- #61
Far Star
- 72
- 0
wolram said:
The base sound on that site is very similar to other reports.
Probably a good thing running water didn't work, all things considered. :<)
Making noise over the [Kokomo] hum
- Thread starter Ivan Seeking
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Noise
Click For Summary
Kokomo, Indiana, known for its historical significance, is currently facing a unique challenge with a persistent noise referred to as "the Kokomo hum," which some residents claim affects their health and quality of life. Local attorney Gael Deppert is advocating for state intervention, suggesting the need for scientific investigation into the hum's origins. Researchers have proposed that the sound may be linked to various environmental factors, including public address systems and fluorescent lighting. Discussions also touch on potential connections between dietary calcium intake and heightened sensitivity to sound, with some individuals reporting relief from the hum after dietary changes. The phenomenon raises questions about the relationship between environmental noise and individual health, warranting further exploration.
The base sound on that site is very similar to other reports.
Probably a good thing running water didn't work, all things considered. :<)
- #62
Rossen
- 5
- 0
New member
Hello colleagues,
My name is Rossen Kolarov. I am a physicist from Bulgaria. For this forum informed me one hum-hearer from USA. I am a hum-hearer since 1999. In my family there are four other hearers, too. I read the messages in your forum. In my opinion some of members aren't well known with this phenomenon. Because of that I want to give more information.
First I will begin with the name. It is known as Taos hum, Kokomo hum, Bristol noise, etc. But it doesn't mean that it is local phenomenon. It exists at tousands places in the world. In the large cities, small villages and some uninhabited places (mountains for example). So, it is global phenomenon.
About the attempts at acoustic explanations. These explanations don't work. Everybody who have measured the acoustic atmosphere around the places with hum knows that there is absolute no corelation between it and the hum. I have made many measurements with professional equipment and am sure in this. Here I will not comment so-called Tom Moir's "recordings", "made" in New Zealand. I use RFT noise meters and filters. They "hear" many noises in the LF band (the same where is the hum), which I don't hear, but they "don't hear" the hum. So that the Hyperacusis explanations at least in my case are out, too. Another argument against Hyperacusis is the fact that all hearers in my family hear one sound with frequency 68 Hz. When it is beginning or is stopping all we notice this. In my opinion it is very strong evidence that it isn't Hyperacusis. It is an evidence that it isn't Tinnitus, too.
About calcite. This can works only if we accept any outer cause for the hum. In oposite case synchronized feelings (see previous paragraph) are impossibe.
About ultrasounds. I have searched up to 50 kHz and have never found them. In my opinion higher frequencies aren't able to make good filling in diferent rooms in one house. And generally they must have local existence. I thing that they aren't suitable explanation for such global phenomenon.
About electromagnetic explanations. They are the favourite explanations of most hearers. But here the situation is similar. Nobody have found any corelation between EM background and the hum. I have searched very carefully (and continue to do this) the EM background from 1 Hz to 2.6 GHz and have never found something really corelating with the hum. The most serious argument against EM are the observations in RF shielded chambers where the hum doesn't stop. There is only one observation and it is in magnetic shielded (hypomagnetic) chamber where the hum stops. This observation is made in Germany in 2006. But later it wasn't confirmed. Another hearer repeated this experiment and his hum hadn't stopped in the hypomagnetic chamber. Generally if we want to consider some EM explanations we must accept the existence of any cumulative effect of the hum. For example if any EM source "charges" us for a short time and after that it stops to work, but we continue to hear the hum. In fact similar effect exists, but it is more acoustic. I call it induced hum. This is an effect of provoking of the hum by strong LF sound for a short time. The important is that it isn't significance the frequency of the provoking sound. It can be in the range (50 - 150) Hz. The result always is the own hum frequency. But this effect may occurs only when the hum has been present for a long time and has been loud. If any cumulative effect exists then the fact that the hum doesn't stop in shielded chambers is clear, but it contradicts with the first report from the hypomagnetic chamber. In fact I also know some "fading" areas, where the hum for me stops.
However this mail became too long and may be rather disarranged, so that it is time to stop here. I am glad that a professional orientated forum is interesting of these theme. May be it will help to solve this low known and very complex problem. If somebody want to disscuss besides this forum he/she can use my address: brumvuhoto@mail.bg
Best wishes
Rossen
Sofia, Bulgaria
Hello colleagues,
My name is Rossen Kolarov. I am a physicist from Bulgaria. For this forum informed me one hum-hearer from USA. I am a hum-hearer since 1999. In my family there are four other hearers, too. I read the messages in your forum. In my opinion some of members aren't well known with this phenomenon. Because of that I want to give more information.
First I will begin with the name. It is known as Taos hum, Kokomo hum, Bristol noise, etc. But it doesn't mean that it is local phenomenon. It exists at tousands places in the world. In the large cities, small villages and some uninhabited places (mountains for example). So, it is global phenomenon.
About the attempts at acoustic explanations. These explanations don't work. Everybody who have measured the acoustic atmosphere around the places with hum knows that there is absolute no corelation between it and the hum. I have made many measurements with professional equipment and am sure in this. Here I will not comment so-called Tom Moir's "recordings", "made" in New Zealand. I use RFT noise meters and filters. They "hear" many noises in the LF band (the same where is the hum), which I don't hear, but they "don't hear" the hum. So that the Hyperacusis explanations at least in my case are out, too. Another argument against Hyperacusis is the fact that all hearers in my family hear one sound with frequency 68 Hz. When it is beginning or is stopping all we notice this. In my opinion it is very strong evidence that it isn't Hyperacusis. It is an evidence that it isn't Tinnitus, too.
About calcite. This can works only if we accept any outer cause for the hum. In oposite case synchronized feelings (see previous paragraph) are impossibe.
About ultrasounds. I have searched up to 50 kHz and have never found them. In my opinion higher frequencies aren't able to make good filling in diferent rooms in one house. And generally they must have local existence. I thing that they aren't suitable explanation for such global phenomenon.
About electromagnetic explanations. They are the favourite explanations of most hearers. But here the situation is similar. Nobody have found any corelation between EM background and the hum. I have searched very carefully (and continue to do this) the EM background from 1 Hz to 2.6 GHz and have never found something really corelating with the hum. The most serious argument against EM are the observations in RF shielded chambers where the hum doesn't stop. There is only one observation and it is in magnetic shielded (hypomagnetic) chamber where the hum stops. This observation is made in Germany in 2006. But later it wasn't confirmed. Another hearer repeated this experiment and his hum hadn't stopped in the hypomagnetic chamber. Generally if we want to consider some EM explanations we must accept the existence of any cumulative effect of the hum. For example if any EM source "charges" us for a short time and after that it stops to work, but we continue to hear the hum. In fact similar effect exists, but it is more acoustic. I call it induced hum. This is an effect of provoking of the hum by strong LF sound for a short time. The important is that it isn't significance the frequency of the provoking sound. It can be in the range (50 - 150) Hz. The result always is the own hum frequency. But this effect may occurs only when the hum has been present for a long time and has been loud. If any cumulative effect exists then the fact that the hum doesn't stop in shielded chambers is clear, but it contradicts with the first report from the hypomagnetic chamber. In fact I also know some "fading" areas, where the hum for me stops.
However this mail became too long and may be rather disarranged, so that it is time to stop here. I am glad that a professional orientated forum is interesting of these theme. May be it will help to solve this low known and very complex problem. If somebody want to disscuss besides this forum he/she can use my address: brumvuhoto@mail.bg
Best wishes
Rossen
Sofia, Bulgaria
- #63
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 4,410
- 555
Hi Rosen, i for one would welcome any input you have.
Your post is most interesting.
Your post is most interesting.
- #64
Far Star
- 72
- 0
Can anyone identify the current background noise on the Inspire stream? I (posted aprox. 10:45 Pacific time Sunday)
http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/inspire.html[/url]
Rossen and Wolram,
Have you noticed any difference in the loudness of the hum as far as geography, ie: a mountain side as opposed to flat land or hill top?
http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/inspire.html[/url]
Rossen and Wolram,
Have you noticed any difference in the loudness of the hum as far as geography, ie: a mountain side as opposed to flat land or hill top?
Last edited by a moderator:
- #65
Rossen
- 5
- 0
Far Star,
The answer of your question isn't easy. In mountains usually there is a wind, especially at big altitude. The wind produces serious infrasound background. The infrasounds interact with hum-feeling and sometimes are able to stop it fully. But yet I have some observations. They are from Vitosha mountain (2290 m maximal altitude). I have heard the hum at many places with diferent altitudes. In my subjective opinion the hum is aproximately equal. There is one place named Kazana where the hum stops rapidly. When I leave this place the hum begins again. I have observations from the Black Sea, too. There, the hum is also present and has the same frequency (68 Hz).
The answer of your question isn't easy. In mountains usually there is a wind, especially at big altitude. The wind produces serious infrasound background. The infrasounds interact with hum-feeling and sometimes are able to stop it fully. But yet I have some observations. They are from Vitosha mountain (2290 m maximal altitude). I have heard the hum at many places with diferent altitudes. In my subjective opinion the hum is aproximately equal. There is one place named Kazana where the hum stops rapidly. When I leave this place the hum begins again. I have observations from the Black Sea, too. There, the hum is also present and has the same frequency (68 Hz).
- #66
OOO
- 303
- 0
Rossen said:
I don't know if I have understood what you had said before. I took from your previous posting that you are not able to measure the hum. Yet you seem to be sure that the hum is (sometimes ?) at a frequency of 68 Hz. Why are you so sure ?
- #67
Rossen
- 5
- 0
OOO,
Yes, you have understood corectly. Nobody (included me) has measured the hum. But about the frequency - it isn't problem to determine it. If you are a hearer you can determine your frequency by comparison of your hum-feeling with tones produced from tone generator. The most used method is the method of beatings. If you use it, you must put one headphone on the OTHER ear, NOT on this ear where you hear the hum. In opposite case you will stop your hum and the experiment will fail. However for mesurings "in the field" the tone generator isn't suitable. For such cases I have made one special very big tuning fork. It is tuned on 66.5 Hz. I compare its tone with my tone and if the beating frequency is around 1.5 Hz I know that the frequency is my own. In fact the same beatings we must have if the hum is 65 Hz. But I have heard this hum 8 years, so that, I am not able to make a mistake for 3 Hz.
I want to add something. The hum-frequency 68 Hz doesn't mean pure (sinusoidal) tone with this frequency. The hum has more rich spectrum. This is just most prominent frequency. Also, 68 Hz is average value. It can varies plus-minus 0.2 - 0.3 Hz.
Yes, you have understood corectly. Nobody (included me) has measured the hum. But about the frequency - it isn't problem to determine it. If you are a hearer you can determine your frequency by comparison of your hum-feeling with tones produced from tone generator. The most used method is the method of beatings. If you use it, you must put one headphone on the OTHER ear, NOT on this ear where you hear the hum. In opposite case you will stop your hum and the experiment will fail. However for mesurings "in the field" the tone generator isn't suitable. For such cases I have made one special very big tuning fork. It is tuned on 66.5 Hz. I compare its tone with my tone and if the beating frequency is around 1.5 Hz I know that the frequency is my own. In fact the same beatings we must have if the hum is 65 Hz. But I have heard this hum 8 years, so that, I am not able to make a mistake for 3 Hz.
I want to add something. The hum-frequency 68 Hz doesn't mean pure (sinusoidal) tone with this frequency. The hum has more rich spectrum. This is just most prominent frequency. Also, 68 Hz is average value. It can varies plus-minus 0.2 - 0.3 Hz.
- #68
Far Star
- 72
- 0
Rossen said:
Thank you, Rossen.
Have you been able to explore the area of Kazana where the hum stops and starts? From what I have read it seems unusual for the hum to stop and start rapidly outside of a dwelling.
- #69
Rossen
- 5
- 0
Far Star,
"Kazana" on Bulgarian means "the cauldron" on English. This place is in the interior of Vitosha. It is closed from three sides with steep slopes. At the upper side where Sofia is visible the hum is present. Around 30 m further down, where Sofia isn't visible, the hum disappears. If you go out of the circus the hum appears, again. Generally, on Vitosha, I have observed the hum always at places where Sofia is visible. But I don't say that the hum is absent at other places where Sofia isn't visible. I can say only that I haven't observed it at such places.
"Kazana" on Bulgarian means "the cauldron" on English. This place is in the interior of Vitosha. It is closed from three sides with steep slopes. At the upper side where Sofia is visible the hum is present. Around 30 m further down, where Sofia isn't visible, the hum disappears. If you go out of the circus the hum appears, again. Generally, on Vitosha, I have observed the hum always at places where Sofia is visible. But I don't say that the hum is absent at other places where Sofia isn't visible. I can say only that I haven't observed it at such places.
- #70
OOO
- 303
- 0
Rossen said:
I assume that some people have already thought about Schumann resonances as being responsible for the phenomenon. But then one would expect every multiple of 7.5 Hz to play a role.
- #71
Rossen
- 5
- 0
Yes OOO, the Schumann resonance has been considered as possible cause. But this hypothesis has too many shortcomings.
1. Schumann resonance as phenomenon isn't since yesterday. It exists milions years. It isn't clearly why in the past it hasn't produced a hum, but now it does.
2. In Internet there are people claiming during the last years the Schumann resonance has changed its spectrum. It isn't true. Around the world there are many laboratories observing Schumann frequencies night and day. As far as I know nobody has observed something extraordinary in this area.
3. Schumann resonance is very weak effect. But in this frequency range there are many artificial sources. They must produce stronger effect than Schumann resonance. For example in Germany and other europian countries, where the hum is present, there is strong 16.7 Hz background. It is from railroad what use this frequency of the supply. This is close to second Schumann frequency and must produces similar effect.
In fact, Schumann resonance hypothesis is from the class of ELF/ULF explanations of the hum. In same class is the submarine explanation. But every hypothesis in this class suffers from one serious defect - 50/60 Hz problem. 50/60 Hz background is the most strong LF background in all countries. May be only in places as the Antarctic or Central Tibet this background doesn't exist. Especially its magnetic component. And the question is: Why don't the hearers hear 50/60 Hz near the power lines in their homes for example? Or why don't they hear the background from the monitors of the computers? Etc.
Some people are inclined to consider a modified Schumann resonance hypothesis. They think that the effect is opposite. Because of the very loud LF electromagnetic background in industrial countries, some people suffer from a deficit of Schumann frequencies. This hypothesis considers Schumann resonance as some kind of universal synchronizer for living organisms. I don't know what is the basis for such consideration. But if even it is right then we have another problem. Many hearers live in rural regions where the LF electromagnetic background isn't so loud as in cities. In such regions Schumann resonance can be observed comparatively easily by good ELF antenna.
So that, the situation with Schumann resonance is complex.
1. Schumann resonance as phenomenon isn't since yesterday. It exists milions years. It isn't clearly why in the past it hasn't produced a hum, but now it does.
2. In Internet there are people claiming during the last years the Schumann resonance has changed its spectrum. It isn't true. Around the world there are many laboratories observing Schumann frequencies night and day. As far as I know nobody has observed something extraordinary in this area.
3. Schumann resonance is very weak effect. But in this frequency range there are many artificial sources. They must produce stronger effect than Schumann resonance. For example in Germany and other europian countries, where the hum is present, there is strong 16.7 Hz background. It is from railroad what use this frequency of the supply. This is close to second Schumann frequency and must produces similar effect.
In fact, Schumann resonance hypothesis is from the class of ELF/ULF explanations of the hum. In same class is the submarine explanation. But every hypothesis in this class suffers from one serious defect - 50/60 Hz problem. 50/60 Hz background is the most strong LF background in all countries. May be only in places as the Antarctic or Central Tibet this background doesn't exist. Especially its magnetic component. And the question is: Why don't the hearers hear 50/60 Hz near the power lines in their homes for example? Or why don't they hear the background from the monitors of the computers? Etc.
Some people are inclined to consider a modified Schumann resonance hypothesis. They think that the effect is opposite. Because of the very loud LF electromagnetic background in industrial countries, some people suffer from a deficit of Schumann frequencies. This hypothesis considers Schumann resonance as some kind of universal synchronizer for living organisms. I don't know what is the basis for such consideration. But if even it is right then we have another problem. Many hearers live in rural regions where the LF electromagnetic background isn't so loud as in cities. In such regions Schumann resonance can be observed comparatively easily by good ELF antenna.
So that, the situation with Schumann resonance is complex.
- #72
OOO
- 303
- 0
What still irritates me is that some people hear it and some people don't. 68 Hz is well inside the human hearing range and in addition this range isn't very sensitive to hearing damage (hearing sensitivity tends to degrade above 1 kHz due to acoustic stress). So I assume that statistical dispersion in human hearing sensitivity isn't that large (although it naturally exists) in that range.
On the other hand I believe that if the hum was of artificial origin there must be considerable dispersion in its intensity, i.e. some very very loud "hum places" and some very quiet (I think we all share this experience concerning artificial noise). So if there are people who hear the hum almost everywhere and people who don't hear it anywhere, the dispersion in intensity must be smaller than the dispersion in hearing sensitivity. This seems unlikely to me.
On the other hand I believe that if the hum was of artificial origin there must be considerable dispersion in its intensity, i.e. some very very loud "hum places" and some very quiet (I think we all share this experience concerning artificial noise). So if there are people who hear the hum almost everywhere and people who don't hear it anywhere, the dispersion in intensity must be smaller than the dispersion in hearing sensitivity. This seems unlikely to me.
- #73
OOO
- 303
- 0
By the way: recently (about one or two weeks ago) I heard some fluttering noise in my left ear (few seconds, very low pitch <10Hz). It was obvious to me that this was due to some periodic muscle spasm in my ear (don't know if there are muscles at all, but that's what it sounded like) and it is likely to be the result of stress. So what about the hum being the result of stress induced muscle tremor (in this case at a higher frequency than mine) inside the ear or probably the skalp ? There is considerable variation in the sensitivity to stress.
Aditionally I remember once having read about some doctors measuring sounds coming (!) from the ear itself for the purpose of some diagnosis. Don't know if this is really true, maybe I misunderstood something. But if it is, them hum could probably be measured inside the ear or by electromyography.
Edit: I have found something about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otoacoustic_emission
Aditionally I remember once having read about some doctors measuring sounds coming (!) from the ear itself for the purpose of some diagnosis. Don't know if this is really true, maybe I misunderstood something. But if it is, them hum could probably be measured inside the ear or by electromyography.
Edit: I have found something about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otoacoustic_emission
Last edited:
- #74
Far Star
- 72
- 0
OOO, otoacoustic sound has been investigated in some hearers. From what I understand
hearers are usually aware that the sound source is generated outside their bodies. It would take more reading than I have time for to cover those that have been tested for such. I'm not aware of any long time hearers reporting that otoacoustic emissions are the sole source for what they hear, once it has been investigated. That's not to say it isn't a factor for some people.
If you hear the fluttering sound again see if it goes away when you close your eyes or look upward. If it's the same type of phenomena I've experienced the sound may stop at certain positions.
hearers are usually aware that the sound source is generated outside their bodies. It would take more reading than I have time for to cover those that have been tested for such. I'm not aware of any long time hearers reporting that otoacoustic emissions are the sole source for what they hear, once it has been investigated. That's not to say it isn't a factor for some people.
If you hear the fluttering sound again see if it goes away when you close your eyes or look upward. If it's the same type of phenomena I've experienced the sound may stop at certain positions.
- #75
OOO
- 303
- 0
Far Star said:
Too bad. It seemed to be such a good idea...
- #76
B. Elliott
- 263
- 10
I stumbled across this letter on Nature when researching geothermal convections and the ocean tides contribution to resonance. Apparently I was way off with the convection idea, but either way...
The Earth's 'hum' is driven by ocean waves over the continental shelve
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7129/full/nature05536.html
The Earth's 'hum' is driven by ocean waves over the continental shelve
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7129/full/nature05536.html
Last edited by a moderator:
- #77
- 8,213
- 2,656
B. Elliott said:
However, the first sentence states:
The so called Taos Hum is claimed to be around 80 Hz, so we are off by a factor of about 100,000.
For humans, the normal range of audible frequencies is about 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #78
B. Elliott
- 263
- 10
Ivan Seeking said:However, the first sentence states:
The so called Taos Hum is claimed to be around 80 Hz, so we are off by a factor of about 100,000.
For humans, the normal range of audible frequencies is about 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz.
Whoa, that is way out of range, isn't it?
I did some quick Googling using 80Hz as key word when this page popped up. Although it's still a bit off from the 80Hz frequency, it is only 30Hz off from the Kokomo and still well within the range of human hearing.
What does the author mean by 'riding' the lower frequency signals? I'm a bit confused by this.
Unknown ELF-Signals and Ground Currents
http://www.vlf.it/kurt/elf.html
- #79
- 8,213
- 2,656
B. Elliott said:
I was using 80 Hz as an average. Since it has never been measured we don't know exactly what if any frequency is involved. People describe it as a sound that would be in the 50 to 100 Hz range, but we don't even know if this claimed phenomenon is real. The reports may be due to something like tinnitus.
[/quote]
This is something else entirely - the Schumann Resonance, which is an electromagnetic resonance in the ionosphere resulting from electrical activity, such as lightning. Ultimately what he is trying to determine is if the 50 Hz signal results from the Schumann resonance, or if it is an artifact of 50Hz AC used in Europe for electrical power. He apparently concludes that it is not caused by the 50 Hz power grid, but that is not a published paper and not a legitimate reference here.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- · Replies 13 ·