Home » Uncategorized » I entered the VLF Radio Blocking Box: the results

I entered the VLF Radio Blocking Box: the results

Follow World Hum Map and Database Project on WordPress.com
Follow World Hum Map and Database Project on WordPress.com

I could still hear the Hum.

I entered the box at about 1:40 am last night and and soon as I lay down quietly inside it, the Hum was there, as loud as ever.

As a final step, I need to establish that the box does what it says it does (i.e. block essentially all VLF radio signals), and to have a physicist confirm my calculations regarding the radio skin depth of a 10 kHz radio wave for mild steel. If everything checks out, then this a serious piece of evidence against the VLF theory.

I’ll let you know if and when I’ll be shifting gears and moving on to the second hypothesis.


  1. Peter Haartsen says:

    Dear Glenn McPherson,
    thank you for your tremendous experiment. So you (with a community following your steps with great anticipation) established as a fact that the VLF theory may not be the final word on revealing the cause of the hum.
    I so much hope for the larger scientific community to step in on your path of collecting and analysing data concerning the hum. I believe that your example, your personal effort should attract the attention of the likes of the Gates Foundation. The hum phenomenon deserves attention from all research institutions concerned with human experience of geophysical influences. Period.

    • Thank you, Peter. When the Hum is solved, I will retreat to my previous quiet life. Until then, however, I think we need to stay disciplined and relentless in mainstreaming the phenomenon and, as you suggest, in soliciting the help of people and organizations who can help find answers. If a major donor or laboratory gets involved, this entire thing could solved in a few months.

  2. Dr. MacPherson, with no disrespect intended, and no doubt you’ve addressed this possibility before, but couldn’t your results suggest that the hum emits from one’s own brain, simply giving the illusion that the source is external? Not tinnitus, but some other auditory phenomenon. That would explain its greater loudness indoors (where there is less competition from other noises), its prevalence in middle aged people (of which I am one), and the fact that it comes and goes. Has this possibility been definitively ruled out?

    • Not only is your post not disrespectful, it echoes my fourth hypothesis – that the Worldwide Hum is an internally generated phenomenon, analogous to tinnitus but caused by a different mechanism. I am addressing the theories in turn. Stay tuned.

      • Outstanding Glen –

        One key phrase for me was “as loud as ever”. We might expect the transmission into the metal box, if such existed, to degrade at least a bit, and it was apparently not noticeable despite your (necessary – thank you) efforts.

        I am certainly no expert on RF shielding. But one test (just as a reference point) I would try is to tape a recorder mic to an AM radio, tune in a relatively weak station on the low end of the band (550 kHz), start the recorder, put it in the box and close it. Then take it out and play the tape. Does the level drop at all or even to zero. [Probably a lot of people here don’t remember the days when cars had only AM radios and nearby stations were relatively rare. Drive into an underpass and the signal could be snuffed out.]

        I have seen no evidence of an acoustic signal at roughly 50 Hz – to the contrary. And RF seemed unlikely based on lack of suggestions of (transmitter) centers of strength. Glen’s results so far suggest no RF explanation. Further, an internal source is suggested by the ability of (at least many) hearers to personally interrupt the Hum by grunting, etc.

        This being the case, it is appropriate (scientifically mandatory) to mention the strongest case AGAINST an internal cause – the timeline. Why did it appear fairly suddenly about, roughly, 1980? Good question.

        My answer is to ask what you would have done if you were alive 100 years ago, or perhaps better, let’s say 200 years ago, and heard the Hum? IF it is true (it may not be) that only 2% hear the Hum, and you did, you would have asked people around you what that “rumble” was, and they would have considered you crazy. Nothing in books or newspapers. Of course, you couldn’t have told them it sounded like a truck! After asking 5 people, you would likely give up. Even 50 years ago, you would have gotten the same puzzled looks from 5 people. Today you ask Google and the hearers link up quickly. The Internet makes a big difference.

        And I wish I were optimistic about finding (and “curing”) the Hum as an internal issue. I’m not. We hearers, seemingly numerous (as an Internet illusion), are a distinct minority with (speaking realistically, but with no intended lack of sympathy) no overwhelming concern. My wife is Korean and she tells me that in Asia it is common to say that “If there is food on the table, you have lots of problems. If here is no food on the table, you have only one problem!”

        For now – high marks for Glen.


      • Ian says:

        I think I have posted this before : Would getting a number of hearers together confirm this? I believe their experiences could differ which would rule out geography and local intensity of some external force.

      • Ian –

        Collections of experiences do seem useful. I think collections of reliable pitch matches have meaning. Glen says 56.5 Hz, I got 64 Hz, and just on this thread we also see 80 Hz, 32 Hz, and 62.4 Hz. That’s a large range. If it were an external drive, why would not everyone hear the same pitch? Perhaps relatively local causes? But one massive megawatt transmitter in the midwest (for example) seems unlikely.

