That struck a chord?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread322096/pg1
http://www.myspace.com/bobbylavignesproject432
What we need is a speaker capable of really pumping up the volume, positioned so precisely that ALL the people hear, all around a geometric sphere, like a voice in your head.
We need to kick them right in their goebels.
Fibonacci is king
NOTEPAD for RANDOM IDEAS
-
greggvizza
- Senior Cadet
- Posts: 483
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 3:01 pm
Wendy Carlos
Retuning the whole keyboard from A=440 to A=438 is a simple 10 second operation, but undoing the equal temperment is practially impossible.
There is only one modern musician that I am aware of that has attempted undoing the equally temperd scale and that is Wendy Carlos on an album titled - Beauty In The Beast
http://www.wendycarlos.com/+bitb.html
http://www.amazon.com/Beauty-Beast-Wend ... B0000516UW
I have not heard it yet but I am eventually going to have to purchase it.
1986 Interview with Wendy Carlos
http://www.wendycarlos.com/cochran.html
Following are a few small excerpts from the above link:
EM: What about the way you've jettisoned standard scales?
WC: About the time I began the current record Stoney finally unbuttoned the frequency tables in the Synergy, so I wrote a bunch of custom control software that made it possible to retune the instrument. That's something I've wanted to do for a long time. A digital instrument is a natural for microtonal tuning because you can be precise to any degree you need and also repeatable. It's idiotic that Western music has remained such a slave to a tempering system which evolved 300 years ago as a satisfactory compromise. We don't need the compromise anymore. We can begin to work in areas that up to now have been forbidden because we only had the equal-tempered scale. Where these steps may lead is anyone's guess.
How important these new areas will be I don't know. We'll have to find out. I do feel they have become very important areas to explore, and that their implications transcend me as a human being and a composer and an artist. They're bigger than any one person. These ideas have to be disseminated. They mustn't become a quaint personal system, like Harry Partch's, but must get taken as much for granted as people now take synth work and multi-track recording. These areas are so rich with possibilities, they are an ideal way to get pop, classical, jazz and contemporary music out of the cul-de-sacs they're all in, that I feel I could easily become so filled with messianic zeal I'd probably hate myself.
EM: With all possible timbres, and all possible tunings, where do you begin?
WC: When you're given all possibilities, you're in a worse position than you were before. It's a perfect way to drown. In fact, you've really chosen to drown in the middle of a very large ocean. Several oceans. And there's not even a floating log nearby; you've discarded all that. But there just isn't any way art can work outside of a discipline... Stravinsky's wonderful comment when people asked him how he felt about working on a ballet with Balanchine, because the form was rather restrictive, was "I love exact specifications." That's how it is with all art. It works best when there are limits. Quite probably my earlier records were aided greatly by the fact that they were done while working within very narrow regions of possibility.
EM: You mentioned you'd been interested in alternate tunings for a long time. When did you first start?
WC: Oh, way back in my teens, probably from reading some magazine articles. When I was 16, I bought a piano-tuning hammer and wedges and began retuning my parent's spinet piano in all manner of unorthodox tunings, trying to find out what some of these things I'd read about sounded like (you couldn't then find records with these things on them). In college I got involved in musique concrete pieces with retuned pianos and arbitrarily tuned sine waves and stuff like that. Nothing very profound. But I got inspired to put together a series of special reference tapes with a physicist friend. We had access to several very expensive audio oscillators in a Brown University laboratory, test devices worth several thousand dollars, and we'd go in and tune one to a 440 Hz reference signal broadcast by short-wave radio station WWV, then tune another against it until an oscilloscope pattern told us we'd reached the particular ratio of our choice. Then we'd tape that.
We ended up with a library of something under 100 pitches in an octave, all of which were derived from pure thirds and fifths. Most of the pro tape machines of the day tended to run at pretty much the same speed all the time-if they did vary from day to day it was within the limits of our precision--so we spliced some leader ahead of the recorded strips, labeled them, and from then on whenever we wanted to do any precise intervals or ratios we would use the strips as tuning references. The technology was never intended for this purpose, but there was just no other way to make the empirical tests necessary to take intellectual ideas about tuning and turn them into something that might have practical and pragmatic value. Even then I knew that you have to have a practical application. If there's no way to use something in a real musical context, who cares?
EM: After that?
WC: Well, I readjust about every book on the subject, but after college it wasn't until 1984 that I started experimenting with tunings again. I did have other things going. But when I came back to tuning it was as a gleeful child in a candy store. After Moonscapes I listened to a lot of ethnic records, deciding what direction I wanted to take the new album. I'd sit and try to play along with some of the different scales, but the equal-tempered scale didn't fit very well. It was driving me crazy. I tried minor variations. I even explored quarter-tone scales, but these were even less musically useful than equal-temperment and I'm amazed that so many musicians have bothered to explore them.
