Home » Uncategorized » Where are we at? Let’s review the state of Worldwide Hum Research

Where are we at? Let’s review the state of Worldwide Hum Research

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

Let’s recall that many readers are fairly new to this. So let’s summarize and bring them up to speed.

I don’t think any serious scholar of the Worldwide Hum claims that the clear answer has been found. I think there is a consensus developing that there may two or more independent factors that can cause people to hear/perceive low frequency sounds that have certain characteristics. Those properties are discussed at length elsewhere in this blog.

I identified four hypotheses that pass the most trivial examination. Each has difficulties. One or more of these may only be prerequisite factors, activated by some other condition or conditions.

  1. VLF Radio (3 kHz- 30 kHz) is the culprit. When I entered the VLF-Radio Blocking unit, which out of respect for the author of the concept I named the Deming Box, the Hum was loud and clear. Once my physics of skin depth are confirmed, and once a VLF meter proves the box does what I say it does, then this theory can be discarded if my result are replicated. Note that ELF radio (f < 3 kHz) must be ruled out as well.
  2. The Hum is the result of massive and widespread human activity that creates colossal levels of low frequency sound and infrasound. Busy freeways, for example, can generate sounds and vibrations that can travels for many miles, even further over water. Europe was the first place on Earth to have high density, high speed traffic through high densities of human population. The Hum started there, if the currently accepted history is correct. Soviet research noted that the sounds of surface mining can travel more than 10 km horizontally and at least three km deep. All manner of human activity generates these sounds, and there is the possibility that we have reached some type of acoustic critical mass of sound energy in some regions that can be detected by a subset of the population.
  3. Recent historical research and newspaper analysis (a fancy term for me reading on the internet) finds that there are reports from 19th century England of early seismologists hearing from witnesses who reported acoustic precursors as well as concomitant sounds associated with earthquakes and seismic activity. The Hum may be connected to such a geological or terrestrial process. There is a subset of the population which is profoundly more sensitive to low frequency sounds and infrasound. Members of many animal species have this sensitivity, and they act as a warning alarm for earthquakes.
  4. The Hum is internally generated, as are tinnitus and otoacoustic emissions. If acoustic and electromagnetic prerequisites can be ruled out, and if I find convincing historical evidence for the Worldwide Hum, then I think this becomes a very solid theory. As to why only a small proportion of the population can hear the Hum, these hearers may share an anatomical variation in the auditory system, for example. There is also the possibility that the Hum is indeed a relatively recent phenomenon but results from anthropogenic environmental factors, medication, and so on.

Because the World Hum Map and Database project works on a tiny budget, I can’t conduct the simple experiments that I’ve suggested on this blog. They can be conducted by amateurs who have the resources and motivation to do so. A serious university or private lab could unlock all this in a few months, but for years now we have moved along, inch by inch. Apart from some very rudimentary experimental results, one thing we have accomplished is widespread, mainstream media exposure and some degree of normalization.



  1. Gerry says:

    Re: Individual perceptual senses,  and some applied science to the hum.

    I just want to add a small point but one which I think is significant with regard to individual perception and the many thousand plausible reported experiences to be found via the map and research interface on this site.

    In the case of the hum, it currently can only be categorised ‘in science’ as a “perception” of a sound and it must be stated that there is a significant difference between a ‘perceived tone’ and an actual recordable ‘incoming to ear canal’ acoustic sinusoidal sound wave.

    Also, just because the ‘perceived tone’ is ‘comparable in hertz’ to an actual acoustic tone (in my case my perceptual ‘pitch match’ to the ‘regular’ hum monotone is 113hz), this does not mean that the tone is incoming to auditory perception as an acoustic sound at this low frequency/low energy level.

    Note: To recreate this ‘pitch match’ hum facsimile in hertz,  one can go to


    In fact, I strongly suspect and am now almost certain that the perceived tone is incoming to auditory perception at a ‘much higher energy level’ than one that might only generate an acoustic perceptual tone of 113hz(or similar) as the end result in auditory sensory awareness.

    (ie. The 113hz(or similar) facsimile generated comparison mentioned above is only an attempt to assign a perceptual tone to the hum using frequency generating apparatus, it should NOT be considered as a true representative of what might ‘actually’ be happening within the mechanisms of auditory perception when considering this mechanisms interaction with whatever might be creating what we call “the hum!”)

    My own take on this mechanism of energy transfer is to refer to the second law of thermodynamics as a proof of concept.

    (ie. Energy dispersal from one form to another… eg. High energy to low energy or in this instance, high energy/frequency sound ‘not perceived’ to low energy/frequency sound perception!)



    Also and while one might be considering this,  back in June and on an earlier thread under the heading”TARGETED INDIVIDUALS” etc,  I stated that I can personally manipulate the ‘perceived pitch of the hum’ by way of creating an ‘actual’ external noise.

    By simply tapping or even tipping something and creating an actual but barely audible physical sound, my auditory perception of the hums intensity/pitch momentarily ‘increases’ and then reverts back to standard.

    (Note: You will need to be in a “completely” silent location and be fully perceiving/detecting the hum at a high level to achieve these results!)

    (Also, I would welcome anyones thoughts who might be able to replicate the results of this simple test for themselves, by way of interaction on this thread!)

    This to me at least, offers proof that the facsimile comparison tone in hertz and the hum are not one and the same, in fact it suggests that the perceived frequency/sound(ie the hum!) is actual physical energy creating resonance and is affected by external sound, thus implying and further validating it “exists” and its source is external in origin.

    (ie. Tapping to create an external acoustic sound “increases” the intensity/pitch of the hum for a few seconds by way of interference, this implies that “positive” ‘action potential’ is now occuring within our auditory perception and this can only come about by positive ionic “energy transfer” after activation from an applied stimulus….. the stimulus in this case is the hums interaction with actual recordable physical acoustic energy, which in turn implies that the hum is itself a perception of “externally applied physical energy” as the hum alone and without any interference is also acting as ‘its own’ action potential stimulus!)



    Note: I am now working on a ‘plausible’ theory on what exactly might be causing this ‘intensity/pitch increase’.

    Finally,  I have already mentioned on yet another previous thread that I believe the hum is “INCOMING to our auditory senses” by way of ULTRASOUND carried from an EXTERNAL source.

    (Source yet to be fully determined!)

    Note: This is consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and supports action potential by way of a stimulus from an “external energy input!”

    (Eg. High energy ultrasound input to low energy, low frequency sound perception!)

    So and to conclude for now, I’m wondering is ULTRASOUND being researched/considered here or might anyone else ‘outside of this research medium’ be currently considering this as a possibility for being the energy source which is ultimately creating the perceived “hum” resonance within our auditory perceptual awareness?

    If so, it would be potentially valuable to hear from you!

    Thank you.

  2. Charlie says:

    Well I’ve been wondering about infrasound – why not ultrasound too!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_from_ultrasound is interesting. Though it’s hard to imagine what its source could be.

    • Gerry says:

      Imagine no more Charlie.




      So… strap a more advanced derivative of this technology to a satellite, use a multitude of options to ‘carry’ or ‘beam’ your ultrasonic frequency to any part of the globe as a surveillance tool…

      (Which I can also explain!)

      Hey presto ten thousand(and rising) hum sufferers perceiving an ultrasonic hum resonance generated within their auditory awareness as a consequence! 

      You do the maths!

      Also, It might be worth consulting Woody Norris to see if he can throw any more “light” on this subject or even perhaps if he would like to help us with an “experiment” to recreate the hum in our perpetual awareness using this most likely now “outdated” technology.

      Eg. See yet another one of Woody’s inventions:


      (Note: This particular video gets “spicey” after about 2 minutes or so!!)


      But I do like his chopper in video 2, I would imagine this might be a refreshing way to escape the hum and enjoy life for a while!!



      • Fascinating videos, but your speculation goes well beyond the technology he describes.

      • Gerry says:

        I could dispute this with you for hours Glen, but perhaps it might be worth allowing ‘many’ others to offer their opinions also.



      • I was referring to the notion of “beaming” sound from orbit. That doesn’t seem to make sense to me. Sound waves don’t travel through a vacuum. Or maybe you meant something else.

      • Gerry says:

        On a carrier Glen.

        Microwave for one, or perhaps laser?

        The mechanism is called Heterodyning I believe?

        Old technologies which are advancing exponentially, so I would imagine this has evolved over the years too!

        All on the web for research should anyone be interested.

        Buckets of it!


      • You may recall from a number of previous posts that microwaves and other EM waves at higher frequencies are easily blocked by the thinnest layer of foil. Therefore microwaves, smart meters, cell phone towers, and so on cannot be the direct source of the Hum. Again, maybe I missed something.

      • Gerry says:

        I’m no expert Glen, but I would suspect the answer lies here(or similar!)


        I would imagine tinfoil would not present a challenge to those who might be determined to overcome it, should it be necessary to achieve an objective such as this ‘speculation!’

        But regardless, why is Ultrasound not being considered here, seen as these videos clearly show very ‘quirky’ techniques that Woody so eloquently describes in his presentations, all of which bear a remarkable similarity to just what we are perceiving!

        ie… a sound that only perhaps one or sometimes two people(as in my case!) can perceive in their homes or elsewhere as they move around!!

        I just think that this is as close to a technology that “may” be related to the hum as you are most likely to find…

        Yet, it doesn’t even seem to be warranting consideration,  meanwhile absolutely every other consideration is going by the wayside!!


      • Perhaps you saw something in those videos that I missed. I saw nothing that resembles what most of us are experiencing. Perhaps you could refer to the specific point in the video(s) that support what you are suggesting. Note: most people who comment here regularly do have their own perspectives and lines of pursuit, but we tend to have reasonably open minds, right up to the point where claims directly contradict easily demonstrable and repeatable cannons of science. I have no problem at all with somebody claiming that they are being targeted, but the instant I hear any nonsense about the Hum being caused by microwaves, satellite K bands, smart meters and so on, that’s the end of the discussion for me. For me to take any theory seriously, there has to be some proposed mechanism for it, even if that mechanism refers generally, in any sort of plausible way, to some aspect of the auditory system, for example. Ultrasound makes absolutely no sense to me, given what I know about ultrasound and the experience of tens of thousands of people who have reported to me.

      • Gerry says:

        I’m not sure I understand your sentiments by reply here either. 

        I think perhaps you might be reacting too hastily to dismiss something ‘out of hand’ just because it doesn’t agree with your interpretations of science.

        The videos are very clear to me and “I DO” see striking similarities with what I’m perceiving, and there is a multitude of specific points to be found within them that I believe to be significant.

        Again, I appreciate that you took the time to set up this site to create a medium such as this, but I consider it very wrong to dismiss any theory that anyone may be offering before giving everyone a solid chance to formulate an opinion of their own and express themselves. 

        Though I’m now doubtful ‘anyone will’ on these points, on account of your escalated disputes here with regard to my input?

        Ultrasound is as good an explanation for the hum as any at this juncture. 

        Lots of conflicting thechnologies out there at present. 

        (Not all humane either!) 

        Lots to be considered.

      • Everyone is allowed his or her opinion here, up to the point where serious redundancy sets in or where I think things have gone a bit off the rails. You’ve expressed your speculation without censorship, and others, including myself, are free to respond to it.

  3. Gerry says:

    Acknowledged Glen and I fully agree.


  4. Charlie says:

    Very interesting videos. And I think I can see how that type of technology could be used to transmit a hum like sound in a narrow beam over a certain distance.

    However its still speculation as to whether ‘they’ have advanced this technology to the degree that the ultrasound signal could be broadcast over large areas of the planet.

    How old is this technology? Do Hum reports pre date it? I have no idea, but it would be relevant.

    But mostly I really wonder why anyone would want to go to all the time.trouble and expense just to broadcast an annoying humming sound.

    I noticed that you get about 113 Hz for the Hum, I get 126Hz. These figures are a bit higher than the 50 -60 Hz that often seems to be reported. I have Meniere’s and I have wondered if this doesn’t affect my perception of the Hum. It’s a bit of a personal question, but do you suffer from any hearing disorders?


    • Gerry says:


      I suspect the humming sound is a physiological reaction to the technology that creates it.

      A symptom if you will. 

      It’s a speculation to say ‘definitively’ that this might be deliberate, though the hum reaction could be a simple “”bonus”” for any intelligence gathering agency that might want to do this.

      (ie.. psychological torture by way of knowing the target is ‘suffering’ by the incessant disruption to their hearing—and let’s face it, **suffering** is what the vast majority of people are experiencing who perceive this tone—also, this works within the constraints of the well documented ‘dusk till dawn’ vamping up of the tone, implying that disruption to sleep might have a more sinister explanation than at first realised!!?)

      “If” this is a ‘targeted surveillance’ technology by a ‘third party’, then I suspect the technology might be simple eavesdropping by way of searching for an acoustic signature within the structure of a building.

      (Note: This might explain why I notice a pitch change when I make a tapping sound—the hum is constant,  then increases slightly to reflect uploading of the detected sound to a source—- you will not notice this pitch increase during regular conversations etc—but “I do” detect this pitch increase as I’ve already explained!)

      Acoustic physical sound reverberates off glass and can be detected this way, this is a known surveillance technique and governments around the world use countermeasures to stop it within buildings where top level privacy is required, though taking this to a global perspective via a satellite interface or similar is a whole different ball game and I fully accept this. 

      However, considering global terrorism threats today and how paranoid government military intelligence services must be towards these threats,  I do not for an instance think that a fully automated eavesdropping system such as this to be either illogical or impossible given the level of technology that now exists.  

      In fact, I would surmise that if it is possible,  a surveillance technique such as this ‘speculation’ would be widespread and government military intelligence agencies ‘would do it in a heartbeat’ to gain the upper hand on any potential international threat that they may suspect might be.

      To answer your other questions,  I first pitch matched the hum at circa 57 hertz which I have pointed out and explained clearly in a previous thread.

      It was during a more intensive revisit to this that I realised the pitch was incorrect.

      Also, I have no hearing issues as I have had a clear MRI scan and hearing test to confirm same.

      (See my first post back in June.) 

      Finally, I personally have followed a long line of deduction to come to this ‘speculation’ and it is not some notion that I have randomly pulled out of the air.

      When I first posted back in June, you will clearly see that I did not mention targeting or similar whatsoever. 

      In fact, at that stage this ‘speculation’ was a million miles off ‘my radar!!’

      If you then follow my subsequent postings as they have evolved here on these forums, you might also notice that my thoughts have only deviated slightly as my own personal quest to find a source has intensified over and within this time frame.

      Currently I’m now considering targeting as an extreme possibility, as everything from within my own personal experience with the hum from “perception to research to deduction” is pointing to this as a clear favourite,  though I’m fully open to the possibility that I’m wrong and have absolutely no problem ‘whatsoever’ should this be the case! 

      In fact, I hope I’m wrong…. but at this moment in time, it sure doesn’t feel like it!!


  5. Charlie says:

    I’ve heard about how they can use vibrations in windows to remotely detect the sounds (speech) in a room, and I’ve now seen a bit of what they can do with ultrasound. But for me it seems too early to say that those types of technologies could be used in mass or targetted eavesdropping.

    I have never had any reason to suspect that I am being targetted, and I’m curious to know why it is that you see it as at least a possibility.

    57 Hz is about half of 113 Hz. As I’ve posted somwhere else I get 126 with 63 and 252 Hz. It’s starting to sound like harmonics might be involved with some people’s perception of the Hum.

    Thanks for revealing your ear history to me. I was beginning to wonder if ear problems such as mine were responsible for the my greater perception of harmonics. I might shelve that idea for the moment.


    • Gerry says:

      Perhaps the source or sources are sending ‘ultrasound'(as now being ‘debated’ in this thread! ) out at different frequencies to different locations, thus the discrepancies within individual perceptual awareness???

      Or perhaps geographic location determines the perceptual frequency ‘pitch match’ that can be obtained using a facsimile representative of this interruption to our auditory senses??—- thus validating your harmonic theory(in fact, I think both of these thoughts might support your, what one might call, ‘the variant harmonic theory!’). 

      Also, I’m curious as to 

      1) why you might think it’s too early to consider selective targeting at this juncture, seen as the first ‘significant’ reports pertaining to the hum started back in the “70’s!!!!  ?


      2) why you “WOULD NOT” be considered a target by a government controlled intelligence agency running a computer mathematical algorithm analysing your every movement and tracking your every email, social media post and input to something as vast and as interconnected as the world wide web???

      Just consider this for a second Charlie, there are a multitude of reasons why you might ‘spike’ a third party generated computer algorithms interest, far more I would suspect than why you “would not!!!”

      (ie.. this is exactly what these computer algorithms search for….your input to the web,  nothing else!!!!)

      Note: when considering a computer generated mathematical algorithm operated/controlled by a third party, one might think of hacks and computer viruses as a known working and proven example!

      I welcome your thoughts in response and thank you for taking the time to consider mine.


      • yewie56 says:

        Gerry, do you know, that ultrasonic acustic waves can relative easy be attenuated by isolation barriers like mineralic wool or comparables.
        If you think, that ultrasonic waves are your problem, then another deming box – the one equiped with acustic absorber materials must show a relative difference.
        On the other side i hope, that you know that lowfrequency (longwave) acustic sound can only be very hard attenuated by ANY isolation material!

      • Gerry says:

        Interesting Yewie 56.

        Though as I’ve said before, I believe the ultrasound is being ‘carried’ to its target ‘before’ it interfaces with physical matter.

        But if mineral wool/tin foil etc or similar can ‘save the day’, then I’m all for it!!

        Regardless, I think your thoughts regarding retrial of the deming box pertaining to same are surely worth trying!

        Also, as I explained at the top of the thread, I do not believe this is a ‘low energy’ frequency/sound etc, as in my opinion, the physical interaction and subsequent reaction to our auditory senses through ‘action potential’ simply doesn’t reflect the ‘energy’ level required to create this tone.

        Also, many other people ‘to include myself’  have now reported other ‘associated’ phenomena as a consequence of the hum, which in my opinion(and I’m sure theirs too!) points to a higher energy level incoming to auditory perception as the potential culprit!

        So to me and for now at least, Ultrasound works as a “potential cause” for this disruption/intrusion to our auditory perception. 

        Thank you.

      • yewie56 says:

        Gerry, i do not understand very well:
        At one side you said, that it must be a “high energy” sound (is that right?)
        and at the other side because our auditory must not reflect the ‘energy’ level required to percept an auditory signal, even very small levels are sufficient to percept such an auditory signal?
        Very small levels of ultrasonic waves triggers similary digitally on/off the perception of low frequency auditory effects.
        Do you mean, that 1,8GHz to 2.6GHz is ultrasonic?

      • Surprisingly, Hypersound is quite easy to understand


        It is a demodulation due to the non-linearity of air in space and very high ultrasound levels. But demodulation due to a non-linearity has been around since the first crystal-set radios! Beaming is just ordinary sound beaming using ultrasound.

        Still it is sound, and any massively disruptive schemes to generate a Hum for thousands of victims would require immense infrastructure due to limited range and massive amounts of energy.

        A similar process with microwaves is even less likely, for the energy reasons (how would the energy get up to the satellites?), and the fact that the “aether” can not be driven to a non-linearity like air can.


  6. yewie56 says:

    Ok, at one assumption i would like to support Gerry absolute.
    What measurements of technical acoustic sensors (microphones, microbarometers, microbarographs, geophones and of course “microflown” look here: http://www.microflown.com/products/standard-probes/usp-regular.html) must NOT reflect anything, what we can hear!

    It is one of the most interesting effects that are described by HG Leventhall “Low frequency noise and annoyance” here: http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2004;volume=6;issue=23;spage=59;epage=72;aulast=Leventhall

    ” … The lowest frequencies must be at a higher level than other frequencies in order to become audible but, once they are audible, their annoyance INCREASES RAPIDLY. For example, the scale rating range at 4Hz is about 10dB between extremes of annoyance. 8Hz and 16Hz have a 20dB range, whilst 31.5Hz has nearly 40dB range. The 1000Hz comparison, which is for an octave band of noise, has a range of nearly 60dB. These findings are important, as they confirm that the hearing contours are reflected in annoyance, although loudness and annoyance are not necessarily the same. [Figure – 3] gives averages for 18 subjects with normal hearing. …”
    Look very accurately on this Figure 3.
    It shows, that annoyance of low frequency sound has an overproportional effect compared to higher frequencies. It seems, that our hearing switches digitally between heavy annoyance and nothig to hear only by VERY small level differencies.(10dB is very small in the near of the auditory threshhold, the hysteresis there is much bigger)
    And this implicates, that conventional acustic measurement devices can NOT reflect our ANNOYANCE of low frequency noise.
    This could be the cause, why our heared hum can not be measured. because the classification of weighting levels are unclear.

    OK, if WE can find a new classification scheme of these technical measurable levels compared to our annoyance. Then we can measure it! But only then!
    Thus to all who said it must by an autogenerated sound by our body, especially Bernie … 🙂

    • George G. says:

      Hi Yewie56,

      I have just browsed microflown.com

      Unbelievable technology. How I would love to play with some of that gear.

      And they claim they can locate an infrasound source in half a day?

      We have to get our hands on one of those beauties.

      Glen, what about trading in your recorder and D Box for one of those microflown units?


      Back to what you are saying about lower frequencies being particularly annoying. You have hit the nail right on the head.

      Loud party music late at night, and what seems to travel longer, louder and extra-annoying?

      The bloody bass! Thump thump thump. Drives right through you. Relentless.

      Just like The Hum.

      Audio is still in the race, it would seem.

      Kurt, your turbine power generators and ship engines are looking better each day mate.

      Likewise Jim’s rail yards full of idling V12 diesel locos.

      • yewie56 says:

        Sorry, but there is a little drawback of the microflown devices: They need higher acustic levels. For battlefield localisation it is sensitive enough.
        But a trial by nederlands to localise a hum source (they had used a infrasound generator in the testset) it was not sensible enough. Therefore do not hope too much ….

    • Charlie says:

      I can see how there could be a difference between A-weighted sound measurement and our perception of annoyance at various sound frequencies and pressures.

      But regardless of how it’s measured, the Hum does sometimes appear to me to be loud enough to be somewhat annoying. And if a 50 – 120 Hz sound is loud enough to be called annoying then my guess would be that a good quality mic would probably be able to pick it up.


  7. Charlie says:

    The reason I think it’s too early (for me) to say that they can use ultrasound technology to target individuals is that I’ve seen no real evidence that they can actually do this. At the moment it’s really still speculation.

    I’m not sure that the fact the Hum may have been around since the 1970’s means that it has been/is used for surveillance purposes. If this were the case, it’d mean that 1970’s technologies were capable of this type of thing. Which seems to me to be even less likely than their being able to do that type of stuff today.

    Targeting me would be a waste of time and money, I’m not a criminal or a terrorist. I think that whoever was charged with monitoring my life would have a pretty boring job. Needless to say there are plenty of crooks here in Australia. This type of technology would be far more useful in monitoring them. But I’ve seen nothing that suggests that the police or the various security services are able to do this.

    Or to put it another way – there’s 565 million people in North America. If 2% of them are being personally monitored, that’d be 11,300,000 people under individual surveillance. I can’t see how the govt. could find the manpower etc. to run a scheme like that.

    That’s not to say that ultrasound isn’t involved in some mysterious way with the Hum, but at the moment there doesn’t seem much to suggest (to me) that it is.

    But I’m a natural skeptic, and to be honest I’m a little skeptical of all the ideas I’ve read so far concerning the source of the Hum.

    One last thing, the harmonics stuff that I’ve mentioned isn’t a theory but just a personal observation. I’m not sure yet if others have experienced the same thing.


    • Gerry says:

      So , back to binaural sound…

      And a mechanism to use two sound frequencies to produce one and it’s possible relationship to the world wide hum:

      Eg. Acoustic heterodyne device and method.

      US patent : 5,889,8870


      Inventor: Elwood G Norris

      Or Woody Norris as shown above in videos!

      So, for a ‘very’ quick synopsis:

      Note,  I’m trying to keep this as short and as simple as possible but Woody’s patent is sheer genius and takes a rather long time to read!!

      Here are some of my thoughts to begin with:

      Ultrasonic broadcasted/beamed Wave trains:

      Let’s just say that the first undetectable ultrasonic wave train is 100,113 hz and the second undetectable wave train is 100,000 hz  and both are ‘somehow’ entering my home and on into my auditory perceptual ‘tranducer'( ie the basilar membrane?)…

      An audible tone of 113hz is detected.

      That’s mine!

      In your case Charlie, you could be getting two Ultrasonic wave trains of 100,126 & 100,000 hz, so you’re perceiving the hum at 126hz.

      Glen, you could be getting hit by two ultrasonic wave trains of 100,056.5 hz & 100,000 hz, so your perceiving the hum at 56.5 hz..

      Bernie, I’ve forgotten what yours is, but I know you’re somewhere in this ball park!

      Though, I suspect there are most likely only two common ultrasonic heterodyned beamed or broadcast wave trains(in hertz!) to within all of our respective locations and this is causing the interference by way of the final combined sound perception in our auditory perceptual awareness mechanism (A.K.A ‘The Hum!).

      (ie.. we just simply haven’t pitch matched the interference correctly!)

      Or the two beamed/broadcast heterodyned ultrasonic wave trains could differ by way of a geographical location as I hinted at earlier with the help of Charlies ‘variant harmonic theory!!! 

      Or it could be something unique to each countrys chosen two frequencies for ‘broadcasting’ these two Ultrasonic heterodyned wave trains!!!

      Now,  and with relief this also allows scope for ‘another’ technology that may be doing this to our ‘auditory perceptual awareness’ beyond my initial suspicions by way of suggesting that these two wave trains are simply being broadcast for something else entirely and those of us who perceive the hum are simply able to detect it or are simply just getting in the way of them!!!!

      (Though at this juncture, selective targetting can’t still be fully ruled out!!!)

      See   16

      0 – 15

      An interesting twist of the invention is a reverse application of the technology for sound detection. In other words, instead of reproducing sound, the invention might be used to detect sound as shown in FIG. 12. More specifically, the invention can function as a substitute for a point-source sound detection device such as a microphone. Typically, a microphone must be physically positioned at a desired location of sound detection in order to operate. The present invention enables compression waves to be converted into an electrical signal by a transducer without providing a physical microphone element at a detection location. Essentially, a single transducer 20 might be used to focus ultrasonic compression waves at the desired detection location. Acoustical vibrations, such as a voice or music, will interact with the ultrasonic compression wave. By monitoring a decrease in output level of the ultrasonic compression wave, it should be possible to determine the frequencies of the audible compression wave which is impacting on the ultrasonic compression Wave.


      Why not test for these “two ultrasound wave trains” and measure for them using an audio spectrum analyser(as Woody suggests in his patent!!) and then afterwards we simply go track down the source!

      Ref: 10 

      5 – 15

      It is worth noting before proceeding further that the acoustical heterodyning effect has been proven empirically. The evidence lies in the fact that at least one new wave is created. The new sonic or subsonic compression wave is verifable by direct audible detection as well as by measuring the frequency with an audio spectrum analyser. However, unlike direct audible detection, the sum of both frequencies can only be verifed through measurement using an instrument such as the audio spectrum analyser. Both the sum and the difference have been measured to verify the accuracy of these predicted results. 




      Ref: 10

      15 – 30

      As can be surmised, the particular acoustical heterodyning effect Which is of interest to the present invention is the difference or frequency subtraction of one ultrasonic Wave train relative to another. Consider a specific example Which explicitly provides the result of acoustically heterodyning two different ultrasonic compression waves assume the existence of a first ultrasonic frequency Wave train (first fundamental Wave) of 100,000 HZ. Assume a second ultrasonic Wave train (second fundamental Wave) occurs at 100,900 HZ. An audible tone of 900 HZ is heard as the result of the first and the second ultrasonic Wave trains interacting when one or both are of sufficient amplitude. The frequency subtraction caused by the acoustical heterodyning effect results in a 900 HZ frequency tone being generated and heard as a new compression wave from a ****””region of interference””****. 

      And some more:

      Wave train from a region of air as a by-product of modulating a single ultrasonic wave train emitted from a single ultrasonic transducer into the region in accordance with the principles of acoustical heterodyning. The present invention is embodied in a system which indirectly generates new sonic or subsonic Waves trains. In one embodiment, a new sonic or subsonic Wave train is emitted from a region of interference of at least two ultra sonic Wave trains emitted from at least two ultrasonic transducers. The principle of operation is based on incorporating ****””retrievable intelligence””**** onto an ultrasonic carrier Wave. 

      The intelligence is retrieved as the desirable by-product of interference of the ultrasonic carrier wave train and another ultrasonic wave train. The ultrasonic wave trains interfere within a region of non-linearity in accordance with principles identified by the inventor as “acoustical heterodyning,” and thereby generate by-products which include the difference and the sum of the two ultrasonic wave trains. A system which easily demonstrates the principle of acoustical heterodyning comprises two ultrasonic frequency transducers which are oriented so as to cause interference between emitted ultrasonic wave trains. When the difference in frequency between the two ultrasonic wave trains is in the sonic or subsonic frequency range, the difference in frequency is generated as a new, audible sonic or new subsonic wave train emanating outward from within the region of heterodyning interference. A different embodiment of the system provides the advantage of being comprised of only one ultrasonic direct radiating element. The advantage is not only in the decreased amount of hardware, but the perfect alignment of the two interfering ultrasonic wave trains because they are emitted from the same radiating element. In effect, the new sonic or subsonic wave train appears to be generated directly from the ultrasonic emitter. If it were not for the inescapable conclusion that the ultrasonic emitter cannot itself generate sonic or subsonic frequencies, plus the audible evidence that the sound is not emanating directly from the emitter, one might be deceived. The importance of the first embodiment is that it teaches the concept of generating a new sonic or subsonic wave train as a result of the interference between two ultrasonic wave trains in accordance with the principles of acoustical heterodyning. In essence, it is easier to see that two ultrasonic wave trains are coming from two ultrasonic emitters. But the principle of acoustical heterodyning taught by this first embodiment prepares the way for understanding how the second embodiment functions. It becomes apparent that the same acoustical heterodyning principle applies when it is understood which wave trains are interfering in space. A key aspect of the invention is the discovery that by superimposing sonic or subsonic intelligence onto an ultra sonic carrier wave, this intelligence can be retrieved as a new sonic or subsonic wave train. Whether the ultrasonic wave trains are generated from two emitters or from a single emitter, the effect is the same. Another aspect of the invention is the indirect generation of new compression waves without having to overcome the problems inherent to mass and the associated limitations of inertia of a conventional direct radiating element. The present invention eliminates a direct radiating element as the source of a new compression wave so that the desired sound is generated directly from a region of air and without the several forms of distortion all associated with direct radiating speakers. Another aspect which is helpful to utilise the present invention is to understand the nature of the transmission medium. More specifically, the region of air in which an acoustical heterodyning effect occurs is referred to as the transmission medium. It is well known that the transmission medium of air provides an elastic medium for the propagation of sound waves. Thus, prior art research has treated air as a passive element of the sound reproduction process. Air simply waits to be moved by a compression wave. 