        The spread could be related to the roll-off of low frequency hearing (“edge pitch”) I mentioned, age related, following up on past post of mine.


      • Ian says:

        Bernie – You wrote:

        “And I wish I were optimistic about finding (and “curing”) the Hum as an internal issue. I’m not. We hearers, seemingly numerous (as an Internet illusion), are a distinct minority with (speaking realistically, but with no intended lack of sympathy) no overwhelming concern.”

        I agree. Should the Deming Box experiment have gone the other way? The technologies producing our “hum” would not go away. I am, therefore, a tad relieved it failed (or seems to have failed) to confirm theory number 1. Many, many thanks to Glen for all his – continuing – efforts though. Without whom this credible forum and research would not exist. So again, Glen, thank you.

        My money IS on theory 4 if anyone cares:

        Also, if I may I’d like to refer back to an earlier thread: “What I Heard off the Grid”, and in particular comments made by the poster Kevin Grey (Kevin, care to chip in mate? I hope you are still following this forum?).

        I get a little disappointed when I don’t get much of a response though when I pose certain questions (possibly because I am not the best communicator in the world or even this forum? :))

        Questions which I think (IMHO) have to be taken seriously are along the line of:

        What would a sample of hearers put together all report? All hearing at the same time? Or would some hear, and some, even if only one, not hear? I suspect the latter. I know, I would say that though wouldn’t I – because my money is on 4!

        And what is this respite that some report? I don’t get any respite. At least none that could be measured in more than hours. If that. And to honest I wouldn’t really even claim or confirm that as respite.

        Why did I start hearing – at all?

        Why don’t all hear?

        I have only once acknowledged to someone that I hear (outside of say this forum, close family relatives and my GP/doctor). On that one occasion that someone immediately told me she had once heard it – once! She knew exactly what I was talking about. This was 2010/11. I don’t recall when she said she had had this experience (I have it in my mind that she said it had been a few years previous, but I’m not sure). But she was very clear – she hadn’t heard it again since..?

        External factors or no, answers to questions like those may, may reveal why a person hears and may, eventually(?) point to a way of helping???


      • Ian – you said:

        “I get a little disappointed when I don’t get much of a response though when I pose certain questions….”

        Have you tried teaching??? That will diminish your expectations.

        Well, blogs work well, especially as compared to wooden ships on the oceans! But I greatly favor a small group of concerned people standing in front of a blackboard, coffee cups and chalk in hand, if we are seeking a prompt understanding. Not likely.

        Also, a key question you ask is:
        “Why don’t all hear?”

        Put in other terms – WHY ME? Do you suppose it may be true that many more than the reported 2% DO or CAN hear if they try? I think so. Especially as we can (today) compare it to a truck engine idling outside on the street. This is much better than asking if a person hears “anything strange” or even saying “a humming noise”. It leads the person who is being questioned a bit, but I think it leads in a useful way.


      • kat7mc says:

        I’m about as far from a scientist as one can get, but regarding an internal source… I’m not sure an internal source could be on a timer (as I’ve noticed the volume of the hum obviously being turned up on the hour or half hour). Also, what about the cases of “hearers” who have family members including dogs and cats being disturbed by the hum at the same time? Wouldn’t this alone point to an external source?

    • David says:

      If I block the one ear I have for hearing I block the Hum tone out so therefore it must be external.

      • David – you didn’t say HOW you “blocked” it. A pillow, earplugs, cotton, bubble gum! Keep in mind most people can not (and would love to) block the Hum. Aren’t you untypical? Please explain.

      • Hi Bernie,

        When the Hum is really annoying I wear in-ear headphones and play a collection of sounds with a wide range of natural harmonic resonance frequencies, which really eliminates the Hum, such as Schuman’s resonances, Golden ratio and Tibetan crystals. Often, when I pull an ear plug out the Hum is there waiting for me, really loud, as if the transmitter has tuned up the amplitude!

  3. Charlie says:

    Its really late and I was just about to go to bed, and then I read tthis!

    My guess would be that your calculations and construction of the box were probably pretty right..You’d think that if there was something drastically wrong with the concept of using a suitable metal box to block VLF , some knowledgeable person might have said so by now. And i have faith in your maths! But regardless of the design considerations, ultimately the box would probably need testing in order to demonstrate its vlf blocking capabilities.

    I imagine that the Box is also pretty effective at blocking quite a range of EM frequencies, so I suppose it rules out (cast doubt on ) them as well.

    I think I’ve asked this before, but what was the second hypothesis?

  4. David says:

    Good man Glen.

    Just to report that the Hum has been extremely loud the last two weeks and the last few days particularly.

