Home » Uncategorized » We need access to a world-class acoustic anechoic chamber

We need access to a world-class acoustic anechoic chamber

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

Oh, did I mention: at night, in an isolated area?

One of the problems with Hum research is that the answer may have already been found, but has been lost in the mists of time and obscurity. That will never happen again, as long as the internet exists and I am involved.

We should be able to find out if the worldwide Hum is an acoustic source. We simply need to send volunteers into a very high quality anechoic chamber and let them listen. We need the facility to be in an isolated area, however, because of the possible interference of infrasound from highway traffic or industrial activity. The experiment must happen at night.

I know that Apple, Samsung, Google, most governments and major universities, and many private laboratories have them. Our problem is that we are, as the Brits might say, “skint”. We may need to fund this on our own dime, perhaps with the goodwill of others who have the equipment and resources.

Let’s regroup: we are going to solve this, but “many hands make lighter work”. If you are connected to a facility that has such a chamber, find out if they are willing to help us.



  1. TINMA says:

    Isnt the prefect chamber underground as you have been stating?

  2. ladymozart says:

    I do not have a chamber that I can offer. However, I would like to thank you for all that you have done and continue to do. I follow and support your work every step of the way as I continue myself to be greatly affected by the hum. Thank you.

  3. Jane says:

    Hi Glen – sorry nothing to add re chamber but wanted to report what seems like a significant occurrence with the hum here in Central Scotland (I’ve been a hearer for over 20 years). Last night the hum was so “loud” that my young son heard it for the first time and our cat was extremely disturbed. When I recorded it the signature had a much higher predominance of the lower frequencies (12-23Hz) than normal (usually more 47-63Hz). In terms of dB it wasn’t showing much more in volume. My child has until now been happily oblivious to the whole thing and last night he even put his hands on his ears in an attempt to block the sound.

    • kat7mc says:

      Hi, Jane – I had to reply regarding the night of September 23rd. I’m on Vancouver Island and the volume of the hum was definitely turned way up at 11 p.m. on the 23rd. It was deafening – the loudest I’ve experienced in four years. *Just as a notation, I notice that “the volume is turned up” throughout most days and evenings either on the hour or half hour. As far as I can tell, it is definitely on some sort of timer. (Sorry to hear that your child and cat had to experience this… hopefully it won’t happen again.)

      • Gerry says:

        Five star post.


        Now “why and how” might the ‘volume spontaneously’ go uP one might add!

        Very interesting.

      • kat7mc says:

        Gerry, I never thanked you for this reply… so, thank you. Yes, and the “why and how” indeed. We’ll figure it out. You’ve gone to great lengths already with your research!

        In my dramatic exit from the BH thread last night (ha), I meant to say that I wouldn’t be commenting on that particular *thread* anymore, not the entire site. I definitely want to continue to communicate with yourself and others on this site and think it’s important that we support each other. Your suggestion of Glen perhaps opening another thread/survey for hearers to compare notes re ?internal/?external source is a SUPERB idea! An “open”, supportive forum would be sure to draw more than a handful of commenters…

        Thanks for all your support, Gerry! 🙂

        PS: Lot of rain here lately, and oddly quieter… except for right now, of course, it’s 10:30 p.m…

      • Gerry says:

        You’re very welcome and thank you Ka!

        I am very relieved to know that you’re still with us and rest assured I won’t be going away anytime soon either, in fact my engines are only starting up in this regard.

        Yes,  we fully need to voice our concerns and collectively as a group, I have no doubts that we can get to the bottom of this.

        Each and every one of us who “know” exactly what it is they’re perceiving(ie. an external influence or “intrusion” to our auditory awareness!) should not suffer this in silence and get involved here by way of posting their thoughts/concerns and personal deductions here to Dr. MacPhersons site.

        It’s only by this collective interaction and subsequent knowledge obtained, that further considerations can be evaluated and in turn direct the research in a positive way.

        I believe the answers are right here in front of our noses, but so close that we simply aren’t seeing them.

        Also, thank you for acknowledging my suggestion,  I believe something along these lines needs to be done as a matter of urgency.

        This collective ‘suffering’ needs to be stopped and silenced once and for all.


        Ps… I’d plum forgotten I’d given you my “Five Star” commendation on this thread (lol!), but know you fully deserved it.

        Keep going strong my friend, lots done…

        But lots more to do!!


        Oh and keep track of the weather,  high wind with heavy rain = a good nights sleep!!



