From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Sat Mar  2 10:27:31 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id KAA18143 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sat, 2 Mar 1996 10:24:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gramercy.ios.com (root@gramercy.ios.com [198.4.75.51]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA18116 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sat, 2 Mar 1996 10:24:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LOCALNAME (ppp-32.ts-1.hou.idt.net [206.20.189.32]) by gramercy.ios.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA26366 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sat, 2 Mar 1996 13:23:46 -0500
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 13:23:46 -0500
Message-Id: <199603021823.NAA26366@gramercy.ios.com>
X-Sender: jbwebb@gramercy.ios.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
From: Joni Webb <jbwebb@gramercy.ios.com>
Subject: hum: A Plea To Larry!!
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I am NOT attempting to flame here, but only attempting to call attention to
certain points.  I am looking to expand the dialogue.


Larry, please.  Today you sent 33 messages to this newsgroup.  Most were an
article of yours that was chopped up all over the server.  Might I make a
suggestion to you:  If you have a long article that you want to send out,
please send one message detailing the article.  If anyone wants it they can
contact you directly for the article.  This only seems logical to me.  

In response to this particular post:  I thought you were not a hearer, but a
researcher.  Now you claim you are a hearer.  Your inclusion into this not
so desirable clique happened unlike most people.  Hearers usually have a
spontaneous awareness of the hum.  One minute it is not there and the next
minute it is there.  It doesn't creep up on people.  You say now you know
that you've been a hearer for 20 years.  That would place you in the
definite minority, since I thought the longest hearer had been around 10
years.  I suggested a test for you and Judy Cole to perform that would
confirm if you are truly hearing the hum.  You have yet to respond to the
newsgroup regarding this challenge.



A
>So last night I tried it, Carbamide Peroxide-Glycerine eardrops, liquid
>firecrackers for the ear.  While it may have affected the hum I really
>couldn't tell, 

I feel a true hearer would definetly know whether the hum was affected.

  
>
>The reason I'm doing this is rather simple, I'd like a good night's sleep,
>something I can't even get at 1.5. 

I don't know about other hearers - but I'll take a 1.5 any night.  1.5 is
distant and at times can seem mildly comforting, knowing that it is so low
and not loud.


 So having noticed that the research,
>while not rudderless, is also not
>being railroaded, 

I disagree!!! The University of New Mexico is in the process of doing new
research.  This time, they are concentrating on ear hairs which may be
picking up the hum.  One can get copies of the research paper that has
already been written by calling 505-277-5813.


I can also identify many of the
>unusual characteristics of the hum and quickly see that many of these just
>don't fit inside our history of studies of electronics, electromagnetics, and
>most other possible sources for the hum.
>

How can you know that?  Obviously we are hearing something.  I hope you are
not talking alien beings here.


>
>
>1. It's too quiet, as a signal, to cause the dramatic effects described by
>those who have a strong case of it.
>      Yet it does anyway.
>

On certain days there is no possible way I would say this is a quiet signal!


>2.  It's heard both in the hearing and on a fairly simple high-gain tuned
>receiver being tested now in Sweden,
>     which finds it as some kind of signal, exact characteristics still being
>determined. 

What is the evidence you cite here.  Is this Lennart you are talking about?
Please cite sources here.

>5.    At the higher levels some hum hearers report sensations and effects
>which do not sound to an experienced technical mind as feasible given the
>circumstances, although I do not at all doubt that these are happening to
>those who have them. The exhaustion and fatique, 'electrical shocks,'
>vibrations, headaches and nosebleed of intense sufferers 

I would be curious to know more about nosebleeds.  Who out there truly has
nosebleeds?  Could you please respond to this newsgroup and report such
symptoms that are directly attributable to the hum?  Exhaustion and fatique
may come from staying up at night and worrying, but does the hum CAUSE
fatigue itself?  

>6.      While there can be a bit of buzzing, sometimes perceived by a tiny
>number of people up close to powerful Radar transmitters, this has
>historically been very rare and it usually comes and goes as the radar
>antenna rotates, which just about all radar antennas have to do to operate.
> The Taos Hum, on the other hand, goes steadily on it's way, ignoring logic,
>belief, technical knowledge and just about every parameter we can think of to
>throw at it.

I have to strongly diasgree here.  The hum does not just go "steadily on
it's way" here in Houston.  I have had long periods (weeks) of total quiet.
I have also had short periods (days), shorter periods of quiet (minutes) and
even seconds of total quiet.  

>7.     It has been well researched both technically and physiologically, and
>no reason of any simple or obvious,
>or even non-obvious nature, can be found for it. Yet those who have it know
>very well it is there, that it can hurt, and that no matter how much is said
>that technically it cannot exist, it does.


Might I ask - WHO says and where has it been said exactly that "technically
it cannot exist?"  Please cite sources here. The hum has been researched,
but at this point no one can state that they know for sure what it is caused
by.  That does not mean that the research says technically the source can
NOT be found, it only means so far, the source has not been found. Research
is still being carred out.  

After perusing your articles, I did some research on the crop circles.  It
seems that many, if not most of the crop circles are thought and known to be
hoaxes.  The researchers who were termed "experts" were fooled by these
hoaxes on a TV documentary.  Experts in the field of crop circles actually
pronounced as "real" a crop circle that had been man made and filmed while
being made.   The experts were motivated by making money off the crop
circles as it became quite a cottage industry in England.  There is a book
out by John Macnish, a BBC producer who originally hired some experts to
look into this "phenomenon" (Cropcircle Apocalypse, Circlevision 1993).
This book puts into perspective all the hoaxes.  Critics claim that it
doesn't address the "real" crop circles, but so far, evidence about "real"
crop circles is very, very lacking.  So, I think, for purposes of this
newsgroup to further actual, reasonable research concerning the hum,
anecdotal "evidence" of crop circles would be better posted to the
alt.paranormal newsgroups.  Am I alone in this thought - or do other hearers
agree?

Looking forward to your opinions.


Joni Webb


From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Sat Mar  2 13:21:44 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id NAA16680 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sat, 2 Mar 1996 13:21:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eskimo.com (billb@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA16665 for <taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com>; Sat, 2 Mar 1996 13:20:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eskimo.com (8.7.4) id NAA06581; Sat, 2 Mar 1996 13:20:58 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 13:20:55 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Subject: hum: Re: BOUNCE taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com: Message too long
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960225155939.20177B-100000@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960302124138.2806B-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Larry:

You earlier sent a huge file to taoshum-l which was automatically
rejected.  I sent you the following message (note the date.) You did note
what I said, right?  The only (unofficial) rules on taoshum-l are, no
flamewars and no huge files.  We then tried two more times to get the file
to me, but every time it was in Mac Stuffit compression format which I
have no way of reading.  I suggested that you send me the file as pasted
into email so the automatic Stuffit wouldn't be involked.

Are the "humbunnies" the pieces of this file?  If so, I thought you were
going to send it to me for the Webpage.  Did I miss your request to the
group for everyone's permission to send a huge file?  Be aware that many
would consider the Humbunnies as Spamming.  Was all this a big communications
foulup?  I'm sorry I haven't been responsive over the last week, I've only
been getting five hours sleep per night because of big emergency product
redesign at work. 


.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page




On Sun, 25 Feb 1996, William Beaty wrote:
> 
> Ooops, no too long.  My majordomo bounce setting is for 32K
> 
> It's bad form to email large files to groups of people without their
> permission because it sometimes overloads mailboxes and sometimes
> generates extra charges from providers.  Also the entire thing is in some
> kind of Apple Mac compression format which only other Mac owners can 
> read, so lots of people would be asking for resending. 
> 
> How about this: email me the file and I'll put it on the Taos Hum website 
> where interested parties can come get it.  Anyone not having web access 
> can ask one of us to email it to them.  My unix Pine email program 
> handles Mime encoding (sort of a standard for the net), or pkzipped 
> files, or just straight text.
> 
> 
> On Sun, 25 Feb 1996 owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com wrote:
> > >From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com  Sun Feb 25 14:45:56 1996
> > Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA02817 for <taoshum-L@eskimo.com>; Sun, 25 Feb 1996 14:45:49 -0800 (PST)
> > From: LGrant44@aol.com
> > Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA22093 for taoshum-L@eskimo.com; Sun, 25 Feb 1996 17:44:30 -0500
> > Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 17:44:30 -0500
> > Message-ID: <960225174429_153181795@mail02.mail.aol.com>
> > To: taoshum-L@eskimo.com
> > Subject: Taos Hum: short history of hums
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-type: multipart/mixed;
> > 	boundary="PART.BOUNDARY.0.8468.mail02.mail.aol.com.825288268"
> > --PART.BOUNDARY.0.8468.mail02.mail.aol.com.825288268
> > Content-ID: <0_8468_825288269@mail02.mail.aol.com.261538>
> > Content-type: text/plain
> > 
> > I found for a while that keeping busy held the hum back, hope you like this
> > and find something useful in it. Check the attached file, it should be
> > something like fifty pages, let me know if it ate too many buffers and
> > scattered itself all over the Chili Dog Lover's Newsgroup or somewhere.
> >  Electric effects folks should especially find something interesting here, as
> > will many others.


From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Sun Mar  3 14:34:39 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id OAA18774 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 14:33:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from emout08.mail.aol.com (emout08.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.23]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA18730 for <taoshum-L@eskimo.com>; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 14:33:09 -0800 (PST)
From: LGrant44@aol.com
Received: by emout08.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25255 for taoshum-L@eskimo.com; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 17:32:33 -0500
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 17:32:33 -0500
Message-ID: <960303173233_437075601@emout08.mail.aol.com>
To: taoshum-L@eskimo.com
Subject: hum: The E-Mail Flood, from L. Grant
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

I'm sorry I wan't on the Net yesterday to deal with the small firestorm
that's popped up, I've suffered a very serious and rather tragic familial
emergency which gave me not one second to attend to anything else and has
left me with a deep sense of grief which will not alleviate until the issues
raised by a very unusual injury are fully resolved, and that may take some
time.  No need to further explain that, I'm sure that everyone on the Net
with me can understand that we also have private lives that sometimes produce
distractions of a very personal nature.

As a result, however, I am not going to try and saddle the full emotional
load of what amounts to a veritable flood of E-Mail which my son has been
monitoring in my absence.

He has informed me of the general drift of the situation and I was planning
on putting together yet another summary and discussion to try and prevent the
confusion that has arisen on the T.H. newsgroup but as of late Friday evening
I've been having to make rather crucial and long lasting decisions while 
dealing with the worry involved not in death but severe injury to a very
close family member.

I'm not asking for sympathy, just trying to explain the sudden lapse in what
was until then a vigorous daily wrestling match of a satisfying if intense
nature.  So given the mood I'm in I don't think I can relate to any more
intense negativism and still write this without developing and 'attitude' of
a really outrageous nature and instead let me deal with several problems at
hand and then I'll read the mail and see if I've totally misjudged the
situation, and follow that up with another suggestion set later this
afternoon or tomorrow, if I'm able to do anything tomorrow because the
familial problem will also have to be dealt with then., and it is very time
consuming.



First, the Humbunnies.  

I have had no end of problems getting what I have to say fitted into the
technical structure of the Net.  While the Net is portrayed as this rather
infinite space it turns out that if you even press a message as far as 20k
bytes it starts to fall apart and comes out missing chunks or parts.  While
Bill at Eskimo has said that his system is set to manage 32K of message max I
was advised that it is best to work with 3200 byte messages because there are
servers to be dealt with in getting the message around the globe that are
sometimes less capable and don't like big messages.

So I decided that it would be better to chop down to under 3200 bytes, which
is just one page.  While some folks may think small notes and messages are
the way things should be we are working with a positively vast area with
which most of the people I am meeting on the Net have no familiarity.
 Therefore a ton of groundwork, description, mental pictures, etc., must be
transferred because nobody has much enthusiasm for doing things such as large
scale ground searches while completly in the dark about why this or that is
necessary.

The 'Humbunnies' blew out, so we'll try again.

I know I tend to be wordy, that comes from doing too much too fast, a problem
created by the almost instantaneous nature of the Net.  Lincoln was exactly
right in saying that a short message or speech of any significance takes a
long time to write and a long blather can be done extempore'.

I try not to blather and some of the things I'm turning out are worked to the
bone before being sent out, but other things are done with only two or three
throws at rewrite and that leaves some fat in.

At the same time it would be much easier if the Taos Hum itself were a simple
or directly answered problem but a lot of excellent research by people
knowledgable in each field has turned up very little that comes close to
doing anything real about the Hum, either in understanding the true nature of
its cause or in demonstrating the ability to shut it off in even a single
person. It seems we may have to unleash a lot of verbiage, scattershot ideas,
so that we might paw through the result and see if we are gaining or not
moving at all.

I have also released SHADOWMASS VIEWPOINT before I would have liked because
there can be no end to it until the Hum is fully understood, if not
controlled, and to wait for a few hundred pages more to let it out serves
little purpose.

As it and the other rather volumatic items I've placed in the Newsgroup mail
boxes is very controversial one finds that it creates, well, controversy.  I
really don't think any of it is my fault.  I am writing, behaving and trying
to inform in exactly the same way that I learned to while working with the
English folks who study Crop Circles and in fact the attitude I express
and the tendency to not state things in cold scientific terms
comes from the fact that they actually loved both what I said and the
controversy created. They have a very deep understanding of these areas
because many of them grow up amidst what we would consider 'crazy' goings on
of a supernatural nature and become accustomed to the odd Boogum startling
them so I would have to be much wilder than I am being in the T.H. Newsgroup
to bother anybody in any real way.

In fact the Sussex Branch of the Center for Crop Circle Studies allowed me to
be so outrageous, although to the point and honest, that I don't dare even
reprint part of what I wrote for them because the T.H. folks will turn
positively pale.

As those who have been reading my output know I'm an ex-farm kid and having
grown up with a father who was as honest and forthcoming as any farmer can be
I cannot gloss or varnish, or in anyway pull back from the maelstrom that the
research I'm involved in really is. It's hard enough to keep a clear head in
this research without having to candy coat it too.

As I've said before, unless you are drawn to this method of research like a
moth to a flame don't read it, delete it, and you'll probably have a very
nice day.  What I write doesn't give me nightmares but it does very much
concern me because through my extensive research and efforts to relate to
many other people in the same field I have found without question that our
lovely home, our beautiful little blue marble of a planet, is going through
some powerful changes which we as a race may have no control over and may not
even have had anything to do with starting as the cause may be in the Sun
itself. I don't know whether we can actually do much but grit our teeth and
ride as far as possible, thus the roller coaster metaphor with caution that
there are to safety bars.

I am trying to deal with this honestly, I think I understand enough to point
in some new directions. A very thorough attempt to solve the Taos Hum through
traditional or stolidly scientific approaches is not providing relief for a
huge population of people who suffer on a daily basis and want at least to
know somebody who might be able to do something cares.

The basis and full philosophy of 'Western Man' is that we as tiny little
specks of flesh can push hard enough on 'nature' to control our environment
totally. While our forbears had to hide out at the first sight of heavy rain
we have safe houses.  While our ancestors, lacking refrigeration, had to find
and prepare food daily and spend varying amounts of time on this depending on
local abundance,  we use mass tranportation, farming, ranching, and a whole
bunch of ways to fix it so we don't have to be very concerned with anything
more than earning the money to buy Strawberries in Winter from Mexico for
example, which helps us prevent diseases others in our ancestry fell prey to
because of a lack of daily intake of vitamins our bodies do not store, such
as vitamin C.

We live in a world where our technical prowess has made things look very safe
and secure and reliable, who doesn't want that?  But we have not necessarily
been able to cover all the bases that Mom's nature can throw at us, the Taos
Hum is to me one of these, it evades our attempts to define and deal with it
like a fox making fools of the hounds.

As I have a technical background which has led me to view the very odd
occurances described inadequately as 'supernatural' as indications of more
energies that electricity at work, and as I'm fully aware of what the use of
just electricity has done in improving our lives over those of our ancestors
I see the Hum as both a problem and a promise of even better things for the
future.  To me it's an indication of the application by 'nature' of more
electric-like energy forms and that leads me toward wanting to understand
them too.

I've never expected this pursuit to go smoothly and certainly it hasn't in
Britain, but eventually even using snail mail progress was made and so I
sincerely believe that using that small base of success we can build a firm
place from which to view and research the Hum and what it implies toward the
future of our race.

I know it would be nice if the Hum were really just a simple secret project
and we could plead to have it shut off, but my own real experience tends to
suggest that it is much more than we suspect and will eventually prove quite
amazing when we can get it out under a light and get 'science' to pay
attention to it.  

This is the dark time, when we suspect much and know little for sure.  Only
experiments, experience, work, thousands of ideas certainly from more people
than myself, and confidence that we can at least understand a bit more about
the Hum will get us anywhere at all. That's how every single device we love
so much, from movies to good clean food to warm homes, VCR's and all the rest
has been developed, it is about the only way to do it.

There are many ways to go about the research on Hum and I'm not trying to
funnel anybody into one direction at the expense of other possibilities, I am
looking for a 'few good people' who can go out and throw themselves
wholeheartedly into a lot of hard field work to see if I have chosen a proper
direction. Then and only then we can return and say that the Taos Hum is
found at an old megalithic site not far from Taos, as it is found at an old
megalithic site in Britain.

So far, however, even though I supplied both technical instructions on how to
assemble simple gear for a rather crude and labor intensive search for
ground-based sources of the hum what I've seen is a lot of discussion but
unless the mass of E-Mail I'm about to read contains just one note from some
body who has actually gone out and tried with an open mind to find it at any
of the bunch of possible locations I carefully mapped out I'm going to
conclude that we are still just generating heat in the boiler and the engine
isn't yet up to steam enough to actually move anywhere.

You must also understand that I know the people involved with the Taos Hum
did not come to this Newsgroup through scientific interest or curiosity, many
are here because they hope to find an answer they have not found elsewhere. I
have to add, however, that the farmers who have had goodly sized chunks of
crop ruined by the Crop Circles did not ask for that either, in both cases
the problem is mysterious and the solutions not at all clear.

It is impossible to write a string of articles which each address a different
group and some part of each 'article' I write on the Hum is written with an
eye toward attracting technical help from outside the Newsgroup, over in the
physics and geophysical science groups, and the attempt to make this
interesting to them may clash a bit with the needs and desires of the T.H.
group but everyone is necessary to this research because that T.H. is
typically not heard by the tekkies and in fact my experience is that they for
the most part don't care about it, even though if they had any real
cognisance of its importance they should be flooding in like a Tsunami.

So I approach this with knowledge that the Hum can only be understood through
the co-ordination of many different disciplines and the knowledge that if the
research does get off the ground I will not be the one doing the
co-ordinating, it's just too big a job.  For my part I have always viewed
myself as a kind of prod, or stimulator, trying to provide some of the basic
ideas which later have to be refined by others into the success of control or
understanding of the Hum.

James Burke, in his extensive series of programs called 'connections,' has
forever dashed the myth of the 'Super-hero scientist' by showing that all
progress is a mixture of ideas and motivations from a wide variety of people,
not just some single vast inspiration which forever changes our lives.

One must always remember that while Einstein may have theorized up a storm it
was Rutherford who actually designed and built the basic machinery necessary
to express the ideas as more than chalk on a blackboard.  The Hum is very
likely to turn out the same way, first absolute masses of ideas, many wrong,
some close, a few hopefully right on the mark and able to produce real
progress.  If we don't bring all the ideas out, grit our teeth at the really
hard ones or the ones that frighten and see which honestly moves forward and
which fails on further examination we will not get anywhere at all.

Every single prong of research which turns up any piece of evidence about the
Taos Hum is necessary to explore until we know where we are headed. We cannot
become mired in personal conflict or distracting arguments or we are doing
little better than the rather foolish inhabitants of Gilligan's Island.  This
is not unlike a real war effort in which every erg of available attention
must be brought to bear on the important subject in front of us so we might
progress into territory which is unknown.

Sure we'll go over the edge of this cliff or that but we have to get up again
and see whether we need simple course correction or entire re-drawing of the
map. If this were easy it would have already been solved and quite clearly it
has not been.

Let's all pull on the oars together instead of beating each other over the
heads with them. We could stand, for example, some organization along the
following lines:

I appreciate the comments about needing a Bibliography, and that's what I'm
going to work on next, I don't like long lists of books which don't indicate
where one idea or another comes from, or which book is filled with good ideas
and which has only one or two.  I'm going to work on that now for a bit and I
will also need help in extending the bibliography by someone who can prowl
the various libraries available to the Net and see if the articles I'm using
as reference are factual and state just what I've found they do.  Any takers?

I also need that small crowd of physically capable and mentally open souls
who can get out with the gear and go test the basic ideas and keep testing
with a positive viewpoint so we know that if the Hum is not found in the
field it has been carefully sought.  I have known people like that in Britain
and some of them have performed the most tedious tasks in the finest rotten
weather Britain can offer and they still came home with results that could
hold up against peer review.  As the Taos Hum Hearers are an international
group I think I'm not expecting too much that we all have this kind of
dedication to the cause.  I apologize if I'm disturbing, hopefully we will
all be able to rest when the hum is found to be simple and non-threatening,
perhaps a clash between the power-grid and someone's overwrought toaster.

If you prefer a different approach, simply delete my stuff as it comes in and
participate instead in one of the other quite valid attempts to find the
cause of the Taos Hum in other ways, we're all doing valid work, and we all
must realize that it is only the power of free speech and the cute little
soap-boxes provided by the Internet that will eventually supply real answers.

Larry Grant      LGrant44@aol.com

(although not for long as of March 14 when Ma' bell changes our lives again
by offering direct access to the net).


  







From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Sun Mar  3 15:38:10 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id PAA01675 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 15:37:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eskimo.com (billb@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA01642 for <taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com>; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 15:37:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eskimo.com (8.7.4) id PAA10098; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 15:37:07 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 15:37:03 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Subject: hum: So, taoshum-L does need rules.
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960303151949.4628I-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


I've been putting off the adoption of rules for this discussion group, 
but I think you'll agree that recent events call for some changes.

The main rule is, IF IN DOUBT, ASK THE GROUP.


Opinions on the following?



RULES:  

   1. Intelligent, respectful discussion only.  Meaning, no flamewars.  
      Think twice or more before replying to seeming insults.  Remain
      aware that the low information content in email can easily lead
      to misunderstandings.  If in doubt, ask. If you want to be nasty, 
      take it to private email.

   2. Small postings only.  The limit is currently set to 40K for single
      messages. Some users have mailbox limits, others must pay by the K 
      for received messages.  Larger files can be mailed with permission
      of the moderator and the group, or can be placed on the taoshum-L 
      web page. Or simply mail them directly to parties who express 
      interest.

   3. If a thread wanders too far off-topic, it should be continued via
      private email.  If in doubt, review the taoshum-L description on
      the webpage, or ask the group if the topic is still interesting.

   4. Outsiders and new subscribers may not post advertizements on this 
      list.  Regular users of taoshum-L may post ads if they are 
      somewhat on-topic.  If in doubt, ask the group before posting.

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Mon Mar  4 04:42:04 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id RAA20862 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 17:20:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bbs.gemlink.com (bbs.gemlink.com [205.161.116.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA20830 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 17:20:39 -0800 (PST)
From: mimi@bbs.gemlink.com (Mimi)
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Date: 3 Mar 1996 20:09:02 EDT
Message-ID: <82590175119030@bbs.gemlink.com>
Subject: hum: let's keep everyone involved
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


  I value ALL of the Hum discussion group contributions, and in that
spirit offer a few of my thoughts on how best to keep us all involved.
   Most of us probably check our e-mail daily and use that time to do a
quick run-through and perhaps file significant items for later
perusal--that's my routine with most Hum items.  So  I like the idea of
limited-length messages.  Anyone with a longer contribution could
attach it as a file, with guidelines as to content; few of us are
likely to check out long items without some indication as to what
they're about.
    I appreciate efforts to be concise.  I doubt if anyone in this
discussion group rejects any theory or idea regarding the hum; but most
of us have limited time to devote to this.   So  conciseness and
guidelines as to content  mean a lot.  And thanks, Bill Beatty, for
your efforts.  To people like me who  thought we were alone out here
hearing the hum, the Hum group means a lot.


From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Tue Mar  5 13:27:00 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id NAA00416 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 13:24:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eskimo.com (billb@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA00386 for <taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 13:24:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eskimo.com (8.7.4) id NAA09344; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 13:24:00 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 13:23:58 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Subject: hum: LGRANT's article now available
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960305132254.6492D-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Larry Grant's SHADOWMASS VIEWPOINT article is now on the Taoshum-L 
webpage (http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/hum/hum.html)


.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Wed Mar  6 04:19:37 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id RAA19293 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 17:49:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eskimo.com (billb@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA19050 for <taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 17:48:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eskimo.com (8.7.4) id RAA29592; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 17:48:28 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 17:48:27 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Subject: Re: hum: So, taoshum-L does need rules.
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960305174741.29263A-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

--- FORWARDED ---
From: "John Cull" <John.Cull@usa1.com>
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 12:10:47 -0500
Subject: Re: hum: So, taoshum-L does need rules.



> I've been putting off the adoption of rules for this discussion group, 
> but I think you'll agree that recent events call for some changes.
> 
> The main rule is, IF IN DOUBT, ASK THE GROUP.
> 
> 
> Opinions on the following?
 
I have to say I endorse your rules completely, Bill.  
  
>    1. Intelligent, respectful discussion only.

This one is a no-brainer.
  
>    2. Small postings only.  

Who has time to read an online version of "War and Peace?"  Get to 
the point and end it.

>    3. If a thread wanders too far off-topic, it should be continued via
>       private email.  

Another no-brainer. People subscribe to a mailing list to learn about 
that particular topic, no someone else's free-association rambling.

 


From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Wed Mar  6 14:26:53 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id OAA26765 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 14:24:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA26720 for <taoshum-L@eskimo.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 14:23:46 -0800 (PST)
From: LGrant44@aol.com
Received: by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA12677 for taoshum-L@eskimo.com; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:22:10 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:22:10 -0500
Message-ID: <960306172210_239258019@emout07.mail.aol.com>
To: taoshum-L@eskimo.com
Subject: hum: Taos Hum Experience
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Well, back on track.  The episode this weekend that created such a strong
negative reaction was caused by my Mom
who, after losing use of one eye last summer due to retinal detachment,
almost lost the other in a fall which was accompanied by a total loss of
memory of the incident.  As the specialist who takes care of her eye was not
available over the weekend and the swelling in her good eye caused it to be
blurry in the extreme, it was to say the least a worrysome weekend.  Now,
after a string of checks, exams, Cat Scan, etc., permanent damage to her one 
good eye has been ruled out and no facial bone structure was damaged.  My
wife and I spent a goodly time examining the route she took before and during
an approximately 45 minute walking blackout and spotted a number of objects
which could have led to the fall.  Internal Medicine exam today has ruled out
a 'TIA,' short heart stoppage so the most obvious internal cause is
eliminated.  Due to lack of memory of the incident we had to consider at
length the possibility that she had been mugged, but that slowly resolved
itself so I'm in a bit better spirits.

The lengthy trip through examination provided me an opportunity to bounce the
'Taos Hum' off a lot of medical people, especially the really Cool CAT Scan
operator who was the most responsive to the technical aspects of the Hum but
had not had any patients go through who were specifically examined in
relation to this.  I also raised many eyebrows by asking lots of questions of
practically any medical person I met and while my cursory survey turned up no
notion of the hum in all these I was unfortunately unable to spot any doors
to Otologists or Hearing specialists who might have been surprised if I
popped open the door and asked: 'Taos Hum?'  The Internal medicine doctor we
saw today was the only person even aware of it, and had read about it in
'Time' magazine.  When I mentioned the range of symptoms involved, especially
when the Hum is strong she was amazed that the Hum is anything more than a
curious sound.  When I began describing how it can be heard in various ways I
noted a distinct back-peddling away from it and stopped talking about it as I
could see it was not well received.

The rest of the experience was curious, numbers of raised eyebrows and most
definite disinterest, the Taos Hum
map shows few Hum Hearers in this area and that seems correct so the map
itself appears to at least tentatively describe the situation Nationwide
accurately, with most hearers in the Desert Southwest.  This suggests locale
again to me because the map shows an interesting lack of concentration along
the Northeast Corridor, the most populous area in the nation.  I'm very glad
my hum is faint for if I were seeking real help on it I would feel like I'd
just dropped out of a UFO for the responses to my questions could easily have
made me feel like an isolated outcast.  My empathy to those who have this
strong, I've just had a chance to 'cook's tour' the medical profession at
least cursorily and I think there need to be a lot of seminars on this
because awareness of the reality of it is minimal or none at all.  I also
applaud the courage of those medical people who are trying to investigate the
Hum for I can tell that to research it must cause a lot of subtle ostracism
or at least disinterest and disbelief.
I know I've gotten much the same response in approaching even old friends in
the electronic technical areas who find this area oddly repellent.  It seems
the more traditionally you are trained into 'Science' the less open you are
to this particular area.  Just say 'people hear this hum,' and even a fully
technical description will not settle the matter in anyway which seems
satisfactory.

Now on to more enlightened work.  I have through extensive communication,
mostly by snail, begun to stir a bit of interest among the Hobbyist geologic
parameters groups and individuals, this will take more time but a couple of
individuals have understood what this implies and I find I'm going to have to
get my own act together and build a Taos Hum receiver or get left in the dust
and have only secondary information to relate.  Fortunately I've a lot of
experience in constructing unusually sensitive detectors for the frequencies
around 10Hz. and below so I just have to do modifications and a bit of
redesign of that system to make a pretty derned good device and give the Hum
a run for its money.  This will curtail my long discussions for a bit but
I'll drop in notes about progress as I go along.  A full Hum Hearer has
tested my local area and the Hum is most definitly here, so now the stunt is
to get rid of the overwhelming 60Hz. power-grid signal and go chasing yet
another faint signal nearby at 76Hz.  I guess its time to stop talking and
start building.  

Thanks for all the positive comments from those who have read the previous
missives, if you missed any and want to get the full gamut along with
'ShadowMass Viewpoint' please E-Mail me and I'll be glad to send it out a bit
at a time so your E-Mailbox doesn't flood away, whatever you want.  I lost
track of a couple of folks who ordered tapes
of the tentative hum, please let me know and they're on their way.  The tapes
are free.  I have been surprised at the incredible variety of folks involved
in this most interesting research and am pleased that quite obviously none of
us are alone in this.  I'm continuing to rattle bigger and bigger cages on
the technical side of this, one might say that the Posse is up and ready to
ride, off in search of the Taos Hum.  In the next couple of days I'm going to
try and get out a part of the bibliography on the  'ShadowMass Viewpoint'
article as many are interested in being able to study these issues for
themselves.  If you want to begin study the most compact and dense
compilation of data on unusual local, but not global, hums is in the
collections put together by William Corliss of the Sourcebook Project, P.O.
Box 107, Glen Arm, MD 21057.  The specific books for Unusual Hums are
'Earthquakes, Tides, Unidentified Sounds and Related Phenomena.  The other
book with some Hum coverage is 'Handbook of Unusual Natural Phenomena'. This
book also contains a bit on the Lighted Wheels which are an important part of
the discussion found in 'ShadowMass Viewpoint.'  Another book from this
source which also has descriptions of the wheels is: 'Lightning, Auroras,
Nocturnal Lights, and related Luminous Phenomena.  I understand that these
books have been sold to many libraries and you may be able to tap some
through the Internet though I've not tried that yet. Corliss is a physicist
and his collections are very detailed with lots and lots of precise
references so you can fully trace each aspect and report in its entirety
yourself.

The original sources for the Lights descriptions are found most plentifully
in 'The Marine Observer,' various issues containing descriptions of Persian
Gulf Lights as recently as 1995, perhaps Internet access is available on that
publication, please notify me of any direct URL's you find.  

Well, I'm off  to dig deeply into the unusual phenomenon of the hum, I'll
keep you regularly informed, please feel free to drop me a line with any
questions in these areas.  ShadowMass Viewpoint will continue as I build the
research, I'll also let everybody know when Vince Migliore and my article are
published in Electronics Now so if you have a technical interest you can
study that, a fuller version is available from me but I have to type it into
the computer in order to E-Mail it. This may not take too long, I know I
don't want it too, but we'll see just how elusive the Hum can be when treated
as a signal.   Thanks folks for all your good words about what I've been
writing and I hope I can return soon to overstuff everyone's E-Mail again.  

Larry Grant      LGrant44@aol.com



From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Sat Mar  9 06:04:35 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id XAA28782 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 23:23:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mars.ark.com (root@mars.ark.com [204.50.2.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA28691 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 23:23:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from io1p9.ark.com (io1p9.ark.com [204.50.2.42]) by mars.ark.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA12795 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 23:22:56 -0800
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 23:22:56 -0800
Message-Id: <199603070722.XAA12795@mars.ark.com>
X-Sender: fineline@mars.ark.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
From: fineline@mars.ark.com (Alf Bangert)
Subject: hum: Hum and the powergrid
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hello all;

We've just had a massive dump of heavy, wet snow resulting in downed power
lines over a large area (eastern Vancouver Island), and a total blackout for
almost 3 days.  Power outages are common here, but never before has there
been one this extensive. But the darn hum continued unchanged. In fact, on
one of those days,(monday), it was even worse than usual. So much for the
60-cycle resonance theory. However, the lights of the Comox Air Force Base
were visible (18 miles to the north) across the water. If they participate
in the Submarine communications program, then that still seems a viable source.

I've experimented with a very powerful permanent magnet held to my head in
every conceivable orientation and position, and found that made no
difference either.

The ear drops discussions are interesting, since normal ear plugs or muffs
don't do much at all.  I made the rather surprising discovery  that a single
foam insert(industrial type ear plug, such as deci-damp) inserted into one
ear only actually works wonders. This certainly doesn't look like an
acoustical situation. Could what is perceived as the hum actually be the
milliseconds delay between one ear and the other of a passing pressure wave?
The "sensations" of sound would be perceived between the ears, resulting in
a sound that seems to be everywhere, even if the actual pressure wave (be it
electromagnetic or subsonic) actually has a direction and a 
source. The plugging of one ear and not the other "unbalances" this
difference so it is no longer perceived.
Alf Bangert (fineline@mars.ark.com)
Roburn-4-2, Hornby Island BC
V0R 1Z0 Canada     (604)335-1992 or (604)335-2800


From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Sat Mar  9 10:14:34 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id KAA16333 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 10:13:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spider.lloyd.com (root@spider.lloyd.com [158.222.1.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA16312 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 10:13:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dial-1-15.lloyd.com by spider.lloyd.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0tvT8b-000Ts8C; Sat, 9 Mar 96 10:13 PST
Message-Id: <m0tvT8b-000Ts8C@spider.lloyd.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 96 10:13 PST
X-Sender: judycole@spider.lloyd.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com, taoshum-l@eskimo.com
From: judycole@spider.lloyd.com (Judy Karleen-Cole)
Subject: Re: hum: Hum and the powergrid
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 11:22 PM 3/6/96 -0800, fineline@mars.ark.com (Alf Bangert) wrote:

Could what is perceived as the hum actually be the
>milliseconds delay between one ear and the other of a passing pressure wave?
>The "sensations" of sound would be perceived between the ears, resulting in
>a sound that seems to be everywhere, even if the actual pressure wave (be it
>electromagnetic or subsonic) actually has a direction and a 
>source. The plugging of one ear and not the other "unbalances" this
>difference so it is no longer perceived.

Gee, this is an interesting concept, and might answer a lot of questions;
i.e. why some people hear the hum and some don't, and why the hum is so
persistent in the presence of other noises, too.  Are the University of New
Mexico people still subscribers to this list?  Is there any way that
something like this can be tested in the upcoming phase of their studies? I
don't know enough about ears and hearing to make any other comments, but I
surely will try this out next time the hum gets loud. Here in the western
Sierras the hum has been blessedly quiet at 0-1 for about three days now,
with no conscious perception at all if one stays busy.

Judy
El Dorado, CA


From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Sun Mar 10 03:16:59 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id LAA25744 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 11:11:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from emout06.mail.aol.com (emout06.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.43]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA25716 for <taoshum-L@eskimo.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 11:11:41 -0800 (PST)
From: LGrant44@aol.com
Received: by emout06.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA05798 for taoshum-L@eskimo.com; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 14:10:25 -0500
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 14:10:25 -0500
Message-ID: <960309141024_164442964@emout06.mail.aol.com>
To: taoshum-L@eskimo.com
Subject: hum: Taos Hum Posse'
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Folks, here we are out on the trail finding some very interesting things,
more in a couple of days.

Larry     LGrant44@aol.com

From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Sat Mar  9 14:08:20 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id OAA02817 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 14:07:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA02793 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 14:07:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Rodmancw@aol.com
Received: by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA00540 for taoshum-l@eskimo.com; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 16:47:01 -0500
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 16:47:01 -0500
Message-ID: <960309164700_241830093@emout07.mail.aol.com>
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: hum: The E-Mail Flood, from L. Grant
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

If my experience and observations hold any water it appears futile to
consider any kind of field measurements.  When I encountered the hum I used
acoustic analysis techniques in searching for a potential source.  After
quite a bit of no results I happened to participate in a blood pressure
screening.  Subsequently I consulted a cardiologist who decided to persue a
diuretic medication to bring the blood pressure down to a safe level.  Lo and
behold, the ominpresent hum gradually went away and I have not heard it in
over 35 years. 

I would recommend anyone who hears the hum regularly see a cardiologist. It
might save your life.

From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Sat Mar  9 14:08:13 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id OAA02563 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 14:05:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from emout05.mail.aol.com (emout05.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.37]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA02539 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 14:05:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Rodmancw@aol.com
Received: by emout05.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA03889 for taoshum-l@eskimo.com; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 17:04:32 -0500
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 17:04:32 -0500
Message-ID: <960309170431_241841322@emout05.mail.aol.com>
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: hum: Taos Hum Experience
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Just read L. Grant's follow up re: traumatic experience for mother. Hope all
goes well.
With re a high percent of observations in desert sw, I have spent quite a bit
of time making sound level measurements in that region.  It is really quiet
out there.  When I first started, the sound level was below the capability of
commercial sound level meters, e.g., well below 20 dBA.  Under such
circumstances the masking of low-level sounds becomes marginal.  It is quite
possible that one might be able to hear internally generated sounds, such as
the buzzing sounds a physician listens for when checking the blood flow in
the neck to check for potential blockages in blood circulation to the brain.
 I have not, as of now, heard of any investigations to measure and analyze
internally generated sound.  It shouldn't be difficult, however, using
dual-channel FFT analysis to isolate the usual sources of internal sound
(respiratory, heart beat, digestive system, etc.).  (See my earlier comment
about my experience with correlation of hum with elevated blood pressure.)

From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Sat Mar  9 14:58:04 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id OAA10584 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 14:56:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bluestem.prairienet.org (bluestem.prairienet.org [192.17.3.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA10469 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 14:56:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from firefly.prairienet.org (firefly.prairienet.org [192.17.3.3]) by bluestem.prairienet.org (8.7.5/8.7.1) with ESMTP id QAA05690 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 16:56:24 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from w9sz@localhost) by firefly.prairienet.org (8.7.5/8.7.1) id QAA04941; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 16:56:23 -0600 (CST)
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 16:56:23 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199603092256.QAA04941@firefly.prairienet.org>
From: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup)
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: hum: The E-Mail Flood, from L. Grant
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



>
>If my experience and observations hold any water it appears futile to
>consider any kind of field measurements.  When I encountered the hum I used
>acoustic analysis techniques in searching for a potential source.  After
>quite a bit of no results I happened to participate in a blood pressure
>screening.  Subsequently I consulted a cardiologist who decided to persue a
>diuretic medication to bring the blood pressure down to a safe level.  Lo and
>behold, the ominpresent hum gradually went away and I have not heard it in
>over 35 years. 
>
>I would recommend anyone who hears the hum regularly see a cardiologist. It
>might save your life.
>
>

I had some extensive tests by a cardiologist a year ago on recommendation 
of my doctor as a routine (I'm 43 and he recommended the tests for me or 
anyone approaching middle-40's). Everything came out just fine.

My blood pressure is a little on the low side. I hear the hum sometimes 
here (Monday 4 Mar it was the loudest I've heard it in this area - it 
kept me awake for quite a while. Anyone else notice it louder on Monday?)

So I don't believe high blood pressure is the only source of it.

Zack
w9sz@prairienet.org

From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Sat Mar  9 15:29:23 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id PAA15028 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 15:28:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spider.lloyd.com (root@spider.lloyd.com [158.222.1.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA15016 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 15:28:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dial-1-05.lloyd.com by spider.lloyd.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0tvY3D-000Ts7C; Sat, 9 Mar 96 15:27 PST
Message-Id: <m0tvY3D-000Ts7C@spider.lloyd.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 96 15:27 PST
X-Sender: judycole@spider.lloyd.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com, taoshum-l@eskimo.com
From: judycole@spider.lloyd.com (Judy Karleen-Cole)
Subject: Re: hum: The E-Mail Flood, from L. Grant
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 04:56 PM 3/9/96 -0600, w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup) wrote:

>My blood pressure is a little on the low side. I hear the hum sometimes 
>here (Monday 4 Mar it was the loudest I've heard it in this area - it 
>kept me awake for quite a while. Anyone else notice it louder on Monday?)
>
>So I don't believe high blood pressure is the only source of it.

I checked my journal and correspondence for Monday 4 Mar...We had extensive
thunderstorms for most of that day here in the western Sierra.  I commented
at the time that the hum was a strong 2 for most of the day, and later that
evening after the storm blew over, was a 3 (borderline to intrusive).  I
wonder if all the wind, driving rain, thunder and lightning made the hum
seem much less during the day?  Relatively speaking, Monday was louder than
it was before or since here.  I also received a report that day from a
friend in Texas that the hum there was much louder than it had been.  She
rated it at a 3.5 to 4.

Judy
El Dorado, CA


From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Sat Mar  9 19:10:24 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id TAA18738 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 19:08:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eskimo.com (billb@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA18729 for <taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 19:08:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eskimo.com (8.7.4) id TAA22352; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 19:08:41 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 19:08:41 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Subject:  Re: hum: Hum and the powergrid
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960309190809.18209A-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

--- FORWARDED ---
Date: 9 Mar 1996 13:42:14 -0500
From: "Ray Adams" <adams@ECE301.ENGR.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Re: hum: Hum and the powergrid
To: "taoshum-l@eskimo.com" <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>

Re Alf Bangert's recent message:

I found his mention that even while the local powergrid was down "the hum
continued unchanged" to be a strong confirmation of my observation that
turning the main power breaker off in my relatively isolated home (1000's of
feet to nearest neighbor) also did not diminish the hum.

However, I am puzzled about the earplug bit that he mentioned.  I have good
hearing ONLY in ONE ear - the other is down about 60 db due to nerve damage. 
AND I can hear the hum even when (and sometimes even better when) I put my
good ear down into my featherdown pillow (and THAT also shuts out noises like
alarm clocks, wife-talk, etc).  I'll try the ear-plug bit, to see what
happens, though.

Raymond K. Adams, Twice retired Educator/Engineer
E-mail:  RayAdams@utk.edu
WWW:   http://sacam.oren.ortn.edu/~rkadams/homepage.html

 ------ From: taoshum-l@eskimo.com, Sat, Mar 9, 1996 ------ 

>Hello all;

>We've just had a massive dump of heavy, wet snow resulting in downed power
>lines over a large area (eastern Vancouver Island), and a total blackout for
>almost 3 days.  Power outages are common here, but never before has there
>been one this extensive. But the darn hum continued unchanged. 
--> snip

>The ear drops discussions are interesting, since normal ear plugs or muffs
>don't do much at all.  I made the rather surprising discovery  that a single
>foam insert(industrial type ear plug, such as deci-damp) inserted into one
>ear only actually works wonders. This certainly doesn't look like an
>acoustical situation. Could what is perceived as the hum actually be the
>milliseconds delay between one ear and the other of a passing pressure wave?
>
--> snip

FROM:
Alf Bangert (fineline@mars.ark.com)
Roburn-4-2, Hornby Island BC
V0R 1Z0 Canada     (604)335-1992 or (604)335-2800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------



From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Sat Mar  9 18:41:11 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id SAA14713 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 18:40:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gramercy.ios.com (root@gramercy.ios.com [198.4.75.51]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA14699 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 18:40:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LOCALNAME (ppp-50.ts-1.hou.idt.net [206.20.189.50]) by gramercy.ios.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA03766 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 21:38:33 -0500
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 21:38:33 -0500
Message-Id: <199603100238.VAA03766@gramercy.ios.com>
X-Sender: jbwebb@gramercy.ios.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
From: Joni Webb <jbwebb@gramercy.ios.com>
Subject: Re: hum: The E-Mail Flood, from L. Grant
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

ASubsequently I consulted a cardiologist who decided to persue a
>>diuretic medication to bring the blood pressure down to a safe level.  Lo and
>>behold, the ominpresent hum gradually went away and I have not heard it in
>>over 35 years. 
>>
>>I would recommend anyone who hears the hum regularly see a cardiologist. It
>>might save your life.

I am very happy that your hum was solved.  For me, though, my blood pressure
is very, very low.  Once a van showed up at my office and took everyone's
blood pressure.  Mine was lowest in the entire office; so low, that it was
the paramedic's recommendation that I consult my physician.  I do know of
what you speak:  sometimes when I get very, very nervous or blush profusely,
I can "see" my blood pressure.  My vision actually vibrates along with my
pulse.  But no, the hum is not related to body functions as far as I can
ascertain.

In Houston, hum has been louder this week.  January and early February were
relatively quiet.  Hum has increased as of late.

I found the ear test very interesting.  I tried it with just regular ear
plugs to no avail.  Perhaps I need the industrial kind.  Did anyone else try
this experiment with any success?

Let's try to keep up the dialogue.  I think it helps to have other peoples'
opinions and theories.  Perhaps someday someone will come up with a theory
that others won't be able to dispel so quickly!!

While reading about HAARP (address
...earthisland.org/ei/journal/haarp2.html) Haarp stands for high frequency.
Hasn't the hum been documented at low frequency?  Is this a discrepancy that
discredits Haarp as being the source?

Looking forward to your comments.

Take care.

Joni Webb


From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Mon Mar 11 06:07:18 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id OAA22954 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 14:32:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gator.naples.net (root@gator.naples.net [205.160.191.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA22903 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 14:32:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from port05.annex1.naples.net (port05.annex1.naples.net [205.160.191.100]) by gator.naples.net (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA23267 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 17:33:50 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 17:33:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199603102233.RAA23267@gator.naples.net>
X-Sender: nfn00161@gator.naples.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
From: nfn00161@naples.net (Mary Albee)
Subject: hum: foam ear plugs
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I tried using a foam ear plug in one ear at a time today, hoping it would
bring me some relief from The Hum, which has increased to audible daytime
levels the past 2 days. I tried each ear.  Alas, it was a futile effort.
The Hum kept on Humming.

I'm not bothered by it so much during the day, however.  I'm the person who
has used ear drops when I try to go to sleep at night and the Hum is too
loud or persistent to ignore.


From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Mon Mar 11 06:08:35 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id OAA28010 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 14:51:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crash.cts.com (root@crash.cts.com [192.188.72.17]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA27904 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 14:51:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by crash.cts.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #5)
	id m0tvtwk-0000VPC; Sun, 10 Mar 96 14:50 PST
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 14:50:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Carolyn Capps <capps@cts.com>
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: hum: FYI
Message-ID: <Pine.SCO.3.91.960310135137.29196D-100000@crash.cts.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I thought you HHs (hum hearers) might be interested in this tidbit of 
metaphysical gossip, as I call it. Gossip, not because I don't believe 
it, but gossip because I can't prove it. In law it is what would be 
referred to as "hearsay" and not admitted in testimony.

I don't hear the hum, but I read this list fairly regularly because
the subject is interesting to me. The reason it is interesting is
because I have been studying for 8 years with a channeled energy/ 
being/whatever-you-call-them, named Yahs. Yahs lectures on assorted 
topics and sometimes opens it up for general questions.

Someone asked him about the Taos Hum a year or so ago. What he said 
was that it would compare to a solar flare. He said the earth is 
going through a lot of internal changes, very deep inside, and that 
these changes reflect in energy spurts that can be perceived by some 
people. (You understand that I am paraphrasing here and speaking from 
memory, but that was the gist of it as I understood him.)

I believe this would be analagous to electromagnetic waves, if not
actually electromagnetic. Yahs has said in other contexts that there
is a large range of energy vibrations, and that we do not necessarily 
have instruments to measure the entire range. Whether the hum would
fall within the range that science calls electromagnetic, I do not 
know. Have you HHs tried checking out the hum with a gauss meter? 
(If you have already been talking about that you will understand that 
I have not followed this list religiously and could have missed it.)

You don't even have to believe in the possibility of channeled
information as a source, or its reliability, in order to consider 
the information itself. I thought that this might be something that 
some of you researchers might want to take into consideration as 
something to explore. (Especially since you aren't getting all that
much help from the scientific community.)

I have another question that has nothing to do with anything that
Yahs has said about the hum. Have any of you experimented with
changes in the hum when you are deep underground? Serveral years
ago I visited the Carlsbad Caverns, which as I remember were some
800 feet deep. That turned out to be quite a noisy place for me,
actually, because I suddenly began hearing all my internal body
noises that I had never heard before--heart beat, blood moving
through blood vessels, food being moved through alimentary canal,
other strange and unidentifiable clicks and whistles.

I think it would be immensely interesting to determine whether the
hum changes in either tone or intensity the deeper within ground
a HH gets. 

Another question that came to mind because of the discussion about
its being affected by changes to one ear--are HHs more subject to
vertigo than the general population? I ask because I have just
come out of a three-months seige of vertigo that the doctors talked
of in terms of inner-ear imbalance. Although they said they did not
know what *caused* it there was the suggestion that a difference
in pressure in the two ears was involved.

And my last question has to do with the treatment for vertigo. What 
was prescribed for my vertigo was antivert, or a generic of antivert, 
which like dramamine, is commonly recommended for sea-sickness and 
dizziness, which is apparently related to differences in internal 
pressure in the ears. Have, or would, some of you try taking one of
these anti-vertigo pills to see if they have any affect on your
perception of the hum? (Antivert is cheap and available without a
prescription.)

I don't suppose you necessarily think of it as a blessing to be
able to hear the hum, but at least you are in the position of being 
able to study and experiment with it and report back to the rest
of us lurkers who can only read about other people's experiences.
Thanks for listening, I look forward to what you may say about
some of my questions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
          Half the people in the world are above average.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
    Carolyn Capps              Vista CA            capps@cts.com


From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Sun Mar 10 22:39:01 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id WAA18756 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 22:20:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mars.ark.com (root@mars.ark.com [204.50.2.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA18693 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 22:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from io1p10.ark.com (io1p10.ark.com [204.50.2.43]) by mars.ark.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA29652 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 22:20:04 -0800
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 22:20:04 -0800
Message-Id: <199603110620.WAA29652@mars.ark.com>
X-Sender: fineline@mars.ark.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
From: fineline@mars.ark.com (Alf Bangert)
Subject: Re: hum: Haarp and High Frequency
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>>
>While reading about HAARP (address
>...earthisland.org/ei/journal/haarp2.html) Haarp stands for high frequency.
>Hasn't the hum been documented at low frequency?  Is this a discrepancy that
>discredits Haarp as being the source?
>
>Looking forward to your comments.
>
>Take care.
>
>Joni Webb
>
Hi Joni;

According to an article by Mark Farmer, which appeared in Popular Science
(Sept.1995),
the HAARP transmitters inject high-frequency radio energy into the
ionosphere to create
huge, extremely low frequency virtual antennas. These virtual antennas are
what transmit
ELF on a global scale, for earth penetrating tomography as well as submarine
communucations.

-Alf 


From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Mon Mar 11 00:17:49 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) id XAA02576 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 23:58:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from iapc.net (internet-access-point.Houston.mci.net [204.70.36.58]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA02542 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 23:57:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hou-d01-145.iapc.net by mail.iapc.net id aa04806;
          11 Mar 96 1:35 CST
Message-ID: <3143D63C.696D@iapc.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 01:29:00 -0600
From: Eric Hayward <eshayward@iapc.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0GoldB1 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: hum: The E-Mail Flood, from L. Grant
References: <199603100238.VAA03766@gramercy.ios.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Well I guess that I should introduce myself to the group. I am Eric 
Haywar, a student at HCC in Houston, and I have heard what I could only 
define as a hum fo many years now. I don't really know when it started, and 
it has nevery really bothered me that much except that it was unnerving.
	I was reading a new novel, Hevy Weather by Bruce Sterling, and it 
described similar symtoms to what I had been sensing and I figured that I 
should check up on this lead here on the Internet. Well it lead me here and 
so far I have found this a fasinating discussion on what it could be and what 
 some other proples reactions are to the sensations and what is being done to 
try and exsplain the phenominom.

Joni Webb wrote:
> 
> In Houston, hum has been louder this week.  January and early February were
> relatively quiet.  Hum has increased as of late.
> 
> Let's try to keep up the dialogue.  I think it helps to have other peoples'
> opinions and theories.  Perhaps someday someone will come up with a theory
> that others won't be able to dispel so quickly!!

	Well when Joni Webb wrote that he sensed an increase in the hum in 
the last week I just had to agree with him emphaticaly. I have always been 
able to put it in the back of my mind before, but in the last few days it has 
increased for whatever reason and has been distracting. It hasn't caused me 
to loose any sleep yet, thankfully, but it has been a moderately anoying 
sensation at times.

	Eric Hayward

From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Mon Mar 11 08:31:42 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA22100 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 08:27:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spider.lloyd.com (root@spider.lloyd.com [158.222.1.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA22028 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 08:26:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dial-3-06.lloyd.com by spider.lloyd.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0twA9i-000TvOC; Mon, 11 Mar 96 08:09 PST
Message-Id: <m0twA9i-000TvOC@spider.lloyd.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 08:09 PST
X-Sender: judycole@spider.lloyd.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com, taoshum-l@eskimo.com
From: judycole@spider.lloyd.com (Judy Karleen-Cole)
Subject: Re: hum: The E-Mail Flood, from L. Grant
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 01:29 AM 3/11/96 -0600, Eric Hayward <eshayward@iapc.net> wrote:

>Well I guess that I should introduce myself to the group. I am Eric 
>Haywar, a student at HCC in Houston,

Hello, Eric, and welcome to the group.  Your post caught my attention
because you said you were a student.  Now, I know I shouldn't assume that
you are a young person because you're a student, but most students are, so I
thought I'd take a chance.  One of the things I have wondered about in my
musings about the hum is the percentage of occurrence in young people.  This
is something you don't hear about very often.  In the Hubbell survey, of 174
reported hearers, only 1 was less than 30.  The U. New Mexico study
mentioned that 72% of their hearers were between the ages of 30 and 59.  I
find this interesting because in the course of trying to figure out what it
might be, one has to entertain the possibility that it might be associated
with some physical condition.  A person under 30 would be much less likely
to have any physical condition that might produce or affect the ability to
hear the hum.

>and I have heard what I could only 
>define as a hum fo many years now. I don't really know when it started, and 
>it has nevery really bothered me that much except that it was unnerving.

Do you think that it is the Taos Hum that you're hearing?  Could you share
with the group what it sounds like?

We're still humming here in California, too.  Not too bad, but possibly
increasing a little now after 2-3 very low level days.

Judy
El Dorado, CA


From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 04:48:11 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA24104 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 08:30:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spider.lloyd.com (root@spider.lloyd.com [158.222.1.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA24024 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 08:30:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dial-3-06.lloyd.com by spider.lloyd.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0twA9k-000TviC; Mon, 11 Mar 96 08:09 PST
Message-Id: <m0twA9k-000TviC@spider.lloyd.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 08:09 PST
X-Sender: judycole@spider.lloyd.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
From: judycole@spider.lloyd.com (Judy Karleen-Cole)
Subject: hum: Bio-Ear for the hum
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi, All,

I just thought I'd drop a note here about a product called "Bio-Ear" I found
that I had hoped would be a safe (and effective) ear drop for use in the
"ear drop trials" we were talking about a few days ago.  The advertisement
stated that it contained several herbs, primarily aloe, and stated the
formula came out of Sweden although the bottle has a California address on
it.  It suggested that the preparation could stop tinnitus, so thought it
was worth a try.

Well it turned out not to be a drop.  It is applied to a piece of cotton and
inserted into the ear canal.  It is a tincture of various herbs in a base of
alcohol (38% by volume).  I found the product a little harsh, and it
produced some stinging of the skin in my ear canal, which was not real bad,
but kept me awake.  I finally removed the cotton, after which I fell asleep.
I did not feel the product worked very well (if it did anything) in even
reducing the hum, and certainly did not stop it.  So if any of you are
scouting around for things that MIGHT work, you might consider passing this
one by if you run across it.

Judy
El Dorado, CA


From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Mon Mar 11 09:48:26 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA14751 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:45:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cdp.igc.apc.org (cdp.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA14708 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:45:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from igc4.igc.apc.org (igc4.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.37]) by cdp.igc.apc.org (8.6.12/Revision: 1.215 ) with SMTP id JAA26654 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:43:28 -0800
Received: (from civ) by igc4.igc.apc.org (8.6.12/Revision: 1.16 ) id JAA28051 for taoshum-l@eskimo.com; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:43:25 -0800
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:43:25 -0800
From: James Roderick <civ@igc.apc.org>
Message-Id: <199603111743.JAA28051@igc4.igc.apc.org>
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: hum: Haarp and High Frequency
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com  Sun Mar 10 22:49:53 1996
 > Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 22:20:04 -0800
 > X-Sender: fineline@mars.ark.com
 > To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
 > From: fineline@mars.ark.com (Alf Bangert)
 > Subject: Re: hum: Haarp and High Frequency
 > Sender: owner-taoshum-l@eskimo.com
 > Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
 >
 > >>
 > >While reading about HAARP (address
 > >...earthisland.org/ei/journal/haarp2.html) Haarp stands for high frequency.
 > >Hasn't the hum been documented at low frequency?  Is this a discrepancy that
 > >discredits Haarp as being the source?
 > >
 > >Looking forward to your comments.
 > >
 > >Take care.
 > >
 > >Joni Webb
 > >
 > Hi Joni;
 >
 > According to an article by Mark Farmer, which appeared in Popular Science
 > (Sept.1995),
 > the HAARP transmitters inject high-frequency radio energy into the
 > ionosphere to create
 > huge, extremely low frequency virtual antennas. These virtual antennas are
 > what transmit
 > ELF on a global scale, for earth penetrating tomography as well as submarine
 > communucations.
 >
 > -Alf 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAARP is capable of operating at a variety of frequencies.The
military claims that HAARP has not fired since late November. The next
test series is scheduled for up to ten days during the latter part of
this month.HAARP will fire in conjunction with the ionospheric heater
located near Fairbanks called HIPAS. Purpose; creation of elf and ulf
waves for ground penetrating tomography. We will be posting HAARP
firing info at the No Haarp website
<http://www.xyz.net/~nohaarp/earthlight.html>
Jim Roderick
No Haarp

From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 04:48:25 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA01045 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 11:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gramercy.ios.com (root@gramercy.ios.com [198.4.75.51]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA00985 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 11:01:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LOCALNAME (ppp-38.ts-1.hou.idt.net [206.20.189.38]) by gramercy.ios.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA14168 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 13:59:38 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 13:59:38 -0500
Message-Id: <199603111859.NAA14168@gramercy.ios.com>
X-Sender: jbwebb@gramercy.ios.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
From: Joni Webb <jbwebb@gramercy.ios.com>
Subject: Re: hum: Haarp and High Frequency
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


> > >While reading about HAARP (address
> > >...earthisland.org/ei/journal/haarp2.html) Haarp stands for high frequency.
> > >Hasn't the hum been documented at low frequency?  Is this a discrepancy 

> > the HAARP transmitters inject high-frequency radio energy into the
> > ionosphere to create
> > huge, extremely low frequency virtual antennas. These virtual antennas are
>
>HAARP is capable of operating at a variety of frequencies.The
>military claims that HAARP has not fired since late November. The next
>test series is scheduled for up to ten days during the latter part of
>this month.HAARP will fire in conjunction with the ionospheric heater
>located near Fairbanks called HIPAS. Purpose; creation of elf and ulf
>waves for ground penetrating tomography. We will be posting HAARP
>firing info at the No Haarp website
><http://www.xyz.net/~nohaarp/earthlight.html>
>

O.K.  O.K.  Well at least my theory stood for one day!  Better than most.
Sorry about that mistaken tidbit. I would ask you that we please be alerted
on this newsgroup when Haarp fires up.  I hate to dispel any more theories,
but Houston today is at 3-4, loudest in months!!  How does this equate with
Haarp being shut down (if it is at all).  Please do keep posting to this
newsgroup.  It may bring us some answers!

Joni Webb


>
>


From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 04:48:46 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA01555 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 11:04:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gramercy.ios.com (root@gramercy.ios.com [198.4.75.51]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA01495 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 11:04:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LOCALNAME (ppp-38.ts-1.hou.idt.net [206.20.189.38]) by gramercy.ios.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA14423 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 14:02:18 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 14:02:18 -0500
Message-Id: <199603111902.OAA14423@gramercy.ios.com>
X-Sender: jbwebb@gramercy.ios.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
From: Joni Webb <jbwebb@gramercy.ios.com>
Subject: Re: hum: The E-Mail Flood, from L. Grant
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dear Eric, 

What is your private e-mail address.  I would like to talk to you about hum
levels in Houston.  

I'm at

jbwebb@gramercy.ios.com

>Well I guess that I should introduce myself to the group. I am Eric 
>Haywar, a student at HCC in Houston, and I have heard what I could only 
>define as a hum fo many years now. I don't really know when it started, and 
>it has nevery really bothered me that much except that it was unnerving.
>	I was reading a new novel, Hevy Weather by Bruce Sterling, and it 
>described similar symtoms to what I had been sensing and I figured that I 
>should check up on this lead here on the Internet. Well it lead me here and 
>so far I have found this a fasinating discussion on what it could be and what 
> some other proples reactions are to the sensations and what is being done to 
>try and exsplain the phenominom.
>
>
>
>	Well when Joni Webb wrote that he sensed an increase in the hum in 
>the last week I just had to agree with him emphaticaly. I have always been 
>able to put it in the back of my mind before, but in the last few days it has 
>increased for whatever reason and has been distracting. It hasn't caused me 
>to loose any sleep yet, thankfully, but it has been a moderately anoying 
>sensation at times.
>
>	Eric Hayward
>
>


From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Mon Mar 11 12:34:27 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA20422 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:33:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from emout09.mail.aol.com (emout09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.24]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA20404 for <taoshum-L@eskimo.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:33:02 -0800 (PST)
From: LGrant44@aol.com
Received: by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA26821 for taoshum-L@eskimo.com; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 15:33:07 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 15:33:07 -0500
Message-ID: <960311153307_443625111@emout09.mail.aol.com>
To: taoshum-L@eskimo.com
Subject: hum: Taos Hum Posse' 
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi folks:

I'm in the middle of doing a 'Hum Survey,' an electronic search of various
areas withing about 60 miles of our home to see just what's happening in the
world of electrical hum in the field, with hopes of illuminating some factor
relative to the Taos Hum.  This Posse image is turning out to be more than
romantic hyperbole, we zoom around back roads, run all over fields, and
generally behave like mounted yahoo's lost in the deep woods.

The results are more than peculiar, I've never found so much buzzing hum in
so many surprising places as I am now.   I used to do stuff like this on a
small scale when I was a kid, but I quit because so little of interest turned
up.  Now I'm finding most unusual things that seem to have appeared some time
between about 1965 and now.

The gear I'm using is very, very simple and can be purchased by anyone who
has the interest to find out more for themselves.  I'll detail the gear and
what I'm finding soon, but for the moment the puzzle that's building seems to
revolve more around Which hum folks are hearing rather than What hum.  I hope
to complete enough of the survey in the next week to detail it more
carefully.  This is a 'minimum sensitivity' search, using gear which is
almost deaf to electronic signals.  After this I'll switch to the next level
of senstitivity but that requires some design and construction and takes a
bit more time.  

This is about the same as work I used to do for radio stations when making
'Proof of Performance' readings which could get as weird as packing fancy
radio gear out through tule' bogs in row boats, although I'm not quite that
far out yet.  I'm also trying to refine the gear so I can describe better
what it is reading.  For now the best description might be as follows:

There is a mention in the Taos Hum Hearers basic information package about an
unusual amount of hum or buzz in the air around Taos as measured by
electrostatic sensors.  There is also mention of the idea that the power
lines around Taos seem to have a lot of extra harmonics added on that are not
found elsewhere.  I decided to check my local area of California and a large
distance around that and I can tell you at least tentatively that Taos isn't
the only place with odd powerline distortions and really unusual power line
frequency buzz scattered about the ground, and up in the air at least as high
as about eight to ten feet.

The 'instrument' being used to check this out is a seventy dollar Radio Shack
tape deck which should be available to anyone interested in this research.
 The antenna is simply a length of co-ax plugged into the microphone input
jack on this recorder (CTR-69 Voice Activated Cassette Recorder).  The end of
the center co-ax lead is extended with about six inches of bare wire, the
antenna is fastened to a three foot long stick used in model airplane
construction.  At present I've got a kind of weird coupling so I can maintain
a 'floating ground' near the antenna, but I think I'll get the same results
when I change to a simpler hook-up on the co-ax end.

I think most Electronics folks would agree that this set-up shouldn't pick up
anything at all more than a few feet from a house or power lines, and while
it most definitely picks up the standard hum around my house I'm finding the
most peculiar and powerful buzzes out in fields more than a mile from any
power lines.  I want to spend some more time at this before detailing things
because some of this is 'normal' stuff, although to my mind not much, and
some of it is so odd I want to study it a little more before trying to make
any kind of description.

I just wanted you to know the base of what I'm doing and that what I've found
is to me almost as weird as the Hum itself, which is why I set out to study
local buzzes in the first place.  

More in a few days, the Posse' is still out, and we've got some cans of beans
and a canteen of water so we can hold out for a bit longer.  

Larry          LGrant44@aol.com   





From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 04:48:16 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA22885 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 15:42:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eskimo.com (billb@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA22830 for <taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 15:42:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eskimo.com (8.7.5) id PAA02768; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 15:42:34 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 15:42:32 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Subject: hum: Hum Level 2 i TN
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960312154202.2070A-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

--- FORWARDED ---
Date: 12 Mar 1996 14:21:50 -0500
From: "Ray Adams" <adams@ECE301.ENGR.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Hum Level 2 i TN
To: "TaosHum Newslist" <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>

On Monday (3/11/96) morning, sometime after 3:30am, EST, I was awakened (by
what, I do not know) to perceive the TH was very noticeable and that the
pulsating character of it seemed to have increased in terms of beats-per-time
period.   I thus characterized it as having an "urgent" quality about it -
definitely not the old "deisel idle", but more of a "pressing drone."  It kept
me pondering the character of it until, sleepily, I again dozed off, to awaken
to my G'father clock chiming 4:30 AND I noticed that the TH was again back to
its quiescent, old "deisel idle" character and fainter level.

It has remained at the old (1.5 "steady") level in the nights/early morning
hours since then.

Anybody else sense an abrupt level change at any specific time?

Ray

Raymond K. Adams, Twice retired Educator/Engineer
E-mail:  RayAdams@utk.edu
WWW:   http://sacam.oren.ortn.edu/~rkadams/homepage.html



From billb@mail.eskimo.com Sun Mar 17 10:29:34 1996
Received: from eskimo.com (billb@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA12187; Sun, 17 Mar 1996 10:24:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eskimo.com (8.7.5) id KAA17522; Sun, 17 Mar 1996 10:23:56 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 10:23:55 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: jcull@usa1.com, LOUUETZ@IX.NETCOM.COM, Potentials@aol.com,
        sherry@silcom.com, 72164.3606@compuserve.com, jmullins@unm.edu,
        adams@ECE302.ENGR.UTK.EDU, ghawk@mail.eskimo.com,
        ddawson@mail.eskimo.com, capps@cts.com, ford@ens.ascom.ch,
        nmycs@unm.edu, ul.balis@m.cc.utah.edu, lassey@delphi.com,
        carlos@slider.unm.edu, jkelly@medusa.unm.edu, pedro@mail.eskimo.com,
        zipped@mail.eskimo.com, dreamwak@worldgate.com,
        alan@bowers.demon.co.uk, sbxbam@sbn2.phes.nottingham.ac.uk,
        murmur@mo.net, jollie@aa.net, peballen@eng.appl.ge.com,
        Vanessa@elucid.demon.co.uk, evangeline.mercury@quantum.net,
        scrod@empire.interstate.net, wesley@price.iii.net, bobl@burgoyne.com,
        WMarcum@megaweb.com, ucp@usa1.com, harry@audre.audre.com,
        rnorton@somasf.unm.edu, egunn1@alpha2.curtin.EDU.AU,
        nfn00161@naples.net, jfjansen@iquest.net, Mimi@bbs.gemlink.com,
        rwilliam@mail.wsu.edu, Ware#m#_Eric@mni.mni.com, mira141@emil.ruc.dk,
        jmyers@netcom.com, delkins%sedofis@VM1.NYSED.GOV,
        larryz@on-ramp.ior.com, civ@igc.apc.org, elkins@albany.net,
        sierra@tiac.net, jessiej103@aol.com, dbeaty@gate.net, krenath@hom.net,
        cedare@ritsec1.com.eg, numa@interramp.com, arxz87a@prodigy.com,
        rcramer@gac.edu, vinwizard@iop.com, mmc11@IX.NETCOM.COM,
        bjorn@prysm.net, te93ng@te.hik.se, judycole@spider.lloyd.com,
        cranium@aros.net, bmeave@andromeda.tectel.com.mx,
        dkatausk@eagle.ais.net, DJANDJAN@aol.com, w9sz@prairienet.org,
        mollerse@telepost.no, tilleyrw@digital.net,
        phelpsp@ralph.southwestern.edu, isotope@itsa.ucsf.edu,
        serr15@liv.ac.uk, syrjames@aol.com,
        William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: hum: TAOSHUM-L IS DOWN
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960317100734.24940J-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status: 


THIS MESSAGE IS SENT TO AN OLD LIST OF TAOSHUM-L SUBSCRIBERS.  IF YOU
HAVE RECENTLY UNSUBSCRIBED, IGNORE THIS>

Yes, there is a TAOSHUM-L problem.  A system-wide error source in Oregon
has slowed all eskimo.com lists to an extreme crawl.  This is a continuing
problem with the Majordomo software, because the darn thing won't go to
the next person on its send-to list until it manages to clear any errors
with the previous person.  The staff here is slowly changing over to
Listproc software, which doesn't have the problem, but it will be many
days before this is completed. 

Unless Sprint/Cisco manages to clear the problem in Oregon soon, TAOSHUM-L
will keep delaying messages for many days.   Rats!  I can't do anything 
about this!

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page






From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Sat Mar 30 10:14:51 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) id KAA08758 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 10:03:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eskimo.com (billb@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA08733 for <taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com>; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 10:03:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost by eskimo.com (8.7.5) id KAA09514; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 10:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 10:02:21 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Subject: Re: hum: Test message
In-Reply-To: <m0u2Nkj-000Tr6C@spider.lloyd.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.92.960330093314.3229A-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, Judy Karleen-Cole wrote:

> Hi, Bill:
>
> I received your message at my morning mail pick-up about 9 a.m. PST 3/28/96.
> Can we expect communications to continue?  Or is the "working status" going
> to be a fleeting thing?  Many thanks for all your efforts!


The situation: at the start of all this, there was a net-wide error source
in California which caused 5% of all packets to need re-send.  Because of
a particular quirk in majordomo listservers, instead of slowing things
down by 5%, it made it stop entirely.  And rather than just delaying all
messages for days, messages have disappeared.

This got fixed, and then eskimo.com's internet provider Sprint started
having hardware problems which randomly disconnected it from internet.
This has gone on for a week, and Sprint finally replaced the entire
router.

The total mail backlog at eskimo.com has been emptying itself for yet
another week, and is finally back to normal in the last couple of days.

So NOW taoshum-L should be working normally (I HOPE!)

Still to come: the first problem can happen again at any time.  However,
"Listproc", the other big listserver software package besides Majordomo,
is now available foru use by eskimo.com list maintainers.  It is newly
installed, and bugs are still being worked out.  It does not have the
mail-stoppage problems of Majordomo, so in the near future I'm going to
switch taoshum-L over to listproc.  The subscribe/unsubscribe commands
will change a bit, there will be some extra features.  Unfortunately the
"hum:" in the subject line is not available with listproc.

I'll have more info soon.  Until then, taoshum-L is up again!

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From taoshum-l-owner@eskimo.com Sat Mar 30 13:47:10 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) id NAA14285 for taoshum-l-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 13:36:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cdp.igc.apc.org (cdp.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA14258 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 13:35:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from igc4.igc.apc.org (igc4.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.37]) by cdp.igc.apc.org (8.6.13/Revision: 1.216 ) with ESMTP id NAA27540 for <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 13:33:39 -0800
Received: (from civ@localhost) by igc4.igc.apc.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA11332 for taoshum-l@eskimo.com; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 13:33:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 13:33:38 -0800 (PST)
From: James Roderick <civ@igc.apc.org>
Message-Id: <199603302133.NAA11332@igc4.igc.apc.org>
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: hum: HAARP Update
Sender: owner-taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

The planned March testing schedule of HAARP was not carried out. The
testing has not as yet been rescheduled. HAARP was to have fired
in conjunction with HIPAS (an ionospheric heater near Fairbanks) to
produce elf waves for purposes of ground penetrating tomography.
Jim Roderick
NO HAARP

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr  2 15:00:28 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA13050; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:58:48 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:58:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199604021600.RAA05215@sdnfire.dc.dk>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: i3683@dc.dk
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Measuring Taos Hum
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

     
     Sara T. Allen has twice in 1994 mentioned a James Garner in 
     Albuquerque who was able to record a signal which was recognized by 
     hum-sufferers as Taos-Hum. A detector was used, which among other 
     components included a piezo-electric component and a square coil. 
     
     Few details were given. The piezoelectric component was obtained from 
     a high frequency loudspeaker of unknown model and manufacture.The 
     square coil had an unknown number of windings, unknown dimensions, and 
     was connected in an unknown way.
     
     Apparently there has been little following up on this lead. Perhaps by 
     accident the detector was destroyed. Apparently James Garner has made 
     no attempt to build a new detector. Apparently James Garner has 
     provided no-one with another high frequency loudspeaker and other 
     required components to build the detector. He has given some details 
     to Sara T. Allen, who apparently has passed the details on to no-one.
     
     How do I get more detail of James Garner's detector?
     
     If someone has made a detector for the Taos Hum, it seems rather 
     stupid not to follow it up with more detectors.
     
     Can we please have construction details of Garner's detector?
     
     
     Regards,
     
       Anders

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr  2 15:01:50 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA13435; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 15:00:54 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 15:00:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <Pine.SGI.3.91.960402114105.12668A-100000@laplaza.taos.nm.us>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Andrea Aasen <aja@laplaza.taos.nm.us>
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: What else?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I'm curious to know how many Taos-hum subscribers have ever heard *the* 
Taos hum --- or ever been to Taos, NM for that matter?

I live in Taos now and have, off and on, since 1967.  I have never heard  
Taos hum in Taos, though I have often lived in very quiet areas.  

Several summers in the mid 80s, before ever hearing any other reports
of untraceable noises in the night, I unquestionably experienced
"Taos hum" at my home about 15 miles South of Santa Fe. 
I even took several long mid-night treks trying to determine the direction 
the noise came from.  The only explanation was a diesel generator a few 
miles away.  It wasn't.  The Press was not interested in "Santa Fe hum."

I have never met anyone else with personal experience of various New Mexico 
hums, though seemingly there are many.

Bill Reed
mrbill@laplaza.taos.nm.us

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr  5 01:42:58 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA23783; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 06:28:40 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 06:28:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <960404083403_462157817@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Rodmancw@aol.com
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: What else?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I have experienced the hum, but not in Taos.  I have been in Taos, Las
Alimos,and a lot of the 4-Corners area, particularly around Shiprock,  About
30 miles southeast of the 4-corners power plant, in a isolated canyon I have
heard something similar to the Taos hum, but it was closely correlated with
noise from the power plant, not at all like the Taos-like hum I have heard.

If anyone is interested in persuing a side track, there is research reported
in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America that concerns sound
generated by the ear.  Technicques are described as well as theory regarding
the mechanism by which the sound is generated.  Several articles over the
last ten years.

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr  5 22:49:39 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA08703; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 08:04:13 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 08:04:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <960405081200_506316004@mail02.mail.aol.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Kingsmount@aol.com
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Measuring Taos Hum
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Yes!  Yes!  Yes!  If anyone has details on this detector, please share them.
 Even fragmentary ones are better than none.

I am an electrical engineer and inventor living in Aiken, SC, and am trying
to help a "sweet little old lady" here who is being plagued by an unremitting
hum which no one else can hear: sound familiar?  Need technological help!  I
am already tinkering with piezos and coils, hoping to build my own detector
(not to point of testing yet!) and would much appreciate any pointers.

A possibility: piezoelectric transducers, at least the kind I've had most
experience with (Radio Sack #273-073) are basically lossy capacitors, with
the "loss" of electrical energy coming out mostly as sound.  The 273-073's
average around .025 microfarad each.  Depending on the coil parameters, it is
just conceivable that the coil and transducer might form a resonant circuit
able to detect *either* sound or magnetic fluctuations, and translate one
into the other...though much more sensitive to magnetism, since the coil
would need to be quite large.

Resonance at 73 Hertz and a capacitance value and 73 Hertz would require an
inductance of 190 Henry (yes, H -- not mH or uH!).  For an air-core coil
wound on a mandrel 12 inches square, this might consist of 72 layers of
40-gauge, enameled magnet wire with 100 turns per layer, and contain 5.5
total miles of wire.  Many other configurations are possible, but about
equally nontrivial to wind.  "Not your average construction project!"

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr  6 14:51:45 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA14477; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 11:19:51 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 11:19:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199604061632.IAA05399@netcom13.netcom.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: tomrice@netcom.com (Tom R. Rice)
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Possible microphone design....
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

	As a newbie to the list, I'm putting my oar in
	with a short intro:  I have lived in the mountains
	south of Livermore, CA, for seventeen years and for
	all of that time have heard hum sounds which we've
	always characterized as turbines running deep inside
	the old mines which populate this area.  (Actually,
	the mines haven't been used since the Fifties.)

	Anyway, seeing all the real attempts by listmembers
	to measure these hums, I will join in and make occasional
	reports if I find out anything.  

	Initially, I have to assume that these are acoustic
	waves, so will devote some attention to ultra-sensitive
	microphones and low-noise amplifiers feeding an HP 302A
	Wave Analyzer.  One proposal for a sensitive mic is the
	used of a thin mylar diaphragm, of any size desired, 
	stretched over a frame.  A light beam is bounced off
	the mylar's surface into a photocell and the resulting
	signal amplified, filtered and so forth.  It's an easy
	way to start, so will get it on..........  

	73 de WB6BYH    
-- 
"Start off every day with a smile and get it over with."  --W.C.Fields
Tom R. Rice  
tomrice@netcom.com     
CIS: 71160,1122       

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr  6 19:33:22 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA16794; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:45:16 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:45:16 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <960406173958_370399526@mail04>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: LGrant44@aol.com
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Taos Hum Technical Details
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Now that the Taos Hum newsgroup is functioning again let me drop in some
technical details and suggestions for those of you who are trying to bring
the Taos Hum under electronic examination and for anyone interested in the
Hum in general, especially the last note at the bottom.

When I first joined the Newsgroup a few months ago a Hum hearer and seasoned
electronics designer of filters for long distance telecommunications in
Sweden, Lennart Branthle, had posted a waveform on the Hum Web page which
showed a signal that his own ears quite simply informed him was exactly the
hum he was hearing internally.  He had considered that the hum was some kind
of very low level acoustic (sound in the air) signal and had build an
amplifier and filter to try and pick it up electronically.  As he assumed the
signal to be acoustic he started by using both magnetic and electret
microphones as receivers for the 'sound.'  Both of these could detect
precisely his hum but the electret seemed to be more sensitive to it than the
magnetic. He told me that the level of the signal at the output of the
microphones was about 10 to 20 microvolts and that his amplifier/filter,
built from three '741' chips produced an exact replica of his Hum, which is
the waveform on the Taos Hum Web Page, with about 90-95Db of gain and fairly
narrow bandpass filtering.

As I have a recording which was made at Avebury, in Britain which is at the
stated main 'cluster' frequency of the Taos Hum, 75 Hz., and because that
recording was made using a simple relay coil and microphone input on a tape
deck I considered that the issue of just what the Hum is, electromagnetic or
acoustic, was not simply defined.  I asked Lennart to try and distinguish
whether his microphones were acting as true acoustic receivers, or whether by
physically padding the microphones so they could not pick up sound he could
tell if they were instead acting as receivers of some other signal form.  The
last I heard from him was that he was going to try my suggestions to
discriminate just how the signal was being recieved. He has subsequently
disappeared from the Newsgroup and has not contacted me by E-Mail.  The last
note that I have from him shows that the signal came through with heavy
padding just as it did without padding, suggesting that it is not a sound but
a signal with at least some electromagnetic characteristic, although I found
his answer a bit unclear.

I am building a potential Hum receiver of my own but as spring has appeared I
have been spending a lot of time outdoors taking pictures, my professional
pursuit, and have not been able to proceed as directly as I had hoped.

For those of you who are sincerely trying to help people with the Hum problem
I suggest the following technical considerations:  While Lennarts' amplifier
and filter are very sensitive his approaching the problem as acoustic has
resulted in using very poor electromagnetic detectors.  A magnetic microphone
only has a few turns of wire. The success of the Electret microphone at
picking up the signal suggests that it is not an electromagnetic signal but
is of some other form which the electret is acting as an inadvertant receiver
for, much like the old Galena 'Crystal' receivers for radio.  I have
suggested that the signal is 'Supernatural' because my years of researching
Crop Circles have shown me that there are most definitely other forms of
energy besides electricity, one of these is to my mind what is actually
humming. I've stated part of my case in the article 'Shadowmass Viewpoint'
which can be downloaded from the Hum Web Page unless it got eaten by the Net
failure.

In short if you are trying to build a receiver for the Hum you may not need
an outrageously sensitive amplifier or
a very fancy filter if you can find the right pick-up to use rather than a
microphone.  I've noticed suggestions of using coils or piezoelectric devices
and these comments can be made:

1.  Don't try to resonate the coil, it will be too large to be practical and
Lennart did not even begin an attempt at resonance in his pick-up.  If you
hope to suppress the 60 Hz. power-grid hum it is doubtful that resonating the
coil at 75 Hz. will do this enough to be worth the trouble of winding a huge
coil.

2.  Don't use a coil which is physically small in diameter if you wish to get
good sensitivity. An ideal coil form to use is a common 'Hula Hoop,' the
childs toy about 28 to 36 inches in diameter.  Slit the outside edge of one
of these open and use it as a circular conduit for your winding, this
provides support for the wire and protection against
damage if you carry it around to get it away from power lines so you can
bring up the gain.  

3.  Center tap the coil and ground the center tap (circuit ground not earth
ground). Fasten one end of the coil to the + input of a good low noise-low
drift Op-amp like the Texas Instruments TLE2027 or Maxim MAX410 or any other
high quality op-amp.  The other end of the coil goes to the - input.  A
simple feedback resistor from the op-amp output to the - input lets you set
the gain.  On the TLE2027 I found that the feedback resistance could be set
as high as 10 Megohms without trouble with oscillation. This provides
significant gain.  The grounded center-tap arrangement provides an ideal
noise and drift set-up for most op-amps, they usually like to see a balanced
low resistance input and my own 1200 turn coil used in Electronic Earthquake
Precursor research easily picks up the Schumann resonances in the ionosphere
when hooked to an Oscilloscope with 5Mv/Cm sensitivity.  This should at least
provide a beginning platform for trying to locate the Hum. You will probably
need a post amplifier like the microphone input on a tape deck to really
boost the signal, that's why you should use a good low-noise op-amp
for the pre-amplifier. I used #30 wire in this design, about two and a half
pounds of it. This wire is thick enough to avoid snapping easily while
winding but thin enough to not weigh too much.  It may eventually be possible
to use  fewer turns for the pick-up, if you have the time you could start
with a few hundred turns and try that, winding another larger coil if
necessary.

4.  The hard part of this is getting rid of the huge 60 Hz. power grid hum
right next door and that is where I'm concentrating my effort now so that we
can study the Hum at home rather than having to go into the field several
miles from the nearest power grid.  The Power line hum can be removed for
Earthquake precursor research by
using a Maxim Switched capacitor filter but the simplicity of this circuit,
which is low-pass, needs further work
in order to make it into an effective bandpass filter at 75 Hz.  Earthquake
precursor research is done at 3Hz.
and below, where significant and repetitive precursor signals have now been
established in relation to some earthquakes.  A 75 Hz. bandpass filter of
some kind is probably needed in order to suppress various competing noises
and hiss found with wider band receivers, although this is not certain as
Lennart has not completely defined the results of using a more appropriate
transducer for the Taos Hum.

5.  An exposition of these ideas and a circuit for precursor research are to
be published in 'Electronics Now'
magazine this spring although I don't yet know the date of publication.  I've
written an article on using this coil and amplifier with a post-processor to
provide 60 Hz. free precursor amplification, you might study that when it
comes out.  A longer and more detailed description can be had from the
original publisher of my article, Vince Migliore at the Geo-Monitor, 65
Washington Street, #400, Santa Clara, CA 95050.  Again, this is a beginning
platform, not a direct Taos Hum receiver.  The articles you want are 'Life at
1200 Turns' and 'A Contemporary
ULF Receiver.'  Vince and I co-wrote the Electronics Now article.

6. Of course a coil is not necessarily the best pick-up for Taos Hum.  I also
suggested to Lennart that he try a quartz crystal as found in radio
transmitter crystals, and several unexpected transducers such as chalk,
 limestone or even plain tap water. These will have significantly different
hook-up characteristics for correct connection to an op-amp and Lennart has
never returned an answer on them.  I've not had time to look into the
necessary circuitry for providing good sensitivity with these.  Piezoelectric
transducers have been suggested also. These could be for example a Radio
Shack 'Piezoelectric Speaker Element' Cat.#273-091, or just about any kind of
piezoelectric noise-making element as found in inexpensive fire alarms.
 These piezoelectric 'squeelers' can also be used as good sensors because
piezoelectricity is a two way street, electricity in means physical movement
out, physical movement in means electricity out.  You will probably have to
shield any piezoelectric element from physical vibration and sound because
these may override the tiny hum signal.  Any reception of Taos Hum with
piezoelectrics may show that piezoelectricity is a three-way street, with the
third tapping some unknown energy or signal form.  It is to be noted that
bone as in skulls and jaws surrounding our brains is also piezoelectric and
could provide the entrance point for the signal, although so far as we know
there is no 'normal' perception of sound or unprecedented signals in this
manner, except around Crop Circles.

You could also try an electret microphone.  You are probably not trying to
use piezoelectrics as acoustic transducers but rather as detectors of a
signal which is being generated in ways unknown to science.
This should be rather fascinating work for engineering types, as the
possibility of reception of the Taos Hum this way is essentially proven and
you aren't whistling in the dark. If you fail to receive the Hum you should
also consider that the geographic area you are in might provide for a lower
electromagnetic component accompanying the Hum. I've noticed for example that
being over large quartz gold ore bodies seems to provide a strong Hum
perceived by people, and being near or in large old Megalithic sites like
Chaco Canyon may provide for a larger electromagnetic component.  Either way
you are looking for a signal which can lay people low when it's strong and
yet barely or not be detected by sensitive electronic receivers of various
sorts right next to people who clearly are hearing it.  A difficult but
interesting task to unravel, possibly providing incredible insights into
unusual and unsuspected energy forms. You may also need to be very close to a
'Hum Source' to receive the electromagnetic or other component of the Taos
Hum.  The British Avebury Hum recording done by my friends over there seemed
to show that the Hum was audible by simple pick-up coil even in the monument
parking lot, but it was strongest in small patches only a few inches to two
feet across on the ground.

One last suggestion would be to read 'Fingerprints of the Gods' by Graham
Hancock (Crown publishing) in which the very long term precessionary cycles
of our planet are described in part as being connected with a sound like the
'bellowing of a bull,' which I take to be a form of Hum, perhaps the Taos
Hum.  

Larry Grant    LGrant44@aol.com






        

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr  6 21:19:06 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA15123; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 21:14:00 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 21:14:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.92.960406204311.2694J-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Taos Hum Technical Details: filter
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sat, 6 Apr 1996 LGrant44@aol.com wrote:
> 4.  The hard part of this is getting rid of the huge 60 Hz. power grid hum
> right next door and that is where I'm concentrating my effort now so that we
> can study the Hum at home rather than having to go into the field several
> miles from the nearest power grid.

Have you ever tried 60hZ synchronous switched filters (essentially a comb
filter) for 60hZ rejection?  I've always thought these might be effective,
since the interfering signal is narrow band plus harmonics.  A trimmer
adjustment on the clock would "null out" the 60Hz.  Never tried messing
with it myself though.


....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr  7 08:25:33 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA26159; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 08:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 08:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <960407103454_464208607@mail04>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Kingsmount@aol.com
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Taos Hum Technical Details
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Oops!  I meant to ask in my earlier message: where are the rest of the
"humbunnies"?  I found a string of them in the archive files, up to the point
where the lifter released and the roller-coaster started down that long,
steep drop.  Are we still in free fall, or have the other bunnies been
archived someplace I just haven't looked yet?

Intriguing stuff...but please, watch out for those Vitons.  Something tells
me they don't much like being spied on!  Does your roller coaster lead
through the "Sinister Barrier"?   (Grin!)

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr  7 18:39:34 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA25325; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 18:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 18:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.92.960407174110.18922J-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Taos Hum Technical Details
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sun, 7 Apr 1996 Kingsmount@aol.com wrote:

> Oops!  I meant to ask in my earlier message: where are the rest of the
> "humbunnies"?  I found a string of them in the archive files, up to the point
> where the lifter released and the roller-coaster started down that long,
> steep drop.  Are we still in free fall, or have the other bunnies been
> archived someplace I just haven't looked yet?

The "humbunnies" were the peicemeal version of LGRANT's Shadowmass article
which is also on the web page

....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 11:33:16 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07235; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.92.960412104845.11365Q-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: hum: TAOSHUM-L software problem
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 


As several of the subscribers have found, Taoshum-L (as well as all the
other lists at eskimo.com) are having problems with the new listproc
software.  When the system is heavily loaded, mail sent to Taoshum-L will
be bounced with the following error message:

    Returned mail: unknown mailer error 14

Deeper in the header will be these lines:

      ----- The following addresses have delivery notifications -----
   "|catmail -L TAOSHUM-L -f "  (unrecoverable error)
       (expanded from: <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>)

      ----- Transcript of session follows -----
   554 "|catmail -L TAOSHUM-L -f "... unknown mailer error 14



This "catmail" error occurs when listproc has its request for unix
processes rejected.  It's SUPPOSED to try again until it suceeds, but
instead it gives up and returns your mail.

The eskimo.com staff is working on the problem.  Until they suceed, the
only thing I can suggest is to keep re-sending your messages when they
bounce.  Also, try to avoid 5PM-12PM west coast time, that's when the
system gets bogged down and starts erroring.