Anyway, in July 1984, bingo, Stoney presented us with some new chips and said look-in-there-at-byte-so-and-so, perform a write-read, and you'll get the pitch table. At the time, I didn't have any idea what it did, but I pulled out all the numbers, dumped them into the Hewlett Packard 9825, and fiddled around with them until I figured out how to do some things. There was a small section of 12 x 2 byte values that the Synergy actually used for tuning, with all the values for all the other octaves derived from those through 2:1 (octave) ratios. I found the way to convert those from Hertz into cents, wrote a piece of software that slowly grew and grew and grew but finally made it possible, after much hassle and lots of math and tricks, to move the notes individually with a resolution of about 1.5 cents. It made it very easy to set up all kinds of WHAT-IF situations. For example, one piece on the new album, 'Just Imaginings," was based on asking WHAT IF all the notes of the scale were tuned to represent the closest natural harmonic overtones from a single fundamental. That means you have to store the overtone series for every key-note with which you want to work. I wound up with an array of 12 times 12 (144) different pitches in the octave, each of which represents a pattern of the 12 closest-fit partials to a particular fundamental. You play the piece by starting in one key and then as you move along to another, you hit a reference key on a special little keyboard and it instantly retunes the whole instrument.
The last part of this track ends by going through the entire cycle of 12 pitches-the "circle of fifths," if you will-except all in perfect tuning. That's one of the things you aren't supposed to be able to do, which is exactly why I did it! The nice thing about this Harmonic Scale, as I call it, as opposed to normal just intonation, is that you can put down a cluster, just play anything, like a three-year-old kid, and it will always be in tune. The accompaniment at the end is a continuous cluster. Every note remains down, but from moment to moment all the notes are slightly retuned to match whatever note the melody and bass is playing, so the same cluster always harmonizes the melody perfectly.
EM: You actually started dispensing with the octave entirely, then?
WC: After the album was recorded I started exploring tunings in a more analytical fashion, using the Hewlett-Packard 9825 and some programs I wrote to plot the "fit" of different intervals as you change the number or size of equal steps in an octave. Twelve steps in an octave happens to hit the fifth well, as we know. It doesn't do as good a job on the thirds; sixths are a little better. The next good fit occurs as we move on to 15 steps. That one actually misses the fifth, the third, and the minor third by being a little too small, but it is also equally a little too large for the fourths and the sixths .... not bad, but kind of equally out all the way around.
Nineteen steps fits the minor third almost exactly, but is less good on the major third and the fifth. After that it isn't until 31 steps that things start to get interesting: the minor third is not quite perfect, but the rest all group together very high in consonance. That includes the seventh harmonic. There's an oddly near-perfect group near 34 steps, but the next most useful is perhaps at 53 steps--it sits really nicely on a crest--and another one that sits a little less well occurs at 65 steps in the octave. And so on, to an infinite number of steps! But if we take away the restriction of having only scales which form an octave, if we throw out the octave completely, use the hardware to get our octaves through 16', 8', 4', and so on, and say okay, just within one octave let us make equal step divisions, because equal steps are lovely: they allow you to modulate conveniently and linearly all over the place...whooptedoo! We start finding some really remarkable configurations, including the tunings I used in "Beauty in the Beast." I hadn't plotted and figured these out when I composed that piece, but afterwards I wanted to know why it worked so well, and here it is.
And since this is virgin territory, like Christopher Columbus I hereby christen these three peaks in the plot Carlos Alpha, Beta, and Gamma. Alpha is the temperament that "Beauty in the Beast" is written in, the equal splitting of the minor third. Beta is the interlude that starts it, the divided fourth. Notice that these things, in cents, are simple numbers. Alpha has steps of 78 cents...but that's equivalent to something like 15-and-a-third steps in an octave, which makes no sense. How do you put a third of a step in an octave? Build in scales with hiccups? It has to be treated as a special case. But throw out this one unorthodox quality by handling it with the hardware, leaving only the harmonic point of view, and it's a great tuning. With an approach like this, we can get very close to just intonation without any of the problems that prompted people to say "oh,just intonation simply doesn't work." Well, in a practical world, here it is.
There is only one modern musician that I am aware of that has attempted undoing the equally temperd scale and that is Wendy Carlos on an album titled - Beauty In The Beast
http://www.wendycarlos.com/+bitb.html
http://www.amazon.com/Beauty-Beast-Wend ... B0000516UW
I have not heard it yet but I am eventually going to have to purchase it.
1986 Interview with Wendy Carlos
http://www.wendycarlos.com/cochran.html
Following are a few small excerpts from the above link:
EM: What about the way you've jettisoned standard scales?
WC: About the time I began the current record Stoney finally unbuttoned the frequency tables in the Synergy, so I wrote a bunch of custom control software that made it possible to retune the instrument. That's something I've wanted to do for a long time. A digital instrument is a natural for microtonal tuning because you can be precise to any degree you need and also repeatable. It's idiotic that Western music has remained such a slave to a tempering system which evolved 300 years ago as a satisfactory compromise. We don't need the compromise anymore. We can begin to work in areas that up to now have been forbidden because we only had the equal-tempered scale. Where these steps may lead is anyone's guess.
How important these new areas will be I don't know. We'll have to find out. I do feel they have become very important areas to explore, and that their implications transcend me as a human being and a composer and an artist. They're bigger than any one person. These ideas have to be disseminated. They mustn't become a quaint personal system, like Harry Partch's, but must get taken as much for granted as people now take synth work and multi-track recording. These areas are so rich with possibilities, they are an ideal way to get pop, classical, jazz and contemporary music out of the cul-de-sacs they're all in, that I feel I could easily become so filled with messianic zeal I'd probably hate myself.
EM: With all possible timbres, and all possible tunings, where do you begin?
WC: When you're given all possibilities, you're in a worse position than you were before. It's a perfect way to drown. In fact, you've really chosen to drown in the middle of a very large ocean. Several oceans. And there's not even a floating log nearby; you've discarded all that. But there just isn't any way art can work outside of a discipline... Stravinsky's wonderful comment when people asked him how he felt about working on a ballet with Balanchine, because the form was rather restrictive, was "I love exact specifications." That's how it is with all art. It works best when there are limits. Quite probably my earlier records were aided greatly by the fact that they were done while working within very narrow regions of possibility.
EM: You mentioned you'd been interested in alternate tunings for a long time. When did you first start?
WC: Oh, way back in my teens, probably from reading some magazine articles. When I was 16, I bought a piano-tuning hammer and wedges and began retuning my parent's spinet piano in all manner of unorthodox tunings, trying to find out what some of these things I'd read about sounded like (you couldn't then find records with these things on them). In college I got involved in musique concrete pieces with retuned pianos and arbitrarily tuned sine waves and stuff like that. Nothing very profound. But I got inspired to put together a series of special reference tapes with a physicist friend. We had access to several very expensive audio oscillators in a Brown University laboratory, test devices worth several thousand dollars, and we'd go in and tune one to a 440 Hz reference signal broadcast by short-wave radio station WWV, then tune another against it until an oscilloscope pattern told us we'd reached the particular ratio of our choice. Then we'd tape that.
We ended up with a library of something under 100 pitches in an octave, all of which were derived from pure thirds and fifths. Most of the pro tape machines of the day tended to run at pretty much the same speed all the time-if they did vary from day to day it was within the limits of our precision--so we spliced some leader ahead of the recorded strips, labeled them, and from then on whenever we wanted to do any precise intervals or ratios we would use the strips as tuning references. The technology was never intended for this purpose, but there was just no other way to make the empirical tests necessary to take intellectual ideas about tuning and turn them into something that might have practical and pragmatic value. Even then I knew that you have to have a practical application. If there's no way to use something in a real musical context, who cares?
EM: After that?
WC: Well, I readjust about every book on the subject, but after college it wasn't until 1984 that I started experimenting with tunings again. I did have other things going. But when I came back to tuning it was as a gleeful child in a candy store. After Moonscapes I listened to a lot of ethnic records, deciding what direction I wanted to take the new album. I'd sit and try to play along with some of the different scales, but the equal-tempered scale didn't fit very well. It was driving me crazy. I tried minor variations. I even explored quarter-tone scales, but these were even less musically useful than equal-temperment and I'm amazed that so many musicians have bothered to explore them.
Anyway, in July 1984, bingo, Stoney presented us with some new chips and said look-in-there-at-byte-so-and-so, perform a write-read, and you'll get the pitch table. At the time, I didn't have any idea what it did, but I pulled out all the numbers, dumped them into the Hewlett Packard 9825, and fiddled around with them until I figured out how to do some things. There was a small section of 12 x 2 byte values that the Synergy actually used for tuning, with all the values for all the other octaves derived from those through 2:1 (octave) ratios. I found the way to convert those from Hertz into cents, wrote a piece of software that slowly grew and grew and grew but finally made it possible, after much hassle and lots of math and tricks, to move the notes individually with a resolution of about 1.5 cents. It made it very easy to set up all kinds of WHAT-IF situations. For example, one piece on the new album, 'Just Imaginings," was based on asking WHAT IF all the notes of the scale were tuned to represent the closest natural harmonic overtones from a single fundamental. That means you have to store the overtone series for every key-note with which you want to work. I wound up with an array of 12 times 12 (144) different pitches in the octave, each of which represents a pattern of the 12 closest-fit partials to a particular fundamental. You play the piece by starting in one key and then as you move along to another, you hit a reference key on a special little keyboard and it instantly retunes the whole instrument.
The last part of this track ends by going through the entire cycle of 12 pitches-the "circle of fifths," if you will-except all in perfect tuning. That's one of the things you aren't supposed to be able to do, which is exactly why I did it! The nice thing about this Harmonic Scale, as I call it, as opposed to normal just intonation, is that you can put down a cluster, just play anything, like a three-year-old kid, and it will always be in tune. The accompaniment at the end is a continuous cluster. Every note remains down, but from moment to moment all the notes are slightly retuned to match whatever note the melody and bass is playing, so the same cluster always harmonizes the melody perfectly.
EM: You actually started dispensing with the octave entirely, then?
WC: After the album was recorded I started exploring tunings in a more analytical fashion, using the Hewlett-Packard 9825 and some programs I wrote to plot the "fit" of different intervals as you change the number or size of equal steps in an octave. Twelve steps in an octave happens to hit the fifth well, as we know. It doesn't do as good a job on the thirds; sixths are a little better. The next good fit occurs as we move on to 15 steps. That one actually misses the fifth, the third, and the minor third by being a little too small, but it is also equally a little too large for the fourths and the sixths .... not bad, but kind of equally out all the way around.
Nineteen steps fits the minor third almost exactly, but is less good on the major third and the fifth. After that it isn't until 31 steps that things start to get interesting: the minor third is not quite perfect, but the rest all group together very high in consonance. That includes the seventh harmonic. There's an oddly near-perfect group near 34 steps, but the next most useful is perhaps at 53 steps--it sits really nicely on a crest--and another one that sits a little less well occurs at 65 steps in the octave. And so on, to an infinite number of steps! But if we take away the restriction of having only scales which form an octave, if we throw out the octave completely, use the hardware to get our octaves through 16', 8', 4', and so on, and say okay, just within one octave let us make equal step divisions, because equal steps are lovely: they allow you to modulate conveniently and linearly all over the place...whooptedoo! We start finding some really remarkable configurations, including the tunings I used in "Beauty in the Beast." I hadn't plotted and figured these out when I composed that piece, but afterwards I wanted to know why it worked so well, and here it is.
And since this is virgin territory, like Christopher Columbus I hereby christen these three peaks in the plot Carlos Alpha, Beta, and Gamma. Alpha is the temperament that "Beauty in the Beast" is written in, the equal splitting of the minor third. Beta is the interlude that starts it, the divided fourth. Notice that these things, in cents, are simple numbers. Alpha has steps of 78 cents...but that's equivalent to something like 15-and-a-third steps in an octave, which makes no sense. How do you put a third of a step in an octave? Build in scales with hiccups? It has to be treated as a special case. But throw out this one unorthodox quality by handling it with the hardware, leaving only the harmonic point of view, and it's a great tuning. With an approach like this, we can get very close to just intonation without any of the problems that prompted people to say "oh,just intonation simply doesn't work." Well, in a practical world, here it is.
-
Linda Brown
- Resident Mystic
- Posts: 653
- Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:16 pm
somehow inspired
And this jumped out at me Gregg........
" But I got inspired to put together a series of special reference tapes with a physicist friend. We had access to several very expensive audio oscillators in a Brown University laboratory, test devices worth several thousand dollars, and we'd go in and tune one to a 440 Hz reference signal broadcast by short-wave radio station WWV, then tune another against it until an oscilloscope pattern told us we'd reached the particular ratio of our choice. Then we'd tape that."
the ratio of our choice? And notice that we have posted at exactly the same time.
Linda
"
" But I got inspired to put together a series of special reference tapes with a physicist friend. We had access to several very expensive audio oscillators in a Brown University laboratory, test devices worth several thousand dollars, and we'd go in and tune one to a 440 Hz reference signal broadcast by short-wave radio station WWV, then tune another against it until an oscilloscope pattern told us we'd reached the particular ratio of our choice. Then we'd tape that."
the ratio of our choice? And notice that we have posted at exactly the same time.
Linda
"
Last edited by Linda Brown on Mon May 05, 2008 2:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
greggvizza
- Senior Cadet
- Posts: 483
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 3:01 pm
Hiccup
In honor of Trickfox I will have to admit that a hiccup does seems to be prevalent in most systems, and I suppose that will continue to be the case until the master encryption key is known.kevin.b wrote:Greggvizza,
I just scanned those words you posted.
"Build in scales with hiccups"
Jumped at me.
I like the word hiccups.
kevin
GV
Last edited by greggvizza on Mon May 05, 2008 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
greggvizza
- Senior Cadet
- Posts: 483
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 3:01 pm
Re: somehow inspired
I am not sure what your “that” is referring to, but I will take a stab.Linda Brown wrote:And this jumped out at me.........
" But I got inspired to put together a series of special reference tapes with a physicist friend. We had access to several very expensive audio oscillators in a Brown University laboratory, test devices worth several thousand dollars, and we'd go in and tune one to a 440 Hz reference signal broadcast by short-wave radio station WWV, then tune another against it until an oscilloscope pattern told us we'd reached the particular ratio of our choice. Then we'd tape that."
Why that? Linda
"
The above statement was addressing a prior period back in the college days which was probably in the early 60’s before Bob Moog and all the electronic instruments existed. The only way of generating accurate tones of a specific frequency in those days was to use an oscillator. The oscilloscope was used as a visual tuning aid to tune two oscillators to harmonically synchronized intervals. They were attempting to undo the equally temperd scale, but with ancient (but effective) equipment. An ocillator can be set to any frequecy that one desires.
GV
Last edited by greggvizza on Mon May 05, 2008 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
twigsnapper
- Revered Elder
- Posts: 839
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:25 pm
- Location: mobile
another vibration
Anybody see the connection yet?
from Chapter 65 " Good Morning Sweetie Peach"
"All summer long, they used the soundtracks from the movies Camelot and The Sound of Music to demonstrate the system’s brilliant sound reproduction qualities. But crystal clear sound was only one of the characteristics of the this speaker with no moving parts. It could also project sound so that it was difficult to tell exactly where it was coming from: If you stood with your nose practically touching the speaker, it sounded like the sound was coming from ten feet in front of you. In fact, no matter where you stood, it sounded like the sound was coming from ten feet in front of you; but the volume and sound quality remained consistent even if you wer sixty feet away"
twigsnapper
from Chapter 65 " Good Morning Sweetie Peach"
"All summer long, they used the soundtracks from the movies Camelot and The Sound of Music to demonstrate the system’s brilliant sound reproduction qualities. But crystal clear sound was only one of the characteristics of the this speaker with no moving parts. It could also project sound so that it was difficult to tell exactly where it was coming from: If you stood with your nose practically touching the speaker, it sounded like the sound was coming from ten feet in front of you. In fact, no matter where you stood, it sounded like the sound was coming from ten feet in front of you; but the volume and sound quality remained consistent even if you wer sixty feet away"
twigsnapper
-
twigsnapper
- Revered Elder
- Posts: 839
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:25 pm
- Location: mobile
she saw it first, of course
Credit where its due to all of you
""This produces true 3-dimensional sound (having been given a demonstration of it by the scientist who invented it). One can go to one side of the room and the music is all around one. It does not loose quality or information
http://www.akasha.de/~aton/Unidance.html
And Lindas response ( you have to watch her) was WHAT?
and hello Flow
"I've long thought that this all had to do with "reading" the targeted brain wave patterns of certain individuals who are immersed in electromagnetic waves, and who isn't. Cell phone technologies only make it all so much simpler and easier. With the appropriate systems and devices, all one would have to do would be to note the grid ( matrix) "address" of the person of interest and then read his/her intentions to short circuit their reality. Hmmmm...it all sounds so familiar to me somehow."
flow....
twigsnapper
""This produces true 3-dimensional sound (having been given a demonstration of it by the scientist who invented it). One can go to one side of the room and the music is all around one. It does not loose quality or information
http://www.akasha.de/~aton/Unidance.html
And Lindas response ( you have to watch her) was WHAT?
and hello Flow
"I've long thought that this all had to do with "reading" the targeted brain wave patterns of certain individuals who are immersed in electromagnetic waves, and who isn't. Cell phone technologies only make it all so much simpler and easier. With the appropriate systems and devices, all one would have to do would be to note the grid ( matrix) "address" of the person of interest and then read his/her intentions to short circuit their reality. Hmmmm...it all sounds so familiar to me somehow."
flow....
twigsnapper
-
greggvizza
- Senior Cadet
- Posts: 483
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 3:01 pm
Re: another vibration
That is because the sound wasn’t coming from the speaker. It was coming from the air molecules themselves which were being vibrated by modulated gravity. So the sound just comes out of the air wherever air is, which is all around you.twigsnapper wrote:Anybody see the connection yet?
from Chapter 65 " Good Morning Sweetie Peach"
"All summer long, they used the soundtracks from the movies Camelot and The Sound of Music to demonstrate the system’s brilliant sound reproduction qualities. But crystal clear sound was only one of the characteristics of the this speaker with no moving parts. It could also project sound so that it was difficult to tell exactly where it was coming from: If you stood with your nose practically touching the speaker, it sounded like the sound was coming from ten feet in front of you. In fact, no matter where you stood, it sounded like the sound was coming from ten feet in front of you; but the volume and sound quality remained consistent even if you wer sixty feet away"
twigsnapper
It would be interesting to further investigate the TTB speaker though. Psychoacoustically speaking, why did the sound appear 10 feet in front of the listener, regardless of the listeners position? Why in front? Why not behind or to the side, or why not all around? Someday when I get a little more free time I will need to figure out the answers to that question.
I know the standard studio trick for psychoacoustically placing a sound behind a person. If you have a piece of music playing out of two standard loudspeakers and you make a copy of one of the instruments and invert it 180 degrees out of phase with the original, then place the original un-inverted instrument in the left speaker and the inverted in the right speaker, that instrument will appear behind the listeners head. The two stereo speakers will be in front of the listener and the rest of the band will appear to come from those speakers, but the inverted instrument will appear behind the listeners head. So much so, that you wont be able to stop yourself from turning around to see what going on, only to find that there are no speakers behind you. The effect is just tricking the brain.
GV
Last edited by greggvizza on Mon May 05, 2008 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
AM
Now, I may be kicking completely in the dark, but after reading Mr. Twigsnapper's words I started to go through chapter 65 again. And then I read something that jolted through me like a lightning.
Let me first do a little introduction though. STEP 1: PLEASE READ THROUGH THE EARLIER POSTS AT: viewtopic.php?p=13266&highlight=raccoon ... b320#13266
viewtopic.php?p=14002&highlight=method+ ... b320#14002
The Fan cum Loudspeaker is most interesting and we have talked about it extensively. Several times already I tried to draw the attention of the forum to the following of Dr. Brown's inventions
Ions injected into the air stream are causing the air to be ionized and ionized air is nothing but plasma.
According to the theories of the Spanish physicist Ranade a ball lightning is nothing, but plasma tubes kept in a specific configuration by the electromagnetic waves whose lines form a closed flux.
Now, I am not claiming that the above device by Dr. Brown would be the sole element in producing a controllable ball lightning, but it might have been an essential factor in doing so.
What makes me think in this direction is the following quote from chapter 65 that thoroughly jolted me:
All this was happening in Philadelphia. And when did it happen? 1966
What else happened in 1966? THE CUTLASS-EXPERIMENT - SUMMER 1966.
AM
Let me first do a little introduction though. STEP 1: PLEASE READ THROUGH THE EARLIER POSTS AT: viewtopic.php?p=13266&highlight=raccoon ... b320#13266
viewtopic.php?p=14002&highlight=method+ ... b320#14002
The Fan cum Loudspeaker is most interesting and we have talked about it extensively. Several times already I tried to draw the attention of the forum to the following of Dr. Brown's inventions
MIGHT IT BE POSSIBLE THAT THE MODIFIED FAN CUM LOUDSPEAKER ACTUALLY PLAYED A CRUCIAL ROLE IN THE FORMATION OF A CONTROLLABLE BALL LIGHTNING? PPLEASE CONSIDER THE ABOVE INVENTION UNDER THIS ASPECT!"Method and Apparatus for Producing Ions"
Preliminary Patent Application
August 15, 1978
Description:
The applicant's prior patents Nos. 2,949,550 and 3,518,462 describe method and means for producing a flow of air without moving parts. They may be termed "motorless" fans which are "noiseless." This is highly desirable where a circulation of air in a room is desired. Ion generators (for the production of negative ions alleged to be beneficial to health) do not tend to circulate in the manner of an air flow but migrate outward from the generator largely in the form of a localized ion "cloud." Hence, ion generators in the existing art are seriously limited as to their effective range. The purpose of the present invention is to combine air circulation with ion emission so as to improve range. To accomplish this, the present patent application proposes the addition of an electrostatically charged grid (ionizing electrode) to the motorless fan (as described above) to inject ions into the (effluent) air stream. The present invention, therefore, is an extension of the aforementioned patents in combination with a (downstream) ion-emitting grid. As such it performs a new and useful function - that of emitting ions into a rapidly-moving airstream. Two forms of air movers may be employed in the present invention. Both are described in the referenced patents, i.e., the diode (2 electrodes) No. 2,949,550 and the triode (3 electrodes) No. 3,518,462. The present invention consists in applying an emitter electrode (preferably but not limited to negative ions) downstream in the airflow.
Ions injected into the air stream are causing the air to be ionized and ionized air is nothing but plasma.
According to the theories of the Spanish physicist Ranade a ball lightning is nothing, but plasma tubes kept in a specific configuration by the electromagnetic waves whose lines form a closed flux.
Now, I am not claiming that the above device by Dr. Brown would be the sole element in producing a controllable ball lightning, but it might have been an essential factor in doing so.
What makes me think in this direction is the following quote from chapter 65 that thoroughly jolted me:
WHY SUCH AN ENORMOUS LOUDSPEAKER? AND PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE PHYSICAL FORM OF IT!Chapter 65 wrote:Dr. Brown and his little team “worked very hard all summer to build this ‘theater-sized’ loud speaker,” Linda said. “It took up a whole side of the building.”
All this was happening in Philadelphia. And when did it happen? 1966
What else happened in 1966? THE CUTLASS-EXPERIMENT - SUMMER 1966.
Again, I may be completely off with all this.Chapter 76 wrote:The Cutlass spent the summer of 1966 in the Philadelphia Naval Yard being outfitted for a "special project." I don't need to point out, do I where Dr. Brown was at the time?
AM
Last edited by AM on Mon May 05, 2008 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
AM
Another quite insane speculation from my corner, which might be quite baseless.
Sound-waves are longitudinal in their nature. If we presume that gravitational waves are also longitudinal, might it be possible that they used the Fan cum Loudspeaker to see how longitudinal gravitational waves would propagate and behave modelled on the example of sound-waves?
PLEASE READ THROUGH THE EARLIER POSTS AT AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE POINT I AM TRYING TO GET ACCROSS: viewtopic.php?p=13266&highlight=raccoon ... b320#13266
viewtopic.php?p=14002&highlight=method+ ... b320#14002
Finally consider also what Dr. Brown himself said.
And what do gravitational waves do? THEY WIGGLE THROUGH SPACE AND TIME.
To sum it up: the Fan cum Loudspeaker had two goals - an overt commercial one as well as a hidden one.
AM
P. S. WHERE WERE DR. SARBACHER AND JACQUES CORNELLION IN 1966 - ESPECIALLY IN SUMMER? WHAT WERE THEY DOING?
Why were they playing the music over and over again?Chapter 65 wrote:All summer long, they used the soundtracks from the movies Camelot and The Sound of Music to demonstrate the system’s brilliant sound reproduction qualities. But crystal clear sound was only one of the characteristics of the this speaker with no moving parts. It could also project sound so that it was difficult to tell exactly where it was coming from: If you stood with your nose practically touching the speaker, it sounded like the sound was coming from ten feet in front of you. In fact, no matter where you stood, it sounded like the sound was coming from ten feet in front of you; but the volume and sound quality remained consistent even if you wer sixty feet away.
Sound-waves are longitudinal in their nature. If we presume that gravitational waves are also longitudinal, might it be possible that they used the Fan cum Loudspeaker to see how longitudinal gravitational waves would propagate and behave modelled on the example of sound-waves?
PLEASE READ THROUGH THE EARLIER POSTS AT AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE POINT I AM TRYING TO GET ACCROSS: viewtopic.php?p=13266&highlight=raccoon ... b320#13266
viewtopic.php?p=14002&highlight=method+ ... b320#14002
Finally consider also what Dr. Brown himself said.
A ball lightning, which is according to Ranade nothing, but a spherical electromagnetic bubble gets transformed into a gravitational bubble.Dr. Brown wrote:Supra UHF (including optical-frequency) gravitationai radiation is believed to be generated as electromagnetic radiation attempts to leave a black hole. According to Gertsenshtein (1962) and Vladimirov (1964).."When an electromagnetic wave propagates thru a region with a static or electromagnetic field, the Electromagnetic wave gets coherently (but slowly) converted into gravitational wave .... If strongly charged black holes (e~M in the notation of Christodoulou & Ruffini 1971) can exist, despite their intense electrostatic pull on surrounding plasma, then as an electromagnetic wave propagates outward from near the surface of the hole toward infinity, its conversion into a gravitational wave will be nearly 100% effective".
And what do gravitational waves do? THEY WIGGLE THROUGH SPACE AND TIME.
To sum it up: the Fan cum Loudspeaker had two goals - an overt commercial one as well as a hidden one.
AM
P. S. WHERE WERE DR. SARBACHER AND JACQUES CORNELLION IN 1966 - ESPECIALLY IN SUMMER? WHAT WERE THEY DOING?
-
Elizabeth Helen Drake
- Sr. Research Asst.
- Posts: 1742
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am
an excellent question
An excellent question AM
Paul? Any leads on that one which might be available to us right now? I know that Dr. Sarbacher was in Washington DC and meeting with Dr. Brown during the summer of 1962.( According to Dr. Browns daybook) But after that I have lost track of him until he reappears IN SANTA MONICA in 1967 or 1968. Odd, that.
Anybody be able to help with more information on this question? Thanks ahead of time! Elizabeth
Paul? Any leads on that one which might be available to us right now? I know that Dr. Sarbacher was in Washington DC and meeting with Dr. Brown during the summer of 1962.( According to Dr. Browns daybook) But after that I have lost track of him until he reappears IN SANTA MONICA in 1967 or 1968. Odd, that.
Anybody be able to help with more information on this question? Thanks ahead of time! Elizabeth
-
JZimmer
- Deputy SysAdmin
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:46 pm
- Location: Rocky Mount, Mo. (Lake of the Ozarks)
- Contact:
My Thoughts
Greetings AM!
I may have a thought on playing the same music over and over, unfortumately for some.. LOL .. in the form of a story.
In my younger days, I worked on a tracking ship for NASA, basically floating around the globe tracking "things".
Out of desperation, and something to do I decided to start an FM Stereo radio stations and managed to scrounge all the equipment necessary to start it except the FM Stereo Transmitter.
So, I set out to construct one from equipment and materials that we had available on the ship. I remember having a Stereo copy of “Dark Side of the Moon” and picked it because of the excellent channel separation that existed on that recording. You could listen to the recording on a stereo amplifier and compare it to the output of the transmitter through our FM Stereo receivers, and that is how I tuned the transmitter to produce an excellent transmission signal.
Heck, I bet I listened to that record hundreds of times before I got it exactly right ( humm, maybe thats what happend to me ha, ha
).
My point in all this is that the music that Dr. Brown used may have been chosen because it produced the a specific sound (or other affect) and are what you would want to use if you are going to try to repeat his experiments.
Seems to me that their are lots of experiments that scientists have performed over the years that cannot be repeated, and I wonder how many of them fail because we are narrow in our thinking about ALL the conditions being exact to accurately repeat the experiment.
Jim
I may have a thought on playing the same music over and over, unfortumately for some.. LOL .. in the form of a story.
In my younger days, I worked on a tracking ship for NASA, basically floating around the globe tracking "things".
Out of desperation, and something to do I decided to start an FM Stereo radio stations and managed to scrounge all the equipment necessary to start it except the FM Stereo Transmitter.
So, I set out to construct one from equipment and materials that we had available on the ship. I remember having a Stereo copy of “Dark Side of the Moon” and picked it because of the excellent channel separation that existed on that recording. You could listen to the recording on a stereo amplifier and compare it to the output of the transmitter through our FM Stereo receivers, and that is how I tuned the transmitter to produce an excellent transmission signal.
Heck, I bet I listened to that record hundreds of times before I got it exactly right ( humm, maybe thats what happend to me ha, ha
). My point in all this is that the music that Dr. Brown used may have been chosen because it produced the a specific sound (or other affect) and are what you would want to use if you are going to try to repeat his experiments.
Seems to me that their are lots of experiments that scientists have performed over the years that cannot be repeated, and I wonder how many of them fail because we are narrow in our thinking about ALL the conditions being exact to accurately repeat the experiment.
Jim
-
Linda Brown
- Resident Mystic
- Posts: 653
- Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:16 pm
a brilliant thought
A BRILLIANT OBSERVATION Jim. Absolutely off the wall, in front of my face BRILLIANT. OF COURSE! THATS WHAT HE WAS DOING! HE WAS FINE TUNING SOMETHING.
I can remember how absolutely upset I got with him for only using those two albums .... over and over and over again. It got so I could barely stand one song because I could actually hear Julie Andrews breathing.
The only time he broke from that scenario was a demonstration that we had for a group and Dad played some military music ... When he hit " Anchor Aweigh" he cranked it up farther than it had even been played. We were all really pleased with the performance. Now I am beginning to realize how absolutely clueless I was the whole time. Linda
I can remember how absolutely upset I got with him for only using those two albums .... over and over and over again. It got so I could barely stand one song because I could actually hear Julie Andrews breathing.
The only time he broke from that scenario was a demonstration that we had for a group and Dad played some military music ... When he hit " Anchor Aweigh" he cranked it up farther than it had even been played. We were all really pleased with the performance. Now I am beginning to realize how absolutely clueless I was the whole time. Linda
With all of this business about the sound appearing to be ten feet in front of you, don't forget about YOU.
You are not what you think you are.
the you, you see in a mirror is just what our eyes see, not the you that is visual by other means.
The actual you is a field pattern.
Thats too many you's, its driving me around the U bend.
You will cause an interference pattern , if the pattern produced by the speaker is similer to you, possibly, or am I round the U bend?
Your eyes are electrical detectors, but to specific frequencies.
your ears are electrical detectors, they triangulate to the source.
kevin
You are not what you think you are.
the you, you see in a mirror is just what our eyes see, not the you that is visual by other means.
The actual you is a field pattern.
Thats too many you's, its driving me around the U bend.
You will cause an interference pattern , if the pattern produced by the speaker is similer to you, possibly, or am I round the U bend?
Your eyes are electrical detectors, but to specific frequencies.
your ears are electrical detectors, they triangulate to the source.
kevin
fibonacci is king