  4. Glen –


    I can’t help feeling that a call for an “anechoic” chamber is misguided, first because that is the wrong term and the wrong configuration (see discussion below). Secondly, you are talking about blocking an acoustic (physical vibration of molecules) phenomenon, while best current evidence strongly suggests such DOES NOT EXIST. I was unable to display it, you were unable to record it, and numerous other folks (Demming, Frosch, etc.) as well as most comments here have failed to show it exists. Think back to the plots of the hum waveform that you have seen. That’s right, you have never seen such a plot (I believe).


    An acoustically insulated chamber has some similarities to an “anechoic” chamber, but important differences as well. The typical “hearer” of the Hum is most familiar hearing the Hum under conditions that most resembles a moderately-acoustically-insulated, but ECHOIC chamber: the inside of an ORDINARY room, probably with thermal insulation in the walls (which also acoustically insulates), AND at times of day where outside environmental noise and household noise are lowest; an ILLUSION of a higher insulation factor.

    The walls of your room are likely inherently quite reflective of sound (sheetrock, wood), likely with a significant percentage (50% ?) of absorbing material in places (drapes, rugs, furniture, yourself), but still with considerable reverberation. You expect sounds normal to the room to be reverberated by the container’s walls, and to have a characteristic echo pattern. You know the annoying echoes of an empty room, and the comfort of one with just the right amount to absorption. Can you imagine what it would sound like with most or all the reflective surfaces covered with insulation? Probably not.

    An anechoic chamber has the insulation covering all the solid walls and solid surfaces. The insulation is on the INSIDE. If you had to make one in a hurry you might first assure that the floor had a thick carpet and then that all the walls and doors were covered with bare fiberglass or perhaps egg cartons. The idea is that sounds do not come back (instead, they “get lost” in the insulation). [The cheapest one of all is a quiet, flat, obstruction-free farm field of perhaps 25 acres growing foot-high alfalfa, or with a foot of light snow in winter. Well, not really! You KNOW that the sky above is vast and non-reflective, unlike knowing you are inside a room, so psychologically it is quite different.]

    But, as one might argue, logically, the QUIET of either an insulated or an anechoic chamber could be similar on an instant-by-instant basis. The insulation being inside or outside, is much the same with regard to blocking sounds originating from the outside. But if you speak or grunt, or drop a ring of keys inside an anechoic chamber, something other than just the quite is immediately apparent. This is why it is disconcerting. In some ways, claustrophobic-like. Interesting – but when do we get out!

    An anechoic chamber is not a good substitute for an insulated room. Particularly not as we might want to compare external-noise-free listening to comfortable, normal (reverberant) indoor listening.


    • Jane says:

      Just for info re previous comment – I hear the hum outside as well as inside. Not in all locations.

    • Thanks, Bernie. I’m not sure “anechoic” is the wrong term, because I am pursuing both of the situations you describe. As for there being no evidence of the Hum being caused by an acoustic source – physical vibration – that’s why I’m preparing to test that idea in two different ways. I can understand how the results of an experiment could be argued, but I can’t understand arguing that an experiment should not be conducted. I hope it doesn’t smack of arrogance to say that I don’t care what Frosch, Deming, Moir, or anybody else has concluded: I won’t be satisfied until I conduct the experiments myself in a public and transparent way. As soon as any transparent and replicable experiment is conducted that successfully blocks the Hum without masking noise, that is an important result, and will be the basis for subsequent investigation. Perhaps this article from The American Scientist might provide some interesting background for everybody: http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2014/5/quietest-places-in-the-world/1

      Regarding insulated versus anechoic rooms – I’m looking at both. If I descend to the depths of a mine, it seems to me that, as long as there is no running or dripping water, the only possible acoustic source would be whatever noise can be transmitted through that terrific depth of rock. Those anecdotal reports may in fact be correct – that is, going deep underground might in fact block the Hum in many cases. Or perhaps the anechoic chamber might do it. Glen.

      • kat7mc says:

        Hi, Glen – First of all, thank you so much for your work and dedication in providing this web site and very helpful and supportive forum.

        Here is a link to an article (written way back in 1989) which also speaks of “hair cells in the inner ear”: https://books.google.ca/books?id=b3Xqfc2KRo8C&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=%22the+hum%22+received+through+brain+and+cochlea&source=bl&ots=TiWCBAxYMX&sig=Je7SS_3aGXYnkRFe7Vt7Gj_XMGo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwkZCn8q3PAhUES2MKHc4fCVkQ6AEIRTAI#v=onepage&q=%22the%20hum%22%20received%20through%20brain%20and%20cochlea&f=false

      • Glen –

        You said “but I can’t understand arguing that an experiment should not be conducted.”