    The summer months saw the most quietest time of the Hum for me since I began hearing it in July 2012.

    And it hasn’t been just me who has reported this tremendous lull in the Hum in Ireland as sufferers from around the World have reported this too via Facebook.

  5. George G. says:

    This is a good result.

    By experiencing the Hum in the D Box you have totally eliminated the T.I. trash.

    (Unless of course the T.I. villains have worked out how to overcome the theory of electrostatics)

    Well done.

  6. Hi Glen, I’m following your research with great interest. If the Hum corresponds to EM waves of the same frequency (60-80Hz), then we’re dealing with ELF waves that can pass through ocean and even the earth (such as high power submarine communications), not VLF waves, so even with the Demming box we still can’t rule that out!
    Other hypotheses I would put to you are:
    A) Highly penetrable ELF & ULF waves are being generated by the earth’s magnetic field, which is in the process of shifting.
    B) A hybrid between your 1st and 4th hypotheses, where the inner ear is able to perceive particular electrical brain waves, i.e. hearers are picking up their own high frequency electrical gamma brain waves, which would suggest that Hum hearers may at times be producing gamma waves in the region of 60-80 Hz (usually around 30-40 Hz). This would explain why the Hum seems to come and go and can be loud or quiet. This would be testable with an EEG.
    I had an accident a few years ago where I was knocked off my bike and received a bang to my head. I had tinnitus like the sound of rushing water in my left ear for about a month, when the tinnitus stopped, the Hum returned. The Hum is definitely not tinnitus.
    Also when I listen to a sound at a frequency that closely matches the Hum (for me this is 80Hz) I hear beats. That means that the sound signal is being received and transported through my auditory nerves and is not an imaginary sound in my brain.

    Keep up the good work Glen!

    • Brian – you said:

      “Also when I listen to a sound at a frequency that closely matches the Hum (for me this is 80Hz) I hear beats. That means that the sound signal is being received and transported through my auditory nerves and is not an imaginary sound in my brain.”

      It’s more complicated than that. Are you hearing first-order beats (strong amplitude variations at the difference frequency) or less annoying second-order beats. Second-order (sometimes called “subjective”) beats ARE generated in the brain. This you can demonstrate by playing two tones to separate ears keeping the amplitudes low so that bone-conduction is not an issue.

      Few folks report beating with the Hum. I ask because I hear (when attempting a pitch match) a quite weak second-order beating. No beating is seen in the acoustic signal, just the comparison tone, although both the Hum and the test sinusoid are perceptually equal in amplitude


      • David says:

        Hello Bernie I block the Hum tone by sleeping my good and only ear on the palm of my hand but wherever I am by blocking my hearing I reduce the level of the hum tone so verifying to me it is an external tone I am hearing.

        I will be in remote villages in Iraq in October and Im interested to know will I perceive the hum tone there given that mass communications and industry is limited there.

      • Hi Bernice,
        When I test with a tone generator I definitely get the strong amplitudal beats at the difference frequency. This enabled me to pinpoint the actual frequency of the Hum. The beats could still be generated by the brain as the signals are received from the auditory nerve but I’m quite sure that the beats occur not as interfering sound waves in the air but either within the inner ear or in the auditory nerve.

      • In reply to Dr Brian Mackenzie-Hanson at SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 AT 3:34 PM

        Thanks – that’s good info. That’s also the way that I do a pitch match.

        If it is a first-order beat, you should be able to adjust the difference frequency to darned near zero, and the amplitude to exactly cancel, and “ride” it on or off (I have an analog frequency knob) for perhaps 10 seconds. That is, severe amplitude variations – the same you would have with two generators mixed in the air. I only hear a second order beat (essentially what you call “binaural”) as I go through 64 Hz in my case. No cancellation. I need to try this again paying attention to the input amplitude which I merely matched subjectively rather than consciously going for a possible cancellation.

        We do seem to agree it is not an acoustic mix outside the ear. If the Hum is generated in the middle/inner ear, the mixing could occur there or further along toward the brain.


      • David says:

        Hi Bernie,

        Try this.

        Put on the radio or TV and put the palms of your hands over your ears while also applying pressure. You should perceive a drop in audio levels when you do that.

        For me as I wrote already,

        I sleep my good and only ear on the palm of my hand.

        If you can make a picture of this you can see why the hum tone drops in perceived loudness for me. Thus confirming that the Hum tone I hear which I believe is the same Hum tone people are hearing is an external tone.

      • replying to David at SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 AT 9:06 AM:

        David – I think we all understood your methodology and your personal success in blocking the Hum, and are happy for you in that regard.

        Many people here have not been successful, so you are, as I suggested, “untypical”. Use of earplugs, pillows, and that sort of thing, don’t in general do much good. In addition, blocking the ear with a palm (instead of say, an inert pillow) likely creates a distracting cacophony of body sounds of blood-flow and muscle tremors. It is perhaps similar to using music, fans, or other sounds (often quite successfully) to MASK the hum – a distraction sometimes erroneously termed “blocking”.

        As to your case, I would guess no one doubts you. But your conclusion about your own situation PROVING an external source, for the GENERAL Hum hearer, is unwarranted

      • David says:

        If the Hum tone was generated internally then blocking my hearing to dampen the levels would not show success as it does thus deducing that the hum tone must be an external cause.

        By all means when you hear the Hum tone place your hands over ears and if the hum tone levels have dropped then you can conclude that its an external tone.

    • George G. says:

      Hello Brian,

      I also experience external sound beating with the Hum, in my case around 32Hz.

      Is it possible that an internal “tone”, generated in the middle ear for example, can still mix with an external sound and produce beating?

      Can activity in my middle ear be classed seperately from an imaginary sound in my brain?

      This is an important question to me. A diving mishap years ago resulted in middle ear damage. The same ear these days seems to be my main “Hum Detector”.

      Is the activity in my middle ear “an imaginary sound in my brain” or is it an actual physical process? If the latter is correct, then surely we do not require two external tones to produce beats?

      Your thoughts please?

      Best regards,


      P.S. For Glen: Is your SpellCheck dead or is my computer being manipulated again by HumHackers Inc.???

      • Hello George G,
        To the best of my knowledge one wouldn’t obtain interference beats with an imaginary sound because the imaginary sound and the perceived sound are handled by different parts of the brain. I would definitely place an imaginary sound in a different class to perceived sounds. However listening to “binaural music” uses the internal auditory cortex of the brain to create beats from sounds received by different ears, similarly, I hear the Hum around 80Hz, so when I use a tone generator I get beats produced when the tone becomes close to that of the Hum.

        Therefore I think it is entirely possible for a perceived sound resulting from a resonance in the middle or inner ear to then interfere with an external sound causing beats.

        Also, I would add that by the nature of the mechanism that causes tinnitus (literally Latin meaning: ringing) it is very unlikely for tinnitus to produce tones much below 1kHz, typically between 5kHz and 8kHz. Although many hearers are really annoyed by the Hum and it can by depressing when at times it is so loud and relentless, I would argue that it is an “ability” not an illness. I read somewhere that an estimated 1:50 people can perceive the Hum! If it was a natural physiological condition, then it would have been spoken and written about for centuries or even millennia before the noise of the industrial revolution; but does seem to have only arisen in conjunction with the development of ELF and ULF technologies.

        I raised the point on another thread that many animals have more sensitive hearing to ours and I’m quite sure that if the Hum is caused by ELF e/m radio transmissions resonating with cells in our inner ears then animals must hear it too, even more so. This could eventually start to affect the behaviour and lifestyle of wildlife around the world as ELF and ULF waves can pass through the earth. We’ve already seen bird, seal and whale populations going off course and apparently committing suicide!

        I think that Dr Glen’s research could prove more important than we might realise!

      • I must stress that this is a preliminary result. First I must confirm the proof of concept. I very much need a portable VLF receiver/field strength meter to do so. Any suggestions?

      • Hi Dr Glen,

        I found this: Explorer E202, which looks quite portable and compact. There’s a useful writeup with it too…


        You’ll need to ask for a quote, but they boast it’s simplicity so hopefully the price won’t be prohibitive!

    • Gerry says:

      Binaural Beats @91hz versus Hum perception of 57hz (or 56.5!)

      To Brian et al.,

      Recently I spent a few hours with onlinetonegenerator.com trying to get an exact match of the dreaded tone.

      I had tried this many ‘full moons’ ago and had settled on 57 hertz.
      (I utilised a frequency generating app that time and on a different device {phone on both occasions} to the one I’m using now.)

      Around the same time, “but after my own test” I watched a YouTube video on the Auckland Hum (one of the few videos to be seen circa 2011).

      On it ‘Tom Muir’ in 2006 discusses and offers his research.  

      Here you will see some now antiquated technology giving a graphical display of the hum in tone & frequency on a red led display, and I was pleasantly surprised I had gotten a match at 57hz!

      (This was my first frequency test for the hum.)

      Mysterious Auckland hum

      Again, when I listened to the hum this time, the tone initially seemed to match at circa 57 hertz.

      (Glen himself only recently posted his own perception at 56.5 hz—so I was also double checking to see if my old perception still held true!)

      However, on this occasion I tried another trick, I repeatedly switched the tone generator on/off while comparing ‘tones’ and eventually I realised that while the tone sounded the same @57hz, the pitch was incorrect.

      (Circa 57 hz(or 56.5!) was identical in tone/note, but it was lower in pitch!)

      (Those with a good ear for music will understand, think in musical scales eg. c, d, e, f, g, a, b, c in octaves—low c and high c are the same note, but different pitch.)

      So I continued upwards with the generator and repeated the on/off switching exercise, 58 hz, 59 hz, 60 hz….. and so on.

      Eventually, I found a perfect match ‘in my perception’ of both pitch and tone, at 113hz(note: this is 56.5hz ×2!—or exactly one octave higher in hertz, as when I switched the app on and off and synced the volume at this frequency with the hum with “both” earphones in, I could not detect any difference whatsoever between the app or the real hum!)

      NB: set phone volume to one third, generator app to standard.

      While doing the testing,  I also somehow stumbled across a pulsation or binaural beat at 91 hz.
      (Note: this happened and was most clearly defined with both earphones in!)

      It was as clear as day!

      It also worked for other frequencies close to 91 hz and above 113hz, but “to me” the binaural beat was most defined at 91hz.

      (NB: Phone volume just below half, generator app volume at standard.)

      But here’s where it gets interesting.

      I removed each individual earphone in turn and eventually realised I could detect a binaural beat using one earphone placed in my “right” ear only.

      By definition,  a binaural beat is a third tone generated by the interaction of two individual tones and its frequency is the difference between the two.

      But yet I was only playing one tone(@91hz) into one ear!

      But here’s the real quirky bit:
      If I block my “left” ear with either my finger or my anti-tragus, I cannot hear the hum(just like poster David mentions)—-but yet I can detect a “binaural beat” caused by putting one earphone playing one audible tone of 91hz into my “right” ear!—note: I cannot detect the hum using my right ear, I can only detect it with my left ear!!!!—-but if I reverse this by way of putting an earphone(@91hz) into my left ear only—-I cannot detect a binaural beat, but can still hear the hum and the original 91hz applied tone!

      Note: ‘In my opinion’, this firmly points to, ‘in my case’, left brain hemisphere conversion of frequency to auditory perception as the ‘precursor of the hum’ and that it is not a sound, nor is it an internally created sound—– it is simply a “perception of sound”—as, how can you possibly generate “3” tones within auditory perception from the introduction of only “one actual sound” by inducing tonal stimulus into an ear which you are 100% certain is not detecting the incoming sound of the hum?

      It also occurred to me, if I could get hooked up to an EEG(or similar) and at the moment when I perceive the binaural beat during this testing, my perceptual awareness of the hum could be proven by way of a spike on an electrograph!

      (This is a mission I’m currently working on!)

      This I also believe, in some way shape or form, should in theory,  work for each and every one of us?? 

      Hey presto! (and if it works),  physiological proof we are perceiving this tone and that it “actually” exists in our auditory perceptual awareness.


      So all I need now is an EEG device at this location or somebody else out there who shares a similar experience to me, to try it for themselves.

      As a control/comparison, I utilised the services of my partner (who also perceives the hum!) by way of repeating the experiment on her (it was like trying to hold down an untamed lion—but I’m persistent!).

      She too perceived the binaural beat at the above mentioned frequencies.

      Success at last! 


      Now,  I’m off to sleep,  it’s after 4.30am here in Ireland. 

      And the hum is resonating like a damn ghost trucker from hell harmonising with the fog horn of a lighthouse!

      White noise to on…

      Good night!

      • Hi Gerry –

        I’m not sure I see a big problem here. One thing is that you are apparently supposing that this is a “binaural beat” while I and many others consider it a “subjective” or “second-order” beat as compared to a first order beat near to a 1:1 ratio (with sever amplitude variations). Below we assume “just temperament” (not equal temperament) since it is small integer ratios that matter for beating.

        Subjective beats occur at other small integer ratios such as 3/2 (a fifth), or 4/3 (a fourth), at 5/3 (a sixth), as well as at 2:1 (an octave), and do NOT involve sever amplitude variations. A binaural beat is a SUBCLASS of subjective beating where different tones ARE presented to separate ears, but subjective beats do not require binaural presentation. A prime example is a near 1:1 ratio presented binaurally which becomes a second-order (subjective) beat with no annoying amplitude throbbing.

        What is strange is that you hear a subjective beat at 91 Hz relative to 57 Hz. Well, it is not surprising that you hear a beat at 91 Hz, as that is a ratio of relatively low integers (8/5), but rather IF and WHY you have not heard beating at 85.5Hz (a 3:2 ratio). While 8/5 is nearly a perfect sharped-fifth (like G# relative to C), you are not reporting the ordinary fifth at the simpler ratio of 3:2 (G relative to C).

        If you wish more, I wrote up about 53 pages on scales and beating in 2013 here:


        Excellent report.


