I have to say, I have never seen someone self-destruct their credibility
faster than you have in this thread. You demonstrated well back that you're not
much of a scientist. So I am no longer discussing things with you as if you were.
I've made all the non-scientific points I wanted to, also. The morbid enjoyment
has worn off, though it is tempting to get off in a flame war with your pathetic
"rebuttals." Good luck with your paper replacing current microwave hearing
theory. Given what I've seen in this thread of your reasoning ability, math
ability, and knowledge of the field, I won't be reading it.
Yes, the thread will be there for anyone to read.
John Michael Williams wrote:
>> "Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote in message news:<3E3DE0A1.CED2B71A at datafilter.com>...
> > John Michael Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > "Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote in message news:<3E3B4D52.B92D7268 at datafilter.com>...
> > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > You brought up the Fourier analysis, not I. I am saying it is
> > > > > irrelevant, because 0-crossings
> > > > > can not be represented by frequency components.
> > > >
> > > > You still either just don't get it or intentionally don't want to. Do you
> > > > know what a Fourier series, real-valued, in time domain is?
> > >
> > > Yes. What you are missing, is that I can tell you don't, or
> > > you would never have suggested it to analyze 0-crossings.
> > You don't give up, do you? You should have stopped way back, before
> > you looked...
> > *You* brought up the "0-crossing" from your take on Justesen, and then
> > insisted on dumping it into frequency space. You then argued that it
> > didn't make sense. Well, it didn't.
> > Fourier series, real-valued, time domain.
>> Here is the FIRST mention of 0-crossing in
> these postings: It is by you, and seems to
> raise the question that you don't know what
> it means:
>> > > > "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.
>> There is something wrong with you, if you can't admit being wrong.
>> I then pointed out that it had nothing to do
> with anything linear. This includes Fourier transforms or
> Fourier decomposition (=Fourier series). Why jump on a simple
> correction? You were asking for it.
> > > > > Foil has almost no mass per unit area; thus, it can
> > > > > be vibrated by momentum of the microwave photons. The
> > > > > head is too massive to respond AT ALL (measurably)
> > > > > because of this effect. Vibrating foil then vibrates the
> > > > > air, like a fly's wings, and can be heard.
> > > >
> > > > The momentum of the microwave photons... that's a new one and a
> > > > calculation I'd like to see.
> > >
> > > Then read the paper! You are just arguing over stuff you don't
> > > understand, because of a few words in a second-hand report
> > > by Justensen which never was published except as a rumor.
> > Exactly which paper it that?
>> Sharp et al, 1974 IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory & Techniques
> v. 22(5), 583 - 584.
>> They reported that the effect they observed (sounds through the air
> from foil and stuff) could be explained by the momentum. So, it
> isn't necessary to have any equipment to detect (high-power)
> pulsed microwaves, other than some crumpled foil. This
> was for air-borne sound. The human auditory system can not
> detect bone-conducted sound very well, though. Also, the head would
> be accelerated hardly at all by the momentum (because of the
> huge mass difference between thin foil and the head), so this effect
> doesn't generalize to direct microwave hearing. This was why
> Foster and Finch (1974) came up with a thermal theory. But that
> doesn't work, either.
>> Sharp et al did not use water for anything. That was
> Foster & Finch (same year).
>> > I've apparently read a bit more than
> > you and I don't even pretend that I'm going to revolutionize the theory of
> > microwave hearing. I don't doubt there is some tiny momentum effect.
> > You'll calculate that, maybe correctly, see that it is tiny, and conclude
> > that it is too small to hear. Meanwhile, you have ignored the thermal
> > effects of pulsed microwaves on crumpled foil, no less. Anyone with a
> > microwave oven...
>> There are no thermal effects on foil: There are no
> dipoles. It is metal. The microwaves are
> reflected by any metal, including aluminum. Reflection
> also happens to double the momentum transfer.
> > > > Sharp also did experiments with
> > > > something like a jar of water held up to the head (I don't have
> > > > the article with me right now).
> > >
> > > That was Foster and Finch (1974). They did nothing with a head
> > > (except their own). They confirmed an acoustic wave. But they
> > > did not correctly calculate whether it could
> > > be heard, because apparently they were not
> > > aware of the existing data on human hearing.
> > No, it was Sharp. I read the paper.
>> Would you cite it then? As I recall, the one I
> described above did not have any experiment with water.
> > > > The thermoelastic effect is a real
> > > > one. Head size predictions of Lin's model even held across different
> > > > species of animals, if I recall. (I think that was mentioned in the
> > > > 1982 survey article referenced below.)
> > >
> > > Yes, it is physically real. But it is inadequate to explain
> > > microwave hearing. One has to factor in the sensitivity of the
> > > auditory system; they didn't. They used a microphone as a substitute.
> > Well at least you'll recognize that it is physically real. I expect
> > that you are the one mistaken about the sensitivity of the auditory
> > system and/or the actual magnitude of the effect (whether by bone
> > conduction or whatever). I have an open mind on the issue,
> > but you clearly are working from a political agenda.
>> I'm citing (repeatedly) data known since the 1940's. Which apparently
> Lin and some others did not become aware of. Now we know.
> As one result, the thermoelastic theory has been shown to fail,
> at least for any effect much above the threshold
> of hearing.
> > > > > The thermoacoustic theory of microwave hearing depends
> > > > > of heating of the head, thermal expansion, and thus sound waves.
> > > > > It doesn't work out, if you figure the expansion coefficients
> > > > > and the postulated temperature rise.