        Not the point! I feel that extensive credible experiments to look for an acoustic source of the Hum HAVE BEEN made, and are (without notable exception) negative. Do you agree that no “graph” of a hum waveform exists? Why not? [ Some thirty years ago we (with relative ease) recorded and displayed infrasonic elephant calls (about 20 Hz). ]

        Remember Winnie the Pooh: “The more he looked inside the more Piglet wasn’t there.”

        And there is the “gotcha” that an individual can interrupt the Hum by grunting, head shaking, etc. This has to be internal. And if the source were external, everyone who is capable of pitch-matching would apparently hear that same pitch. These inconvenient facts discount the possibilities of both AF and RF external sources.
        As I admitted previously (the “I Entered….” thread, September 18, 2016 AT 7:29 PM), the strongest case against an internal cause is the timeline (relatively sudden appearance in last 50 years). This I suggested was adequately explained by the simultaneous improvement in communications (e.g., Internet).

        In crossing from technology to physiology as a “source”, we probably make the prospect of definitely finding and possibly curing the Hum far less likely. Sorry to say. But better understood.


      • But Bernie, low volume, low frequency external sounds can be interrupted by doing the same things. Also, I’m not the least bit satisfied that the the 50 year timeline is correct. Deming was wrong about quite a few other things as well (mainly because he didn’t have the data I have). So, while I confirm my VLF results, I will go forward with my mine and anechoic chamber investigations because, as I’m sure Winnie the Pooh would agree, “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”. Or in our case, the listening. Glen.

      • Not with my experiments (just repeated). For me, I hear the hum at 64 Hz, and I can interrupt it completely with individual grunts (returning in 1/2 second) or continuously with head shake until I get tired (10 seconds, then returning in 1/2 second as with grunting). If I add “real” acoustic 64 Hz, grunting does not cause any apparent interruption, and continuous shaking does not completely (only about half) remove the sound. If I add 75 Hz (off my Hum) instead of 64 Hz, neither grunting nor head shaking has ANY effect. This is entirely consistent with personal interruption of the Hum portion at 64 Hz.

        If you run the test in the mine, pressure changes will confound your results, one way or another. If you run a test in an acoustically isolated (or anechoic chamber), I bet you will hear the Hum on full just as you did in the Demming box RF test.

        Where is the explanation of hearing different pitches?

        And MOST importantly, where is the plot of the waveform? If you have seen one, please tell me where. If not, why is it not available? It should have been easy to capture.

      • gerry says:


        Just a quick note with regard to Winnie and Little Piglet.

        I’m doubtful that either of them ever stopped for even a moment…

        To consider… The big bad “Wolf!”(?)

        Note: I wouldn’t ordinarily come in between two titans of deduction, so for now at least, I’ll be little Piglet!

        Now back to science,  

        I put this up on an earlier thread as part of my own research in response to ‘Jonathan’ who mentions the Basilar membrane as a possible point of entry and decoding for a frequency entering the membrane (& associated biological interface) via a carrier wave.

        Here’s my (‘as of yet’ unanswered) questions by reply:

        Note: I’ve edited them further in this instance for more simplicity and transparency.

        (And to correct earlier spelling mistakes!!)

        Part 1) 

        Do you think it might be possible for a sinusoidal wave to be be demodulated and converted into “resonance” within the basilar membrane and in turn decoded by the ‘organ of corti’ by way of ‘action potential’ and electrical interference within ion channels(sodium, potsssium and calcium) as they flow across secretory and epithelial cells?

        Part 2) 

        If so, could this interference be spotted by way of utilising the ‘patch clamp’ technique (or simlar)?

        Ref: Erwin Neher & Bert Sakmann

        Part 3) 

        If so, could highly charged beamed electromagnetic energy (eg microwave) act as the carrier you mention(Ref: Jonathan on targeted individuals) and in turn be ‘disguising’ a less energetic signal(frequency), a signal which in turn is interacting within the mechanisms of human auditory perceptual awareness by way of presentation as a “Wolf tone”(eg. THE HUM!) as indicated in part one of this sequence? 


        Part 1)





        Part 2)



        Part 3)




        Etc, etc, etc.


        I now wish to put this sequence of questions to anyone who feels they might have something to offer in response.

        (There are many deductions and many many intertwining connections to be sourced here, so all levels of input from anyone who might be interested are most welcome!)

        Thank you.


      • All very interesting, but I’m worried we are moving toward the Einstellung Effect. At the risk of repeating myself, as long as time is not taken away from experiments that we can reasonably do (and afford!) then I think they should by all means go forward. As long as an experiment is conducted correctly, then any result is useful. If others want to conduct their own inquiries, then I encourage them to do so, and to report here on what they find.

      • Gerry says:

        Yes, but your experiments are being conducted by a small amount of people with as you say, very limited resources and even less time.

        There are at least ten thousand individuals that can contribute to mine.
        Here and now at this moment!

        For free.

      • Gerry – you asked for an answer:

        “Part 1) Do you think it might be possible for a sinusoidal wave to be [ ] demodulated and converted into “resonance” within the basilar membrane and in turn decoded by the ‘organ of corti’ by way of ‘action potential’ and electrical interference within ion channels(sodium, [potassium] and calcium) as they flow across secretory and epithelial cells?”

        You did not say if the “sinusoidal waveform” was AF or RF. If AF, omitting the “demodulation”, what you say is basically the conventional wisdom. And, repeating myself, there seems to be no external AF.

        So I guess you meant RF, and I think you would need to establish that the hair cells respond to RF. This is unlikely at VLF RF. But if so, any Hum frequencies (say 50 – 100 Hz), if originated as RF, would likely be in upper AF or ultrasonic, and indeed, a measure of demodulation WOULD be necessary. HOW? For example, envelope demodulation would require a physiological magnitude detector (unlikely) and low-pass (possible).

        So – No.

        Parts 2 and 3 begin with “if so” and I don’t buy the premise.

        Also keep in mind that the experiments you suggest are complicated, very expensive, and highly regulated. Reality.


  5. George G. says:

    To Gerry,

    Preliminary results from the D Box have ruled out the RF theory, especially microwave carrier.

    (This statement is subject to integrity testing of the D Box)

    To Bernie,

    At some point during this adventure Glen will front up at “The Inquisition”

    The Grand Inquisitor is sure to ask;

    “What makes you so certain that The Hum is not sound?”

    To which, Glen can offer this feeble reply;

    “Deming, Frosch et al said so.”

    Or, he can offer a powerful statement;

    “Because I have conducted thorough audio recording tests and have been unable to detect it as sound.”

    He has two alternatives; one will make him look like a follower, the other a professional. I believe he has made the correct choice.

    • Dr. Tom Moir, from Auckland, New Zealand, is still quoted in media with his claims about recording the Hum. Yet, after I started pursuing details and specifics, our correspondence went dry. Moreover, he claimed that the phrase “hum drum” came from the Industrial Revolution, and that the Hum had always been heard since then. He was also unable to follow through on any specifics on that, and I found nothing in my searches on that topic. I’ll back this up with email quotes if Dr. Moir gives me permission to release our correspondence. This is what makes Hum research so frustrating and what made me realize that in many ways, I was out there on my own. I had to laugh one day when I was trying to get some information related to VLF radio, and the only things that came up were references to things I had written on the topic. And I’m not a scientist. I want to shine a bright light on scientific inquiries into the Hum and we need people like Bernie to ask the hard questions and to help maintain the rigour that has carried us this far. I also think, if I may say so, that we need stubborn folk like me who reject the work of people like Moir who repeat the results of “research” that does not stand up to full scrutiny.

      And forgive me if this is the 20th time I’ve mentioned this, but the Wikipedia page on the Hum is doing considerable damage to the educational aspect of this. Reasonably educated people – even scientifically literate people – will glance at the article and dismiss the Hum. I wonder what it will take to finally rectify that problem.

      Let’s regroup and go forward.

      • George G. says:

        “Reasonably educated —————-will glance and dismiss——–.”

        Fear not!

        In my experience reasonably educated people have woken up to Wikicrap and are ignoring it in ever increasing numbers.

        Wiki is dying/dead.

    • Replying to George G. September 28, 2016 AT 3:44 PM:

      Richard Feynman is a reliable guide to theory vs. experiment. Most here are likely familiar with his view of an experimental test of a theory: “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong”. Of course, he was referring to VALID experiments. At the same time, he did not insist that each person verify the experiments. At some point, we rely on others doing the work correctly, and are usually rewarded for that trust. [ Actually, we would probably expect Richard would have relished the opportunity to climb the leaning tower, cannon balls of different size in hands. ]

      • George G. says:


        As a longtime fan of Richard Feynman, I agree with your statement.

        But I would also like to see the process of elimination currently running with this project successfully concluded in its entirety, without gaps in between.

      • George –

        And your criterion for successful conclusion is exactly what?


  6. Gerry says:

    George: I guess you don’t like wiki!

    Glen: I would love to hear what Dr. Moir currently has to say about the hum. 
    Even more so, Dr. Nick Begich.


    a) At this moment, I’m not sure exactly whether to say RF or AF, as I’m beginning to suspect it could even possibly be a little of both!

    b) I’m somebody who never ever says never. 
    Just like technology, science and our understanding is evolving ‘quickly’, so nothing is proved or disproved here.

    In fact, with regard to auditory perception of the hum, there’s virtually no proof of anything, period!

    (Except perhaps the binaural beating question……?)

    c) Do you think it possible that ‘microwave’ could act as a carrier for a plethora of EM frequencies?

    d) You also mentioned Ultrasonic. 


    Now this I really like.



    3 down….Quite a few more to go!!

    I would suspect there are many more out there who would also like to offer their input?

    So, if Glen would afford this a little more time before ‘moving on’, it might be helpful.

    Thank you.

    • Gerry Said:

      “ a) At this moment, I’m not sure exactly whether to say RF or AF, as I’m beginning to suspect it could even possibly be a little of both!”

      As you likely suspect, the terms “AF” and “RF” could first be considered to refer to FREQUENCY RANGES with AF from about 15 Hz to 20,000 Hz and RF is like 500 kHz and above. [In between are, variously, ultrasonic (acoustic – mechanical) and VLF (etc.) for electromagnetic radiation.] Best of all, just state the range in Hz and whether you are talking about acoustic (“sound”; mechanical vibrations of air molecules) or electromagnetic (broadly – Radio).

      Almost always, the R in RF refers to Radio ; hence to an electromagnetic phenomenon while the A in AF refers to Audio, an acoustic phenomenon. The two should not be conflated, and a “mix” of both with a common receiver seems MOST unlikely.

      Gerry also said: “In fact, with regard to auditory perception of the hum, there’s virtually no proof of anything, period!
      (Except perhaps the binaural beating question……?)”

      You say “of anything”. A good deal is fairly well established. Why is “binaural beating” an exception!

      Gerry also said: “c) Do you think it possible that ‘microwave’ could act as a carrier for a plethora of EM frequencies?”

      No. Where is the modulator? Is there a de-modulator? Just what are you suggesting?

      • Gerry says:

        RE: Microwave as a carrier!

        Ok Bernie, 

        Could you then explain to me how high definition satellite television works?
        (ie. From transmission to receiver, what “energy” is utilised to make the entire mechanism happen and how the information is ‘carried’)

        In simple layman’s English if possible! 

        This way, a wider audience of ‘hum sufferers'(just like you!) might have some hope of understanding the finer technical details(of which I suspect you will excel in?)and in turn will not be 

        ****”””BAFFLED BY THE SCIENCE”””****

        Note: I think this is important Bernie, not everyone is literate in the finer mathematical essences that qualified academics at your level would be!

        Thank you,


      • Gerry asked:

        “In simple layman’s English if possible!”

        I don’t see that that is possible.

        Do you have a SPECIFIC question?


      • Gerry says:

        Thanks Bernie, I just thought I’d ask!

        I suspect the answer lies within frequency division multiplexing or some such,  but alas, I will need to do more research.

        To answer your question re ‘what exactly I’m suggesting’, I’ll simply cut to the chase and say in ‘layman’s terms’, that it is my opinion that human auditory perception of the hum is being caused by physiological interaction of a signal carried by a frequency travelling or buried deep within microwave energy transmitted via satellite (or similar!). 

        Somehow this frequency is being decoded within our auditory perception and a resonance effect is the end result..

        This ‘resonating end result’ is the hum!

        Note: Could this frequency be Ultrasonic in nature?

        So assuming what I’ve said is possible, then without doubt, the show must go on!

        (ie. Glen’s next experiment etc)


    • George G. says:


      Wiki was (and some would argue still is) a useful tool. Unfortunately there seems to be an element of bias and censorship taking control.