      • Gerry says:

        Hi Bernie, 

        I believe my perception @91hz to be a ‘first order’ binaural beat, as I’m perceiving the hum at 113hz.

        Also, I am perceiving other binaural beats within the ranges you specify and also greater than 113hz, but still within close proximity to match a ratio of near 1:1.

        But the most clearly defined beat is occurring at 91hz with the volumes on device and app set as specified.

        I derived my initial understanding of binaural beats from wiki, but I will look closer at your notes to see if I can enhance it.

        And thank you,

        The notes are outstanding!


      • Gerry –


        I just thought that since 113 is the octave of 56.5, and that 91 is 8/5 above 56.5, 113 would be 2/(8/5) = 5/4 above 91, a major third (like E above C). IF (if!) 91 were the pitch match (first-order beating) then 113 would be a subjective beat at the third.

        Pitch matching at such low frequencies and low levels is difficult, and even more so with sinusoids. Of course, while our test tones are sinusoids, we really don’t know what the Hum looks like.

        Keel playing around – short of an extent that it drives you nuts!


      • Gerry says:

        I will Bernie and thank you.

        And I’m hopeful others will too, as, I primarily believe that if I can get more people to try this simple set of experiments for themselves and they too perceive it this way or similar. 

        Then this interaction will reveal itself by way of testing with EEG(or similar).

        The more test subjects in the world of hum, the better!

        This is my ultimate ambition here. 


        Just a quick reference to the hum itself.

        I’m currently experiencing it, in what I would perceive to be, a very ‘high dose!’

        ie. If it is an external frequency interfering with auditory perception,  which I strongly suspect it to be, it seems to have increased in energy output from its source.

        At this exact point in time (after midnight),  it’s at what I perceive to be hum maximum!
        (I’m inventing phrases here for effect!)
        Though,  I usually find it gets even higher throughout the hours of darkness(peaking circa 3am) and then wanes towards dawn(but not always!!).

        If this holds true, then I’m expecting it to be very severe later on!

        And lately, in my experience at least,  I’m finding this to be the case!
        (ie. my perception of it has become more intense and I have noticed others are reporting the same thing?)

        I also believe I’m starting to experience it interacting with other areas within my sensory systems.
        (eg. heart rate, body temperature etc.)

        Then there are the random interactions I experience with it during the day, like when I move from one room to another within the structure of my home and it occasionally goes from almost unperceivable to extremely perceivable in a matter of seconds. 

        ie. From a low perceived tone to a high one. 
        (This happens regularly and on a daily basis!)

        I cannot even begin to explain this, but it sure feels very bizarre! 

        I personally believe this enigma is a high energy frequency emanating from an external source and that the perceived tone in auditory perception is “but one” of the end results.

        The low tonal auditory experience(hum minimum!)could be the result of a transmitter of some kind producing a low energy output and then the high tonal auditory experience(hum maximum!) could be the result of the same transmitter beaming at a higher energy level.

        All to be proven in real science I know, so this is simply my opinion at present and nothing more.


        I’ve got to try get some sleep now as I’m pretty exhausted. 

        Back to the ‘white noise’ for me!

        Good night for now! 


      • Gerry – addendum

        I wish I had thought a bit more just above. I did say that 113 Hz was the octave (2nd harmonic) of 56.5 Hz, AND that we don’t have much of an idea what the Hum waveform looks like – meaning it may be complex. If so, your jump from 56.5 Hz to favoring 113 Hz might relate to the fact that 56.5 is very difficult to hear (Fletcher-Munson) as compared to 113. (I can barely hear down to 50 Hz myself). This would add to the possibilities.

        If we just had a display (time and/or frequency) of that darned Hum. We don’t.


      • Gerry says:

        Hello Bernie, 

        “If” I was a betting Man, and we could somehow afford a “universal standard for the auditory perceptual tone of the worldwide hum in hertz”, I would ‘put my house’ on the frequency being the second harmonic octave of 56.5.

        Which is, without a shadow of doubt:


        Now being a bit of a music buff myself and with Glen’s permission, may I extend to you two different presentations of “one very special” piece of music and song:

        For you Professor Hutchins.


    • Andy Foley says:

      Beats – phasing some say – are of course used by musicians such as guitarists to accurately tune a string. As the string is adjusted and gets closer to the tone of the tuning fork, the beats get slower and longer as the frequencies get closer to a match. When the beats stop, the frequencies are identical and the string is in tune.

      • Gerry says:

        Beautiful physical analogue Andy.

        Please allow me to retort with one of my own:

        Here’s a little description of how one might describe perception of the Hum in physical terms, but with subtle essences of music!

        See the wiki links for more info!


        But alas, there is no beauty with this beast.

        It is clever and hides in the shadows and relentlessly pursues its food to survive. 

        An intelligent predator that tracks, stalks and then devours its prey to leave nothing but bones when it has finished its meal.

        The Hum is the Wolf.



  7. Lisle Blyth says:

    Hi Glen, thanks for conducting the Deming Box test. It’s disappointing that it did not give us the answers we so desperately need. The ‘if’ you used to sign off is of great concern, though one would be without a heart not to understand. You have done so much, and risked so much, to find the Hum’s cause. What about the AlJazeera crew? Are they going to continue with their documentary/news item? My hope is that you take a break from your research, and then resume where you left off. When you were building the vlf-blocking box there were a few concerns about the entrance seals and welding. Let’s hope checks and balances have the desired effect. I hope this is the case and a rerun of the experiment in an altered test box is not far off. There’s a human cause behind the Hum, and it is rooted in technology developed in the ’70s. Research into the ‘edits’ made to the Wiki Hum site show UTC’s AnomeBot is behind 77% of the changes to the site. AnomeBot is designed by United Technologies, which is in the business of climate, controls and security, and aerospace systems, plusOtis and Pratt & Whitney. There are two other busy Wiki individuals, calling themselves ‘skyerise’ and ‘Bromley86’ who are responsible for many of the other changes. ‘Artw’ also contributes heavily. Between 2013/14 every aspect of the Hum Wiki page was reworked and protections raised, and the first half of this year there were the third-highest number of changes.I’ll do a comparison on page edits and take a closer look at UTC. Computer-generated revert programs are to keep a lid on an edit free-for-all, I suspect. Still worth looking at.
    Keep up the good work, Glen!

    • Gerry says:

      Awesome post Lisle.

      This is a brilliant and revealing piece of detective work and I hope it doesn’t get lost in the mix.

      Star rating of five if you ask me!


      I wonder could Glen do something with the threads on this site to highlight an elevated status for individual postings and the interest they generate.

      (Eg. Star ratings from 1 to 5!!!)


  8. Andy Foley says:

    Hi Glen,

    Congratulations on the milestone! Very much looking forward to the results of the EM test.

    We’ve spoken before, you may remember I worked as a senior sound engineer at the BBC. I’ve used professional broadcast quality mics, meters, media, and reproduction kit in an attempt to record the hum. Nothing. Plus ear plugs overlaid with ear defenders do not diminish the hum, so we can safely say it is not sound waves in the 20-20k range. Infrasound may be a different story. I read that NASA measured the resonant frequency of the eyeball at 18Hz, which can cause visual aberrations. (The resonant frequency of ear components are all within normal hearing range.) HOWEVER, a quick Google of the human BRAIN showed this: “Scientists in the 1950’s later concurred that the resonance frequency of the Earth is about 8Hz, or more exactly 7.83Hz – see the Schumann Resonances. Moreover, the resonance frequency of the human brain and all organic matter is also 8Hz.” (I haven’t verified that). Interesting!

    In Birmingham England, I measured my personal hum at 62.4Hz (by comparing with a tone generator). Interesting that other people who have accurately measured their hum are similar, but not the same, frequencies, rather like tinnitus: it’s different for each individual. As for background “noise”, we can lose the hum for weeks – yet human bustle and infrastructure does not stop.

    A fascinating journey we’re on Glen, with you at the helm. Thanks for the time and great work.

  9. Eva Fishman says:

    Every inch of progress is exciting, and this was a mile. Thank you, Glen. While the results may be disappointing, in some ways it allows moving forward.

    Almost all of the current posts confirm many of my previous musings, which is very affirming! I believe animals ARE being affected,and as I have stated previously, my dog’s behavior when the HUM is present tells me she is sensing or hearing it. And yes, the HUM seemed absent or nearly so for much of the summer, and about 2-3 weeks ago returned with a vengeance.

    Regarding the possibility of historic “hearers”, some time ago I wrote that it makes you wonder what the Salem witch trials were really about. If someone 100 or 200 hundred years ago, or 2000 years ago perceived the HUM, would they have known to comment? If there is a geological reason for the HUM, did the inhabitants of Pompeii “hear” it before Vesuvius blew? I’m not being facetious – we don’t know how long peoples have been hearing the HUM. It may have been present since the dawn, but until technology entered the picture and communication became instant and world-wide, it wasn’t acknowledged or reported. Is it perceived by the inhabitants in the Amazon jungle? African jungles? Island people? (have there been reports from Hawaii?) China? etc.

    Which begs the question of whether it isn’t geological in nature. I wondered if having the Deming Box on the ground isn’t a problem – ideally it should be suspended, but anything that could suspend it would still have to be on the ground and would make its own noise. Doing the experiment in a vacuum (such as outer space) to see if it is perceived isn’t viable either, Glen has to have oxygen (!), and a spacecraft has noise. Would the HUM be heard on the moon? Would it be heard buried underground? Again, no way to do that experiment.

    The HUM may be more than one thing and have more than one “cause”; perhaps a convergence of wave-like phenomena – acoustic, magnetic, radio, or whatever – and geological forces, coupled with the development of idiosyncratic technologies that have intensified it, making it perceivable to some individuals but not others. What characteristic(s) hearers may have that makes us perceive the HUM is not yet determined, and another field for study. The mechanism by which we perceive it is internal, but the CAUSE is external.


    • Andy Foley says:

      An interesting comment about space, Eva. Wouldn’t it be great if we could get a sympathetic ear at NASA or ESA – and an International Space Station astronaut who is aware of, and has experienced the hum. It would be a simple experiment for them without imposing on other duties: each time they go to ‘bed’, block out the noise of the station itself with high grade ear plugs and ear defenders, and see if they can hear the hum!

    • Gerry says:

      Brilliant post Eva, with brilliant deductions. 

      Your ability to clarify attention to detail by way of written expression is a breath of fresh air.


  10. George G. says:

    Glen, you already have a potential VLF receiver in your digital recorder.

    Ask a competent electronics technician to wind you up a big coil of wire with a suitable lead & plug and feed it into one channel of your recorder.

    Use the other channel with a mic so you can have real time comparison with audio versus RF.

    It’s not hard, just talk to a local tech.

    • George –

      I know you have experience with loop antennas, but the one you propose seems destined to pick up mostly AC hum. It lacks tuning, and demodulation. Are you assuming a very high sampling rate followed by digital filtering and demodulation?

      Brian has suggested a semi-commercial product that also lacks sharp tuning.

      Why not try a pickup (a wire antenna and one op-amp amplifier/buffer) and band-pass filtering with a dual pot (for frequency tuning) and a state-variable structure (three op-amps). [Very similar to my 60 and 120 Hz notch filters]. This could be easily tuned from say 3 kHz to say 30 kHz and Q’ed up to 50 or 100. Then you tack on a precision rectifier (one more op-amp) and passive low-pass to AM demodulate. Earphone. Two 9V batteries. Portable and cheap ($5-$10 for parts).

      Can’t say I have any notion of what is there to pick up! Anyone know?


      • George G. says:

        Hi Bernie,

        Picking up AC hum is fine, remember, we are testing the integrity of the D Box, and if it can block out AC hum we then have a jolly good filter.

      • George – I’ll buy that.

        If it blocks strong 60 Hz, it should easily block say, 10 kHz. I assume however that Glen wanted something in the VLF RF range. Something tuned.


  11. Victor says:

    Dear Glenn, first of all, thank you for your determination to solve the hum problem, really admire it.

    Recently I visited Grotta Giusti in Tuscany/Italy, which is a spa combined with a cave that is warmed by the underground heat. My estimation is that the cave is approximately 10-20 meters deep and about 100 m long. That day there were no visitors in the cave but me, so I could stay there for 30 minutes completely alone. Could hear water drops 30 m away.

    There was absolute silence, and no hum heard. I explored all corners of the cave, but nowhere could hear the hum.

    However, I could hear the hum on the surface. My guess is that limestone somehow insulates or blocks something.

    So maybe you could also include caves and other underground cavities in the research targets.

    I live in the Netherlands where I can hear the hum almost anywhere I go. My own version is that it might be linked to the massive mesh of motorways in the almost flat country.

  12. T. says:

    Wish it had worked. I think most of us wished it so we could all get boxes.

    • I feel the same way, but I feel even more strongly that we need to sometimes accept that our ideas are wrong. Not to worry – we are moving forward with this. It will be solved, and not in the distant future. We are heading toward an answer. Thanks for being part of it. Glen.

  13. George G. says:

    To Gerry,

    Nice music selection, most appropriate for the man’s birthday.

    Most notable that both Leonard and this project are made in Canada.

    Surely a favorable omen.

    Best regards,


  14. SGVH says:

    I’m a few weeks late to your Deming Box party.

    What if the frequency(ies) simply followed you into the box when you opened the hatch, & then you closed it/them in with you when you closed the hatch? (Frequencies are as pervasive as air, aren’t they?)

    (Sounds like a dumb question but I mean for it to be a serious Q by a total non-techie. 🙂 )

    Doesn’t metal amplify all frequencies? If so, it would seem to make sense that being inside a metal box would make it at least somewhat worse as the frequency(ies) bounce around on the metal with no way to escape once the hatch is closed.

  15. frank says:

    The hum was inside because it is generated in the air everywhere, including that box. The only thing that stops the hum is water. An air-tight under water box would (most likely) be hum free.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: