Patty I hear backwards pure tones incorporated into the music at most
stores I agree I also research RF n Microwave Auditory Effects(Frey)
You might find
interesting US Patent 6470214 Method and device for implementing the
radio frequency hearing effect (filed 1996 issued 2002) US has rights
to it I hear clicks
and this patent presents a reason why a population could perceive
hearing clicks
of waves going thru our heads that produce intelligible or
unintelligible sound like the "ringing in our ears" or "clicks"(buzzs
n hiss's?) as the sound gets
more pronounced as the brain gets a grasp on the sound patterns being
perceived
But it is also important to not leave out of the equation the
advancing by leaps and bounds of the wireless technologys so quickly
over the last 20 yrs
That overabundance of manmade MW n RF radiation in our
environments, has long been known to be a cause of concern regarding
possible harmful effects to the population and not many countries have
been rushing to the front of the line to establish safe exposure
limits So instead wireless technologys got to advance rapidly without
having to worry much about being held accountable for any hazardous
effects of EMF mainly because not many countries are forcing the
issue but instead they are carefully, with plausible deniabiity,
playing at the game
of continued need to debate the most basic issue at hand, of what data
should
or should not be considered as they were designing their modeling
formula's
thereby hedging their bets the models they built would give back a
large
pile of inconclusive data 30 yrs later and they can't get past the
debating
stage BASICALLY THE BAND PLAY'S ON
Wireless, broadband, satellite transmissions,the new wireless
of digital voice (home telephone services), WiFI, Bluetooth, Sirrius,
WIMAX,
3G, 4G, we as a population are being subjected to living within the
boundary's of its perputual transmissions of multiple forms of
unnatural manmade radiation fields
We can be walking thru it's fields regardless whether we are actually
carring
a wireless device or not (ie WIMAX ) I also have grave concerns
regarding
the UK's MW communication program of TETRA
Neurological effects and syndromes are rising at too steep of an
incline among the population like the restless leg syndrome,
Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue, ADD, etc Auditory effects are part of
the equation but the radiation effects within those transmission
signal process's that affects our auditory pathways has to be another
piece of that equation concerning MW, RF etc Neurological effects
can also come from non thermal (athermal) sources besides thermal
United States Patent 6,470,214
O'Loughlin , et al. October 22, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method and device for implementing the radio frequency hearing effect
Abstract
A modulation process with a fully suppressed carrier and input
preprocessor filtering to produce an encoded output; for amplitude
modulation (AM) and audio speech preprocessor filtering, intelligible
subjective sound is produced when the encoded signal is demodulated
using the RF Hearing Effect. Suitable forms of carrier suppressed
modulation include single sideband (SSB) and carrier suppressed
amplitude modulation (CSAM), with both sidebands present.
Inventors: O'Loughlin; James P. (Placitas, NM), Loree; Diana L.
(Albuquerque, NM)
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Secretary
of the Air ((Washington, DC)
STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT INTEREST
The invention described herein may be manufactured and used by or for
the Government for governmental purposes without the payment of any
royalty thereon.
The Radio Frequency ("RF") Hearing Effect was first noticed during
World War II as a subjective "click" produced by a pulsed radar signal
when the transmitted power is above a "threshold" level. Below the
threshold level, the click cannot be heard.
The discovery of the Radio Frequency Hearing Effect suggested that a
pulsed RF carrier could be encoded with an amplitude modulated ("AM")
envelope. In one approach to pulsed carrier modulation, it was assumed
that the "click" of the pulsed carrier was similar to a data sample
and could be used to synthesize both simple and complex tones such as
speech. Although pulsed carrier modulation can induce a subjective
sensation for simple tones, it severely distorts the complex waveforms
of speech, as has been confirmed experimentally.
The presence of this kind of distortion has prevented the click
process for the encoding of intelligible speech. An example is
provided by AM sampled data modulation.
Upon demodulation the perceived speech signal has some of the envelope
characteristics of an audio signal. Consequently a message can be
recognized as speech when a listener is preadvised that speech has
been sent. However, if the listener does not know the content of the
message, the audio signal is unintelligible.
The attempt to use the click process to encode speech has been based
on the assumption that if simple tones can be encoded, speech can be
encoded as well, but this is not so.
A simple tone can contain several distortions and still be perceived
as a tone whereas the same degree of distortion applied to speech
renders it unintelligible.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
In accomplishing the foregoing and related object the invention..
FOREGOING - Said, written, or encountered just before; previous
-----
The RF Hearing Effect is explained and analyzed as a thermal to
acoustic demodulating process. Energy absorption in a medium, such as
the head, causes mechanical expansion and contraction, and thus an
acoustic signal.
When the expansion and contraction take place in the head of an
animal, the acoustic signal is passed by conduction to the inner ear
where it is further processed as if it were an acoustic signal from
the outer ear.
The RF to Acoustic Demodulator thus has characteristics which permit
the conversion of the RF energy input to an acoustic output.
Accordingly, it is an object of the invention to provide a novel
technique for the intelligible encoding of signals. A related object
is to provide for the intelligible encoding of speech.
Another object of the invention is to make use of the Radio Frequency
("RF") Hearing Effect in the intelligible demodulation of encoded
signals, including speech.
What is claimed is:
1. A method of encoding an input audio signal a(t) to produce a double
sideband output signal having a .omega..sub.c carrier frequency, which
when transmitted to the head of a receiving subject, will by the radio
frequency hearing effect induce a thermal-acoustic signal in the bone/
tissue material of the head that replicates the input audio signal and
is conducted by the bone/tissue structure of the head to the inner ear
where it is demodulated by the normal processes of the cochlea and
converted to nerve signals which are sent to the brain
------
On Mar 4, 11:28 am, patty <[email protected]> wrote:
> The more I read and re-read about Microwave Auditory Effects and the
> Neurological effects that have been studied, the more I get use to the
> terminology , the more I am convinced that the auditory effect that
> they side lined as not hazardous back in 1991 and then again in 2005
> grouping all sensory perception of EMF as not a hazardous effect. I
> am sure that if they will take another look at the effects caused in
> the brain when the hum is present they will see all the other areas
> effected by the waves going thru the brain. The restless leg
> syndrome, Fybromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue, ADD.
>
> Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation by
> Henry Lai, his Vienna Paper from 1998; gave clues to the reason for
> passivity.
> I got a copy from http://www.mapcruzin.com/radiofrequency/henry_lai2.htm
> In this paper he further explains and updates the terminology from
> where Frey left off.
> The effects and affect of the opiates and dopimines being stimulated
> in the brain is enough to change anyones behavior.
> Suspicion: I was in my local Big Box department store, they are now
> playing music with the pure tones incorporated, do you think that this
> could persuade people to spend more than they had intended to. I
> think so, the tones seem to have an neurological response, dopamine
> release that we can not control.
> Thanks for hanging in
> Patty
>
> On Mar 3, 2:14 am, Trev <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't see your post as a rant at all.
> > One of the most worrying things I note today is the passivity and
> > acceptance by people of the PTB as the new 'God Head' in their lives.
> > People should be angry, both at what is happening to their planet
> > [never mind G Warming- that is a side issue of the rip off] and also
> > at the personal affront that spacial highjacking presents via effects
> > like EM pollution.
> > That guy in Sweden [uWave effects] has been pushing for ages- but they
> > seem like voices in the dark- as people are IN the dark- and can't
> > bear the light much, as it's all a bit scary !
> > We're supposed to trust our leaders, scientists and medicos after all.
> > Oops!...
>
> > On Mar 2, 8:23 pm, patty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Hi everybody; I don't use a cellphone, I don't even use a microwave.
> > > I refused jobs in the past because I'd have to wear earphones. I
> > > could never stand being around such things let alone having them stuck
> > > in my ears. The reasons I have for reading the documents let me see
> > > the conjecture that has been used to protect this industry. Now they
> > > are in a corner, I'm glad I'm not in thier shoes, but if I was, I'd be
> > > honest.
> > > It is effecting everyone, I think very few are immune to it. It just
> > > has such varying degrees and hits on different weakness in each
> > > individual. The different frequencies and thier modulations all have
> > > different catagories of effects. More studys have been done on near
> > > field, which has a different effect from far fields.
> > > Have they been sneaky in the way that they state thier case? Have
> > > they used arrogance? To keep people in the dark, suffering quietly.
> > > I keep seeing them as the Ostrich with it's proverbial head stuck in
> > > the sand.
> > > The microwaves not only go thru the skulls of hum hearers but they go
> > > thru the skulls of everyone. If you don't have the unseen spectrum of
> > > light waves going thru your head, if you don't percieve them you have
> > > no sensory transduction, I'm sure they call that being brain dead.
>
> > > Sorry I have to rant sometimes too.
> > > Patty
>
> > > On Feb 25, 11:29 pm, dboots <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > you are absolutely right about the waves going thru the brain Well
> > > > they are
> > > > about to introduce new even faster wireless
> > > > technology to the public Odds are we are already living within it
> > > > and it
> > > > probably affects us whether we are carrying a wireless device or not
>
> > > > WHO isn't confused They know exactly what they are doing which is
> > > > influencing public opinion to think how TPTB want the population to
> > > > think
> > > > wireless technology is of
> > > > no harm no foul play
>
> > > > On Feb 25, 11:10 am, patty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > No I don't trust them. My truth is that we all are human. I am
> > > > > reading the articles so I can see the short comings in the processes
> > > > > they are using.