      This is unfortunate but obvious, and clear thinking people are starting to look elsewhere for quality unbiased information.

      • Gerry says:

        Yes George,

        I concur, anything that can be independently edited is definitely subject to ‘manipulation’, misinformation and censorship etc.

        So, If anyone thinks the information within the links that I have posted may be biased?
        By all means, please feel free to double or even triple reference with other sources as part of their own research.

        Thank you.

  7. Glen –

    I had to look up “Einstellung Effect” and I quite agree. With Winnie-the-Pooh on the mind, I remembered that it opened with the poor toy bear coming down the stairs, tugged by the leg by his owner, bumping his head against each step, and having no other experience, supposing that this was the ONLY WAY to get down. I missed WTP as a child myself, and it was only with my own daughter that I read it to her as she watched me laugh insanely.

    I also agree that Wiki can be and too often is a disaster. Either it is just wrong, or too simple, or way too complicated to even judge. When I was teaching not that long ago, we had a rule about using Wiki. If you used it, you had to reference it (academically, of course you HAD to) but the local rule was that you had to follow each such reference with a second totally independent source.


  8. George G. says:


    The attempt to record sound must procede.


    • George –

      And – Exactly (or roughly) HOW should we proceed?

      I was unable to detect/display any acoustic component (sound) of the Hum. You have seen my posted, detailed notes, What did I do wrong? What do you suggest I do next? The same things that did not work!

      Glen was unable to record the Hum he heard. Others concur.

      To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a successful recording. Where is there a display of even one cycle of the Hum?

      The philosophers say we can not PROVE the sound does NOT exist. But, conscientious efforts made, there is no positive evidence.

      Know when to fold – as they say.


      • Not so fast: I pulled a Zoom H4n out of the box and sat in my car, so that I could learn how to use the unit. I am pondering the purchase of a pair of high quality, high signal-to-noise ratio electret microphones in order to conduct a more valid test.

      • Glen – you SAID in the “Some Initial….” thread:

        “….The Hum, perceived by me at roughly 56.5 Hz, was very loud as I made the recording. . . . . . Perhaps the most important result from this is that when I listen to the recordings, I cannot hear the Hum in them. …..”

        IN ADDITION TO YOUR WORDS, I relied on the spectrograms you showed for us to evaluate. This (lower panel) is clean in the range of 30 Hz to 120 Hz (specifically including 56.5 Hz), with the exception of a two second broadband burst from 22 to 24 seconds where you bumped against the microphones of kicked the side of the car (or similar). Again – nothing. If it were “very loud” you could NOT have messed it IF IT REALLY WAS THERE.

        Even ignoring your own results (if you prefer), I could not plot it. Others also failed to record anything. I stand by my conjecture that no plots exist (if so, where), and no credible recordings exist (some insects, traffic noise, and AC hum, which barely resemble the Hum, and some admitted simulations).

        I don’t understand your reluctance to accept the very clear (lack of) evidence. Is it not time to move on? I think so.


      • You need to remember that the device I used was certainly far better than any cell phone microphone, but not sufficient to make any claims. I’m now worried that some people took my test spectrograms too seriously. No, it’s certainly not time to move on, because there have been numbers of people who have made recordings and did discover things. For example, Dr. Colin Novak, who led the Windsor study, used a pentangular array and was able to record low frequency and infrasonic peaks that others could not with the equipment they were using.

        Sometimes there is a chasm between what science can be and what it is. A serious university lab could solve this in a few weeks. I have few resources and limited time. Going deep in a mine costs nothing and might reveal something. Going into an anechoic chamber costs nothing and might also reveal something. In the end, I will do the experiments that I can afford and that will help put to bed certain theories. I think we’re reaching a point of diminishing returns on this topic.

      • JP says:

        Hi there,
        Regarding the recording of the hum I offer the following piece of information. I had an sound engineer recording the reverb inside our studio and were discussing the recording process as I was also then curious about making a recording of the hum. The sound guy had a fancy $1500 microphone that was very accurate. Yet he said that the microphone would not be able to nrecord a diswashee in the next room, eveb though peopöe could hear it easily. I am curious of trying to record.the hum, but unfortunately with this information I can’t go and buy ridiculously priced mics that are in the end not suitable for this kind of a task. Moreover I’m completely baffled as to what sort of setup might one possibly be able to record this.

  9. George G. says:


    Message received and understood.

    Please note your references were not under scrutiny.



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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: