A
special case of LFN (Low frequency Noise) called the Hum: gas, electric and magnetic modern day living
bits all with scientific proof and none of which can be denied, by
Dr Chris Barnes Bangor Scientific Consultants email scienceconsultants@yahoo.co.uk
Released
for first Internet Publication 19th January 2013
Abstract
Definitions,
theories, acoustic and (electro) magnetic spectra of the Hum are briefly reviewed. Conduits for the Hum components into houses
are discussed and independent evidence cited. Experimental evidence for
magneto-vibration conversion in mammalian systems and magneto-orientation
mediated calcium ion release in brain tissue at modest DC and AC field strengths is also cited as being of
particular relevance to the behaviour of the Hum for some individuals. It is also concluded that there is strong
support in the existing literature for the Hum to be a facet of electrical
supply in particular power flow oscillations and dirty electricity as previously asserted by the author’s
numerous papers but modifiable in form by infrasound from gas mains.
Introduction
According
to Leventhall (2004) [1] an LFN is a Hum if its source cannot be
readily traced and the Hum is the name given to a low frequency noise which is
causing persistent complaints, but often cannot be traced to a single, or any,
source. If a source is located, the problem moves into the category of
engineering noise control and is no longer "the Hum", although there
may be a long period between first complaint and final solution. The Hum is
widespread, affecting scattered individuals, but periodically a Hum focus
arises where there are multiple complaints within a town or area. There has
been the Bristol Hum (England), Largs Hum (Scotland),
Copenhagen Hum (Denmark), Vancouver Hum (Canada), Taos Hum (New Mexico USA),
Kokomo Hum (Indiana USA) etc. A feature of these Hums is that they have been
publicized in local and national press, so gathering a momentum which otherwise
might not have occurred, possibly increasing the number of adverse reactions.
Although the named Hums, such as Kokomo, have gained much attention, they
should not be allowed to detract from those cases in which individuals suffer either on their own or in
much smaller groups such a family groups in isolated premises, for example. The sound of the Hum is subjective to
individuals. Even in the areas of multiple complaints, the description is not
entirely consistent, possibly this may be because people use different words to
describe the same property of a noise.
The general descriptors of the sound of the Hum include: a steady hum, a
throb, a low speed diesel engine, rumble and quasi periodic pulsing. The
effects of the Hum may include pressure or pain in the ear or head, body
vibration or pain, loss of concentration, annoyance nausea and sleep
disturbance. These general descriptions and effects occur almost
internationally and with close similarity.
The
present author has previously stated that he feels the Hum is one of the most
perplexing scientific jigsaws yet sadly one of the least investigated [Barnes 2-4]. There are only a handful
of University academics worldwide who have either been asked to investigate
anecdotally the Hum or to perform any serious research on it. The majority of the advancement in this area
has come from Independent Scientists such as the present author and from amateur Hum investigators
such as Dawes in the UK and Kohlasse in the USA
(personal communications).
It
is the author’s experience that individuals researching the Hum often stick
rigidly to their own agenda and particular sphere of blame. There are, for example, those such as Dawes who
blame entirely the power grid and its electro-gravitation interaction with our earth and space
environment [5]. There are others such as Fox who have blamed
entirely gas mains and motorways. There are others who have blamed radio
communications technology and finally there is Deming who has suggested that
the Hum best correlates in space and time with the operations of certain
military aircraft such as TCAMO [6].
With
a topic as emotive as the Hum it is always conceivable that large utility
organisations are already perfectly aware of the damage they are doing to
people and are purposely perpetuating misinformation. The internet as large a pool of misinformation and disinformation as
it is of valid and accurate information.
Whilst the present author has been employing internet authoring and being
of scientific discipline and training and not affiliated to any of these
organisations he has tried to present a very balanced viewpoint of the Hum and
has only presented the facts as they relate to the scientific measurement and
observations he has been making or where they relate to or are evidenced from
allied or other scientific disciplines.
At
the author’s home, the general observation is always that the Hum is present
when there is infrasound in approximately the range 1-20 Hz, some narrow band
pulsating acoustic frequencies usually related to mains frequency
sub-harmonics, fundamental and inter-harmonics and an acoustically very quiet
zone above about 300 Hz. This is more likely at night. Allied with this acoustic spectrum electromagnetic
spectra, however recorded more or less, if not entirely, mirror the acoustic
findings. The Hum appears more intense
and occasionally very difficult to screen with earplugs when a magnetic comb
spectrum is also present. The author who has personal experience of the
Hum has also noticed that its intensity depends on which position he sleeps in.
He has previously commented on a possible interaction between the earth’s DC
magnetic field and the Hum (ref) and this directivity effect is a possible
facet of that.
Thus
it would appear the main questions which need to be
asked are as follows. Firstly, what are
the conduits for the above spectra and the Hum? Secondly, do these provide
frequency or frequencies that would give rise to people’s experience of the
Hum? Thirdly, is there any independent scientific research to validate the
above, especially the magnetic hypothesis, which being new is most open to
challenge?
Conduits for the Hum and its
components
The
author has discussed this topic at length elsewhere [2] but would like to point
out some independent evidence which has come to light.
Regarding
firstly infrasonic signals, gas mains can indeed be the source of these, see VV
Krylov (1995 and 1997). According to Krylov,
no surface vibrations are noted with gas mains due to mismatched Rayleigh wave
velocities but they do conduct infrasound directly into houses.
On
the other hand according to AV Mamishev (1996) [7], buried live three phase cables do
give rise to surface acoustic vibrations. Here is a very significant extract
from the Mamishev publication. ‘The implementation of a piezoelectric
acoustic sensor for nonintrusive detection of the energization status of
3-φ electric power cables is presented. Simultaneous excitation of a
piezoelectric crystal by acoustic vibrations and electric field may occur. The
Fourier spectral analysis of the sensor's output signal is used to determine
the current loading status of the cable. Test results are included for both
shielded and nonshielded 3-φ cables. Also, the
possible use of an optical fiber interferometer for
acoustic wave detection is discussed.’
Whereas
gas pipes can conduct sound directly into houses, a window is generally one of
the weakest links for transmission of LFN from an external source Z.Yu et al 2010 [8]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ince/ncej/2010/00000058/00000002/art00008. Airborne sound from electrical grid sources
outside could potentially thus propagate
in this manner, double glazing especially forms a low pass filter. The Hum typically has low frequencies.
Within
a house, room resonances and Helmholtz effects can amplify specific frequencies,
see Vinokur (2004)
[9]. I too have published on this effect, see ‘Chimneys,
toilets and turbines: do electrical power systems always have to be the cause
of the Hum or can they just show us symptoms?’
By Dr Chris Barnes Bangor Scientific and Educational Consultants [10].
Gas, electric or both?
The
author has recently shown that the Hum does not take place in certain countries
which do not have modern power grid controls and do not have renewable
energy. Gas is prevalent in these
countries. One postulates therefore that infrasound from gas mains alone is not the cause of the
Hum.
The
author has first hand personal communication with a lady who hears the Hum
extensively in Oxfordshire. This same
lady visits Texas in the USA extensively. The area she visits has no gas mains
and no pumped storage hydropower and no significant wind power. She never
experiences the Hum in Texas. All other
infrastructure is comparable between the two locations.
The
author has previously shown that Hum like effects can be simulated under
laboratory conditions by using frequencies in the region of 50 Hz and
infrasonic sub harmonics. Is it possible
then that gas mains could provide
infrasound at appropriate frequencies to ‘match’ 50 Hz as above and provide the
Hum? Subtle differences in this
matching could account for the differences in Hums mentioned by Leventhall and previously thought by both he and the
present author to be accountable purely in terms of subjectivity. Certainly the Hum which the author has experienced in a car
parked immediately underneath power lines is not completely perceived as identical
to that at his home location although many of the fundamental frequency
elements are the same.
Whereas
the jury remains out, it would seem the majority verdict may be power
oscillations and dirty electricity is to blame for the Hum but that gas mains’
infrasound proven to enter houses (Krylov) may be an
inevitable modifier.
Magnetic perception of Hum – madness
or made of firm scientific foundation?
The
author has previously advanced a magnetic hypothesis for both the generation
and perception of Hum. This is in no way
meant to detract from the notion that in some cases the Hum is predominantly an
acoustic effect but merely to re-iterate that the two components magnetic and
acoustic are inexorably inseparable. The
author’s theory of detection may for some appear farfetched and over
complicated. Just because something is complicated does not mean it cannot be
correct provided we stick to Occam’s Razor or Einstein’s Principle. At least in a mammalian animal model, it has
recently come to light that there is a body of scientific experimentation which
supports the author’s hypothesis, especially Towe 1988
[11]. It is highly relevant and
wholly instructive to simply consider
the wording of the abstract of Towes’ paper as
follows: ‘A method for the non-invasive measurement of low-level ionically
conducted electric currents flowing in electrolytes and tissue is investigated.
Experiments show that the application of oscillating magnetic fields to
current-carrying media will cause focal Lorentz forces which generate
detectable vibrations. These vibrations can be sensitively and noninvasively
detected by surface contact detectors and can be used to determine the
magnitude of internal current flows. Microampere-level currents introduced
in hamsters to simulate natural bioelectric currents have been sensitively
detected by this approach.
Secondly,
it is further instructive to consider the next abstract of Dr. C. F. Blackman1,
(2005) ‘ The frequency dependence of the electric and magnetic (EM)-field-induced
release of calcium ions from an in vitro brain tissue preparation has been
shown to be a function of the density of the local DC magnetic field (BdC). In this study, we demonstrate that the relative
orientation of the Bdc and the magnetic component
(Bac) of a 315-Hz EM signal (15V rms/m and 61 nT rms) are crucial for the
induced release to be observed. The induced release occurs only when the Bdc and the Bac are perpendicular, and not when they are
parallel. This finding is consistent with a magnetic resonance-like
transduction mechanism for the conversion of EM energy into a physicochemical
change, and contrasts with the requirement for parallel Bdc
and Bac components in the diatom-mobility experiments of Smith et al. A review
of the exposure conditions in the rat behavioral
experiments conducted by Thomas et al. identifies un-hydrated calcium and zinc
ions as alternatives to lithium ions as candidates for interaction under
parallel magnetic-field orientations but fails to reject perpendicular
orientations as an alternative basis for the phenomenon. Investigators that
attempt to confirm the rat behavioural experiments should be aware of the
conflicting exposure conditions that can be assumed to be operative, and they
should design their experiments to test all conditions accordingly [12].
In
other words the crucial importance
of alignment between a local DC magnetic field and an oscillating magnetic
field in responses of brain tissue has
been in vitro and in vivo. These are
subtle and modest field levels of similar magnitudes to those associated with
the Hum and may well help explain observer orientation and sleep position
effects in relation to Hum perception.
If
we consider the earth’s field as a fixed DC field and the AC mains as an
oscillating magnetic field, this taken with the previous paper is sufficient
both to explain how a deaf person might be able to perceive the Hum and it is further sufficient to explain how the Hum might
appear to be magnetically enhanced at certain times. Further and importantly it may account for why
the Hum maximises in buildings with steel girders and corrugated roofs or near
buildings with such structures because of local DC magnetisation.
Conclusions
It is concluded that there is strong
support in the existing literature for the Hum to be
1.
A
facet of electrical supply as previously asserted by the author’s numerous
papers
2.
Modifiable
by infrasound from gas mains
3.
Magnetically
perceived in some individuals
References
2.
http://www.drchrisbarnes.co.uk/HUM.htm
3.
http://www.drchrisbarnes.co.uk/TWOSUBS.htm
4.
http://www.drchrisbarnes.co.uk/HUMUNIFY.htm
5.
http://www.johndawes.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
6.
http://www.think-downloads.com/download/Health/jse_18_4_deming-1.pdf
8.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ince/ncej/2010/00000058/00000002/art00008
9.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003682X03001178
10. http://www.drchrisbarnes.co.uk/Chimneys.htm