• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Avoid Edinburgh

gordonrutter said:
No longer in the centre
Click to expand...
Be somewhat more (inexactly) informative as to the relativity of your remove, please.

Do you mean an Arthur's Seat/Queensferry/deffo bus sort of remoteness? Or a not-very-far semi-Stockbridge lazy-taxi distance?

A mundane (but surely already-accused? & obvious contributor?) could be the tramlines. These have been so contentious over the years, I swear they might even still hum with the power turned off.

Taking this proposition to its broader extremity: cities, in general, tend to have buried electrical power distribution systems (I do mean the HV backbones, the LV feeds into homes is a given). Conversely, towns& villages often have closely-proximate pylons and above-ground powerlines (both LV & HV).

This means that there's a ready-made underground resonator source in cities that is well-within the human range of hearing and biopalpable propioception (50Hz in Europville, 60cycles-per-second in Greater Americania).

But this buzz-hum can seem centred just close to the powerlines themselves, when you're out in the country: because there's much-less ground-contacting electrical gubbins under your feet.

It's dissipated in mid-air (disappearing obligingly as an inverse square law function) and doesn't accoustically-couple into the upper foundation fabric of us country bumpkins. Interestingly, when the air is thick (in semi-rural areas) I mean with low fog or drizzle, that 'city hum-buzz' is emulated to a much longer reach than normal: perceptably-so.

TLDR: cities hum at low frequencies 'cause they're powered via thick wiggly wires, in paramagnetic stone ducts and shallow underpavement gullies. Towns and villiages hum much less so, due to prevalance of overhead cables and flexible/unmade roads & paths (anti-resonant)

And before anyone dismisses this boringly-mundane-source-vector.....remember, the vast majority of us reading this post have been bathed in low-frequency nearfield electromagnetic smog since the instant of our own conceptions. In many ways, you can't feel it, because you're perhaps in a tiny-but-intrinsic way imprinted by it, right up wir marrows.

(Note that I am not implying some vague pathological affliction due to exposure either to the bio-proximity of direct EM effects, nor from the secondary EA buzz aspects: but I am saying they're both possibly measureable and potentially-formative. I would also (personally) say that if I had to live beside a massive HV electrical sub-station, I wouldn't).

I could produce a really-detailed proper thesis on this (sorry).....if I had the time. I don't, so you're all safe....so to speak(!) for now.

ps And let's not bring multiple underground electrical earth diffential current return paths into this, as in TT/TN/subbie star points &etc (ooops!)
 
Last edited:
Ermintruder said:
Be somewhat more (inexactly) informative as to the relativity of your remove, please.

Do you mean an Arthur's Seat/Queensferry/deffo bus sort of remoteness? Or a not-very-far semi-Stockbridge lazy-taxi distance?

A mundane (but surely already-accused? & obvious contributor?) could be the tramlines. These have been so contentious over the years, I swear they might even still hum with the power turned off.

Taking this proposition to its broader extremity: cities, in general, tend to have buried electrical power distribution systems (I do mean the HV backbones, the LV feeds into homes is a given). Conversely, towns& villages often have closely-proximate pylons and above-ground powerlines (both LV & HV).

This means that there's a ready-made underground resonator source in cities that is well-within the human range of hearing and biopalpable propioception (50Hz in Europville, 60cycles-per-second in Greater Americania).

But this buzz-hum can seem centred just close to the powerlines themselves, when you're out in the country: because there's much-less ground-contacting electrical gubbins under your feet.

It's dissipated in mid-air (disappearing obligingly as an inverse square law function) and doesn't accoustically-couple into the upper foundation fabric of us country bumpkins. Interestingly, when the air is thick (in semi-rural areas) I mean with low fog or drizzle, that 'city hum-buzz' is emulated to a much longer reach than normal: perceptably-so.

TLDR: cities hum at low frequencies 'cause they're powered via thick wiggly wires, in paramagnetic stone ducts and shallow underpavement gullies. Towns and villiages hum much less so, due to prevalance of overhead cables and flexible/unmade roads & paths (anti-resonant)

And before anyone dismisses this boringly-mundane-source-vector.....remember, the vast majority of us reading this post have been bathed in low-frequency nearfield electromagnetic smog since the instant of our own conceptions. In many ways, you can't feel it, because you're perhaps in a tiny-but-intrinsic way imprinted by it, right up wir marrows.

(Note that I am not implying some vague pathological affliction due to exposure either to the bio-proximity of direct EM effects, nor from the secondary EA buzz aspects: but I am saying they're both possibly measureable and potentially-formative. I would also (personally) say that if I had to live beside a massive HV electrical sub-station, I wouldn't).

I could produce a really-detailed proper thesis on this (sorry).....if I had the time. I don't, so you're all safe....so to speak(!) for now.

ps And let's not bring multiple underground electrical earth diffential current return paths into this, as in TT/TN/subbie star points &etc (ooop!)
Click to expand...
Ok geographically the two points are about five miles apart.
I was not aware of anything last night hum wise.
I can hear the same sound again. Moving around the house seems to have little effect on volume. No discernible location or direction. Went into the back garden and did some recording. Saw a blissfully unaware urban fox stroll past about ten feet away. The problem is I do not have a base line. I am specifically trying to hear this, it may be that if I were not trying I would not hear it. Observations will continue.
 
gordonrutter said:
and did some recording
Click to expand...
Keep that up; but: do you know what the official low-frequency response roll-off is for your microphone? Or that of your recorder?

I make this point constructively, in that what you may be hearing (or trying to hear) is possibly below the detection pitch (if not the acquisition amplitude) of your equipment. Apologies, you've probably got this aspect covered. If not, perhaps... I could look into borrowing some kit for you...?

(There are also some active audio detection techniques that could be considered....hmm interesting. An audiofrequency spectrum analyser could be >really< informative...)
 
Ermintruder said:
Keep that up; but: do you know what the official low-frequency response roll-off is for your microphone? Or that of your recorder?

I make this point constructively, in that what you may be hearing (or trying to hear) is possibly below the detection pitch (if not the acquisition amplitude) of your equipment. Apologies, you've probably got this aspect covered. If not, perhaps... I could look into borrowing some kit for you...?

(There are also some active audio detection techniques that could be considered....hmm interesting. An audiofrequency spectrum analyser could be >really< informative...)
Click to expand...
I was going more for high pitched and I have a recorder capable of 40khz. Low frequency wise I can only go to 20 so anything lower would be appreciated!
 
gordonrutter said:
Low frequency wise I can only go to 20
Click to expand...
Oh no, that's outstandingly good. No way could I beat that. So this is both mic and recorder? And are we talking about a hardware digital recorder with external microphone, or a software-based solution on a computing device? Because there may be in-path filtering to consider

gordonrutter said:
I was going more for high pitched
Click to expand...
Really? Intriguing. I would've doubted that this effect was up in the high ultrasonic range, but it is possible, I suppose.

For me, anything up into the dog-whistle/super-cicada range is not a hum, but more a semiceptable scream. Although: we need to remember we may be hearing a harmonic differential product.
 
Ermintruder said:
Oh no, that's outstandingly good. No way could I beat that. So this is both mic and recorder? And are we talking about a hardware digital recorder with external microphone, or a software-based solution on a computing device? Because there may be in-path filtering to consider
Really? Intriguing. I would've doubted that this effect was up in the high ultrasonic range, but it is possible, I suppose.
For me, anything up into the dog-whistle/super-cicada range is not a hum, but more a semiceptable scream. Although: we need to remember we may be hearing a harmonic differential product.
Click to expand...
Hardware. I do have a better recorder than this but I am unsure of the mic spec so that would be an unknown. I am trusting the spec guide.
What I hear, if indeed I am genuinely hearing anything seems to be low volume and I would say high pitched. But if I’m hearing it the the local young people should be hearing it no problem so I’m guessing what I’m hearing is possibly localised or possibly imagination.
 
Ok, just listened to the playback from 6.30 this morning. There are def noises there that I was not aware of at time of recording. Will upload later. The recording was in the back garden at approx 6.30am. It was still dark, the only sounds I could really hear were birds tweeting. I was not aware of any traffic or heavy machinery.
 
INT21 said:
It was a very popular conspiracy theory not long ago. The logic is pretty sound. Heat up the air and you change the weather. That is why the problems occur when the oceans heat up. The conspiracy was whether it was being done deliberately or not.
Click to expand...
Thanks INT 21, I am well aware of the whole HAARP conspiracy theory. The fact that Russia and China have invested in similar technology, as well as DARPA's love affair with HAARP, suggests that the theory may have some legs. The simple fact is that the science behind HAARP being used for weather manipulation is plausible, provided you had the mathematical theories required to manage turbulent systems reliably. The fact is that if HAARP is being used to supercharge the ionosphere in order to modify weather systems, it is very ecologically irresponsible. On the other hand, if anyone is going to tell me, seriously, that if the HAARP system is as powerful as all that, how come there aren't more of them in the USA? These devices could be used systematically to stop forest fires and make sure that Nebraska gets regular rainfall, and to deflect Caribbean hurricanes away from the US coast. As HAARP can allegedly mitigate the effects of high altitude nuclear detonations (HAND), surely we need more of them? From what I understand the military has relinquished control of the facility to the University of Alaska Fairbanks, back in 2015. Does this sound like how the USA would manage a war winning weather weapon? I don't think so.
 
jeez that was close!
 
Nemo said:
I think that I've about Tree Fiddy in small change to give to her. :mcoat:
Click to expand...
Don't you go givin' that there Loch Ness monster no tree fiddy ya hear me? Why does the Loch Ness monster keep coming around? It's 'cause you keep giving it tree fiddy!
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top