....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 11:36:47 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07144; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.92.960412104646.11365O-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: hum: Taos Hum Technical Details
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Forwarded message:
Subj:    Re: Taos Hum Technical Details
Date:    96-04-07 10:27:11 EDT
From:    Kingsmount
To:      taoshum-l@eskimo.com

"LGrant44" and others have remarked on the Hum as having electromagnetic-like
characteristics, yet still quite unlike conventional electromagnetic fields:
able to induce current or voltage in a coil or certain other transducer types
(including ourselves!), yet not obeying the inverse-square (r^-2) law (where
my "^" indicates "raised to the power"; it's a "carat" on my keybord, but
different servers may substitute other stuff).  Conventional magnetic
shielding has no effect.  Detection is also complicated by the problem of
filtering out the adjacent 60-Hertz line noise, and harmonics of same at
120Hz, 180Hz, 240 Hz, etc.

As an electrical engineer and all-around tinkerer, I've worked with enough
different kinds of wave phenomena to see many examples of *non*-r^-2 signal
propagation.  The r^-2 law just results from a conventional signal's
propagating through three-dimensional space  If you set up a surface-wave
signal, such as ripples on water, the signal attenuates as r^-1; in a narrow
waveguide or a light pipe, approximately as r^-0 (i.e., not at all except for
guide attenuation).  In general, the rule is r^-(n-1) where n is the number
of dimensions through which the signal propagates.

Alternatively, you can get a field to drop off more sharply than r^-2 (or
whatever) if it loses energy somehow into the medium it travels through.
 This adds an exponential decay term, so the overall expression becomes
(r^-(n-1))(e^-r/k) where "k" is the characteristic attenuation length.  Were
it not for this, the r^-0 propagation in a waveguide would be lossless!

The "hum" seems to have fairly uniform intensity over some wide area, then to
drop off rather sharply.  "LGrant" observes the same for crop-circle fields
and "luminous spheres" (ball-lightning?  Vitons?) and suggests the three are
related,  if not different aspects of the same elephant.  I am *not* up on
Bearden's scalar fields, and don't understand the theory behind them.  Are
they supposed to share any of these properties?

Might we be dealing here with a field having some higher-power attenuation
characteristic, perhaps also combined with an exponential?  This might come
from a field (of unknown type!) propagating through *more* than three
dimensions.  Four dimensions would give a r^-3 or (r^-3)(e^-r/k)
characteristic, although the extra one here would need to be not time (I
think) but a fourth space-like dimension (sorry, H. G. Wells!) such as the
hypothetical Kaluza-Klein "gravitational warping" dimension.

If generated in our own 3-D continuum, such a field would have a sharp
intensity peak at the center, then decay rapidly.  If a bit "off-continuum",
however, we would see a more uniform central region bounded by a relatively
sharp boundary: a cross-sectional "slice" like the intensity profile of the
light of a lamp on a wall, although here the "slice" would be
three-dimensional and approximately spherical.  Also, if the field were
generated "off-continuum" and projected into ours with some added
directivity, the edges might cut off quite sharply indeed; think instead of
the spot cast on the same wall by a flashlight!

The same mechanism, with some added bells and whistles, could explain a wide
 variety of so-called "supernatural" phenomena: just lights or shadows cast
on our little cave wall by some higher-dimensional, quasi-Platonic reality
outside.  Maybe by some technology used by the folks a few universes off
cross-time -- i.e., the "hum" we pick up here might be coming from *their*
power grid!  (grin!)

Oh, yeah, right, sure.  Nice idle theory, useless because it cannot be
tested....

But wait! There's a way.

If the hum-field is indeed coming in from "off-continuum", it will be picked
up as conventional electricity by a properly designed coil...yet will be
*immune to being shielded* by conventional magnetic means, such as silicon
steel or mu-metal. In other words, a steel box will filter out only stuff
propagating along our own continuum, while stuff from cross-time partly or
wholly bypasses it.  Think how  well a ring of cardboard stuck flat to that
wall would stop a flashlight beam aimed at its center from out in the room!
 Pretty pitiful, huh?  Conveniently, though, the steel box *will* shield out
our own power-hum, so now -- with careful design -- we can have a device
sensitive *only* to cross-time fields.

Has anyone else tried this?

Heck, I'm building one.  As I remarked in my first message to this group, I
began researching the "hum" while trying to help a friend here in Aiken, and
after exhausting all conventional possibilities for what that noise was,
disrupting her sleep and driving her up the wall!  The problem is worst in
and around her house, so if it really is the "hum", the field may be only a
small local one.  I'll test it there, report my results (pro or con) here,
and then, if successful (and God, Government and Vitons permitting!) move on
to wider ranges....



----------------------- Headers --------------------------------


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 11:26:29 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA06977; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.92.960412103433.11365N-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 


I just noticed that the Univ. of NM has a Taos Hum page.  Very
interesting material.  See:

   http://www.unm.edu/~jpatk/unmotorsch.html

- Bill Beaty




....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 01:26:03 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07235; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.92.960412104845.11365Q-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: hum: TAOSHUM-L software problem
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 


As several of the subscribers have found, Taoshum-L (as well as all the
other lists at eskimo.com) are having problems with the new listproc
software.  When the system is heavily loaded, mail sent to Taoshum-L will
be bounced with the following error message:

    Returned mail: unknown mailer error 14

Deeper in the header will be these lines:

      ----- The following addresses have delivery notifications -----
   "|catmail -L TAOSHUM-L -f "  (unrecoverable error)
       (expanded from: <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>)

      ----- Transcript of session follows -----
   554 "|catmail -L TAOSHUM-L -f "... unknown mailer error 14



This "catmail" error occurs when listproc has its request for unix
processes rejected.  It's SUPPOSED to try again until it suceeds, but
instead it gives up and returns your mail.

The eskimo.com staff is working on the problem.  Until they suceed, the
only thing I can suggest is to keep re-sending your messages when they
bounce.  Also, try to avoid 5PM-12PM west coast time, that's when the
system gets bogged down and starts erroring.

....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 17 06:37:17 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA14419; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <960417090812_471861922@mail02.mail.aol.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: LGrant44@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: T.H. Piezo research
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I decided to work with the piezo possibilities for chasing the Taos Hum
around.  While I haven't yet picked up the Hum with the gear it shows promise
for others who may live where the Hum could be stronger.  The area I'm in
shows only one Hum Hearer nearby so it could be weak here.  Consider this a
starting platform only.

First I did some measurements on my Radio Shack CTR-69 Tape deck (Cat.#
14-1154) to see what kind of signals it would need to achieve full recording
level at 75 Hz.  It has an LED level meter so signals can be at least
relatively measured and replicated.  It also has a shut-off on the Automatic
Level Control so you can avoid having that 'mysterious hand' playing with any
signals you are trying to record.

For a level of 0 Db on the LED meter I found that with the volume control set
to max., 10, a level of 250 millivolts p-p would do when fed into the AUX
input, and the signal into the microphone input could be as low as 1
millivolt p-p.

Using the 1 millivolt microphone input as a base I decided to feed my Radio
Shack Cat #273-091 Piezoelectric Speaker Element through a pre-amplifier
which could be used to boost a 1 micro-volt signal up to one millivolt for
input to the deck.  While I don't have a way to put the circuit diagram on
the Web Page it is really a simple amplifier and can probably be deduced from
my verbal description.  For the moment what I found was that the microphone
capability of the piezo element far exceeds the detection of a 1 microvolt
level so further work at acoustically deadening the element will be necessary
to see if the Hum is buried farther down.  Lennart Branthle, who did the
beginning work and successfully detected the Hum in Sweden, suggested that
his microphones were giving out 10-20 microvolts of Hum signal.  In my area
at least the Hum was not detectable even in the background, I'm going to have
to find a local hearer and see when the Hum is strong so I can tell if I was
just tuning in at the wrong time. 

The circuit is based on a MAXIM Semiconductor MAX-410 low-noise low-drift
precision op-amp.  I decided to simplify things by making the circuit single
9 volt battery powered rather than the standard +/- supplies.  The circuit
only has to work at 75 Hz. so d.c. drift and balance aren't too critical.
 Here's a short description of the circuit.  Be sure to put a .1 Uf.
Capacitor across the power-pins of the MAX410 as you would for just about any
I.C.
I also put a 10 Uf. Cap across the power feed to my small prototyping board
to prevent any low frequency oscillation tendencies.

A voltage divider consisting of two 1% metal-film 10K ohm precision resistors
(from Radio Shack) has its' center tap hooked to the + input of the amp.  One
end of the divider hooks to the + supply lead and the other to circuit
ground. This sets the amplifier output at 1/2 of the power supply level,
about 4.5 volts. The negative power lead from the op-amp is also hooked to
circuit ground instead of a - supply.  The piezo element is hooked between
the + input and circuit ground. The impedence of the piezo is listed as 1200
ohms so the two 10K resistors should not load the element excessively. That's
all for the + input.

A 10 Megohm metal film resistor is hooked between the MAX410 output and the
opamps' - input.  This resistor has a 390 Pf. silver-mica capacitor hooked
across it which rolls the amplifier and much noise off beginning at about 75
Hz.  This is not a steep roll, but it does drop out hiss and other noise
quite well.

A 1 Uf. Metal film capacitor (Cat# 272-1055) hooks to circuit ground, then
through either a 4.7K resistor or a 470 ohm resistor to the - opamp input.
 The 4.7K is for moderate gain through the amp, say about 2000.  The 470
should bring this up to about 20,000.  Other resistor values can be used here
to set any gain you desire. The 1 Uf. capacitor provides a low frequency roll
beginning at about 75 Hz. That reduces all the rather massive low frequency
output of the piezo element which can be a real nuisance.

Remember that used this way the circuit output is at approx. 4.5 volts and
you should determine that any input you hook it to doesn't mind the d.c.
offset from zero.

This makes a good amplifier with only one reservation which you may or may
not decide to deal with.

The tape-deck input is very sensitive at 1 millivolt for 0Db recording level,
but there is no mention in the deck's literature about what the max. level
this input can stand is and since the op-amp can deliver 6 volts p-p output
I decided to protect the deck input with a lossy network which reduces the
pre-amps' through gain.  If you know what the input of your gear can take and
it can withstand 6 volts p-p then the next description is of no application
to you.

I put the pre-amp output through a 4.7K resistor and two back to back 10 Uf.
tantalum capacitors, then hooked two paralleled signal diodes between the
cap. output and circuit ground to limit the max. output to about .7 volts.
 Then I divided that by two through two more 4.7K resistors to limit the max
into the Mic input to 350 Mv., which most any input should stand.  That
knocks the gain down to about a third of what it starts out as but if I blow
the input to the deck the repair probably costs more than the deck did, and I
knew I'd hit an acoustic limit first.

RESULTS:  While the circuit can certainly let you hear below 1 microvolt of
piezo level the real problem is that even late at night the surrounding
acoustic noise is so loud you reach 0Db on that rather than hearing the Taos
Hum.  As I could not hear the hum even in the background I've concluded that
some really effective padding or acoustic suppression will be necessary to
get rid of all the noise of cars, trucks, etc., and get down to the Hum.
Even in the LMB aluminum box the piezo and circuit are in the outside noise
is just too loud.  Additionally you may want to have a local Hum Hearer tell
you when the Hum is particularly loud and then make measurements.  Lennart
Brantle said that his amp/filter could pick up the Hum all over Southern
Sweden so locale is probably not too important although we don't know the
details of that. This sensor, circuit and tape deck picks up no 60 Hz. hum. 
Many other piezo sensors can probably be used, including Cat#40-3097, a piezo
'tweeter.'

Well, I've overstuffed the buffers again, hope this gets through.

Larry Grant         LGrant44@aol.com



  

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 17 11:07:18 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA17418; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960417155405.00671a0c@pop.hom.net>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Krenath <krenath@hom.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: T.H. Piezo research
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 06:27 AM 4/17/96 -0700, Larry Grant wrote:
>I decided to work with the piezo possibilities for chasing the Taos Hum
>around.  While I haven't yet picked up the Hum with the gear it shows promise
>for others who may live where the Hum could be stronger.  The area I'm in
>shows only one Hum Hearer nearby so it could be weak here.  Consider this a
>starting platform only.

If and when you successfully record something you suspect to be the Hum,
Larry, could I possibly urge you to record it as some format of computer
digital audiofile (.wav, .au, .aiff, it doesn't matter. Most browsers handle
them all) so that less-experienced Hum followers have somethin more than a
graphic of the hum waveform to go by?  Not everyone is capable of
identifying what they here by a picture of the waveform.  Indeed, not
everyone is capable of using the rather vague descriptions of microphones
and amplifiers in order to create what would otherwise be a simple weekend
project for those more experienced.

If detailed pictures, project descriptions, audio files, and programs
created for tracking the Hum were more often sent to William Beatty and
posted on his web page, it would be much easier for the average user to
benefit, and theinformation would be available to a much larger audience
than merely the subscribers of this list.

If anyone has a recoring of lennart's hum, please digitize it and send it to
theweb page.


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 18 01:41:50 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA16765; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199604180655.IAA04747@sdnfire.dc.dk>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: i3683@dc.dk
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Measuring Taos Hum
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: A

     
     I have borrowed one of Lennarts electret microphones, and done some 
     measurements.
     
     The microphone picks up a strange signal and outputs a voltage at 77 
     Hz +-3 Hz. The amplitude is around 5 microvolt. The signal is 
     amplitude modulated.
     
     The signal is not a sound signal. When I shield the microphone 
     effectively against sound around 77 Hz, the hum-signal is not 
     affected, but signals from traffic noise etc are.
     
     The signal is not a microwave signal. If I encapsulate the microphone 
     in stainless steel, brass or aluminium, the signal is not affected.The 
     signal might be a magnetic vibration, though others have looked for 
     such a signal with a loop antenna without finding anything.
     
     The signal has the same amplitude over a large geographical area. We 
     have measured in an area 20 miles across.
     
     The signal has same amplitude in a reinforced concrete cellar without 
     windows.
     
     The signal from the microphone is dependent on the temperature. When 
     you cool down the microphone, the voltage drops.
     
     I have tried a variety of microphones, also electret microphones. Only 
     Lennarts microphone detects the signal.
     
     I'll try to digitize the signal.
     
     
     Regards, Anders

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 18 05:46:35 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA16394; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 05:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 05:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <1.5.4b12.32.19960418122734.0066c8d4@pop.hom.net>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Krenath <Krenath@hom.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Measuring Taos Hum
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>     I have borrowed one of Lennarts electret microphones, and made some 
>     measurements.
>     
>     The microphone picks up a strange signal and outputs a voltage at 77 
>     Hz +-3 Hz.  The amplitude is around 5 microvolt.  The signal is 
>     amplitude modulated.
>  
>     I'll try to digitize the signal.
>          
>     Regards, Anders

Thank you very much, Anders.  I'll look forward to listening to it.



,-------+-----.    Eric Koske, Register Data Systems, Register Communications.
| |/~ /-|  /~ |     WPGA AM 980, FM 100.9, and TV Channel 58   Macon, Georgia
| |   \_|  _/ |  Computer Tech, Tech Support, Archbishop of Phones, Whatzit
Guru.
`-------------'       1619 Forsyth St., Macon, GA  31210      (912)745-5858


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 18 08:38:37 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA01096; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960418074034.3304D-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Measuring Taos Hum
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Thu, 18 Apr 1996 i3683@dc.dk wrote:

>      
>      I have borrowed one of Lennarts electret microphones, and done some 
>      measurements.
>      
>      The microphone picks up a strange signal and outputs a voltage at 77 
>      Hz +-3 Hz. The amplitude is around 5 microvolt. The signal is 
>      amplitude modulated.
>      
>      The signal is not a sound signal. When I shield the microphone 
>      effectively against sound around 77 Hz, the hum-signal is not 
>      affected, but signals from traffic noise etc are.

Does the signal become weaker under heavy shielding, or does the amplitude
stay exactly the same?

R. Shannon's group had a good method for quick-and-dirty shielding:
Threaded cold water pipe and pipe caps.  Drill a small hole in a steel
pipe-cap and place your microphone inside, run wires through the hole and
seal the hole with epoxy.  Then place this entire assembly inside ANOTHER,
larger threaded cold-water pipe and repeat the hole/glue process.

Two layers of thick steel pipe should create significan shielding
magnetostatically, inductively, and mechanical/acoustically.  They MIGHT
not shield entirely, so the object of the exercize would be to look for
decreases in signal with increases in shielding. 

Do you have a part number or manufacturer for that microphone?

....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 19 17:45:42 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA27792; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199604191540.RAA15118@sdnfire.dc.dk>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: i3683@dc.dk
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Some conclusions regarding the Hum.
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

     
     We here see that different persons perceive the Hum differently. When 
     listening to the recorded signal from Lennart's microphone, some 
     hearers say that the recorded signal is exactly the Hum that they 
     otherwise hear. Other hearers say that the recorded signal is 
     different from the ordinary Hum, even though the hearers live in the 
     same town, or the same house, and therefore must be affected by the 
     same signals. So though some persons will say that the recorded signal 
     from Lennart's microphone is not identical to the ordinary Hum, we do 
     believe that they are affected by the recorded signal, but perceiving 
     it individually.
     
     When the signal from Lennarts microphone is measured each day, the 
     amplitude remains relatively constant, and does not reflect the 
     variation in the signal that is perceived by hearers. We think that 
     the variation perceived by hearers is mainly due to a variation in the 
     sensitivity of the hearers, and not in a variation of the main signal. 
     Matters are somewhat complicated because we believe that more than one 
     signal is involved in the Hum experience.
     
     While the signal detected by Lennart's microphone is relatively 
     constant within a large geographical area, the perception of the 
     signal isnt. A hearer hears the signal differently from house to 
     house, or even from room to room. As the main signal does not vary in 
     this way, we suspect a secondary signal, which varies from house to 
     house. It has been suggested that some component of the house, maybe 
     the television antenna, picks up the secondary signal, and retransmits 
     it, and creates an area inside the house where the main signal then 
     can be heard.
     
     The secondary signal is only inferred by now. Now measurement exists 
     that shows it. But hearers that perceive a difference from house to 
     house might be able to point to some specific component which is 
     absent in the houses where the signal isnt heard, such as perhaps a TV 
     antenna? Hearers that suddenly hear a difference in signal strength 
     should notice if some change has been made to the house.
     
     Somebody told about a military pilots helmet that shielded against the 
     hum. I hope more hearers try out such a helmet. Perhaps we can have 
     more details about the helmet. Was it a metal helmet?
     Perhaps this helmet shielded against the secondary signal, and thereby 
     made the hearer unsensitive to the primary signal.
     
     Regards, Anders

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 19 17:45:58 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA27649; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960419065708.2227A-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: hum .wav file
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 


>  I have made a wav-file of the signal from Lennarts microphone. Itwas 
>   first recorded on a cassette-recorder, then digitized with a 
>   SoundBlaster 16 card. There are 10 seconds of Hum, digitized with 16 
>   bit at a sampling frequency around 8 kHz.

Excellent!  

Sorry about the misunderstanding over file sizes.  The rules
of this discussion group state:

   3. Small postings only.  The limit is currently set to 40K.  Some
      users have mailbox limits, others must pay by the K for received
      messages.  Larger files can be mailed to interested individuals, or
      posted on the taoshum-L web page.

I guess I wasn't clear enough with this.  Dividing a gigantic file up into
little pieces will still fill some users mailboxes, or cost some users $$,
so it still violates rule #3.  We had this same issue come up in regards
to the "humbunnies" a few weeks back.  No large files are allowed.

Do you have a website or ftp directory?  If so, you can put your .wav file
there and we can all come and get it.  If not, please re-send your
uuencoded messages to me at billb@eskimo.com, and I'll put them together
and post them on the TAOSHUM-L page.


....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page





From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 19 23:03:06 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA25833; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <1.5.4b12.32.19960420041157.00673b64@pop.hom.net>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Krenath <Krenath@hom.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Taos.Wav: Re: Some conclusions regarding the Hum.
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 


        Thank you, Anders, for sending the UUEncoded Taos.wav file.  After a
bit of assembly and decoding, I managed to listen to the hum for the first
time.  

        Now I can see why it bothers the rest of you so intensely.  That
noise is _creepy_.  It sounds to me much like some extremely large insect
buzzing around randomly in the vicinity of a microphone.  I am very grateful
that I don't perceive anything like that on a daily basis like the rest of
you do. 

        Other than that, I noticed nothing else odd about the recording.  As
would be expected, it did not, for me, exhibit any property of being audible
despite attempts at shielding my ears from it.  I felt silly doid so, it
being only a .wav file, but after the thought occurred to me, I thought that
somehow Larry Grant would disapprove if I didn't test the idea out anyway :)

        When speeded up several times, the 'hum' reminds me of the effect
used in the original Star Trek series as the 'phaser' sound effect.  I now
wonder where they got that effect from...




,-------+-----.    Eric Koske, Register Data Systems, Register Communications.
| |/~ /-|  /~ |     WPGA AM 980, FM 100.9, and TV Channel 58   Macon, Georgia
| |   \_|  _/ |  Computer Tech, Tech Support, Archbishop of Phones, Whatzit
Guru.
`-------------'       1619 Forsyth St., Macon, GA  31210      (912)745-5858


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 00:09:48 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA14419; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <960417090812_471861922@mail02.mail.aol.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: LGrant44@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: T.H. Piezo research
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I decided to work with the piezo possibilities for chasing the Taos Hum
around.  While I haven't yet picked up the Hum with the gear it shows promise
for others who may live where the Hum could be stronger.  The area I'm in
shows only one Hum Hearer nearby so it could be weak here.  Consider this a
starting platform only.

First I did some measurements on my Radio Shack CTR-69 Tape deck (Cat.#
14-1154) to see what kind of signals it would need to achieve full recording
level at 75 Hz.  It has an LED level meter so signals can be at least
relatively measured and replicated.  It also has a shut-off on the Automatic
Level Control so you can avoid having that 'mysterious hand' playing with any
signals you are trying to record.

For a level of 0 Db on the LED meter I found that with the volume control set
to max., 10, a level of 250 millivolts p-p would do when fed into the AUX
input, and the signal into the microphone input could be as low as 1
millivolt p-p.

Using the 1 millivolt microphone input as a base I decided to feed my Radio
Shack Cat #273-091 Piezoelectric Speaker Element through a pre-amplifier
which could be used to boost a 1 micro-volt signal up to one millivolt for
input to the deck.  While I don't have a way to put the circuit diagram on
the Web Page it is really a simple amplifier and can probably be deduced from
my verbal description.  For the moment what I found was that the microphone
capability of the piezo element far exceeds the detection of a 1 microvolt
level so further work at acoustically deadening the element will be necessary
to see if the Hum is buried farther down.  Lennart Branthle, who did the
beginning work and successfully detected the Hum in Sweden, suggested that
his microphones were giving out 10-20 microvolts of Hum signal.  In my area
at least the Hum was not detectable even in the background, I'm going to have
to find a local hearer and see when the Hum is strong so I can tell if I was
just tuning in at the wrong time. 

The circuit is based on a MAXIM Semiconductor MAX-410 low-noise low-drift
precision op-amp.  I decided to simplify things by making the circuit single
9 volt battery powered rather than the standard +/- supplies.  The circuit
only has to work at 75 Hz. so d.c. drift and balance aren't too critical.
 Here's a short description of the circuit.  Be sure to put a .1 Uf.
Capacitor across the power-pins of the MAX410 as you would for just about any
I.C.
I also put a 10 Uf. Cap across the power feed to my small prototyping board
to prevent any low frequency oscillation tendencies.

A voltage divider consisting of two 1% metal-film 10K ohm precision resistors
(from Radio Shack) has its' center tap hooked to the + input of the amp.  One
end of the divider hooks to the + supply lead and the other to circuit
ground. This sets the amplifier output at 1/2 of the power supply level,
about 4.5 volts. The negative power lead from the op-amp is also hooked to
circuit ground instead of a - supply.  The piezo element is hooked between
the + input and circuit ground. The impedence of the piezo is listed as 1200
ohms so the two 10K resistors should not load the element excessively. That's
all for the + input.

A 10 Megohm metal film resistor is hooked between the MAX410 output and the
opamps' - input.  This resistor has a 390 Pf. silver-mica capacitor hooked
across it which rolls the amplifier and much noise off beginning at about 75
Hz.  This is not a steep roll, but it does drop out hiss and other noise
quite well.

A 1 Uf. Metal film capacitor (Cat# 272-1055) hooks to circuit ground, then
through either a 4.7K resistor or a 470 ohm resistor to the - opamp input.
 The 4.7K is for moderate gain through the amp, say about 2000.  The 470
should bring this up to about 20,000.  Other resistor values can be used here
to set any gain you desire. The 1 Uf. capacitor provides a low frequency roll
beginning at about 75 Hz. That reduces all the rather massive low frequency
output of the piezo element which can be a real nuisance.

Remember that used this way the circuit output is at approx. 4.5 volts and
you should determine that any input you hook it to doesn't mind the d.c.
offset from zero.

This makes a good amplifier with only one reservation which you may or may
not decide to deal with.

The tape-deck input is very sensitive at 1 millivolt for 0Db recording level,
but there is no mention in the deck's literature about what the max. level
this input can stand is and since the op-amp can deliver 6 volts p-p output
I decided to protect the deck input with a lossy network which reduces the
pre-amps' through gain.  If you know what the input of your gear can take and
it can withstand 6 volts p-p then the next description is of no application
to you.

I put the pre-amp output through a 4.7K resistor and two back to back 10 Uf.
tantalum capacitors, then hooked two paralleled signal diodes between the
cap. output and circuit ground to limit the max. output to about .7 volts.
 Then I divided that by two through two more 4.7K resistors to limit the max
into the Mic input to 350 Mv., which most any input should stand.  That
knocks the gain down to about a third of what it starts out as but if I blow
the input to the deck the repair probably costs more than the deck did, and I
knew I'd hit an acoustic limit first.

RESULTS:  While the circuit can certainly let you hear below 1 microvolt of
piezo level the real problem is that even late at night the surrounding
acoustic noise is so loud you reach 0Db on that rather than hearing the Taos
Hum.  As I could not hear the hum even in the background I've concluded that
some really effective padding or acoustic suppression will be necessary to
get rid of all the noise of cars, trucks, etc., and get down to the Hum.
Even in the LMB aluminum box the piezo and circuit are in the outside noise
is just too loud.  Additionally you may want to have a local Hum Hearer tell
you when the Hum is particularly loud and then make measurements.  Lennart
Brantle said that his amp/filter could pick up the Hum all over Southern
Sweden so locale is probably not too important although we don't know the
details of that. This sensor, circuit and tape deck picks up no 60 Hz. hum. 
Many other piezo sensors can probably be used, including Cat#40-3097, a piezo
'tweeter.'

Well, I've overstuffed the buffers again, hope this gets through.

Larry Grant         LGrant44@aol.com



  

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 23:40:43 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA16765; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199604180655.IAA04747@sdnfire.dc.dk>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: i3683@dc.dk
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Measuring Taos Hum
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

     
     I have borrowed one of Lennarts electret microphones, and done some 
     measurements.
     
     The microphone picks up a strange signal and outputs a voltage at 77 
     Hz +-3 Hz. The amplitude is around 5 microvolt. The signal is 
     amplitude modulated.
     
     The signal is not a sound signal. When I shield the microphone 
     effectively against sound around 77 Hz, the hum-signal is not 
     affected, but signals from traffic noise etc are.
     
     The signal is not a microwave signal. If I encapsulate the microphone 
     in stainless steel, brass or aluminium, the signal is not affected.The 
     signal might be a magnetic vibration, though others have looked for 
     such a signal with a loop antenna without finding anything.
     
     The signal has the same amplitude over a large geographical area. We 
     have measured in an area 20 miles across.
     
     The signal has same amplitude in a reinforced concrete cellar without 
     windows.
     
     The signal from the microphone is dependent on the temperature. When 
     you cool down the microphone, the voltage drops.
     
     I have tried a variety of microphones, also electret microphones. Only 
     Lennarts microphone detects the signal.
     
     I'll try to digitize the signal.
     
     
     Regards, Anders

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 23:27:05 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA16394; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 05:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 05:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <1.5.4b12.32.19960418122734.0066c8d4@pop.hom.net>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Krenath <Krenath@hom.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Measuring Taos Hum
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>     I have borrowed one of Lennarts electret microphones, and made some 
>     measurements.
>     
>     The microphone picks up a strange signal and outputs a voltage at 77 
>     Hz +-3 Hz.  The amplitude is around 5 microvolt.  The signal is 
>     amplitude modulated.
>  
>     I'll try to digitize the signal.
>          
>     Regards, Anders

Thank you very much, Anders.  I'll look forward to listening to it.



,-------+-----.    Eric Koske, Register Data Systems, Register Communications.
| |/~ /-|  /~ |     WPGA AM 980, FM 100.9, and TV Channel 58   Macon, Georgia
| |   \_|  _/ |  Computer Tech, Tech Support, Archbishop of Phones, Whatzit
Guru.
`-------------'       1619 Forsyth St., Macon, GA  31210      (912)745-5858


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 00:04:33 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA01096; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960418074034.3304D-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Measuring Taos Hum
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Thu, 18 Apr 1996 i3683@dc.dk wrote:

>      
>      I have borrowed one of Lennarts electret microphones, and done some 
>      measurements.
>      
>      The microphone picks up a strange signal and outputs a voltage at 77 
>      Hz +-3 Hz. The amplitude is around 5 microvolt. The signal is 
>      amplitude modulated.
>      
>      The signal is not a sound signal. When I shield the microphone 
>      effectively against sound around 77 Hz, the hum-signal is not 
>      affected, but signals from traffic noise etc are.

Does the signal become weaker under heavy shielding, or does the amplitude
stay exactly the same?

R. Shannon's group had a good method for quick-and-dirty shielding:
Threaded cold water pipe and pipe caps.  Drill a small hole in a steel
pipe-cap and place your microphone inside, run wires through the hole and
seal the hole with epoxy.  Then place this entire assembly inside ANOTHER,
larger threaded cold-water pipe and repeat the hole/glue process.

Two layers of thick steel pipe should create significan shielding
magnetostatically, inductively, and mechanical/acoustically.  They MIGHT
not shield entirely, so the object of the exercize would be to look for
decreases in signal with increases in shielding. 

Do you have a part number or manufacturer for that microphone?

....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 19 04:39:53 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA15200; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 04:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 04:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199604191130.NAA11574@sdnfire.dc.dk>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: i3683@dc.dk
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: WAV fil
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

     I have made a wav-file of the signal from Lennarts microphone. It was 
     first recorded on a cassette-recorder, then digitized with a 
     SoundBlaster 16 card. There are 10 seconds of Hum, digitized with 16 
     bit at a sampling frequency around 8 kHz.
     
     Because of the use of a cassette recorder the signal will have been 
     added a small amount of flutter and distortion from the recorder.
     At a later time I will make a recording directly to the SoundBlaster 
     card.
     
     The file in uncompressed, so it should be relatively easy to analyze 
     the file with mathematical tools, such as a Fourier transformation.
     
     I now have the file, but need some E-mail adress that I can send it 
     to.
     
     Please provide E-mail adress. The file will be delivered as 12 letters 
     each app 60 kBytes.
     
     Alternatively provide FTP address whereto I can send the file.
     
     Regards, Anders

From i3683@dc.dk  Fri Apr 19 00:02:07 1996
Received: from sdnfire.dc.dk (sdnfire.dc.dk [147.29.10.60]) by mail.eskimo.com
(8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA12632 for <taosh
um-l@eskimo.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 00:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: i3683@dc.dk
Received:  by sdnfire.dc.dk (8.6.9/1.2-eef)
        id JAA07743; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 09:00:07 +0200
Message-Id: <199604190700.JAA07743@sdnfire.dc.dk>
Received: by dc.dk id ta07736; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 09:00:07 CET
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 09:46:00 CET
Subject: TAOS.WAV
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
 
     
     I have made a wav-file of the signal from Lennarts microphone. It was 
     first recorded on a cassette-recorder, then digitized with a 
     SoundBlaster 16 card. There are 10 seconds of Hum, digitized with 16 
     bit at a sampling frequency around 8 kHz.
     
     Because of the use of a cassette recorder the signal will have been 
     added a small amount of flutter and distortion from the recorder.
     At a later time I will make a recording directly to the SoundBlaster 
     card.
     
     The file in uncompressed, so it should be relatively easy to analyze 
     the file with mathematical tools, such as a Fourier transformation.
     
     In order to transfer the file over the network I have uuencoded the 
     file into twelve parts, which will be attached to the following twelve 
     mail messages.
     
     Regards, Anders
Status: RO
X-Status: 



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 14:32:43 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA21834; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 14:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 14:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <960420171220_518325158@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: LGrant44@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Anders New Data on T.H.
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Folks: 

As you've noted things are really moving along in the Taos Hum arena.  I've
just put a description of a possible Taos Hum receiver into the newsgroup, if
you don't get it please drop me a note and I'll send it to you direct, I've
prototyped a basic version and haven't field tested it yet, I know some of
you are or know engineers and I think you'll want to get started on your own
right away.  

My comment on Anders research is only that the extra signal may be from under
the houses and areas rather than over them, a complex issue that we are
gaining the research gear to tackle.  The helmet mention is interesting, are
pilots being protected in some way we're not generally aware of?  This whole
issue is expanding rapidly.
I'll try to get the receiver description posted on the Web Page so people can
access it from now on.

Star Trek?  Insects?  Don't get me started, the byte barrels will overflow
again!

Best to you all!        Larry Grant    LGrant44@aol.com

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 14:28:01 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA21941; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 14:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 14:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <960420171245_518325387@emout16.mail.aol.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: LGrant44@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: A possible Taos Hum receiver description
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Here is a description of circuitry which approximates and potentially exceeds
the parameters set by Lennart Branthel of Sweden for receiving Taos Hum at 77
Hz.  Additionally it is based on switched capacitor filters in a
configuration which has very little chance of self-oscillation and bogus
signal output.  It requires no particularly large or fancy electronic
components, all parts except the I.C. Chips are from Radio Shack. The I.C.'s
can be purchased through Digi-Key or sampled from Maxim Semiconductor at
http://www.maxim-ic.com. It can be tuned fairly easily through a wide range
of frequencies from a few Hz. to some upper limit in the Kilohertz.  It
provides the possibility for very high gain and very narrow bandpass
filtering, both presently thought to be necessary for studying the faint hum
signal.  Recent notes in the Taos Hum newsgroup by Anders suggest that beyond
the receiver and tuning a special detecting component may be necessary for
Hum reception.  At present this is some form of microphone.

The circuit is a patch together of schematics from various MAXIM
Semiconductor data sheets, so copyright considerations may limit the ability
to post a schematic. I can tell you which data sheets to study, there should
be no complications while using the diagrams for research. The circuit is
based on four precision op-amps and two switched capacitor filters and is
quite simple.

The op-amps are Maxim  MAX410 and MAX412 low noise  precision op-amps which
operate with low power drain (approx. 3 ma per amp) and low power supply
voltages of +/- 2.5 to 5 volts.  The 412 is two 410's in a single 8 pin
package used in this case to produce a balanced input impedence differential
amplifier.  Both the 410 and the 412 are described on the same data sheet
ordered under the MAX410 title. I've set my particular breadboard up as
single supply false ground circuits using 9 volt batteries, one for the first
stage and another heavier supply for the filters and differential amp.  I
suggest that for superior performance you design your receiver using dual
supplies which will make for much higher precision and therefore higher
potential gain than I've got at the moment.

The two filters are Maxim MAX294, 8th order, Lowpass, Elliptic, Switched
capacitor filters. These provide the steepest roll available in any easily
applied filter.  If you have not worked with switched capacitor filters you
will find the performance of these is nothing short of stupendous.  The
incorporation of them in circuitry borders on the trivial.  The low pass
cut-off frequency is set by a single small external capacitor, a small
trimpot added in series with this capacitor makes the circuit variable over a
wide range of frequencies. In my prototype each filter is tuned by a .01Uf.
Capacitor and 15K 20-turn trimpot. These values may seem inappropriate for
work at low frequencies like 75 Hz., but the cap. and trimpot are not doing
anything directly with the audio signal. They are instead tuning the clock of
a driving system which uses internal capacitors to produce a low-pass filter.
 This clock operates in the MAX294's at 100 times the cutoff frequency so the
capacitor can be very small in value to achieve low frequency operation.
 Varying the clock frequency varies the cut-off frequency.  

The only weakness of these filters is a bit of bleed-through of the clock at
the filter output.  The chip comes with a built in op-amp which can be used
in a circuit provided in the filter data sheet to eliminate the clock noise
and to provide still steeper roll-off above the basic cut-off frequency.
 While my quickie prototype does not apply this extra filter I suggest using
the filter as shown in the data sheet for better performance.  Table 1 of the
data sheet provides various component values for post-filter cutoff
frequencies. 

This new 77 Hz. receiver is not quite good enough to use with a large coil
inside a power grid but at present the 77 signal is being detected with a
microphone which is easily shielded against power grid hum.  The reason for
the sharp bandpassing is to eliminate all the other noise a microphone picks
up.  Eventually we may find a microphone or other transducer which eliminates
the need for stringent bandpassing and perhaps the need for high gain.  At
present the signal from the one known microphone is at about 5 microvolts,
pretty low.

There are two basic philosophies behind the function of this 75 Hz. receiver.

1.  The first stage can use simple capacitor tuning to achieve a modest roll
off of the high and low frequencies which we wish to reject.  

2.  Adding the two switched capacitor filters allows a very sharp bandpass to
be used which, when coupled with the modest roll-offs in the pre-amplifier
can produce characteristics close to those described by Lennart Branthle
in various submissions he has provided on the Internet.  The most important
of these characteristics are very tight.  With a 77 Hz. center frequency his
6Db down skirts are at 72 and 82 Hz.  12Db. down skirts are 69 and 86
Hz.  His gain is 90-95 Db.

With the circuitry of my receiver a center frequency of 77 Hz. resulted in a
6Db skirts of 73 Hz. and 81 Hz.12 Db. skirts at 68Hz. and 86 Hz.    The
weakness of my switched capacitor filter, without the pre-amplifier
filtering, was that max. lower skirt attenuation is about 30 Db. The double
preamplifier filtering should fairly well overcome this weakness, and more
attention to the details of the unusual method of achieving bandpass
operation from two low-pass filters could also increase the performance.  It
can be noticed from the pictures of the waveform of the output of Lennart's
receiver on the Taos Hum Web page that his signal to noise ratio is very good
which perhaps allows a little lowering of the total required performance
levels.  The point is to receive the Hum electronically at all, even if it
turns up a bit noisy, then to refine as necessary as the real chase for the
Hum and its source begins.  The circuitry described in this article should
make an excellent starting point.  I have simply run out of time to move my
receiver forward for the moment and hope that others can use it as a platform
from which to begin serious research.  On the other hand the high-frequency
skirt of my receiver is excellent, providing what should be approximately
70-80 Db. of suppression for the rest of the audio band.

When ordering the samples and data sheets from Maxim you should also get data
sheets for several other switched capacitor filters as they contain
additional circuitry which is useful in this design.  Here is the full list
of data sheets which you should obtain from MAXIM.

MAX280 5th order, Zero DC error, Lowpass filter, the data sheet contains a
description of how to make the family of Maxim filters tunable with a
trimpot.  The MAX280 or MAX281 used in tandem as shown in this data sheet
might also be an outstanding circuit to use in the receiver as it is of
instrumentation quality.

MAX281 5th order, Zero DC error, Lowpass filter.  This is a Bessel filter
with less steep roll off but complete immunity to strong pulse transients.  

MAX291-MAX292 8th order, Lowpass, Switched Capacitor filter data sheet.  The
MAX292 filter is Bessel rather than elliptic, this provides less steep roll
off but has no tendency to 'ring' under stimulation by heavy transients.  I
used a MAX281 and MAX292 in my Earthquake precursor receiver because
reception of signals with large open coils also picks up many huge transits
and the 281/292 combination provided incredible results when bashed by really
huge pulse transients.

MAX293/MAX294/MAX297  8th order, Lowpass, Switched Capacitor filter data
sheet.  This is the data sheet for the exact MAXIM filters used in the
receiver described in this article.  

MAX410/MAX412/MAX414  Single/Dual/Quad, 28MHz. Low-Noise, Low-Voltage,
Precision Op Amps Data sheet.
This is the data sheet for the op-amps used in the receiver.  The front page
of this data sheet shows the schematic for the differential amplifier used in
this article to turn two low-pass filters into one bandpass filter.

The Chips you want to sample are:

Two MAX294  Chips, the filters used in this articles receiver.  For purposes
of exact balancing you may wish to request that the two filter chips be from
the same manufacturing lot number.

Two MAX293  Chips, slower roll-off but suppression to 80 Db., directly
interchangeable with MAX294.

Two MAX410 Chips, the preamplifiers.

Two MAX412 Chips, one as the differential amplifier and one as a spare.

THE RECEIVER:

The PREAMPLIFIER is simply a two-stage A.C. coupled low noise op-amp circuit
with capacitive coupling.
As you will need all the roll-off that you can get at frequencies below 77
Hz. you should set each capacitor
in this stage to roll lows out.  There are five total caps. to do this with.
 The preamp chips are MAX410's which should probably have their own seperate
battery.  Be sure to switch the post amp on before firing up the preamp.

Input Cap.  Use a 4.7K resistor to ground from the positive Op-amp inputs.  A
1 Uf. Metal-film Cap. (Radio Shack 
Cat.#272-1055) goes between your transducer output and the Positive Op-amp
input.  This is crudely accurate, with an audio oscillator and some patience
you can trim this capacitor for best roll at 77 Hz. or whatever frequency you
want to work at. The same capacitor-resistor pair go between stages and at
the output.

D.C. coupled amplifiers use a feedback resistor (10 Megohms in this case)
between each op-amp output and the negative op-amp input.  Then a 4.7K
resistor from negative input to ground. In A.C. coupling a capacitor (you
guessed it, another 1 Uf.) goes in the ground leg to lower D.C. gain and
additionally roll-off low frequency response.  High frequency roll-off is
provided by a single 390 Pf. capacitor across each 10 Megohm feedback
resistor.  Adjust second stage gain to bring your input signal with noise up
to about 2-3 volts p-p. Trim all low frequency capacitors for roll-off
beginning just below your desired research frequency.  Acoustically isolate
your transducer as well as possible if it picks up sound, that should lower
receiver bandpass stringency. 

PREAMPLIFIER OPERATION THEORY:  The switched capacitor filters in the
successive stage like to see large signals,  whatever transducer you are
using you should set the gain of the preamplifier to produce the largest
output from this stage you can get short of clipping.  As the output can
swing up to 6 volts p-p you may find the total gain in this stage set quite
high but the roll-off provided by the 390 Pf. caps. keeps any high frequency
oscillation from happening, even in breadboarding. 

BANDPASS FILTER/DIFFERENTIAL POST AMPLIFIER.

The question is of course: how do you use low pass filters to produce
bandpass operation?  One way is in driving the outputs of two carefully
matched, identically fed lowpass filters into the input of a differential
amplifier and offsetting the cutoff frequency of one filter very slightly
from that of the other.  Frequencies above the cutoff (in this case 77 Hz.)
are removed by the steep rolloff of the two filters.  Frequencies below the
cutoff are identical in amplitude and phase and are cancelled by the
common-mode rejection of the differential amplifier.  What is amplified is
the frequency which is the slight difference between the two filters.  This
results in the very steep rolloffs required by Lennart's description of his
Hum receiver.  Coupled with the additional rolloffs of the preamplifier
capacitors the result should be close enough to Lennart's to get by as a
start. Failure in phase matching reduces the total possible bandwidth on this
bandpassing method, but it works well for very narrow bandwidths which are
what this receiver presently wants.

FILTER/AMP CONSTRUCTION.

Build two MAX294 filter sections with variable tuning as shown in the MAX281
data sheets.  Tuning for 77Hz. amounts to a .01Uf. Cap. with a 20K-15 turn
trimpot to ground.  The 15 turn trimpot is barely sufficient to the task, you
should add an additional 1k-15 turn trimpot in series with the 20K for fine
tuning. Build each section with the 2nd order Butterworth Lowpass filter
shown in figure 4 of the MAX293/MAX294 data sheet, values for 100 Hz. chosen
from Table 1. of that data sheet should do, but for best performance you may
want to raise the values of the 2nd order filter in order to drop the cutoff
frequency of this filter just above your chosen working frequency, 77 Hz.  I
haven't tried the full circuit with this post filter but if it turns out to
have unfortunate characteristics you can easily bypass it.  If you use just
the raw switched capacitor filters without the additional post filters be
sure to note the mention in the filter data sheets that the filters like to
see about 20K ohms to ground.  The switched capacitor filters also do not
like to drive loads less than 20K ohms, and if you want to attach a 'Scope
probe directly to the output of the switched capacitor filters for testing
I've found it necessary to add a 4.7K ohm or higher resistor between my
probes and the filter output to prevent high frequency oscillation.

The INPUTS of the two filters are simply paralleled and driven from the
output of the preamplifier with a 4.7K resistor to ground, the resistor from
the last preamp capacitor resistor pair.

Build one 'Low Noise Instrumentation Amplifier' using a single MAX412 chip as
seen on page 1 of the MAXIM
MAX410/MAX412 data sheet.  Adhere closely to the resistor values, use a
digital ohmmeter and series-paralleling of two or three resistors (precision
1 percent metal- film) to obtain the odd values used in this amplifier.
 Match the resistor pairs carefully for maximized common-mode rejection in
this amplifier.  Note the mention in the MAXIM schematic for trimming gain
and common-mode rejection.  The gain of this amplifier seems to be about 40
as I put .1 volts in and got 4 volts p-p out, but when breadboarding this
stage I totally trashed the values of the 42.2 K resistors using 10 K instead
and still got 30 Db. of steep low Freq. rolloff.  The whole receiver is
remarkably immune to fooling around with values, but I'm describing how you
should go about building the ideal receiver.  

The outputs of the two filters go one each to the + and - inputs of this
differential amplifier.  Be sure that the power for the filters and
differential amp comes on at the same time although the MAX410/MAX412 can
stand up to 20 ma. of input overdrive.  Also be sure to turn on the
filter/differential amp before turning on the preamplifier because you might
take out the switched capacitor filter inputs if they are off when the
preamplifier begins to drive.  Turn the preamplifier off before turning off
the rest of the system.  The reason for the use of this rather fancy
differential amplifier is that it is the easiest way to be sure that the two
filter sections are driving identical loads.  While the frequencies above
cut-off are filtered by the low-pass characteristics of the two filters and
these are very good at providing sharp cut-off, the frequencies below
cut-off, the lower skirt of the bandpass filter, are provided by the
common-mode rejection of the amplifier and the best operation here requires
that the lower than cut-off frequencies be as identically matched as
possible.  Other routes to this may be possible but I've found this quick and
not-so dirty. Be sure to match the components of the analog filter following
the switched capacitors.

SETTING UP THE BANDPASS FILTER.

Use an audio oscillator set at the desired center frequency.  Lennart
Branthel has described that his own internal Hum and the hum he
electronically receives are centered at 77 Hz., so you might try that.  A
tape I have of a Taos Hum like signal seems to have a center at 75 Hz.
 You'll probably want to try 77, it is fairly easy to shift around in this
band by tuning the clocks of the filters in the following manner:

Drive the common, paralleled inputs of the filters at .1 Volts p-p., 77 Hz.
 Connect the probes of a dual-channel 'Scope through 4.7 K ohm or higher
matched resistors to one each of the outputs of the filters, right at the
inputs of the differential amplifier.  You can check if the filters are
operating happily by using a 'scope to observe the clock of each filter at
pin 1 of each filter chip, this is a triangular wave form at 100 times the
cutoff frequency.
The added capacitance of the probe will probably shift the operating
frequency of the clock a bit, don't leave the probe connected while doing
critical tuning.  You can leave the probes on the filter outputs, however.

Raise or lower the frequency of one filter, at some point you should see the
signal rather suddenly appear if you are raising the clock frequency, or
disappear if you are lowering it.  Set the main trimmer so the signal has
just achieved full output of approx. .1 volts p-p.  Adjust the fine trimmer
if necessary to where the signal is attenuated about 1 Db. so you can tell
exactly where cutoff is.  

On the other filter and 'Scope channel adjust the trimmers until the signal
is also coming through at full level minus about 1 Db., or attenuating just a
tad.  Now overlay your two 'Scope channels carefully and adjust one or the
other of the filters until the overlay is as tight as you can manage, on my
little Goldstar 'scope the signals could be overlayed until they looked just
like one trace.  At this point the filters are working at close enough to the
same frequency to be useful.  This kind of frequency, amplitude and phase
matching is possible because the switched capacitor filters are so repetitive
in manufacture and performance, a difficult trick with discrete component
filters.  Addtionally these characteristics should maintain over the
frequency range of the filters, .1 to 25KHz.  

REMOVE THE PROBE from the other filter so you don't unbalance the circuit.
Sweep the driving frequency back and forth over the center frequency while
observing the output of the differential amplifier.  The output should be
fairly low or close to zero, showing the quality of your common-mode
rejection and filter balance.  

WATCHING THE DIFFERENTIAL AMPLIFIER OUTPUT,  sweep your audio oscillator back
and forth across the 77Hz center frequency while adjusting one filter clock
slightly and the bandpassed signal should begin to appear.  If lowering the
frequency of the clock doesn't show the signal raise it above cut-off a tad.
 Practice with this will allow you to peak the circuit performance. You are
trying to get lower and lower values of differential amplifier output at the
frequencies below the center of 77 Hz., the higher than cutoff frequencies
will pretty much take care of themselves.  It helps to use a Db meter at this
point. I don't know what the max. capabilities of this circuit are when it
comes to the lower frequencies because I've run out of time and fine tuning
the entire circuitry can take a bit. Hopefully between the switched capacitor
and analog preamplifier circuits the total performance will be sufficient to
chase the 77Hz. signal effectively.  When you have determined exact values
you may wish to replace the 20K trimpots with equivalent precision resistors
for clock stability over time and temp., using the 1K for fine trimming
thereafter.

As Anders has recently described what he has been receiving using one of
Lennart's microphones it is apparent that some kind of signal exists which is
according to Lennart exactly his internally perceived hum at 77 Hz.
Hopefully this signal is available where-ever Hum Hearers are perceiving Taos
Hum.  From this point we are exploring off into the dark, I hope this
provides a sufficient platform for branching out into further and more
definitive research.  

Best to all of you.    Larry Grant     LGrant44@aol.com













  

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 21:02:18 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA28000; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 20:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 20:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960427205244.29895i-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: hum: Re: Re: Anders New Data on T.H.
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

--- FORWARDED ---

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 22:07:06 -0500
From: Mark Mansfield <markman@UTM.Edu>
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Cc: markman@UTM.Edu
Subject: Re: Anders New Data on T.H.

Hello Larry,
I read your notes on the TH receiver with great interest. I have a couple
of questions if you have time to answer...
Have you been able to pick up the Taos hum with any of your coils? 
>From what I've gathered reading over what you wrote, you should be getting
very close if you have not yet received it. What about resonating the
pickup coil to the 77Hz frequency? That should help with some of the 
frequency selectivity problem. 
I'm building up a circuit using a instrumention amp and some switched 
cap filters from Linear Technology (because I have them here handy).
They are almost identical to the Maxim parts. I have a few Analog 
Devices instrumention amps laying around that needed to be put to use
as well. I'll pass along the schematic when I get it all tested. Maybe
you could do the same. I'm pretty sure that Bill Beaty will place them
on the web site. 

Good Luck!
Mark



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 19:41:34 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA27448; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960414172128.2585J-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: hum: Hum a few bars. . . 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 21:29:28 -0700
From: dolores@crl.com
To: billb@eskimo.com
Subject: Hum a few bars. . .

Hello-

I recently posted a message to the tinnitus newsgroup, and someone 
replied that there was a Taos Hum homepage. . . so here I am with my 
story (not too long).

I have heard a hum, on and off, since I was a child. I'm now 53. As a 
child I used to think a jet was flying very high in the sky and would run 
outside to see it. Nothing was ever there. Years later I heard the hum 
regularly, but always thought it was the ocean waves, since I lived near 
the ocean at the time. When I moved I continued to hear it. It sounded 
like a low pitched hum, very much like a blimp in the area, or as I said 
a jet airplane flying very high. It always seemed that I heard the hum 
when I was indoor, in my home when things are quiet. I rarely, if ever, 
hear it outside. I began to believe that this sound was coming from 
inside my head, and this bothered me a lot. Because it bothered me, 
sometimes it would get worse because of anxiety. How is this possible??

Then about two weeks ago my husband brought home a flight helmet worn by 
Navy jet pilots. He collects stuff like that! For kicks, I put it on and 
had the surprise of my life. The ear protectors/headphones inside the 
helmet fit so snug that there was complete silence, and guess what , no 
hum!!!

So now I have deduced the hum is not an airplane, and is not in my head, 
so where is it coming from????

I have lived in California all of my life, and have heard the hum in So. 
Cal. and well as No. Cal. My husband does not hear the hum. But he thinks 
that it might be from electromagnetic fields, or from 
telephone/power/utility lines. He also thinks it might be the "sounds of 
the universe", a combination of all the garbage noise: freeway noise, 
trucks, e.m. fields, etc. 

What do you think? 

Dolores Neese
dolores@crl.com

--- FORWARDED ---

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 13:07:00 CET
From: i3683@dc.dk
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Lennart's Microphone

     
     Comparing two of these microphones, I see that only the first line of 
     code is the same on the two labels. So the first line could be a model 
     identification.
     
     Comparing the signal from the two microphones, they look similar from 
     a superficial viewpoint. One of them gives maybe twice the output than 
     the other.
     
     I have two preamplifiers, one borrowed from Lennart, and one I built 
     myself. Nominally they have the same amplification at 77 Hz, the 
     bandwiths are different. Lennarts has a bandwith from maybe 71 to 81 
     Hz, mine a bandwidth from maybe 30 Hz to 100 Hz. Electrically they are 
     built somewhat differently. The signals from them are somewhat 
     different, The output signal from my preamplifier is weaker and 
     contains more different frequencies. Judged from this comparison the 
     77 Hz signal might be an artifact of the preamplifier. I have WAV 
     files of the two outputs, but I havent yet figured out how to take 
     them apart and frequencyanalyze the WAV files. If somebody else could 
     do this easily, they are wellcome...
     
     To test the preamplifiers, I suppose I need to give them a known 
     input, both sinus and pulse, and look at the output. This can take 
     some time.
     
     Regards, Anders
     


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 21:02:19 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA28370; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 20:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 20:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960427205407.29895k-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: hum: Re: Lennart's microphone
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

--- FORWARDED ---

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:44:00 CET
From: i3683@dc.dk
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Lennarts microphone

     
     I have now done FFT analysis of two WAV files from Lennarts 
     microphone. No tape recorder was used. The signal was digitized 
     directly from the preamplifier. In each case only 1024 points were 
     used. One with Lennarts narrow bandpass preamplifier.  Here a signal 
     at 79.0 Hz was found. One with a 30-100 Hz bandpass filter with 
     greater nominal amplification than Lennarts. Here only a signal at the 
     mains frequency was found. Nothing at 79 Hz. 
     
     Now I need to check if the nominal amplification of the two amplifiers 
     also is the real amplification.
     
     Regards, Anders
     
     



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 21:02:53 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA28518; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 20:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 20:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960427205520.29895m-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: hum: Lennart's microphone 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

--- FORWARDED ---
     
     A frequency analysis of the noise from Lennarts microphone shows no 
     peak at 76 Hz, but a peak at the mainsfrequency. Apart from the mains 
     frequency peak, the spectrum is evenly increasing in amplitude from 
     low frequencies to high frequencies. The microphone was insulated 
     against sound and far from any mainspowered equipment.
     
     So I didnt find any signal separate from the thermal noise.
     
     Furthermore I took the signal from two microphones placed side by 
     side. The signals had approximately the same amplitude. Displayed on 
     an oscilloscope, you didnt see any match between the two signals.
     I inverted one of the signals and added them. Then I did a frequency 
     analysis of the sum. Had there been a signal, the amplitude around 76 
     should have decreased. Instead it increased, as it would if the two 
     signals were independant of each other.
     
     So again I saw no signal at 76 Hz.
     
     I think I have done what I could to find a 76 Hz signal from Lennart's 
     microphones. I must conclude that Lennarts signal is an artifact. His 
     preamplifier by the way had an amplification 10 times greater than 
     intended, so it picks up the thermal (random) noise from the 
     microphone, filters out the 76 Hz component, and outputs it as a 
     signal. You can make a similar signal from just amplifying the 
     transistor noise of the amplifier, and filtering it.
     
     Regards, Anders



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 21:02:24 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA28405; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 20:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 20:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960427205450.29895l-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: hum: Star Trek: The Taos Hum 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 


--- FORWARDED ---
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:29:54 -0400
From: LGrant44@aol.com
To: taoshum-L@eskimo.com
Cc: GeoMonitr@aol.com
Subject: Star Trek:  The Taos Hum

One of the incredible perks found in being a film/television student at UCLA
is the peculiar situation of learning from many writers and production folks
who would not be so open with peers.  I got to find out a large stack of
strange information which I still puzzle over.  

Several items relate quite directly to why the recent electronic recording of
the Taos Hum, when played back at a higher speed, sounds like something from
a familiar television program.  

It begins with the fact that Los Angeles has more religions than ancient
Greece ever imagined.  So many are there that some film writers are able to
'religion surf' while searching for tidbits and chunks of ancient knowledge
to incorporate as the second and third plot levels always found in good
writing. From the Hollywood Hills, through Topanga, Santa Monica and Malibu
there are more curious artifacts and odd scroll bits than in Memphis, Egypt.
The all time winner for continuous stuffing of arcane and mysterious
knowledge into an ongoing series is without a doubt the original Star Trek,
second place goes to 'Twin Peaks'.  The only single movie I know of from
those times that exceeds Star Trek in delivering a non-stop nose to toes
drenching in unacknowledged secret insight is a film which is the direct
parent of Star Trek, 'Forbidden Planet.'  This film, which now seems so
antique and peculiar as to be hilarious, could have been produced by the High
Priests of Ancient Egypt. Hardly a shot or scene goes by without both subtle
and overt references to whole realms of surprising ideas.  Rent the film and
watch particularly the eccentric character 'Morbius,' his most frustrating
attitude toward the sharing of knowledge, his egomaniacal need to protect
gained power through intellectual monopoly.

So full is the flood tide of information pouring from 'Forbidden Planet' that
one is not only immersed in sights from the back stages of prehistory, but
also the sounds.  Run the film several times and analyze the visuals and the
unusual audio sound track.  Enjoy the visualizations of a gigantic machine
for creating realities, global predecessor of the Holodeck. Realize that both
Forbidden Planet and Star Trek are not primarily about space travel, they are
about the secret and forbidden nature of our own Earth, a way of safely
looking at things which are supposed to be 'out Thar' somewhere high above,
while studying quite directly that which is so close, just below us.  This
'Sights and Sounds' tradition carries on to the present day.  Crocodile
Dundee calls some 'friends' with a 'Bullroarer,' an ancient aboriginal device
only exceeded by the didgeridoo for esoteric impact.

Another powerful 'Mysteries as Documentary' film is 'Raiders of the Lost
Ark.'  If you want to see clearly into the actual reality of ancient religion
and the Powers of the Gods watch the last scenes from 'Raiders,' the moments
just before the Ark of the Covenent is opened to the seconds after the lid
slams shut.  Listen particularly carefully to the fierce buzzing hum that
appears just after the electrical generator shorts out.  Sights and sounds
from a reality so distant we don't recognize the truth of them consciously.
 Most appropriately the Ark is carted off to a huge symbolic warehouse which
is packed to the ceiling with crates containing only a small part of the
Earth Mysteries to be discovered.

Earth Mysteries would remain mysterious and distant except that lately a
couple of them, Crop Circles and the Taos Hum, have become like dancing
Hippopotomi in tiny tutus; not much cover. While the Crop Circles can be
fobbed off as 'hoaxes' the Hum is another matter altogether.  It isn't pretty
art forms in fields but an intrusive unavoidable reality for a growing number
of people.  We don't know yet just how many people will eventually hear the
Hum.  That's why the aggressive study of it is important. That study has
begun in earnest with the conversion of the Hum from a curiosity for
Otologists to a crashing mad dash forward into new technologies by
electronics researchers.  In the symbolic vernacular of 'Raiders' Crop
Circles are embarrassingly protuberant from their crates and Taos Hum won't
even fit in a Quonset Hut.

With enough thrashing around maybe we will all be able to eventually say 'Et
Tu, Morbius?'

Larry Grant    LGrant44@aol.com



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 21:18:54 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01113; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 21:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 21:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960427205829.29895n-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

--- FORWARDED ---

Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 08:27:00 CET
From: i3683@dc.dk
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Lennarts microphone

     
     The microphone is labeled with 4 lines of codes:
     
     RLC104
     02/02
     R1B
     A5 8518
     
     It is of uncertain manufacture, scavenged from scrapped electronics, 
     probably between 10 and 20 years old.
     
     It is formed as a rectangular metal box 18 mm x 16 mm x 6 mm. The 
     metal is stamped out of a plate, and closed around the interior. From 
     a 16 mm x 6 mm side two terminals protude through black plastic. On a 
     18 x 16 mm side a 5 mm diameter hole allows you to see black plastic 
     with a ring of 5 holes each around half a mm in diameter. Through 
     these holes you see a metallic plate. 
     
     As far as is known the microphone is not currently produced or 
     marketed.
     
     
     Regards,
     Anders






From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 21:19:16 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01212; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 21:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 21:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960427205945.29895o-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: hum: The message bouncing error fixed!
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 


The owner of Eskimo North, Inc., says that the "catmail" error, which has
been causing weeks of massive message-bounce errors for all eskimo.com
discussion lists, is now fixed.

I know how frustruating this has been.  If it's any consolation, I just
received a long message from eskimo.com about the many dead ends the staff
encountered in trying to fix the mail problems.  So they haven't been
ignoring us, just not communicating.

It's Saturday, 9:00pm PST right now.  Let's see if the bug is really gone. 
Anyone getting a bounced "error 14" message from taoshum-L after today,
could you contact me?

...................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page





From judycole@spider.lloyd.com Mon Apr 29 12:52:00 1996
Received: from spider.lloyd.com (www.lloyd.com [158.222.1.65]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA03539; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 12:50:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dial-1-17.innercite.com by spider.lloyd.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0uDyvZ-002WgaC; Mon, 29 Apr 96 12:48 PDT
Message-Id: <m0uDyvZ-002WgaC@spider.lloyd.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 96 12:48 PDT
X-Sender: judycole@spider.lloyd.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
From: judycole@spider.lloyd.com (Judy Karleen-Cole)
Subject: Is the .WAV file working?
Cc: billb@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

I've heard from at least three people now who are having difficulty trying
to play the .wav file on the Hum web page.  Two say they are unable to
"access" it, and one apparently "accessed" it but could hear nothing, even
with the sound turned up full volume.

Has anyone on this newsletter been able to access this file successfully,
and if so, could you please let the rest of us know how you did it?

I realize that Anders suggested that the recorded hum in the .wav might have
been "artifact", however this does not diminish my interest in at least
listening to the file.

Many thanks,


Judy K
El Dorado, CA
judycole@spider.lloyd.com


From billb@eskimo.com  Mon Apr 29 13:18:01 1996
Received: from eskimo.com (billb@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA08802 for <taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 13:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost by eskimo.com (8.7.5) id NAA16457; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 13:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 13:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: taoshum-l@mail.eskimo.com
Subject: hum: Re: Anders new data on T.H. (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960429131621.7683D-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status: 

--- FORWARDED ---

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 22:07:06 -0500
From: Mark Mansfield <markman@UTM.Edu>
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Cc: markman@UTM.Edu
Subject: Re: Anders New Data on T.H.

Hello Larry,
I read your notes on the TH receiver with great interest. I have a couple
of questions if you have time to answer...
Have you been able to pick up the Taos hum with any of your coils? 
>From what I've gathered reading over what you wrote, you should be getting
very close if you have not yet received it. What about resonating the
pickup coil to the 77Hz frequency? That should help with some of the 
frequency selectivity problem. 
I'm building up a circuit using a instrumention amp and some switched 
cap filters from Linear Technology (because I have them here handy).
They are almost identical to the Maxim parts. I have a few Analog 
Devices instrumention amps laying around that needed to be put to use
as well. I'll pass along the schematic when I get it all tested. Maybe
you could do the same. I'm pretty sure that Bill Beaty will place them
on the web site. 

Good Luck!
Mark



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 21:55:01 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01334; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960429131739.7683E-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Taoshum-l down?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, Judy Karleen-Cole wrote:

> Hi, Bill,
> 
> Is the newsletter down again?  No posts have been received 
> since 4/18, and some complain about "bounce backs".  There 
> also seems to be some difficulty in reading (hearing) the 
> Hum.wav file.  Would it be possible to post some 
> instructions on how to do this for those of us with 
> borderline computer skills?

Hi Judy!  TAOSHUM-L is alive, and the "bounce" error has now been fixed by
the eskimo.com staff.  This error was screwing everything up over the last
couple of weeks, so messages have been very sparse.


On the WAV file, there are different instructions for different browsers,
so it's hard to get everyone up and running on sound playbacks.  Sound
playback software in general does NOT come with your WWW browser.  You
need to read your browser's help files and get hold of a shareware "Helper
application" for sound, then set your browser preferences so this program
is run whenever you click on a WAV file. 

I have a PC and Netscape, and an old Soundblaster card.  I use a peice of
freeware called wplany.exe (Windows Play-Any).  It was years ago when I
put this together, and I no longer recall where I got it.  Another good
shareware is GOLDWAVE sound player.

Most shareware can be had on internet via the giant c|net shareware
archive.  I think it's at www.cnet.com.  Otherwise, search for this
site with "shareware front desk" as keywords. 


....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 21:55:10 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01265; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960429131216.7683C-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Is the .WAV file working?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, Judy Karleen-Cole wrote:

> I've heard from at least three people now who are having difficulty trying
> to play the .wav file on the Hum web page.  Two say they are unable to
> "access" it, and one apparently "accessed" it but could hear nothing, even
> with the sound turned up full volume.
> 
> Has anyone on this newsletter been able to access this file successfully,
> and if so, could you please let the rest of us know how you did it?

It worked OK for me, but the volume level is *very* low.  I couldn't hear
it the first time, but I had saved it to my hard drive, so I pointed my
browser to file:///c|/hum.wav and replayed it several times.  The sound
gets louder towards the end of the playback.  It sounds lots like a wasp
buzzing around your ear, with volume going up and down as the "wasp"
gyrates around.  At the same time you hear alot of hiss from the
electronics.


....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 21:55:25 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01410; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <1.5.4b12.32.19960430034317.0067d790@pop.hom.net>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Krenath <Krenath@hom.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Taos Hum Wav File
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 


        There's been a surprising lack of comment on the Taos Hum wav file
recorded by our friend Anders.  So, in case any of the list subscribers do
not know, the Taos Hum wav file is now available for your listening
(dis?)pleasure on Bill Beaty's Taos Hum web page at
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/hum/hum.html.  The actual file itself is at
http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrg/taos.wav (note the single 'l' in '~bilb'

The .wav file is some 500K large, and I find it simultaneously fascinating
and disturbing to listen to.  It loses some of its 'charm' when sped up, but
the sound seems less random and more cyclic when accelerated.  I can say for
certain that I don't hear this sound or any similar sound at any time, which
I feel proves either that I'm not a hearer or that the sound is not present
where I live.  I have heard no reports that this sound has been heard in the
central Georgia area so it's hard to say.  I'd be interested to hear from
others whether this is the sound they hear as well.


,-------+-----.    Eric Koske, Register Data Systems, Register Communications.
| |/~ /-|  /~ |     WPGA AM 980, FM 100.9, and TV Channel 58   Macon, Georgia
| |   \_|  _/ |  Computer Tech, Tech Support, Archbishop of Phones, Whatzit
Guru.
`-------------'       1619 Forsyth St., Macon, GA  31210      (912)745-5858


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 21:59:32 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01371; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960426231414.26856w-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: hum: Sarah??
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 


--- FORWARDED ---
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 13:13:00 CET
From: i3683@dc.dk
To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Sarah??

     
     What happended to Sarah of the Taos hum? I received the following 
     file, which could stimulate speculations about the fate of Sarah.
     How are we to know if individual members of this mailing list are 
     being bumped off by the a covert and criminal agency?
     ------------------------------------------------
     
     Re: 'ULF War Syndrome'
     
     Dear Duncan: While reading a back issue of NEXUS (vol. 2#20), I came 
     across a news clip titled "The Mysterious Taos Hum". It says that 
     Representative Bill Richardson (Dem., NM) has asked the House Select 
     Committee to investigate a noise which causes dizziness, shortness of 
     breath, headaches, anxiety and sleeplessness, and is thought by some 
     to be from a secret defence-related project plaguing various cities in 
     New Mexico.
     
     Well, I believe I know something about that sound, so here is my 
     story.
     
     During the years 1980-83 I was living with the daughter of the 
     now-deceased Dr David Fraser, former head of the Department of 
     Toxicology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. One day 
     the daughter told me of a frightening encounter her father had with 
     the American military. Later, when Dr Fraser came to stay with us 
     while on vacation in 1981, I asked him to tell me the story firsthand.
     
     In the early 1970s, the small city of Medford, Oregon, became the 
     suicide capital of the United States overnight. (The exact dates can 
     be found by checking national health statistics.) After Dr Fraser was 
     notified of this dramatic anomaly, he organized and sent a team of 
     researchers to look for the cause. They checked the water, the air, 
     the soil and a variety of additional possibilities, but still could 
     find no reason for the massive increase in suicides. Then they 
     discovered that Ultra Low Frequencies were being beamed into Medford, 
     Oregon, from the 'local' military base. (I never thought to ask for 
     the name.) The researchers then went to that military base and met  
     with its commanding officer. The commanding officer said he knew about 
     the ULF, but his base was not responsible, and that the Russians were! 
     The ULF waves stopped the very next day.
     
     The researchers had not only determined the military base as the 
     source, they also determined that the ULF was coming into the homes of 
     the populace through their television antennas, which created some 
     sort of standing wave resonance within the structure of the home 
     itself. Those people who didnot get out of their homes became severely 
     depressed.
     
     As the ULF wave had now stopped, the researchers returned to the 
     University of Chapel Hill to write their report and confer with Dr 
     Fraser. At that time, a number of men appeared who displayed CIA 
     credentials and said the ULF waves beamed into Medford were a 
     "national security" matter. They went on to threaten explicitly to 
     kill each of the researchers, including Dr David Fraser himself, 
     should anyone speak further about it.
     
     As a postscript, I have often wondered how many times researchers have
     stumbled over the effects of secret weapons directed against the 
     American people and have been intimidated into silence, or possibly 
     murdered. I myself have made no public statement on the matter until 
     now, fourteen years from the time I heard this story (and more than 
     twenty years after the initial fact). It seems clear to me that the 
     military-industrial complex has secretly declared war on the American 
     people quite some time ago, and is waging a long-term psychological 
     warfare operation, complete with fully operational, mass mind-control 
     technology. Lastly, I don't say these things so that people will be 
     afraid. The good news is that these cockroaches don't feel strong 
     enough to be caught out in the light. However, should any of your 
     readers be feeling depressed, anxious or nauseous, before calling a 
     doctor try taking down your TV antenna.
     
     Sincerely,
     
     Mark M., Hollywood, CA, USA.
     





From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 21:59:40 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01213; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0uDyvZ-002WgaC@spider.lloyd.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: judycole@spider.lloyd.com (Judy Karleen-Cole)
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Is the .WAV file working?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I've heard from at least three people now who are having difficulty trying
to play the .wav file on the Hum web page.  Two say they are unable to
"access" it, and one apparently "accessed" it but could hear nothing, even
with the sound turned up full volume.

Has anyone on this newsletter been able to access this file successfully,
and if so, could you please let the rest of us know how you did it?

I realize that Anders suggested that the recorded hum in the .wav might have
been "artifact", however this does not diminish my interest in at least
listening to the file.

Many thanks,


Judy K
El Dorado, CA
judycole@spider.lloyd.com


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 30 07:04:16 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA29779; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 06:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 06:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199604300750.JAA12600@sdnfire.dc.dk>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: i3683@dc.dk
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: WAV file
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

     
     Please realize that the frequency of the sound in the WAV file is 
     aroun 76 Hz.  This is a low frequency, and many multimedia systems may 
     not be able to replay a frequency that low.
     
     I can replay it through my HIFI loudspeakers that almost go down to 20 
     Hz.
     
     You should be able to replay it using headphones. But probably not 
     through miniature loudspeakers in a PC.
     
     Regards, Anders

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Wed May  1 07:58:31 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA28388; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <830888311260123@bbs.gemlink.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: mimi@bbs.gemlink.com (Mimi)
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Is the .WAV file working?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 


I easily accessed the .wav file and had to fiddle with the volume to
hear the hum, but I heard it clearly.  It does not resemble the hum I
hear.  Mine is much flatter and more monotonous.  Lennart's hum is
(pardon my inability to describe a sound) richer, more mellow, and has
a different kind of vibration.  I wouldn't describe the .wav hum as a
diesel engine; it's more musical, a nicer tone.  Mine sounds more like
a distant airplane.

Also, it's a bit hard to get the sound away from the computer fan.  I
finally turned the volume down a bit and put my ear up to the speaker
to eliminate the fan sound.     Hope this helps.  Mimi Cantwell


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sat May  4 23:51:24 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA05865; Sat, 4 May 1996 23:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 23:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <318C3EF5.443E@198.4.75.51>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: JoniWebb <jbwebb@198.4.75.51>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: CRaZy Complimentary Offer........
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Jeanchev@aol.com wrote:
> 
> ---------------------
> Forwarded message:
> Subj:    CRaZy Complimentary Offer........
> Date:    96-05-04 14:44:00 EDT
> From:    Jeanchev
> 
> To:      free_offer_news.reflector@usenet.vax1.zer2.co.np


Dear Taos-Hummers

What gives with all the advertisements lately?  I thought it was strictly 
forbidden.  In my humble opinion, I think that someone out there should 
start an alt.taoshum newsgroup.  Then we could communicate quicker 
without all the downtime the server seems to have.  We could get 
an active dialogue going.  I belong to several alt.newsgroups and find 
them quite compelling; most notably alt.religion.scientology (for those 
interested in truly bizarre net politics).  Anyway, that's my opinion for 
what its worth.  Hum report:  Saturday, 11:55 pm CST/DST - hum absent.  
Sweet dreams.  

P.S.  What ever happened to Larry?  I "sort" of miss him and his posts.

Take care.

Joni Webb

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sun May  5 15:33:09 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA07116; Sun, 5 May 1996 15:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 15:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199605051852.LAA15763@netcom13.netcom.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: tomrice@netcom.com (Tom R. Rice)
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Lost Hum Alert!
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

	At 2:00 AM Sunday, I awoke to answer a call of nature
	and, when I returned to bed, was amazed to discover 
	that the hum, which has been there forever, was _not_
	audible!  Usually, it rates a 2-3 on the popular scale.

	For once I was able to actually hear my own sui generis
	system noise.  The left ear has a very weak tone ~2 kc
	in frequency, the right ear has a weak sound just like 
	the ringing you get when using a very narrow filter.

	When I arose shortly after 8:30, the hum, usually quite
	strong at that time, was still inaudible.  

	(Already I'm beginning to feel a sense of _loss_!)


=================================================================
Tom R. Rice                  WB6BYH            Lat: 37d 25m 10s N     
PO Box 2152                                  Long: 121d 30m 20s W          
Livermore, CA   94551                       Maidenhead Grid: CM97 
=================================================================

-- 
"Start off every day with a smile and get it over with."  --W.C.Fields
Tom R. Rice  
tomrice@netcom.com     
CIS: 71160,1122       

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Mon May  6 02:29:32 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA21144; Mon, 6 May 1996 02:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 02:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0uGEZV-002WgUC@spider.lloyd.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: judycole@spider.lloyd.com (Judy Karleen-Cole)
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Lost Hum Alert!
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 03:25 PM 5/5/96 -0700, Tom R. Rice wrote:
>	At 2:00 AM Sunday, I was amazed to discover 
>	that the hum, which has been there forever, was _not_
>	audible!  Usually, it rates a 2-3 on the popular scale.
>	When I arose shortly after 8:30, the hum, usually quite
>	strong at that time, was still inaudible.  
>
Very interesting...I have graded the hum a consistent 2-3 as well for many,
many weeks without much of a break. Sunday morning it was intermittently
absent for the first time since February, and when present, very hard to
hear in the house.  I could not hear it at all outside.  It is now 5:45 PDT
Sunday, and I currently hear the hum indoors when I am still;  I just
checked outdoors and I can also hear it in the front yard, but less so than
in the house.

Would anyone else care to add a comment?  It might be interesting to learn
where it is and is not present, as this seems to be a definite change.

>	(Already I'm beginning to feel a sense of _loss_!)

Such a sweet loss!!!  No actually, I kinda know what you mean.  I felt that
way last summer when it was gone for about two months...I was beginning to
think that something was wrong with me because I didn't hear it any more
after having heard it for so long. Tell you what though, that was not my
reaction today...the silence was positively energizing!  I'm looking forward
to see if we get another hiatus this summer, and if so, I'm going to enjoy
every minute of it!


Judy K
El Dorado, CA
judycole@spider.lloyd.com


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Mon May  6 02:29:56 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA21172; Mon, 6 May 1996 02:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 02:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SCO.3.91.960505200334.16594B-100000@crash.cts.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Carolyn Capps <capps@cts.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Lost Hum Alert!
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sun, 5 May 1996, Tom R. Rice wrote:
> 	At 2:00 AM Sunday, I awoke to answer a call of nature
> 	and, when I returned to bed, was amazed to discover 
> 	that the hum, which has been there forever, was _not_
> 	audible!

I do not get to read this list regularly, so I do not know whether
this has been discussed before, but has the loss if the hum ever
been correlated here with earthquake activity?

I was speaking about it with an "authority" a couple of days ago, 
someone who is able to do remote viewing, and he said that the hum 
comes from the molten inner core of the earth. That when there is 
movement in a deep level above the core that the newly shifted layer 
can deflect the vibrations coming from the core so that it is no 
longer heard in its usual location.

The reason I happened to ask him about it was because I had noticed
that someone on this list from northern California had posted about 
mid-February that he had stopped hearing the hum and that was about the 
time that that swarm of earthquakes began in central CA.

I asked why some people heard it and others didn't and he said it was 
due to bone structure, especially to the shape of the cranium.

You live in Livermore CA? I don't have a map available right here, but
I will get one and start observing whether there is increased quake
activity. I gathered from the diagram he drew that the quake activity
would not be in the area where the hum had been being heard but some
distance to the side of that area. The fault activity would be at an
edge of the blocking material.  

Do you ordinarily  hear the hum almost everywhere? It would make a very
interesting experiment if you could travel away from your home and see
if the hum picks up some distance from where you live. Maybe you could
be a human divining rod to pinpoint the scope of the blockage of the
hum sound. ;-)  

I pass this on for what it's worth. Just because some stranger tells
you what another stranger has told her is no reason to accept it as 
valid. It would, however, seem to be information worth testing on its 
own merit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
    Carolyn Capps              Vista CA            capps@cts.com


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Mon May  6 16:20:42 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA10505; Mon, 6 May 1996 16:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 16:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199605061548.IAA11074@netcom19.netcom.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: tomrice@netcom.com (Tom R. Rice)
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Return of the Hum!
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

	Well, I awoke at about 1:00 AM (same reason) and the hum
	was in the process of returning, I suppose, as it was
	more hollow-sounding than usual and intermittant, with
	drop-outs of several seconds.  It seemed to "firm up"
	by about 2:00 AM and was solidly in place around 5:00.

	When I arose at 8:30, things sounded completely back to
	normal.  

	It'll be some time in the future, but I'm  planning some
	ELF/VLF detectors which should help in efforts to correlate
	hum variations with e-quakes.  

	
=================================================================
Tom R. Rice                  WB6BYH           Lat:  37d 25m 10s N     
PO Box 2152                                  Long: 121d 30m 20s W          
Livermore, CA   94551                       Maidenhead Grid: CM97 
=================================================================

	Actually, this site is located in the mountains
	about 30 miles south of L-more.  

-- 
"Start off every day with a smile and get it over with."  --W.C.Fields
Tom R. Rice  
tomrice@netcom.com     
CIS: 71160,1122       

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Tue May  7 17:03:25 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA04398; Tue, 7 May 1996 16:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 16:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <960507144910_530133202@emout09.mail.aol.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: LGrant44@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Notes on Hum WAV file
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi folks:

I haven't disappeared, just been overwhelmed with work trying to keep up with
the incredible effects beginning to filter into the economic system from the
sudden jump in Gasoline prices.  We are seeing increases on the order of four
cents a week, about a half-cent a day, with no stopping in sight.  This is
going to begin showing in inflation shortly and the result is probably going
to be catastrophe'  for a lot of people, we don't want to be among them.
I'm aware of a growing number of people who are pressed to the walls by the
price increases, California is a commute state and no one has brought out
kits for modifying your car to install bicycle pedals.  The intensity of
feeling about this picked up at gas stations and other places is
overwhelming, it will probably reflect in this falls' voting patterns, people
are just plain hopping mad over it, the bigger your car the more hopping you
are.  As credit cards were tapped out totally at $1.09/gal, things get really
weird at $1.55/gal and rapidly rising.  We've increased our workload
tremendously in order to respond in a system which reacts very slowly, like
the steering of an oil tanker (bad analogy) and I don't get the time I had
during the last throes of winter to spend working on the Hum.  I'm a little
surprised that the receiver description I sent out a couple of weeks ago
hasn't resulted in someone at least building it and commenting on the
results.  I can't do it for now because I know that beyond the building there
is all the time involved in:

1.  Finding a proper transducer.

2.  Doing a lot of measurement with it.

3.  Proving against a peculiarly skeptical atmosphere that it is receiving
more than the sound of my noisily      functioning pancreas or the last drops
of petrol bouncing around in my empty fuel tank.

4.  Causing this to mean something at a scale which actually does something
toward further, wider research.

5.   Understanding the Hum and its' source/sources.

6.   Translating that understanding into a Hum removing/cancelling device.

7.   Testing to see that it works.

8.    Etc.

Items 1 and 2 have already been shown by Lennart Branthle of Sweden, but
nothing in the newsgroup seems able to cause progress even through item 3.
 The endless argument over 3 isn't a lot of help, it gives the impression
that 
there is not enough impact available to proceed to 4.  I've tried to lay the
groundwork for the work necessary to move through 5 at least faster than
snails-pace.  The news a few weeks ago suggesting that certain aerial
employees already wear some protection against something related to the Hum
shows that indeed somewhere steps 1 through 8 have already been worked out on
an industrial scale. That modifies the entire approach and puts the ball back
in the court of the folks who are the most aggressive Hum Hearers. They will
obviously need all the energy they can bring because their present efforts
even to progress to 1 have been thwarted at the level of their Congressmen.
 Personally I don't want to know anything about what the industrial scale
research has brought about because I've always suspected that I've been
playing with sparks while elsewhere others work with advanced devices but for
me this has been a pursuit of curiousity rather than some mad dash to profit
and products.

I have been interested to see what the results of the distribution of the WAV
file have been, my own MAC won't play the file even with downloaded
translators but the comments by others lead me to believe that there are many
things wrong with the file.  First there are the conflicting descriptions of
receiving and detailing the Hum by others than Lennart, that flip-flopping
hardly builds confidence. Second is that no Hum hearer of note has apparently
listened to what I would consider a 'clean' file playback, the descriptions
of buzzing sound more like computer foul-up than real sound.  The waveform
presented by Lennart on the Taos Hum Web Page should play back as a tone with
fairly low harmonic content, a bit like a low note on a flute rather than the
output of a bassoon.

The continued lack of help from the originators of the WAV file in clearing
up the matter and providing a clean file for people to play is puzzling, why
go to the effort and then just leave it hang there with no satisfaction when
it shouldn't be that hard to provide a good file.  Lennart's circuit, which
provides an output level of .2 to .3 volts of signal is easily within the
input sensitivity of sound cards so there is little excuse for less than a
good clean signal and the waveform on the Web Page is showing what looks like
a signal with only small amounts of noise, it should sound quite solid and
clear.  There has been no reason for the controversy that seemed to result
from the distribution of the .wav file.  Since Anders is apparently using
Lennarts' device the signal should have been just as Lennart has shown on the
page or the device has been damaged in some way or misapplied, or somewhere
in the transfer a computer turned the Wav file into a Mad Hornet.  The
original descriptions of multiple Hum hearers comparing the results of
hearing the device indicate that at least when they were listening the device
was functioning properly.  Among electronics people who are familiar with
what they are doing the entire chain of events all the way down has seemed
very odd; so many problems with over amplified effects when this should all
be so simple; digitize the sound and distribute it cleanly so it can be
agreed upon by multiple Hum Hearers.  If the Hum is part of something which
has already been developed to the level of providing protection against its
various components then the study is not a clean one but has internal
resistance built in and subsequent difficulties in making any progress.  Some
of this has been sent through the newsgroup and suggests that there is little
possible success in proving anything. Argument is always easier than honest
research, any real public effort can always be stopped by distraction and
spurious statements.

Time Will Tell, especially as the number of Hum Hearers continues to rise.

Larry Grant   LGrant44@aol.com 

 

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sat May 11 14:02:17 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA16833; Sat, 11 May 1996 13:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 13:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960511123936.22788B-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: hum: Re: Annoying magazine subscription chain letters
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Fri, 10 May 1996, Krenath wrote:

> Two more of those damned magazine subscription letters appeared in my
> mailbox this morning, one claiming to be from Approved99@aol.com and one
> from Conroy675@aol.com.  

This is coming from a hacker who has somehow managed to defeat listserver
security and post messages to lists without subscribing.  He/she is
hitting all the (hundreds of) lists at eskimo.com, and possibly lists
net-wide.  I've seen them on bitnet lists.

The only cure I know involves physically catching the hacker and doing
something that will make newspaper headlines, to say nothing of karmic
repercussions!  This hacker, CraZyKev (sp?), is unstoppable for the usual
reasons: as fast as security holes are plugged, new ones are found.  If I
filter one bogus aol address or subject line, the next ad has a different
one.  The magazine ad works, because out of millions of spams, some small
percentage of people make orders. 

Another possibility: everyone on the list please send a bogus fax to that
number, including some text to express your displeasure.  If enough people
did this, the perpetrator would have to sort through tens of thousands of
bogus faxes in order to find the few stupid individuals who actually place
orders because of the spam.  Maybe it will tie up their 800 number as
well.

Another possiblity: write a complaining letter to the Federal Trade
Commission.  Right now there are no laws against this sort of spam attack. 
Any tiny company can hire a hacker to send thousands of ads to us
continuously, and there's no legal means we can use to stop it.  If
thousands of people complain, there may soon BE laws. 

> Attempts to respond via email resulted in Mailer-Daemon@aol.com bouncing
> my message, claiming that the above addresses were not valid.

A hint on complaints: always try complaining to postmaster@wherever-the-
spam-came-from.com.  The spammers themselves will just throw away your
mail, but the maintainers of most ISPs will take quick action against
spammers on their system.  This works with REAL aol origins (sending to
postmaster@aol.com).  Doesn't to anything against a hacker, though.
 
> One message had this interesting bit of information in it:
> 
> >Forwarded message:
> >To:      usenet.mail-to-news.reflector@usenet.vax1.zer2.co.np
> 
> If we can't find the perpetrator, how about complaining to this
> 'usnet.mail-to-news.reflector to complain about the abuse their maching is

I've sent complaints to postmaster@usenet.vax(etc) but received nothing
back.  Didn't bounce though.


> Can the Hum list software be instructed not to distribute postings made by
> nonmembers?

It already is.

....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sat May 11 15:53:20 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA04595; Sat, 11 May 1996 15:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 15:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <960511165823_533171804@emout13.mail.aol.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: LGrant44@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Taos Hum .wav file analysis cont'd 02
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Second part of the Taos Hum .wav file analysis.

Having cleared the problem of how to hear the file let's move on to the
beginning of an analysis of what is heard when the file is played.  Next
comes a series of disclaimers which try to limit the number of possible
swamps you can disappear into while trying to understand what I'm saying.
 During this discussion I want you lost with me in MY swamp, you can wander
off into all the other possible swamps on your own later, there are many.

I've done a bunch of sound analysis on oddities picked up by electronic gear
in Crop Circles and from the back and forth I've gotten into with folks in
Britain over interpretations of what I've reported about those sounds I've
found there are several things which must be kept in mind while discussing
any sound.

First, you must remember that audio sounds of whatever source are among the
most difficult things there are to try and describe verbally.  I would not,
for example, really call the sound on the .wav file a Hum, but if we could
'plug in' to a Hum Hearers head (volunteers?) there is a good possibility
that what we would get out might not be exactly what a technical person would
call a Hum either.  When describing sounds verbally we are so limited that
frequently we are reduced to making noises with the mouth or vocal tract to
try and get something across, and that may not be easy if the recipient of
the description has never heard the described sound before.

In the case of the Taos Hum there is a large block of people, apparently 98%
of the populace, who have apparently never heard the Hum.  This can be
frustrating for the 2% who do hear the Hum, especially because it becomes
apparent after some discussion that many of the 98% don't want to hear it.
The Hum in my experience is not a simple item of curiosity to be puzzled over
by many, it is the kind of thing that causes you to not want other people to
know you are hearing because they'll either reject you outright or harbor
suspicions about your sanity
if you persist in trying to get a description of it across.  I've also tried
describing and discussing the Hum with a variety of medical personnel and the
results are less than satisfactory. Of perhaps a dozen denizens of a local
hospital that I talked to only one would listen with detachment, all the
others were anywhere from mildly to vigorously disinterested.  

Second, you must realize that we are in a very difficult time, electronically
speaking, with the Hum.  While we have good indications from Lennart Branthle
that the Hum picked up by his receiver and his own Hum are exactly the same
we still have only this one receiver to go on.  It would be much better if we
had several .wav files from different researchers who had each picked up the
Hum on their own receiver.  Until that is the case we are dealing with
something which could prove to be entirely wrong at a later date.  Yet to not
analyze until we are blessed with plentiful examples of received Hum is
perhaps to let a bit of time pass during which others who are not doing
electronic research could be performing their own thoughtful analysis of and
comparing the descriptions to their own experiences of the Hum.  So consider
that everything that I'm saying about the .wav file, as with the previous
lengthy and sometimes totally eccentric things I've said could prove to be
partly or completely wrong.  That is a result I can accept. The only other
recourse is to be quiet and 'keep an eye on things,' which can be interesting
but perhaps less fruitful.  

The Hum is not a distant intellectual thing which can be studied at leisure,
for those who hear and feel it the most strongly it is a powerful and
negative experience which they are hoping can be cured, removed, blocked,
countered, shut-off, whichever is the proper answer, not an academic
discussion with the slow give and take of normal research.  Because of this
unusual nature I wander out and dangle from limbs, shove off into uncharted
swamps and generally behave in a completely unscientific manner, although I
am no stranger to science and really do appreciate what it is even though I
may gnash my teeth at some of its weaknesses, blind spots, and peculiar
mental boundaries.

Third, the Hum itself is a highly unusual subject to study.  It is heard by
some people and not by others, it exhibits odd characteristics which have led
me to link it to sounds heard and experiences had by myself and others during
research into Crop Circles, themselves a controversial study area.  While it
could be suspected that the Hum is heard from the air, as most usual sound is
heard, plugging the ears frequently does nothing to lower the volume of the
Hum and this suggests it may be getting into the hearing system through some
less common route, or that it may be a product of some 'defect,' or
non-normal activity of the ear or cochlea, the actual organ of sound
detection.

That itself is part of the dispute over the Hum: is it something quite normal
to the hearing system if it has been damaged in some way, and therefore a
research to be undertaken only by medical people, or is it something which
might even be described as 'supernatural,' a sound which is telling us
something about the Earth and the way that our minds relate to various
undetected or suspected energy fields.  Along this continuum somewhere is the
truth about the Hum, whatever that may be, and hopefully eventually some kind
of 'cure' for those who are the most upset by it.  Obviously my own bent is
to consider that it is something different from internal damage because I've
read of other sounds which enter the hearing system and which also do not
diminish when the ears are plugged.
Some of these sounds are of a high frequency nature, unlike the Hum, and
should alter quite dramatically when the ears are plugged.  They don't, and
in that conflict of experience is a vast realm for study by those who have
the interest and open minds to consider that we still don't know everything
there is about our Earth and our Universe.
That's what science is supposed to be about; the aggressive, open-minded
quest for knowledge, the satisfaction of that forbidden urge to munch apples.

You guessed it,  Continued.

Larry Grant     LGrant44@aol.com



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sat May 11 15:54:22 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA04568; Sat, 11 May 1996 15:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 15:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <960511165816_533171741@emout13.mail.aol.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: LGrant44@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: More Taos Hum .wav comment and analysis 01
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi folks:

Having finally played the .wav file successfully I've gotten some ideas from
it which I think you'll find interesting.
First though I'd like to thank Anders for downloading and checking the file,
it is so unusual that I'm happy to know it is very much the sound received by
Lennart's receiver and shown in the Taos Hum Page picture of the same sound.

As you have noticed the details of exactly what is being picked up by
Lennart's receiver are now in some dispute.  Anders has given two
descriptions of his experiences of the receiver (actually an amplifier/filter
combination).  In one of these the he tells how different Hum Hearers compare
the sound from the receiver to their own Hum, in the other he says that the
signal produced by the receiver is actually thermal noise from the microphone
being amplified through a narrow bandpass filter which is causing the noise
to resemble the Hum, but is not really the Hum itself.

Having listened to the .wav file a bunch of times and also doing some
interesting variations on it I find that if it is thermal noise it is very
interesting and oddly complex thermal noise, if it is Taos Hum it is also
very interesting.  I'm going to be putting a fair amount of info into this so
in order to keep from generating another buffer boggling novella I'll
seperate it into  relatively small E-Mails.  In order to avoid Humbunny style
accusations of 'Spamming' I'll send these out over several days.

First, consider some details about listening to the Hum .wav file.  

If you've succeeded in getting your computer to stop giving you 'I don't want
to play this file' messages of various arcane sorts and are fairly sure the
gadget is playing the file through whatever speakers you have I think you may
want to consider the following, which has been described by Anders and
others.  

The .wav file is of a very low frequency, small speakers do not play it well
at all.  If the sound you have heard from the file is a buzzing there is a
chance that what you are really hearing is either an overloaded amplifier
trying to drive the speaker hard enough so you can hear the sound, or an
overloaded speaker banging its limits struggling to make a very low sound
audible.  In either case you are not really hearing the hum, although as
you'll find further in my analysis the buzzing effect does have its purposes.

I'd suggest that if you don't have a large Hi-Fi with substantial bass (low
frequency) capability there is every chance you will not really be able to
hear the sound accurately.  Good quality headphones are an alternative I've
found that works.  I have a rather high-powered amplifier and speaker system
which easily produces the Hum to the point of hurting my ears if turned up
too loud, and which also has the ability to rattle one of the speaker cases
against the wall, which causes a very handy buzzing if I want it to. As
you'll see that turns out to be a revealing effect.

So in order to clearly hear the Hum rather than artifacts of your playback
system you'll probably need to go further than simply playing it back through
the loudspeaker in your computer.  I tried playing it back through headphones
driven by the small amplifier in my computer and that was approximately
satisfactory although the levels I could achieve this way were not
impressive.  

If you can turn the volume down and still hear the file as a Buzz rather than
as a smooth low sound there is a chance that the problem is miss-translation
of the file by some part of the download, either the file has been corrupted
(Mercy!) or it is not loading into your sound card correctly and extra odd
bytes are being added or subtracted.

More in the Next E-Mail.

Larry Grant    LGrant44@aol.com



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Tue May 14 01:59:22 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA07945; Tue, 14 May 1996 01:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 01:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <960513170423_293265819@emout17.mail.aol.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: LGrant44@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Taos Hum Analysis 03
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi folks: 

For those of you just joining the taoshum-L newsgroup the present discussion
is over the 'Sound of the Hum' .wav File found on the taoshum-L Web Page.  An
oscillographic picture of the Hum waveform is also available from the same
page.  If it is at all possible you should download the Hum .wav file and
play it so the discussion makes a little more sense.  For a more thorough
analysis you may wish to tape record the file. I suggest playing the digital
file to your tape deck 10, 20 or more times with a slight break (one-half
second) between each playing so you can tell when the file begins each time.
 I've divided the file playback into seconds and will point out the
interesting things I have found by the number of seconds they are from the
start.  This is a loose division because there seems to be a slight
discrepency between my own playback of the file and the frequencies stated
previously by Lennart Branthle, the designer of the circuit which this file
is recorded from.  Lennart is a Swedish Telecommunications Engineer and Hum
hearer. When you study the Hum you realize that he has designed quite a
circuit for picking it up as it is apparently buried among the thermal noise
of a microphone.  Padding the microphone against sound does not appreciably
lower the level of the Hum sound so I have tentatively suggested that the
signal in the .wav file is actually being detected by some chemical or
electronic process in the microphone rather than as a sound heard from the
air as our ears hear sound.

During the next days and weeks I'll be sending out some of the previous
material I've written which contains technical and other descriptions of
various aspects of the Hum.  If you are a hobbyist or engineer in
electronics, or know one, much of the electronics for researching the Hum
electronically is quite accessible for you to build so you can research the
Hum on your own. I've tried to provide descriptions of an amplifier and
filter set which begin to duplicate Lennart's feat. With patience you should
be able to at least hear the Hum signal faintly amid noise, then refine your
gear from there. Be aware that mixed in with the descriptions in my writing
are what amount to a series of 'brief intermissions,' material written to
both inform and entertain while we all waited for Lennart to more fully
describe his electronic Hum research and for a recording of his sound to
appear for wider study.  These intermissions oscillate rather wildly
emotionally, as a native Californian I can't seem to shake the tendency to be
a bit Hollywoodian out of my writing. 

I've found there are several ways to listen to the Hum file, each reveals a
little more about the true nature of this most unusual signal.

ON HEADPHONES the Hum is a very erratic sound.  The amplitude, or volume, of
the signal varies in a seemingly random fashion from almost zero to fairly
loud, changing between extremes of level quite rapidly.  There are a couple
of very short bursts where the sound is clear and distinct as an oscillatory
Hum, these are at approximately 11-12 seconds into the file and especially
near 22 seconds. If you listen to the track repeatedly, say twenty to forty
times, you sense that there is something more to this sound than a simple
Hum.  I would hesitate to call this a Hum myself as to me that implies a
steady, even sound, which this is most certainly not.  Having listened to the
Hum on headphones a fair bit I've found that this method is not too revealing
of some very important details.

ON LOUDSPEAKERS, especially those with a strong low frequency or BASS
capability the sound is much like that heard on headphones.  The really
interesting things begin to appear when you can turn the volume on large
speakers up until something, in my case the speaker cabinet as it sits
against a wall, begins to vibrate and distort the Hum.
Our ears are not very good at discriminating slight variations in frequency
at these low tone ranges, the buzzing caused by letting something vibrate
when shaken by the speakers brings the fundamental frequencies of the Hum up
into a range our ears can work with more accurately.  The result is quite
amazing and very much worth spending a little time arranging.  Several
alternative methods are:  Turn a small amplifier up too loud until it starts
to distort the sound, like 'fuzzing' a guitar in Rock Music or make a large
Kazoo by placing a metal or plastic screen on the speaker front and fasten a
patch of plastic sheeting as found in food wrapping or plastic baggies flat
to the screen. Perhaps a piece of newspaper might also work.  I've not tried
these yet, my rattling speakers have been sufficient so far. A Kazoo is the
'comb wrapped in waxed paper' instrument children and musicians sometimes
play by holding it against the mouth and making Hum like sounds with the
voice.  The purpose is the same; to distort low frequencies into higher ones
easily for play or study.  You should find that by varying the volume level,
and especially by bringing up the BASS tone control on your amplifier,
interesting and different things can be found about the .wav file sound at
different volumes. The best place to set your playback level is where the
sound breaks into buzzing at about midway between its loudest and softest
points.

WITH THIS BUZZING EFFECT I've found that the most interesting section of the
recorded .wav file track is during about the first 10 seconds of the
playback.  You may not notice these distinctions at first, I've played the
track several hundred times over a period of three days.  The second day my
impression changed quite drastically from the first, but on the third day
I've found the impression stays the same so I'm not simply getting into an
effect which ears are prone to during constant repetition, a kind of pattern
hallucination brought on by constant repeating of a sound.  The track, at
approximately 30 seconds, is also a bit long for this effect to set in, it is
usually observed in looped tape playback experiments only a few seconds long.
 

SEE IF YOU AGREE that about 1-2 seconds into the track there are a couple of
identical very slightly sliding notes
followed by several bursts of louder sound, then at 6-7 seconds there is a
very peculiar and most revealing series of three clear bursts of a slightly
lower tone than the previous ones.  Also note that at 11-12 and 22-23 seconds
into the track, where the loudest individual tone bursts are, the frequency
of the two loud tones is distinctly lower than the frequencies of the
surrounding tone.  The second of these, at 22-23 seconds is particularly
clear because the volume is about the loudest on the entire length of the
.wav file.  It is, however, very short.

SPEAKING OF SHORT:  So should this E-Mail be, or the buffers will regurgitate
it into the Indian Ocean or onto my computer, so this is:  Continued Next
E-Mail.


Larry Grant    LGrant44@aol.com


 
 

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Tue May 14 02:00:05 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA08058; Tue, 14 May 1996 01:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 01:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <960513170436_293265966@emout16.mail.aol.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: LGrant44@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Taos Hum Analysis 04
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Over time and experience in listening I think you might agree that whatever
exactly is the source of this 'Hum,' it is very complex because eventually
you can pick out that the Hum is actually taking place at many different
frequencies, all within a very narrow range.  Some of these tones slide a
bit, like vibrato, slurring or narrow glissando on a musical instrument. At
other times the sound changes between two distinct frequencies, not unlike a
very low and unearthly Yodel. On my playback the highest tone I could pick
out very crudely by comparison with a standard oscillator was 86 Hz. (cycles
per second).  I'm not sure what the lowest tones are because they are very
short and I lack the expensive technical gear needed to capture and display
the exact frequencies accurately.  I would suggest that if you are the happy
owner of a good spectrum analyzer, one which can resolve single Hz. or better
from about 70 to 90 Hz., you could help this study by analyzing the tone
frequencies of the .wav file and providing us with more detailed information.

Altogether I find listening to the track not unlike listening to a very
uncertain Saxophone player who hasn't mastered breath pressure and tone yet,
the louder bursts slide in tone as though experience with biting the reed is
needed, the results a bit dicey.  My impression is that we are hearing
something closer to the last musical moments of 'Close Encounters' rather
than what I might term 'Thermal Noise.'

That is a very basic description of what I've found so far listening to the
.wav file played back in various ways.  The important question, once you've
had a chance to try this for yourself, is what do these characteristics mean?

First let me mention the possibilities and dispute over just what the .wav
file is the sound of.  

1.  The sound is the infamous Hum, as Lennart has insisted, a signal from
outside the head which can be received with electronic apparatus.  Lennart
has stated previously that when he turns the volume on his receiver up and
down it is exactly duplicating what he hears inside his head as the notorious
Hum.   We also have concurring reports that sometimes whole families can hear
the Hum in their heads and that they agree on the sudden changes in the sound
exactly.  This tends to point toward an external source for the Hum.
 Additionally, various Hum Hearers have listened to the sound from Lennart's
receiver.  Some of these agree that the sound is exactly their Hum, as
Lennart says, some do not.  

2.  The sound is an artifact, an accidental occurance brought about by
greatly amplifying thermal, internal noise from a microphone and feeding it
through an unstable filter which tends to oscillate and mimic the Hum but is
not actually receiving a signal.  This may turn out to be a much more
complicated matter than it seems, part of why this discussion will eventually
be so long.

3.   The sound is received but is coming from the power grids around us, a
signal generated by our noisy technologies many of which; radio, television,
cell-phones, radar, etc., radiate actual transmitted energy which might be
received in some way by some part of the normal hearing system and translated
into an apparent sound.

4.    The sound is received but is still man-made, the product of some secret
communications project or unknown experiments.  Round up the usual suspects,
run for the hills, I'll see you in Sing-Sing.  For some reason an awfully lot
of people seem to want the Hum to be this, perhaps because it hints that the
Hum might be fairly easy to shut off, perhaps simply because we live in
suspicious times and have found that the public has not infrequently been an
unconsidered or uninformed participant in some very peculiar experiments in
the past.  Personally I tend to lean away from this possibility, although
certain characteristics of the Hum as heard in the .wav file do seem a bit
like some form of communication.

5.     The sound is received but the source is 'natural,' some function of
the make-up of our Earth and Universe which we may not yet have perceived
with our modern but still somewhat limited Sciences.  The continuing
discussion over the 'Missing Mass' problem, the fact that some large portion
of the Universe remains invisible to even our most sophisticated instruments,
shows a recognition by Physicists that we may not be seeing some very
important aspects of our rather vast Universe.  I have stated my own thoughts
on this in the article 'Shadowmass Viewpoint,' available from the taoshum-L
Web page.  Shadowmass is one of the current names under which the missing
mass is being pursued.  In wider discussion a more conventional name for my
own view of the Hum is that it might be called 'Supernatural' in that it may
come from a source which we generally do not recognize either with science or
our regularly experienced sense of hearing. In this view the source of the
Hum is very likely our Planet Earth, an indication that it is also more
complex than we have previously admitted.  I realize this is being a tad
biased in my research but somebody has to examine these seemingly unlikely
sources for this unusual 'sound', if only for balance. It is important to
understand that a key component of the Hum is that for many Hum perceivers it
does not diminish when the ears are plugged in various ways.  I have a
familiarity with the fact that there are other 'sounds' with this peculiar
characteristic and also many unusual places where intermittent Hums and other
auditory phenomena occur.  The Hum heard by playing the .wav file, however,
can be expected to diminish when you plug your ears.  In my view the human
'receiver' for the Hum has something to do with the make-up of the Human mind
perceiving a modulation in a previously silent and generally unknown energy
field.  Ear plugs can't quiet the Mind.

And so we come to another E-Mail         CONTINUED

Larry Grant       LGrant44@aol.com   



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Tue May 14 02:00:28 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA08019; Tue, 14 May 1996 01:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 01:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <960513170431_293265907@emout13.mail.aol.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: LGrant44@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: British and European Hum
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi British and European and other folks!

I wanted to say Hi to the rather large number of British and European Hum
Hearers and others who have one way or another just joined Taoshum-L as the
result of a broadcast on the BBC.  I hope you'll find the discussion
interesting and appropriate.  We are now trying to demonstrate that the Hum
received by electronic gear in Sweden is actually part of the globally
perceived Hum, which would remove the Hum from suspicion as a product of
biological or mental problems, at least the kinds of problems your friends
aren't supposed to know about.  I'm hoping its a global signal and not part
of the rather obvious mental derangement MY friends aren't supposed to know
about.  

During the next few weeks I'll be sending out some of the previously
distributed articles I've done which describe various technical and
subjective aspects of the Hum so you can form your own opinions and hopefully
begin some of your own research.  Please view my attempts to describe ways to
research the Hum as both enlightening and entertaining, filled at times with
the kinds of emotional extremity that modern writing allows us.  Also
continuing is the description of how to hear and what might be found about
the Hum .wav file, available from the Taoshum-L Web page, an apparent
electronic recording of the Hum as heard in Sweden.  We're trying to get as
many of the receivers for this signal, buried amidst the thermal noise of a
microphone, on line as possible so we might know more about the
characteristics of what is turning into the 'Hum Hunt of the Century.'  I've
a circuit description which those of you who have an electronic bent should
at least be able to begin with, I'll send it out again soon.

Thanks for tuning in, I hope you'll enjoy the trip although at times it's a
bit scary and I tend to crash my little race-car off the track frequently as
I'm always trying to go too far too fast too myopically egomaniacally.  

Typical Californian.     

Oh well, Surf's Up, Few sharks, Bye' for now, Best regards.

Larry Grant                  LGrant44@aol.com





From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Wed May 15 12:46:26 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA28417; Wed, 15 May 1996 12:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 12:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <960515131216_491557927@emout18.mail.aol.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: LGrant44@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Taos Hum .wav file analyzed 05
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

There are several things to keep in mind if you are trying to compare your
own perceived Hum to the one recorded in the .wav file of the taoshum-L web
page:

Due to slight differences between the rates of recording on one computer and
playing on another there is a chance the frequency of the Hum heard in the
.wav file will not be exactly the right pitch, or frequency.  I notice that
the highest frequency I can find on the .wav file is about 86 Hz. That seems
a bit too high as Lennart, the builder of the receiver used to pick-up the
Hum mentions that the Hum seems to be between 75 and 80 Hz., a bit lower.
This simply points out that if what you hear from the .wav file playback
doesn't seem to match the 'pitch' of your own Hum, it may be higher or lower,
that is possibly due to computer audio incompatabilities.  

When I say that some people hearing the Hum agree that the received Hum and
their own match exactly I'm referring to a 'live' situation in which the
listeners are hearing Lennart's receiver, not what is happening with the .wav
file, which is recorded.  It's like being at a ball game near the announcer's
booth and hearing the voice of the person and his/her voice amplified
speaking at the same time.  That is the only time an exact, point for point
duplicate can be expected to be heard.  It is important to keep this in mind.
It would seem that there is no way that you can expect this identical
matching unless you are listening to a receiver, not a recording.  That's one
reason we need more hobbyists and professional engineers building and using
the Hum receivers as I've described in another E-Mail.  Your own Hum may,
however, sound very much like the one on the recording.

The loudspeakers you use are important for hearing the Hum in the first
place.  Be sure to use either Headphones or fairly good Hi-Fi speakers to
listen to the Hum with. Small speakers as found in many computers will give
you only a faint notion of the sound of the Hum.

Let's look for a moment at whether the Hum .wav file might be  random noise
or a random noise heard through a filter.  While the answer to this question
gets a bit technical it is unlikely that the basic tone is from the filter,
it would not easily drop to zero at some points if the filter were
malfunctioning. In filter circuits it is common to encounter tones
self-generated by the filters. Lennart's electronics experience would call
for a check on this point immediately, it is not probable that he would have
missed this basic problem.

If his filter were close to oscillation, which he has stated it is, then
perhaps the tone is caused a bit like when you hit a bell with a hammer, a
ringing effect.  This is a harder issue to clear out but it seems from
looking at the entire file on a basic oscilloscopic analyzer that the
waveform follows the amplitude modulation too closely to be ringing much. One
doesn't see a lot of the kind of fixed frequency ringing sometimes
encountered in tightly tuned filters.  As the signal is apparently very
narrowly frequency modulated, it shifts and slides a bit like a slide
trombone or vibrato on a voice or guitar, the filter seems to follow quite
accurately, it doesn't seem to 'pull' toward some basic frequency it wants to
work at.  I've had a chance to see if the frequency modulation closely
follows the amplitude, it seems not to in several places, others are hard to
pick out.  The amplitude variation or modulation is what causes the perceived
'rumble' in the .wav file sound.  The rumble is easier to pick out than the
very slight changes in pitch or frequency that the sound is exhibiting.

Another factor which would show if the filter were oscillating is 'clipping.'
The sound could be too big for the audio channel it occupies.  This is heard
in Rock music as 'fuzz' guitar, when a little amplifier tries to fill too big
a hall and the result is very distorted.  In oscillators there is a very
strong tendency to bash the 'sides' or 'rails' of the channel, I don't think
the .wav file demonstrates any of that.  
  
I think it can at least tentatively be stated that there is a minimal chance
that the .wav file sound is an artifact of the receiver.  I know Lennart is
quite clear that it is the Hum on the .wav file, but each possible avenue has
to be explored at least a little.  

Larry Grant    LGrant44@aol.com

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Thu May 16 18:58:51 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA16772; Thu, 16 May 1996 18:47:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 18:47:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199605161410.QAA12788@sdnfire.dc.dk>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: i3683@dc.dk
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: WAV file and ringing
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

    =20
     Lennarts preamplifier is very close to self-oscillation, and should=
 be=20
     expected to ring very much (like when you hit a bell).
    =20
     Looking at the oscilloscopic trace, this is also the impression I g=
et.
    =20
     Regards, Anders

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Thu May 16 18:56:19 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA17142; Thu, 16 May 1996 18:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 18:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v02130515adc0f5fbebe6@[38.10.216.132]>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: numa@interramp.com (Mark C. Brems)
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: hum: Re: Annoying magazine subscription chain letters
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

For what it's worth, I dumped the entire messeage into a text file, then
changed every occurrence of the words "fax" and "magazine" to "SPAM."  I
then faxed all six pages to the number given using my fax modem, after
deleting my return number from my settings.  Quick, easy and fun!

I'm sure it would be possible to use an auto-dialer to dial the fax number,
let it ring once, hang-up, and then dial again immediately, ad infinitum.
You could set it up to do this before you go to bed, or just before you
leave the house on errands, and it wouldn't cost a cent, since you would
never really connect.  On top of that, their line would always be tied up
answering your automated calls.  I wouldn't necessarily feel any guilt
doing this, except for having stooped to their level.

mcb



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Thu May 16 23:43:12 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA10692; Thu, 16 May 1996 23:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 23:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960517062011.0068e0b8@pop.hom.net>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Krenath <Krenath@hom.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: hum: Re: Annoying magazine subscription chain letters
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 



>I'm sure it would be possible to use an auto-dialer to dial the fax number,
>let it ring once, hang-up, and then dial again immediately, ad infinitum.
>You could set it up to do this before you go to bed, or just before you
>leave the house on errands, and it wouldn't cost a cent, since you would
>never really connect.  On top of that, their line would always be tied up
>answering your automated calls.  I wouldn't necessarily feel any guilt
>doing this, except for having stooped to their level.

As far as 'never really connect' goes, the phone company considers a fax
call no less real than a voice call.  Even though yout computer never
'connected' to another computer, the phone company still put you through to
the other end and would expect compensation for the service.

Even so, spending the cash on such an endeavor would not bother me too much.
I can set up a scheduler program to fire off faxes on a regular basis
without effort at all, and deleting my information from my fax program is
simple. I've never entered it (It is supposed to be illegal to send faxes
without the accompanyting text, but who'se gonna prosecute when you don't
tell them who you are and caller ID barely works insode one's own callin
area much less outside of it? :)
,-------+-----.    Eric Koske, Register Data Systems, Register Communications.
| |/~ /-|  /~ |     WPGA AM 980, FM 100.9, and TV Channel 58   Macon, Georgia
| |   \_|  _/ |  Computer Tech, Tech Support, Archbishop of Phones, Whatzit
Guru.
`-------------'       1619 Forsyth St., Macon, GA  31210      (912)745-5858


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Mon May 20 14:35:28 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA09636; Mon, 20 May 1996 14:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 14:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0uLc4u-002WguC@spider.lloyd.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: judycole@spider.lloyd.com (Judy Karleen-Cole)
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: How's your hum today?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Where did all the hummers go?  Hopefully there are still some of you out
there to respond to this.  There has been a DRAMATIC change (for the worst)
in the hum over the last 24 hours.  It cranked up last night about dark time
and got progressively worse throughout the night.  By midnight (PDT) <add 7
hours for UTC> I graded it at a 5 (Severe) on a scale of 6 and it was
accompanied by the perception of some major ear pressure, not to the point
of pain, but real pressure.  Kept me awake until 1:30 or so this morning.
Upon awakening this morning the hum was much stronger than usual, and now,
at noon it is about a 4 (Intrusive) and has an unusual pulsing character to
it I'm not sure I've heard before.  There seem to be "dropped" and "surging"
frequencies, accompanied by a kind of a "vibration feeling" in the air.

I'm located on the western slope of the Sierras west of Lake Tahoe
(California) at about 1600 feet.  Is anyone else noticing anything unusual?


Judy K
El Dorado, CA
judycole@spider.lloyd.com


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Tue May 21 06:38:01 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA16212; Tue, 21 May 1996 06:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 06:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <83267950436011@bbs.gemlink.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: mimi@bbs.gemlink.com (Mimi)
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: How's your hum today?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 


In response to Judy's query about hum increase Sunday night, no such
thing here in Virginia, where there has been a generally lower level
most of this year.


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Tue May 21 08:11:07 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA03083; Tue, 21 May 1996 08:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 08:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <n1379448401.24759@powershare.engr.utk.edu>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: "Ray Adams" <adams@ECE301.ENGR.UTK.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: How's the Hum
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

This is also in response to Judy's report of increased T-H.

I've been to Baltimore and Gaithers'burg, MD over the past week, and noticed
the HUM, not at all - of course tha traffic noise in the locations where I
was, was enough to mask my usual perception of the T-H.

Since arriving home to my more tranquil environs, here in the quiet hills of
East Tennessee (and I live in the woods at the edge of town, 600 feet from my
nearest [also retired] neighbors), I've not heard the T-H at all, in the past
few days.  So I'm inclined to think that maybe all the energy that previously
contributed to the T-H here in the SouthEast, may be focused in Judy's area,
currently.

Raymond K. Adams, Twice retired Educator/Engineer
E-mail:  RayAdams@utk.edu
WWW:   http://sacam.oren.ortn.edu/~rkadams/homepage.html


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Tue May 21 11:06:06 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA08214; Tue, 21 May 1996 10:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 10:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199605211625.JAA26156@netcom7.netcom.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: tomrice@netcom.com (Tom R. Rice)
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: How's your hum today?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

	Well, the last thing I do is sit up all night hum-monitoring,
	but I did notice a substantial increase in intensity the last
	two mornings before dawn, when I wake up, but am reluctant
	to actually arise.  So that makes it a solid 3 or 3+ in
	intensity.  The variations in "quality" or pulsations are
	also more apparent.  Fortunately, the hum is still masked
	by the daily grind and I'm neither pained nor distressed
	by it.  

	73 de trr       

=================================================================
Tom R. Rice                  WB6BYH            Lat: 37d 25m 10s N     
PO Box 2152                                  Long: 121d 30m 20s W          
Livermore, CA   94551                       Maidenhead Grid: CM97 
=================================================================
 
-- 
"Start off every day with a smile and get it over with."  --W.C.Fields
Tom R. Rice  
tomrice@netcom.com     
CIS: 71160,1122       

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Tue May 21 21:40:07 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA16930; Tue, 21 May 1996 21:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 21:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199605220108.SAA26533@netcom22.netcom.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: tomrice@netcom.com (Tom R. Rice)
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Judy's e-quake prediction?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

	Well, as you probably know by now. we had a 'quake
	of magnitude 4.8 (Richter) at ~1:50 PM, epicenter
	located about 20 miles west of my location on the
	Calaveras fault.  I was out, but the OL was home and
	said 'twas the most violent she's felt in the 17 years
	we've been out here.  Fortunately, we live in a flexible
	(frame construction) house, stuff slid around a bit, but
	no damage.  

	Let's see if the hum vs. quake connection is supported
	by this.  I will be more closely monitoring the hum for
	the next few days; let's pool our impressions.

	Wheeee!  Regards from trr


=================================================================
Tom R. Rice                  WB6BYH            Lat: 37d 25m 10s N     
PO Box 2152                                  Long: 121d 30m 20s W          
Livermore, CA   94551                       Maidenhead Grid: CM97 
=================================================================
-- 
"Start off every day with a smile and get it over with."  --W.C.Fields
Tom R. Rice  
tomrice@netcom.com     
CIS: 71160,1122       

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Tue May 21 23:01:07 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA04747; Tue, 21 May 1996 22:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 22:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0uM6gM-002WgxC@spider.lloyd.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: judycole@spider.lloyd.com (Judy Karleen-Cole)
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Judy's e-quake prediction?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 09:36 PM 5/21/96 -0700, Tom R. Rice wrote:
>	Well, as you probably know by now. we had a 'quake
>	of magnitude 4.8 (Richter) at ~1:50 PM, epicenter
>	located about 20 miles west of my location on the
>	Calaveras fault. 
        <snip>
>	Let's see if the hum vs. quake connection is supported
>	by this.  I will be more closely monitoring the hum for
>	the next few days; let's pool our impressions.

I gotta tell you, this whole thing has totally blown me away... I updated
the T.H. aberration to a friend by e-mail, so here goes to the group, for
what it might be worth.  I last posted here that the T.H. continued at an
unusually high level yesterday morning early and I thought it was going to
be a "bad" day.  Well, during the day the hum leveled off, and by yesterday
late afternoon it was back to baseline at about a 2. Today (EQ day) it was
completely unremarkable all day, remaining about 2. What was remarkable, I
developed a splitting headache about 11 o'clock this morning, but was busy,
so kept right on working.  By 1:45 p.m. it had gotten very bad, and thinking
I better take something, groped my way to the aspirin bottle.  About 15
minutes later, deciding to sit and rest a while, I turned the T.V. on just
in time to see the special report announcing the EQ that had occurred at
1:50 p.m.  I thought it was interesting as well that the only "positive"
response I got to my hum check question was from Tom, who is only two hops
away from the epicenter of this quake.  He, too, apparently noticed the
strange pulsations in the hum that, I have to tell you, are not usually there.

Now, for what it may be worth, one of the "EQ sensitives" reported receiving
a "spike" for this general area on 5/11, and this quake fulfilled her
criteria.  She has also reported receiving a second spike for the same area
on 5/18 which would possibly indicate another similar sized quake within the
next week or so. I, for one, will be listening intently, and I guess we'll
see what happens!

Are there any more hummers on this list who live in the central California area?


Judy K
El Dorado, CA
judycole@spider.lloyd.com


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Wed May 22 05:08:22 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA18555; Wed, 22 May 1996 04:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 04:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199605221000.MAA03823@sdnfire.dc.dk>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: i3683@dc.dk
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Judycoles EQ-Hum relation
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

    =20
     The one hearer (Solvej in Europe) who previously had a hum-percepti=
on=20
     correlated with Judys gives the following report:
    =20
     hum levels:
    =20
     night 16-17 horrible
     17-18 less horrible
     18-19 bearable
     19-20 bearable
     20-21 less than normal
     21-22 no hum
     22    hum slowly returning
    =20
     Solvej lives far from powerlines. The hearers who live close to=20
     powerlines report differently, that hum was horrible the night 21-2=
2.
    =20
     Regards, Anders

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Wed May 22 19:22:27 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA13030; Wed, 22 May 1996 19:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 19:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199605221632.JAA07127@netcom21.netcom.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: tomrice@netcom.com (Tom R. Rice)
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Hum returns to normal
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

	At ~3:20 AM Wednesday (5/22) the hum was perceived as
	weak, with faint, random pulsations, possibly due to 
	light, variable breezes in the area.  At 8:30 AM it
	had returned to its normal intensity (~2-3) and was
	steady, with, in my view, a rather smug set about it.

	Next time Judy gets a splitting headache, she's invited
	to call us collect immediately!  

	(By the way, I guess I didn't mention that, at this
	location, we are over a mile from the nearest power
	line.  Our power comes from a Solar PV system which
	does generate a harmonic-rich ("modified" square wave)
	signal.)
 
=================================================================
Tom R. Rice                  WB6BYH            Lat: 37d 25m 10s N     
PO Box 2152                                  Long: 121d 30m 20s W          
Livermore, CA   94551                       Maidenhead Grid: CM97 
=================================================================
-- 
"Start off every day with a smile and get it over with."  --W.C.Fields
Tom R. Rice  
tomrice@netcom.com     
CIS: 71160,1122       

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Tue May 28 17:10:33 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA29858; Tue, 28 May 1996 16:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 16:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199605282105.XAA01522@sdnfire.dc.dk>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: i3683@dc.dk
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Some experiments
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: A

    =20
     I have made Solvej do some experiments.=20
    =20
     A galvanized iron bucket over the head reduced the hum somewhat, bu=
t=20
     didnt eliminate it.
    =20
     A 8 Hz pulsed magnetic field from a loop antenna under the bed had =
no=20
     effect on the noise, the sleep, the awakenings or the pains.
    =20
     Three of the hearers were given a tone generator, and asked to find=
 a=20
     tone that matched part of the hum. One hearer identified three=20
     components, around 35 Hz, 63 Hz and 23 Hz. The hearer set the volum=
e=20
     of the tone generator to produce a sound of the same strength as th=
e=20
     hum, and this tone was easily heard by non-hearers, which shows tha=
t=20
     the hum was not an ordinary sound.
    =20
     The three hearer would find the same tone on the tone generator aga=
in=20
     and again with great precision, which was strange, as the dialling =
was=20
     blind. The generator had a knob for frequency dialling, but no dial=
,=20
     and no frequency display and no numbers.
    =20
     The three hearers were very poor at matching a sinus tone from=20
     loudspeakers. A sinus with known frequency was played from=20
     loudspeakers and they were asked to match it with a sinus from the ==20
     tone generator. They were very poor at this! A 75 Hz tone was match=
ed=20
     with a 125 Hz tone, etc. Strange as non-hearers had much less=20
     difficulty doing this.
    =20
     The various heares all think the hum is changing and acting in a=20
     different manner these days. Today at 1100 Universal time some of t=
hem=20
     agreed that the sound was suddenly much stronger for a quarter of a=
n=20
     hour.=20
    =20
     These were just random observations.
    =20
     Regards, Anders

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Tue May 28 21:57:29 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA28411; Tue, 28 May 1996 21:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 21:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199605290057.RAA05645@netcom15.netcom.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: tomrice@netcom.com (Tom R. Rice)
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Some experiments: comment
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>      These were just random observations.

>      Regards, Anders
> 
	These are interesting to me, as I'm convinced that the hum
	is purely acoustic, mainly since I find that the volume
	seems to change with the local winds, which would not 
	affect magnetic waves.  It is really hard for a non-musician
	to match a pure sine-wave tone with a complex tone, so I
	think your people did pretty well.  I think I'll just 
	continue trying more sensitive microphones, since I'm
	well set up, equipment-wise, for acoustical measurements.
	(Trying desperately for a Fourier analysis!)

	Thanks, Anders

	73 de WB6BYH   


=================================================================
                       Holler Observatory
Tom R. Rice                  WB6BYH           Lat:  37d 25m 10s N     
Star Route Box 34 Mines Road                 Long: 121d 30m 20s W          
Livermore, CA   94550                       Maidenhead Grid: CM97 
=================================================================

-- 
"Start off every day with a smile and get it over with."  --W.C.Fields
Tom R. Rice  
tomrice@netcom.com     
CIS: 71160,1122       

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Wed May 29 00:22:08 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA26777; Wed, 29 May 1996 00:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 00:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960528210231.20824A-100000@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: William Beaty <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Some experiments
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Tue, 28 May 1996 i3683@dc.dk wrote:

<snip>

>    Three of the hearers were given a tone generator, and asked to find
>    tone that matched part of the hum. One hearer identified three
>    components, around 35 Hz, 63 Hz and 23 Hz. The hearer set the volum
>    of the tone generator to produce a sound of the same strength as th
>    hum, and this tone was easily heard by non-hearers, which showsthat
>    the hum was not an ordinary sound.
>
>    The three hearer would find the same tone on the tone generator again
>    and again with great precision, which was strange, as the dialling was
>    blind. The generator had a knob for frequency dialling, but no  dial,
>    and no frequency display and no numbers.

<snip>

Very interesting!  Did only one person adjust the oscillator with
precision?  If two or three hum-hearers could set the oscillator, did they
set it to the same frequency?  If so, you can do a test to see if the hum
is sound waves or RF, and to prove to any doubters that the hum is real.

Adjust your oscillator so that the frequency is 1Hz different from the
Hum, and adjust the amplitude to equal the hum.  Hum-hearers should now
hear a slow change in loudness as the Hum creates beat waves against the
audio signal of your oscillator.  Next, tell the hum-hearers to close
their eyes and begin moving their hands up and down as the sound gets
louder and softer.  Raise hands during the loud cycle, lower hands during
the soft. They should move their hands up and down at one cycle per
second.

Now, do the hum-hearers move their hands in synchronization?  If not, then
the hum-hearers do not hear an external "Hum" signal.  But if they move
their hands in synchrony, and if they keep their eyes closed, then all
hearers are hearing the same "Hum" signal.  You have used a "human antenna
array" to show that several people hear the same Hum signal, which proves
that the Taos hum is real!  This would disprove the hypothesis of
low-frequency tinnitus as explanation of the Hum.  Separate people will
not hear phase-locked tinnitus!

A second experiment: if the Hum travels at the speed of sound, then at
30Hz, one-fourth wavelength is about 10ft.  Two hum-hearers stand 10ft
apart, and each one wears headphones with sound from a single audio
oscillator playing.  The oscillator frequency is adjusted to produce a
slow beatnote wave.  If the hum-hearers now raise and lower their hands,
and if the hum is a sound wave (unlikely,) and if the direction of the
wave passes first through one hum-hearer and then the other, then they
will NOT raise and lower their hands synchronously.  They will move hands
90deg out of phase.  At 20ft spacing, they will move hands 180deg out of
phase.  This experiment is a two-antenna phase array direction finder,
with phase being indicated by comparison to a reference oscillator and
humans acting as the antennae.  If at 10 and 20ft the phase is still the
same, have the hum-hearers move to other positions to change the direction
of the antenna baseline.  If at all orientations the phase of hand-waving
is still the same, then either the Hum travels faster than sound, or the
Hum is a standing wave lacking direction, or the hum is a vertical wave.
(if the Hum is RF, then 1/4wave at 30Hz is 1600 miles!)

These above experiments have never been tried.  See the old message below.

....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page




Date: Sun, 28 May 1995 16:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eaton/Cutler-Hammer Corp. <eaton1@halcyon.com>
To: Ray Adams <adams@ece.engr.utk.edu>
Cc: "Sara T. Allen" <72164.3606@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Wrong, Wrong!

On Sat, 27 May 1995, Ray Adams wrote:

>                        Subject:                               Time:5:55 PM
>   OFFICE MEMO          Wrong, Wrong!                          Date:5/27/95
> Please ignore the previous correction.
> 
> It really IS Joe H. Mullins
> 
> Oh Woe is me!
> 


Heh!

Feel free to give out my email address to anyone.  This one (halcyon.com) is 
at work, so you should direct any correspondence to billb@eskimo.com.

A later thought I had about the human interferometer: give each member of 
the array a proportional control (knob or slidepot) and let them move it 
in synch with the perceived beat between the "hum" and the reference 
oscillator.  Wire these to give voltage outputs, and pipe them into a 
cheap data-aquisition board.  This would give solid, precision time 
records of the response of the subjects.  If tracked over a fair amount 
of time, the sloppy human responses could easily be processed to average 
out, and give much better values for phase and frequency.  If phase 
differences CAN be perceived, then such a system could even have some 
simple software on the back end to create directional readings of hum 
source in realtime.

It should be interesting to find out if the Hum is acoustic or RF.  
Standing waves might be a problem for both types, and vertical modes will 
make direction finding useless.  But then, the human array could be 
spread out over a vertical apartment building to search for maxima and 
minima (if the signal is acoustic)

A thought: if there are no centralized discussion groups for the Taos Hum,
I could have one created on eskimo.com.  If, for example, a group called
taoshm-l is created, then anyone interested in the subject can send a
subscription command to the list server, and forever afterwards any mail
sent to taoshm-l@eskimo.com will be echoed to all subscribers.  By simply
replying to any message coming from taoshm-l, subscribers can send mail to
it without having to type in the long email address. The overall effect is
that of a compuserve forum, or an internet newsgroup, but accessed
entirely via email.  (This might be somewhat expensive for poor compuserve
users, since compuserve charges them for each message received from
internet.)  If there is enough interest, and if such a thing does not 
exist already elsewhere, I can have it set up.

Also: be careful about "cc:" in your email.  It gave me Dr. Mullins' unm 
address in the message header.


===================================+==================================
Bill Beaty
Eaton/Cutler-Hammer Corp.         Industrial Optoelectronics
720 80th St. SW                   voice: 1-800-426-9184
Everett, WA 98203-6299            fax:   1-206-347-0544



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Wed May 29 03:58:27 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA18229; Wed, 29 May 1996 03:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 03:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199605291040.MAA09436@sdnfire.dc.dk>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: i3683@dc.dk
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Hum experiments
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

    =20
     At the moment only one of the three hearers has sufficient training=
 to=20
     be able to adjust the oscillator to a 75 Hz tone played by a=20
     loudspeaker. We will have to train a number of hearers in this befo=
re=20
     we can make the interferometer experiment.
    =20
    =20
     The hum hearers btw fall in different gropus.=20
    =20
     One group hears the hum because of acoustic sound, usually from two=
 to=20
     three ventilators. There is some combination of noise from multiple=
=20
     ventilators that affects almost anyone very badly. 17 Hz seems to b=
e=20
     part of the noise mix in these cases. It takes 8-30 days of exposur=
e=20
     before the effect becomes disturbing. When a person has been=20
     sensitized to the noise, the noise will have a bad effect after a f=
ew=20
     hours, even when the person has been away for one or two weeks.
    =20
     One group is affected by powerlines/transformers, and hear a hum in=
=20
     their home (though apparently not mains frequency hum) only when th=
e=20
     nearby powerline/transformer is loaded.
    =20
     One group is not affected by powerlines/transformers, but still hea=
r a=20
     sound in their home.
    =20
     People from the second group, the powerline group seem to be=20
     syncronized, to feel the hum is bad at the same time.
    =20
     People from the second and third group seem to agree about where th=
ey=20
     hear the hum. In certain houses, but not in others. The data about =
=20
     different hearers who meet at the same location at the same time is=
=20
     however too scarce. Some of these people are confused, and it is=20
     difficult to collect useful information from them.
    =20
    =20
     Regards, Anders

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Thu May 30 01:37:02 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA04130; Thu, 30 May 1996 01:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 01:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <960530011201_313723258@emout12.mail.aol.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: LGrant44@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Taos Hum changes
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Folks:

At the risk of dodging a few flung tomatoes I might mention that at about the
same time the unusual changes in the Hum took place Crop Circle season began
in Britain and Denmark, with British formations in Cambridge, Kent, and
Lancashire.  No details about what's going on in Denmark.  

Notes on the experiments:  from the sound of the .wav file I'm surprised
anyone can match anything to it. Congratulations to those who did!  It is
frequency modulated and also amplitude modulated. Complex waveform is right.
 

Larry Grant       LGrant44@aol.com  



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Thu May 30 01:35:01 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA04743; Thu, 30 May 1996 01:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 01:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199605300630.IAA23906@sdnfire.dc.dk>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: i3683@dc.dk
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Measurements
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

     The hum measurements change somewhat from time to time. I am not su=
re=20
     whether the hum is changing, or the hearer is not precise.
    =20
     Yesterday there was a period where it was strong and windnoise was ==20
     low. Then it was measured as
    =20
     31.4 Hz  5 V
     62.4 Hz  3.5 V
     63.4 Hz  3.5 V
    =20
     The Volts are a measure of the amplitude.
    =20
     I seem to remember that Sarah T. Allen got similar results.
    =20
     One wonders whether there should be a 15.7 Hz component.
    =20
     Regards, Anders.

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Thu May 30 09:07:50 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA10377; Thu, 30 May 1996 08:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 08:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <n1378672321.33269@powershare.engr.utk.edu>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: "Ray Adams" <adams@ECE301.ENGR.UTK.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Measurements
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 



From: Raymond K. Adams, Twice retired Educator/Engineer
E-mail:  RayAdams@utk.edu
WWW:   http://sacam.oren.ortn.edu/~rkadams/homepage.html

 Re> Anders message:----------------------------------------------
 From: taoshum-l@eskimo.com, Thu, May 30, 1996 ------ 

     The hum measurements change somewhat from time to time. I am not sure
     whether the hum is changing, or the hearer is not precise.
    
     Yesterday there was a period where it was strong and windnoise was
     low. Then it was measured as
    
     31.4 Hz  5 V
     62.4 Hz  3.5 V
     63.4 Hz  3.5 V
    
     The Volts are a measure of the amplitude.
     I seem to remember that Sarah T. Allen got similar results.
     One wonders whether there should be a 15.7 Hz component.
    
     Regards, Anders.
=========================== end of Anders' message ===================

As a measurements and controls engineer, I would like to caution all who would
quote such numbers as Anders has, that the BASIS of the measurements MUST be
referred to, else the numbers be completely meaningless.  Data needed to
interpret such numbers are:
  What was the detecting device and the sensitivity of it?
   - for example if it was an acoustic signal, what do these
     VOLTS mean relative to the db referred to some (acoustic)
     reference standard.
  - if it was an electromagnetic device, what do these VOLTS
    mean relative to EM field strength.

Even though Lord Kelvin said something like: "until you can express (the
measurement) in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory
kind."  You have got also, to relate the numbers to physical standards!

So, please, Anders (and others), state the sensor, the amplification, etc!

Yet, the fact that Anders seems to be the ONLY person reporting ANY data,
leads me to say GOOD, Anders, now please tell us what these numbers mean.

Ray Adams



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Thu May 30 13:51:38 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA00442; Thu, 30 May 1996 13:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 13:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199605301646.JAA16553@netcom7.netcom.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: tomrice@netcom.com (Tom R. Rice)
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Measurements vs. rigor
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>      low. Then it was measured as
>     
>      31.4 Hz  5 V
>      62.4 Hz  3.5 V
>      63.4 Hz  3.5 V
>     
>      The Volts are a measure of the amplitude.
>      I seem to remember that Sarah T. Allen got similar results.

> So, please, Anders (and others), state the sensor, the amplification, etc!

> Yet, the fact that Anders seems to be the ONLY person reporting ANY data,
> leads me to say GOOD, Anders, now please tell us what these numbers mean.

	While this caution is perfectly correct from an engineering
	standpoint, it is of considerable value just to know that
	the ~60 Hz components are 3.10 dBv down!  At least I know
	where to look and what for  ;-)

	It may be likely that the calibration of one's equipment
	is simply beyond the capabilities at hand.  Lack of standard
	sources, etc, would make it hard to establish the microphone's
	sensitivity, etc.  

	So I would join you in saying that we'd appreciate a clear
	description of Anders' system, but re-assure him that any
	measurements at all are better than none! 


=================================================================
                       Holler Observatory
Tom R. Rice                  WB6BYH           Lat:  37d 25m 10s N     
Star Route Box 34 Mines Road                 Long: 121d 30m 20s W          
Livermore, CA   94550                       Maidenhead Grid: CM97 
=================================================================


-- 
"Start off every day with a smile and get it over with."  --W.C.Fields
Tom R. Rice  
tomrice@netcom.com     
CIS: 71160,1122       

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Thu May 30 13:52:39 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA00523; Thu, 30 May 1996 13:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 13:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199605301654.JAA21339@netcom7.netcom.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: tomrice@netcom.com (Tom R. Rice)
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Taos Hum observations
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

	So far, I've been awake at around 4:00 AM local time and
	have repeatedly observed, for the past week, that the hum
	at that time is variable in intensity, i.e., the base
	hum maintains a steady level, but there are seemingly random
	"blasts" of higher intensity which override the base tone((s)
	for a second ot two at a time.  I'm not able to correlate
	this with wind activity.

	The interesting thing about this is that, when I listen
	at dawn (~6:00 AM) until arising about 8:30 AM, the hum's
	intensity is smooth and steady: no intensity variations
	at all!   
 
=================================================================
                       Holler Observatory
Tom R. Rice                  WB6BYH           Lat:  37d 25m 10s N     
Star Route Box 34 Mines Road                 Long: 121d 30m 20s W          
Livermore, CA   94550                       Maidenhead Grid: CM97 
=================================================================

-- 
"Start off every day with a smile and get it over with."  --W.C.Fields
Tom R. Rice  
tomrice@netcom.com     
CIS: 71160,1122       

From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Thu May 30 20:02:26 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA07271; Thu, 30 May 1996 19:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 19:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0uPHeG-002WhKC@spider.lloyd.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: judycole@spider.lloyd.com (Judy Karleen-Cole)
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Taos Hum observations
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 01:38 PM 5/30/96 -0700, Tom R. Rice wrote:
>       but there are seemingly random
>	"blasts" of higher intensity which override the base tone((s)
>	for a second ot two at a time.  I'm not able to correlate
>	this with wind activity.

I too have been noting some sporadic and irregular variations in the past
2-3 days. Are your "higher intensity blasts" generally the same frequency as
the "baseline" tone(s) or higher or lower frequency? Are these similar to
the "surges" reported around 5/19-20?


Judy K
El Dorado, CA   
38.663N-120.872W
judycole@spider.lloyd.com


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Thu May 30 20:03:02 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA07335; Thu, 30 May 1996 19:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 19:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <960531012326_72164.3606_DHR79-1@CompuServe.COM>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: "Sara T. Allen" <72164.3606@compuserve.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Taos hum 3/13/96
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

NOTICE: I originally attempted to post this on March 13. I am trying again.

Post of March 13 follows:

I have been reading some of the posts concerning a recent hum increase. Someone
described it as having an urgent quality.

I don't want to put ideas into any ones head but I have noticed over the years
that the most intense periods of hum activity occur during periods of
International crises or military activity. I have correlated this to many
incidents including aircraft downings by the US and other military crises.

I believe that the hum is being caused by world wide communications in the ELF
and ULF ranges. If any of you have studied modern submarine tactics and strategy
you will notice that for an effective submarine force to remain hidden, bothe
tactically and strategically, the number of datum points must be minimized. The
US (and other) government would like us to believe that we are still in the dark
ages of submarine ELF communications during which a submerged sub would be
alerted to an incoming message by a series of coded letters which would take an
extraordinay amount of time to be transmitted and received. The coding would
indicate what action the sub should take such as approaching the surface and
deploying a long wire antenna to receive radio traffic. As Anti Submarine
Warfare technology became more sophisticated, it was realized that to remain
hidden, a submarine should not come anywhere near the surface as this would give
OpFor (opposing forces) a datum point. Every time the sub came near the surface
it's location could be plotted by the use of very sophisticated ASW tools such
as satellite born synthetic aperture radar which penetrates the ocean to some
considerable depth. Several datum points would give away a submarines patrol
area and OpFor ASW could be concentrated in that area to reduce the effectivness
of the sub.

As time went on it became imperative that a method of real time communications
be developed for deep submergence communications. A 24 hour a day modem
connection for the transference of real time data. A modern sub commander must
know what is going on AT ALL TIMES in the real world. Gone are the days of 90
day patrols when everyone was more or less out of touch with world events. When
anyone has the ability to launch nuclear weapons they CANNOT be out of
communications EVER! Period!

With technological advances such as Slow Frequency Hopping (which enables
multiple data bits per frequency hop as applied to spread spectrum transmission
which the Navy admittedly uses for ELF communications), real time data
transmission became a reality. Even a 300 baud modem is capable of updating data
in real time.

As I have stated, it is my belief that it is this 24 hour per day ELF data link
that is responsible for the hum that we in the US are aware of. Notice for
yourselves when the hum increases and see if we are involved in the movement of
troops or military assets anywhere in the world.

That tone of URGENCY that was noticed in the hum is a repetitive feature and
usually accompanies messaging of particular interest to our military assets. For
instance, this weekend (I originally wrote this on March 13) and into Monday, we
have been concerned about the Chinese Crisis. We are moving two Carrier Task
Force groups into the area. Although not usually shown on the news, fast attack
submarines accompany these task forces at all times. Also, we are still sending
our fleet ballistic missle submarines out there somewhere on patrol.

I have also noticed increases and decreases in the hum here in Taos. It has
continued unabated 24 hours a day for the past several years. I have never heard
it stop completely. There have been times when it has been extremely quiet but
by finding a quiet place and tuning in to it I could determine that it was still
present.


Enough for now.

Thanks for listening.

Sara

!^NavFont02F0C820007RGHHS849C7B

  E-mail from: Sara T. Allen, 30-May-1996


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 08:28:03 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA20964; Fri, 31 May 1996 08:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 08:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199605311450.OAA12890@mail.enterprise.net>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: ronhill@enterprise.net (Ron Hill)
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Measurements
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 


>From: Raymond K. Adams, Twice retired Educator/Engineer
>E-mail:  RayAdams@utk.edu
>WWW:   http://sacam.oren.ortn.edu/~rkadams/homepage.html
>
> Re> Anders message:----------------------------------------------
> From: taoshum-l@eskimo.com, Thu, May 30, 1996 ------ 
>
>     The hum measurements change somewhat from time to time. I am not sure
>     whether the hum is changing, or the hearer is not precise.
>    
>     Yesterday there was a period where it was strong and windnoise was
>     low. Then it was measured as
>    
>     31.4 Hz  5 V
>     62.4 Hz  3.5 V
>     63.4 Hz  3.5 V
>    
>     The Volts are a measure of the amplitude.
>     I seem to remember that Sarah T. Allen got similar results.
>     One wonders whether there should be a 15.7 Hz component.
>    
>     Regards, Anders.
>=========================== end of Anders' message ===================
>
>As a measurements and controls engineer, I would like to caution all who would
>quote such numbers as Anders has, that the BASIS of the measurements MUST be
>referred to, else the numbers be completely meaningless.  Data needed to
>interpret such numbers are:
>  What was the detecting device and the sensitivity of it?
>   - for example if it was an acoustic signal, what do these
>     VOLTS mean relative to the db referred to some (acoustic)
>     reference standard.
>  - if it was an electromagnetic device, what do these VOLTS
>    mean relative to EM field strength.
>
>Even though Lord Kelvin said something like: "until you can express (the
>measurement) in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory
>kind."  You have got also, to relate the numbers to physical standards!
>
>So, please, Anders (and others), state the sensor, the amplification, etc!
>
>Yet, the fact that Anders seems to be the ONLY person reporting ANY data,
>leads me to say GOOD, Anders, now please tell us what these numbers mean.
>
>Ray Adams
......................................end of Ray Adams 
message.................................

While agreeing that the scientific method has to be the ultimate tooll, I 
feel that it is rather like discussing how one should cook a rabbit before 
it has been caught - or indeed if it even is a rabbit.
By analogy, surely we should be discussing, at this stage, where we can find 
our rabbit, where its hiding places are and how we are going to trap it. 
Then we can dissect it and discuss the finer points of  cooking the animal, 
and refine our methods for trapping it .

Every set of observations must be of benefit insofar as obtaining as much 
information as possible for the purposes of statistical analysis. Hopefully 
a pattern will begin to emerge. Strangely enough the hum seems to raise the 
same paradoxes that the crop circle phenomenon is bringing out over here in 
the UK.

Regards,

Ronald Hill,

ronhill@enterprise.net 


From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 21:35:04 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01968; Fri, 31 May 1996 21:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 21:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <960531144613_404613300@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: LGrant44@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Hum Experiments
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi folks:

Following the discussion on experiments and measurements I'd like to
contribute the following and a couple of new experiments for the un-timid.

I agree that I'd like a little better description of the electronics used to
get the voltage measurements but I understand the difficulty in relating them
to anything substantial like Volts per meter in Radio Frequency measurements
or DbM in audio.  The ratios are excellent to know but it would be helpful to
hear a bit more about how they are being taken.  I don't expect, however, to
be able to bring this up to full scientific rigor
until we have more receivers and experiments in place, its a lot to expect
when working in the mostly-dark as we are now when it comes to knowledge of
the source of the Hum.

On to an experiment.  

Does anyone, especially Anders, have the ability to safely connect some kind
of high sensitivity possibly tuned amplifier right to the body of a person
suffering a powerful bout of Hum-itis?  I'm thinking particularly of direct
bone surface contact or close as might be found in the teeth.  Tooth to tooth
across the jaw or measurements across the surface of a single in-situ tooth
might reveal something.  At present the main detector-transducer we have for
Hum is a human being so it might be interesting to try and amplify the Hum
signal directly out of a Human
with, of course, the necessary care about shielding from surrounding
power-grid hum.

The second experiment is slightly less invasive.  Play a sine-wave (sinus)
tone near the Hum hearers perceived tone then have the Hearer simply plug
their ears to see if both tones diminish the same amount.  I think one could
expect that if the Hum is in some way mostly acoustic, from the air, then it
should reduce approximately the same amount as a real acoustic tone played
nearby.  If it does not diminsh appropriately one might suspect that the Hum
is something different from an acoustic tone.  This experiment may have
already been done but I may not have interpreted the results correctly if
they've been sent in E-Mail.

Now for one of my infamous out-on-a-limb experiments for those who have been
noticing some kind of possible correlation between the Hum and local wind or
air movement.  First, could someone detail this a little more fully?

Does the Hum seem to rise and fall with the average local windspeed or with
individual bursts or gusts of wind.

Does the Hum seem to correlate to the direction the wind is generally coming
from?

Does the Hum seem different during especially dry winds such as the Santa
Ana's of Los Angeles or the dry Northerly winds of the rest of California?

Now for the out on a limb bit:  If you can, locate a column of gnats, the
little buggers that fly in tornado like columns above various spots during
warm summer afternoons and evenings.  Note their behavior carefully,
especially if it is a bit breezy.  The flight control of gnat columns is so
great that they really don't have to drift around like they do in a breeze,
many gnats can overcome quite a stiff breeze with complete calm.  If you
watch the gnats for a time you might notice that the column seems not really
to drift directly with the breeze but sometimes in response to other forces
less visible.  The stunt is to see if you can tell any correlation between
this 'other' movement and the experience of the Hum.  I know this is a long
shot but the mention of the seemingly wind related characteristics about the
Hum brings it to my mind.  Gnats are very mystical beings, or at least they
like to cluster in certain mystical spots such as Winchester Cathedral in
Britain, the flying columns seem fixed to certain spots regardless of
position or wind.  They really seem locked to positions which dowsers would
detect as being at least interesting.  See if visualizing them as locked into
a glowing vertical tornadic column which drifts around a bit in response both
to breezes and some other influence helps clarify anything.

I know I'm off the wall again but that seems my bent.

One comment about the supposed communications base of the Hum.  It seems to
me that the abrupt amplitude modulation of the Hum diminishes its possibility
for being a regular, though secret, communications channel.  Most modern
signalling systems forsake Amplitude Modulation for other more sophisticated
methods of modulation because Nature throws an awfully large number of its
own amplitude modulators at travelling signals.  Frequency Modulation, which
the .wav file shows, or Pulse Code Modulation are much more likely.  It is
possible, however, since the .wav file does show F.M. that the A.M. component
is a natural artifact being added to a radiated signal of steady amplitude.
 On the other hand what good is a 'secret' communications channel which just
happens to be easily or even distractingly heard by possibly two percent of
the global population?  Wouldn't any competitor simply train some hearers and
produce instant not-so-secret communications?  Also, wouldn't a real secret
signal tend to enhance and change a bit before world events do interesting
things?  Little takes place that's really a surprise (beyond collapsing
empires that is), it seems to me there sould be some tendency to increase
communications quantities just before rather than during events.  It also
seems surprising to me that if the Hum is some kind of 24 hour a day beacon
or communicator it would seem particularly different if heavily used or
lightly.  If the Hum shut off much of the time and then came on during
excitement I would have a little easier time buying it as a global
communicator.  Most transmitters which are on all the time are used pretty
steadily, I'd be surprised to find a definite change between important times
and unimportant times that could be picked out without actually having
translations of the coded signal to read.   

On these points I await further details.

Larry Grant             LGrant44@aol.com



From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 21:38:15 1996
Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA02420; Fri, 31 May 1996 21:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 21:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199605311933.MAA23206@netcom21.netcom.com>
Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: tomrice@netcom.com (Tom R. Rice)
To: Multiple recipients of list <taoshum-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Taos Hum intensity
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> I too have been noting some sporadic and irregular variations in the past
> 2-3 days. Are your "higher intensity blasts" generally the same frequency as
> the "baseline" tone(s) or higher or lower frequency? Are these similar to
> the "surges" reported around 5/19-20?

	Actually, the specific ones referred to were rather more
	precise than the previous "surges".  I liken the "blasts"
	to Morse code dashes, i.e., clean cut square waves, same
	pitch, although possibly more "pure" of tone (possibly due
	to a better signal-to-noise ratio).  

	These subjective comments aren't very scientific, but that's
	the best I can do for now.  One of these days I'll set up
	a calibrated attenuator so I can, by comparison, determine
	the increase in level; for now, I'd say it was maybe 10 dB
	louder during the bursts.  The "surges" were more the usual
	wavery stuff, as when the breezes blow.     


-- 
"Start off every day with a smile and get it over with."  --W.C.Fields
Tom R. Rice  
tomrice@netcom.com     
CIS: 71160,1122       
