    skin to bone and bone into the inner ear," Frey said.   He said it 
>    might be possible to modulate such energy to create the perception 
>    of some intelligible sounds. "But off hand, I can't tell you what 
>    kind of power levels you might need to do that," he said. 

Actually, maybe he could but doesn't want to.  There would be no voice
heard, because the victim would be knocked unconscious.

>     Hackett 
>    dismissed the idea of transmitting intelligible sounds to the head 
>    with MMWs as pure speculation. 

After misquoting Frey, he concludes Frey is wrong because the quote was
wrong.   Hmmm.  Must be an advertising man--not anyone allowed
to report enemy positions in combat . . ..

> 
> > To see how to get this,  c = L*f, where c, the speed
> > of light, is 3*10^8 m/s, L is wavelength in m, and f is fequency
> > in Hz.
> > 
> > So, 10 GHz => f = 10^10 Hz.  L = c/f; so, L = about 3 cm.  30 mm.
> 
> A useless calculation, without sufficient explanation even if it did
> address the point -- which was based on the plain English of the 
> article.

The plain English out of the calculations is that the plain English of
the article is wrong.

> 
> > I quote from the above link:
> > 
> >  "Hackett [mm wave weapon proponent] said the non-lethal
> >   MMW ray project is not seeking to create that kind of
> >   talking effect in people's heads.
> > 
> >  "In fact, Frey and Hackett said the microwave hearing effect
> >   does not occur with millimeter waves (which range from 3
> >   to 300 GHz)."
> 
> If only you had read *one* paragraph more!
> 
> > I can't emphasize enough that military organizations are good
> > at ADAPTING valid research, but generally they are incompetent
> > at doing it.  It isn't in their area of expertise.  You want
> > military personnel to guard a perimeter or shoot rockets at
> > someone; you don't want them developing new drugs or microwave
> > devices.  Or passing judgement on scientific papers.
> 
> The NSA employs more mathematicians than any other organization.
> Secret labs like Lawrence Livermore employ some highly talented
> people.  Even those NASA guys managed to get a Saturn V to the
> moon.  Never mind Groom Lake, etc.  Do those count as military?
> Is that really a useful distinction?

I don't see the relevance of this mish-mash of stuff.  Math is not
science; it is a tool of science, just as is a pencil, computer or
graph paper.  Yes.  There are strong distinctions even in the
mish-mash.  Even so, rocket engineering
is not science, either.  I gave you a von Braun example:  All these
accomplishments depend on science, as well as on engineering.
And I doubt any of the science was done by anyone in military service.

If you think the design of a rocket is "science", I
can see why you would be confused.

> 
> Not that any of them have any business suppressing open scientific 
> research in a free society, and *certainly* not in violating the human 
> rights of researchers.  Repressive governments tend to target writers
> and intellectuals, for obvious reasons.  A larger problem in the US
> is completely *naive* "intellectuals" who have only a terribly narrow
> expertise and cannot -- or purposely do not -- see beyond it.
> 
> When does "just following orders" cease to be an excuse for
> complicity in human rights abuses?  When does ignorance of the
> law (and the obvious applications and intentions of the technology) 
> *become* an excuse?  

I think I agree with you here, but it wasn't my point.
  
My point was that the science itself, independent of any
moral judgement, is degraded and becomes grid-locked when 
done under orders such as in a totalitarian state,
or in a military organization in a free society.

In any of these contexts, a conspiracy easily can develop
because of cowardice (cultivated by threatening superiors)
and irresponsibility (cultivated by a protected environment,
provided one has been conforming).

> 
> > > > The sound would resemble that of a playing-card in
> > > > bicycle spokes:  You know that children will try to make a
> > > > bicycle sound like a motorcycle by mounting a card on the fork,
> > > > so it rubs against the spokes.  So it produces a "BRRRPT" sound,
> > > > a little like a small engine.  That's what the microwave "voice"
> > > > would sound like.  Now, I agree that one could modulate the
> > > > pulses and make out words (especially if preselected from
> > > > a population of a few), but I wouldn't call it voice.
> > >
> > > Here you are speculating.  Presumably based on that theory of yours that
> > > you were mentioning earlier.  And contrary to what experts in the field
> > > have been quoted as saying.
> > 
> > If you would read the 1975 NYAS paper I cited in a
> > previous posting, you would see that what I am saying
> > is just based on it and papers cited in it.
> > 
> > Use common sense:  If you can hear a pulse as a "click" or a "pop",
> > then what would 100 or 1000 clicks per second sound like?
> 
> The bicycle spoke analogy was not a bad one, but did not address the
> actual frequency of the "square wave" signal.  A square wave at an 
> extremely *low* frequency sounds like a succession of bursts.  At higher 
> frequencies it blurs into a *tone*.  

No, it depends on other factors.  A pulse is not
a square wave.  Especially a random pulse.

A pulse should be assumed to contain harmonics 
of even and odd orders.   A kazoo still sounds 
like a kazoo, even at 3 kHz.  I think a kazoo can be 
gotten up to 6 kHz, and it would not sound like a tone.
It might sound like a mosquito going past ones ear.

Being able to identify the base frequency (pitch) is 
different from hearing a tone.

> It is like the audio equivalent of 
> two-flash fusion experiments.  Assume a bicycle wheel with a diameter of 2/3m,
> and 100 spokes.  Then the circumference is ~3*2/3m = 2m.  So at 1000
> hz pulse rate the wheel would be turning at 10rev/sec.  That is 20m/sec.
> At 3600sec/1hour and 1km/1000m (last I checked) that gives 72kph.  Which
> is just a little beyond the ordinary experience of cards in spokes.  But
> the example is good in that people can imagine such a wheel speeding up
> and the sound blurring into a frequency/pitch tone.
> 
> I have a digital delay pedal in my guitar rig.  That pedal only goes down
> to ~10ms delay, which would correspond to ~100hz audio signal.  At that
> level -- and really even a bit above -- the pulses blur together to give the
> sound more of a tone than a series of echoes.

I can't comment on this; I know nothing about electronic music.

> 
> > I agree that for purposes of harassment, microwave hearing would be
> > more effective than a tiny receiver.  But the hope in the 1970's
> > was not for harassment, but for communication.   Microwave hearing
> > has been shown ineffective for communication, and it may be
> > dangerous to the person hearing it.  Frey and many others have
> > reported headaches from microwave irradiation in the range
> > (about 200 MHz to 10 GHz) in which microwave hearing can be
> > demonstrated.
> 
> "Has been shown ineffective" is a strong statement, and completely
> unbacked by research.

You still haven't read Guy, et al 1975!  Read it, and then come
back with your generalities.

>  Proving a negative, even.  Ineffective with what
> modulation method, and in what context, and for what purpose?  Health
> concerns are certainly an issue for people aiming at consensual, ethical
> applications.  But there is a real subset of out people there who do not 
> fit that profile. 

No matter how crooked, they would not be able to hear a 
voice in any meaningful sense, from microwaves.

> 
> > > > > Here's a quote from a short article by Lin (presumably relating to
> > > > > pitch):
> > > > >
> > > > >    http://www.datafilter.com/mc/c_linAcm99.htm
> > > > >
> > > > >    "A train of RF pulses could be perceived as a tune corresponding to
> > > > >    the pulse repetition rate"
> > > >
> > > > One might call a drum beat or xylophone "music".  But not "voice."
> > >
> > > You surely are not a musician if you do not know the difference between
> > > a xylophone and a drum beat.  A xylophone has *pitch*.  If you have pitch
> > > you can surely send voice.
> > 
> > OK, let's see you play a xylophone and create words with it!
> 
> You are generous.  I do get to choose the frequencies of the xylophone "bars," 
> and the amplitude of the signals by how hard they are struck.  In that case, 
> I'll first do a Fourier decomposition of the soundform containing the words. 

No.  Play the xylophone.  You won't be able to make it sound like
a voice.
 
> Next, I'll choose the "bars" according to the necessary frequencies.  Then,
> I'll simply have the xylophonist play according to that "score."  Voila!
> Essentially perfect reproduction of the original sound.
> 
> Now, back to the Justesen description of the Sharp and Grove experiment.
> Suppose you have a Fourier decomposition of the original signal.  A pulse
> on each zero crossing of each sine wave component could be seen as an
> approximation of a sine wave at that frequency.  Doing this all at once,
> for each sine wave, could be seen as a rough summation of all the individual 
> sine waves.  See what I'm getting at?

No.  There are no "0-crossings" in frequency space.  The only 0 
there is where there is no amplitude at a given frequency.  You are
totally confused.  The 0-crossings only
exist in waveform (time domain) space.  They do not map to 0's 
in frequency space and can not be decomposed in terms of frequency
or phase.

They do not exist for components, only for the sum of all
components.

> 
> Now, if the scientist has shown this principle, what happens when it gets
> passed along to engineering?  First, they do research to find the the 
> psychophysical vs. physical curve -- as per the article that started this thread.  
> If you can get the psychophysical sine waves perfect (including their additive
> properties) then you can stop there.  Otherwise, you might look for other ways 
> to approximate a sine wave using the parameters of the physical wave: amplitude, 
> pulse rate, pulse width. 

I don't follow you here.  Fourier analysis is math, not science.

> 
> Even if you cannot truly approximate a sine wave (which you probably can) 
> you have characterized the sorts of psychophysical waveforms that 
> you *can* create -- as well as things like their "addition" properties
> in the psychophysical realm.  You then look for good approximate signal
> decomposition methods that most efficiently convert the original signal 
> into something you can microwave modulate.
> 
> Wavelet decompositions are a recent fad, and may even be applicable here.
> 
> > Highly unlikely.  Totalitarians are retardants, not
> > catalysts, of knowledge.  The poor, dumb physicists who
> > knuckled under and stayed in Germany during Hitler's rule
> > essentially were smothered and discovered little new.
> > Heisenberg, probably the greatest living physicist at the time
> > after Einstein, couldn't even understand fission after ten
> > or twenty years of Naziism.  But von Braun, who could apply
> > existing technology quite well, didn't suffer.
> 
> That is surely true for the lowest-level scum totalitarians.  I wish it
> were true in general, but it tends not to be.  The higher-level fascists
> tend to throw morality and human rights overboard.  But they are still 
> running on a sort of mob-baboon psychology, with its own primate "logic."
> 
> The Heisenberg thing has whole books written about it.  The saying about
> when good people do nothing includes scientists who bury their heads in the 
> sand, ostrich-like, oblivious to the applications to which their research is 
> being put.  Hey, they are "good" Americans with mortgages.  And every ostrich
> knows the US empire does not torture its own people or act as the primary 
> impediment to *real* human rights in the world.

My point was that good (=successful) science and totalitarian 
control were mutually exclusive.  It holds for all science, I think.
It has nothing to do with morality or ethics; it's strictly mechanical.
Decline of science (and, later, technology) ALWAYS occurs when
the science is done under orders or obedience.   You can't
discover anything if you are being told what to discover, or else.
And no nonsense.



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list