> > > >
> > > > Your statements don't mean anything at this point. You're trying
> > > > to disprove (by handwaving) an established effect -- one with both theory
> > > > and research behind it. Check out the following survey article, please:
> > > >
> > > > C.K. Chou, A.W. Guy and R. Galambos, Auditory perception of
> > > > radio-frequency electromagnetic fields, J. Acoustic Soc. America 71
> > > > (1982) 1321-1334.
> > > >
> > > > There's Guy again, from 1982 this time.
> > >
> > > Yes, I know that paper well: They discuss microwave
> > > hearing, NOT voice. They all had abandoned voice
> > > communication by the middle 1970's. Where did
> > > they claim voice communication?
> > They discuss microwave hearing and the *thermoacoustic model*
> > explaining it. Cat heads respond to different frequencies
> > than human ones. Isn't that interesting? It is predicted by
> > Lin's model.
>> Numerous experiments show that cats, dogs, rhesus monkeys,
> and humans have about the same sensitivity to microwave hearing.
> For example, Seaman & Lebovitz (1987), or Cain & Rissmann (1978).
> Notice that these dates FOLLOW the Lin calculations.
>> Thus, the prediction being false shows the calculation to be
> false (not necessarily the theory). The thermoacoustic
> theory can be shown false on other grounds (already
> > > I again point out that this is 2003, not 1973! You have
> > > dug up a lot of old stuff about voice communication
> > > which was abandoned long ago by ALL concerned, whether
> > > arguing by a "thermoacoustic" effect or not.
> > I notice you have not provided a reference from 2003. And which of
> > Maxwell's laws, and what factors of head shape have changed since
> > the 70s? Aside from deteriorating math skills?
>> You may reread my postings (and yours): They are dated
> in 2003.
> > > > You sure are arrogant. From what I've seen you can't back it up, either.
> > > > I'll take Lin any day over your tripe. You should hope the reviewers of
> > > > your paper aren't especially familiar with the field.
> > >
> > > If Lin can't solve Maxwell's equations correctly,
> > > you shouldn't cite his work depending on it.
> > You are asserting an error in his calculations? Based on what? Some
> > assumption of yours that they can't be right? How about his basic
> > head model and theoretical framework? Have you found where the error
> > occurs in his calculation? Has a corrected model been published?
> > Or just more handwaving?
>> Keep in mind that I don't want to encourage Lin further in
> this kind of error. He did some stuff, and published it;
> now it is wrong. So what? Who cares? Science advances by trial
> and error. Any book on EM theory or basic quantum
> electrodynamics has solutions of Maxwell's equations.
> > > He also calculates stuff with the speed of sound in the human
> > > head equal to that of water (~1500 m/s). Bekesy actually measured
> > > it at under 600 m/s. So much for Lin's calculations.
> > Would that be a parameter in his model? I'm sure there are improvements
> > that could be made to his model.
>> No. It is no longer 1975. Not even 1985.
>> > But you want to toss the baby with the
> > bathwater, replace it with handwaving, and disparage Lin as wall. Again,
> > where are the errors in Lin's calculation? Which parameters need to be adjusted
> > to better reflect reality? Then turn the crank and see what comes out.
> > But you just want to do "science" by cheap oratory.
>> Yes, I want to toss out the calculations with the errors.
> > > > > > > > Dr. Robert O. Becker, twice nominated for the Noble prize for
> > > > > > > > his health work in bio-electromagnetism,
> > >
> > > Dr. Georg Bekesy, who actually received the Nobel prize, has published
> > > data making the idea of THERMOacoustic microwave hearing
> > > untenable. It doesn't stand up to quantification. You are citing the
> > > work of a would-be winner over that of a real winner.
> > You little political weasel. It is your interpretation that is doubtful.
> > You've already plainly misinterpreted the Guy et al. paper for us, ignoring
> > the effects of different modulation techniques, for example.
>> I rest my case on fact; yours, on name-calling?
> > > was more explicit in
> > > > > > > > his concern over illicit government activity. He wrote of
> > > > > > > > "obvious application in covert operations designed to drive a
> > > > > > > > target crazy with "voices." What is frightening is that words,
> > >
> > > But, by 1975, it had been shown that voices could not be
> > > transmitted by microwave. Anything else was speculation.
> > > By 1980, voices had been completely abandoned.
> > First of all, "voices" are only one application of the microwave hearing
> > effect. So one wouldn't necessarily expect to find them discussed in a
> > basic scientific paper. Secondly, radiofrequency weapons, if they didn't
> > entirely go black, at least went a lot darker in the 80s.
>> Right. Another application is detecting a cop trying
> to locate a thief in the dark with a $10,000 hand-held radar
> set--which doesn't work, anyway. Do you advocate this one? Any
> other useful applications to confess?
>> > ...
> > > You presented a rumor, relayed by Justesen, from Guy, that he could
> > > distinguish 9 words of speech. Later abandoned if not retracted
> > > (there may be a published retraction somewhere, I don't know). If you know
> > > of any others, you haven't yet presented them. I agree that someone
> > > willing to admit a mistake might be trusted to be
> > > a "leader", but I'm using my head and not following anyone without
> > > solid proof. 9 words just doesn't cut it. But, you have
> > > a right to your own standards of evidence . . ..
> > It is all perfectly testable, even today. (AND JUSTESEN CREDITS SHARP AND
> > GROVE. For the fourth time.) Are you calling for some open
> > research to clear up the question of high-fidelity microwave voice
> > modulation?
>> No. It has been done, and unless you can come up
> with an actual report, not a rumor passed on at
> Justesen's seminar presentation, I am satisfied that it is not
> possible. It would be a waste of time and money. Also,
> there would be liability in causing possible stroke
> or other disability.
Mind Control: TT&P ==> http://www.datafilter.com/mc
Home page: http://www.datafilter.com/alb