> > > > > We do have a comprehensive case. They are confused, probably more
> > > > > than we are. One chink in thier armour that I notice is, how they are
> > > > > equating the effects of the use of a cell phone (near field) with the
> > > > > effects of base stations (far field). They are flipping from one to
> > > > > the other. I must say the EMF sensitives in Europe have put a ruffle
> > > > > in their feathers. I know how I felt when I was first confronted with
> > > > > the truth of this matter. The disblief that this monster has been
> > > > > allowed to grow so large, and how can it be stopped. Peoples minds
> > > > > are effected by the waves, so I have to work with the factor, that I
> > > > > must forgive them (to an extent) because they too are under the
> > > > > influence.
> > > > > So I look for information in the reports that they provide. Yes I am
> > > > > reading between the lines. I believe in the microwave auditory
> > > > > effect, I feel the effects on my nervous system, it scares me.
> > > > > I am trying to keep a tight control on my anger, anger is a bundle of
> > > > > emotions. How many times in my life so far have I been dissuated,
> > > > > because the one I have asked for help has said it's too complicated,
> > > > > usually what I have found out later is that they didn't have the
> > > > > answer in the first place.
> > > > > They may be experts in the scientific community but they are only part
> > > > > of what makes the world. They might be singing, but anyone with any
> > > > > insight can see the waves going thru the brain and figure that the
> > > > > brain is not a void, even the effects on neural synpse, neural synapse
> > > > > are roughly nanometres apart, would they not be effected in the wave.
> > > > > I never though I would have to think about such things.
> > > > > Thank you for responding, I don't have anyone to talk to about this.
> > > > > My husband gets a glazed look on his face when I ponder the situation
> > > > > out loud.
> > > > > Patty
> > > > > On Feb 24, 10:28 am, dboots <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Yes but sometimes rants about how complicated subjects happen to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > just another form of avoiding the issue and reaching conclusions
> > > > > > WHO's job is to
> > > > > > interfer with reaching conclusions, complicated or not Yes I would
> > > > > > assume they give some insights, but basically it is up to us to read
> > > > > > between the lines because WHO is NEVER going to tell us the whole
> > > > > > truth because they would lose their non profit funding and the top
> > > > > > people would lose their easy ride
>
> > > > > > And just as I suspected, considering the link you provided, WHO
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > singing
> > > > > > like a canary to protect the industry it is suppose to be studying
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > ill
> > > > > > health effects Notice how they so eloquently keep the conversation
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > RF levels Not all wireless is RF And not all wireless is
> > > > > > modulation
> > > > > > of RF
>
> > > > > > THE BOLD BASIC TRUTH IS BRAIN TUMORS, CANCERS IN MEN N WOMEN,
> > > > > > DIABETIES, CENTRAL NERVOUS
> > > > > > SYSTEM DISORDERS, ADD TYPE DISORDERS, OBSESSIVE DISORDERS,
> > > > > > CHRONIC INSOMIA, CHRONIC FATIQUE TYPE DISORDERS, BIRTH DEFECTS AND
> > > > > > STILL BIRTHS, BREATHING PROBLEMS (Asthma), AS WELL AS
> > > > > > TOO LARGE OF A PORTION OF THE POPULATION IS LEANING TOWARDS
> > > > > > ROAD RAGES OR THE EXTREME OF GOING POSTAL
>
> > > > > > Something in our environments are inducing our bodies to go
> > > > > > through
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > multiple changes of our immune systems not being able to do the job
> > > > > > it use to
>
> > > > > > Radiation and magnetic fields fill this bill more than any other
> > > > > > form of
> > > > > > technology advancement and that points at the advancement of
> > > > > > wireless
>
> > > > > > WHO can pretend from now until Doomsday, but pretending is what
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > are doing WHO knows perfectly well where there money comes from
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > they have the brains to not bite the hand that feeds them even with
> > > > > > despite unavoidable uncertainty to deal with I notice they also go
> > > > > > out of
> > > > > > their way to not link our 60 Hz grid or European's 50 Hz grid to not
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > considered part of the equation when it is a very large part of the
> > > > > > equation
>
> > > > > > As summarized here, these separate avenues of scientific
> > > > > > investigation
> > > > > > provide little support for adverse health effects arising from RF
> > > > > > exposure at levels below current international standards. Moreover,
> > > > > > radio and television broadcast waves have exposed populations to RF
> > > > > > for > 50 years with little evidence of deleterious health
> > > > > > consequences. Despite unavoidable uncertainty, current scientific
> > > > > > data
> > > > > > are consistent with the conclusion that public exposures to
> > > > > > permissible RF levels from mobile telephony and base stations are
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > likely to adversely affect human health.
>
> > > > > > Radiofrequency (RF) waves have long been used for different types of
> > > > > > information exchange via the airwaves—wireless Morse code, radio,
> > > > > > television, and wireless telephony (i.e., construction and operation
> > > > > > of telephones or telephonic systems) . Increasingly larger numbers
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > people rely on mobile telephone technology, and health concerns
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > the associated RF exposure have been raised, particularly because
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > mobile phone handset operates in close proximity to the human body,
>
> ...
>
> read more »- 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.