      Consequently, little practical attention has been devoted to the nature of air when it behaves non-linearly. In the past, such non-linearity has perhaps been perceived as an obstacle to accurate sound reproduction. This is because it is understood by those skilled in the art that in extreme conditions, air molecules are less and less able to follow the vibration of a compression wave, such as that produced by a diaphragm. Therefore, the tendency of research has been to avoid non-linear conditions. In contrast, the present invention appears to favor the existence of a non-linear transmission medium in order to bring about the required heterodyning effect. Although air is naturally non-linear when a compression wave moves through it, the degree of non-linearity is relatively unobservable or inconsequential. However, When ultrasonic compression waves are emitted so as to interfere in air, the non-linearity causes a surprising and unexpected result which will be explained and referred to as the acoustical heterodyning effect or process. 

      The present invention draws on a variety of technologies and aspects which have sometimes perceived as unrelated topics. These aspects of the invention include 1) indirectly generating a new sonic, subsonic or ultrasonic compression wave, ****””2) superimposing intelligence on an ultrasonic carrier wave and retrieving the intelligence as the indirectly generated compression wave,””**** 3) causing at least two ultrasonic compression waves to interact in air and using the by-product of the interference.(eg. THE HUM!) 4) using the principle of acoustical heterodyning to indirectly generate the new compression Wave, 5) generating the new compression wave from a relatively massless radiating element to avoid the distortion and undesirable harmonics of conventional direct radiating elements, 6) ****affecting a physical state of a “””living being”””**** by generating subsonic frequencies in close proximity thereto, 7) generating an approximate point-source of sound that is phase coherent over the entire audio spectrum, 8) eliminating distortion in playback or broadcasting of sound, 9) eliminating the “beaming” phenomenon inherent in emission of high frequency compression Waves from a direct radiating element, 10) generating a new sonic or subsonic compression wave which is independent of the characteristics of the direct radiating element, and 11) the detection of sound Without using a direct detection device at a detection location. ****”””It should be remembered that all of these aspects of the present invention are possible without using a speaker or other form of direct radiating structure””””.****+****”Furthermore, these sonic or subsonic frequencies are generated absolutely free of distortion and in a generally omni-directional orientation”****. The surprising result is the ability to recreate “pure” sound in the same form as when it was originally captured at a microphone or other recording system. These and other objects, features, advantages and alter native aspects of the present invention Will become apparent to those skilled in the art from a consideration of the following detailed description, taken in combination With the accompanying drawings. 

      For these drawings and absolutely everything else, See Woody’s patent:



      Ps. And as an alternative to trying to measure Ultrasound. 

      We could always talk to Woody directly and ask for his assistance(as I’ve already suggested!!!), the man seems perfectly reasonable to me and I’m sure

      he’d be more than willing to help us out here!!!!


      • Charlie says:

        If you can create ‘pure sound’ from an apparent point source in this way, wouldn’t it also be possible to record it using a normal microphone?

        If the answer is ‘yes’ it could be a bit of a problem, because AFAIK no one so far has managed to make a convincing sound recording of the Hum.


  8. Gerry says:

    Gentlemen, I think it’s fair to say that this is ultimately yet another speculation and until proven, it’s nothing more.

    Perhaps I’m guilty of causing a storm in a tea cup with this particular issue and should this be the case, I will be very relieved to know I could be wrong here and that ‘big brother’ isn’t watching or listening to me or any of the rest of us! 


    Finally,  I do feel that Glen has gone to great lengths focusing on his primary areas of research and has clearly demonstrated a deep resolve at his own personal expense to conduct a multitude of genuine experiments to find the source and cause of the hum.

    His work ethic and devotion to finding the ‘actual’ cause of this disruption to our auditory senses speak for themselves and when weighed up against his other duties and time constraints,  I believe everything he has done to date is ‘immensely admirable’. 

    I think perhaps it’s time to let the man complete his own research, physical experiments and get back to the ‘brass tacks’ of resolving this issue. 

    Maybe in time, this topic could present itself again in perhaps another shape or form, or maybe it won’t. 

    But for now at least,  I personally wish to see Glen move on with his ‘already documented process of research’ and genuinely do not wish to hold it back in any way whatsoever. 

    Best wishes to you all.



  9. Ian says:

    Just a quick one:
    Do noise cancelling earphones work? Has anybody tried them? If they don’t work then is this for the same reason as not being able to record it? Lack of sensitivity of the equipment or that it is not an external sound?

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: