Hi,

This may sound a little strange, but I'm looking for feedback
on this concept. See:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project217.html

Basically this guy is asserting that new types of 'sonic' weapons
are being, and have been developed. Since the 1960's and on. Also,
most people in the public appear to be largely ignorant of them.

He contends that (as an example) types of utlrasonic 'lasers'
and 'canons' have been developed, some of these apparently can
be lethal. The type I'm intereseted in would be used more to
harass and scare people with.

Consider: a device capable of 'firing' a directed ultrasonic (above
human hearing) wave. It would have a range of a few hundred
feet, and would pass through most commonly used building materials
with ease. It would not be heard, but if it happened to strike
a person it would be felt. Like a jolt or a slap, depending on the
energy. Such a device could be used to scare and harass people
without them knowing what's going on. It could be fired from another
building at the target, and would leave no evidence.

For more on what this guy is contending see (warning, verbose):
http://members.aol.com/ultra21753/ultra.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/soundweapon/ultrasonics.htm

Just off the top of my head I can't refute this concept. I'd
appreciate any opinions on this - is it possible (already been
done?) or just bunk? Appreciate your feedback.

Thank, Eric B

[Note, correct email is:boofus {u know what} fractalfreak.com]

From:	Richard Herring
Subject:	Re: Directed sonic weapons - 'lasers' 'canons' - feasible?
Date:	Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:23:55 +0000

In message , Ron
top-posted
>> "eric bazan" wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This may sound a little strange, but I'm looking for feedback
>> on this concept. See:
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project217.html
>>
>> ... snip ...
>>
>> Consider: a device capable of 'firing' a directed ultrasonic (above
>> human hearing) wave. It would have a range of a few hundred
>> feet, and would pass through most commonly used building materials
>> with ease.

Nope. Most building materials absorb acoustic waves, particularly the
higher frequencies.

>> It would not be heard, but if it happened to strike
>> a person it would be felt. Like a jolt or a slap, depending on the
>> energy. Such a device could be used to scare and harass people
>> without them knowing what's going on. It could be fired from another
>> building at the target, and would leave no evidence.
>>
>> For more on what this guy is contending see (warning, verbose):
>> http://members.aol.com/ultra21753/ultra.htm
>> http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/soundweapon/ultrasonics.htm
>>
>> Just off the top of my head I can't refute this concept. I'd
>> appreciate any opinions on this - is it possible (already been
>> done?) or just bunk? Appreciate your feedback.
>>
>
>Please accept this as only anecdotal, since I don't have any documentation
>to share. A friend was talking about a company in our area (southwest USA)
>that is working on a device which is aimed at the outside of a building and
>which produces a noise so annoying to the occupants that they would be
>forced outside. One intended application is for use by law enforcement in
>cases of hostage situations, etc. I'm still not sure that I understand the
>principle.

The military mind is capable of believing all kinds of crazy things:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1337954,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1343575,00.html

--
Richard Herring

From:	Malcolm Stewart
Subject:	Re: Directed sonic weapons - 'lasers' 'canons' - feasible?
Date:	Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:40:03 -0000

"eric bazan" wrote in message
news:ca17eb03.0411141439.b731bbd@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
>
> This may sound a little strange, but I'm looking for feedback
> on this concept. See:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project217.html
>
> Basically this guy is asserting that new types of 'sonic' weapons
> are being, and have been developed. Since the 1960's and on. Also,
> most people in the public appear to be largely ignorant of them.

I conducted some very minor research into ultrasonic beams some decades ago.
Had some success in focusing a ~1m wide beam to a point in a draught free
laboratory, but as soon as we opened a window and hardly perceptible air
currents flowed, we could not detect any significant focus effect. Clearly
many years have passed since my work but the laws of physics haven't changed
and ultrasonic waves are carried by the air, and will be affected by air
currents. If it's possible to measure and adapt for their effects, I
imagine that anything might be possible - viz. adaptive telescope optics.
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

From:	Matt Giwer
Subject:	Re: Directed sonic weapons - 'lasers' 'canons' - feasible?
Date:	Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:20:34 GMT

eric bazan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This may sound a little strange, but I'm looking for feedback
> on this concept. See:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project217.html
>
> Basically this guy is asserting that new types of 'sonic' weapons
> are being, and have been developed. Since the 1960's and on. Also,
> most people in the public appear to be largely ignorant of them.

This sort of thing comes up regularly. It is not magic and in fact it
is quite feasable except ... whoever is operating it is closer to it
than the people it is aimed at. So how are they to be protected from
the noise? Ear plugs can't be the answer as rioters can get ear plugs.

Sound is easy to get in phase as in lasers. You can do it with home
stereo speakers. The classic Bose speaker had 16 (?) or so all in
phase in each speaker enclosure.

Assigning odd properties to sound is also common and old and not
supported by evidence. But anyone with a stereo and an oscillator or
three can experiment to their heart's content. There are no secrets in
the acoustic spectrum.

There are some particularly annoying frequencies and combinations of
frequencies which sort of well known but are not exactly the same for
everyone so there is no best for a crowd. They are around 9000 Hz. A
combination of 9000 and 9030 or thereabouts fairly annoying. Warbling
the 9030 between 9020 and 9040 is annoys a good fraction of people.
But that is about all there is do it. Earplugs will work just fine.

And the old idea of lower frequencies to vibrate organs sounds good
but the lower the frequency the harder to generate at a high volume.
And the harder it is to shield the operator from it.

To get directionality the projector has to be several wavelengths
normal to the transmit direction. wavelength = speed of sound /
frequency. At 1000 ft/sec and 100 Hz a wavelength is 10 feet. We are
talking a very big sound source. At 10-20 Hz it is too big to consider
mobile.

Nonlinear acoustics will produce a difference frequency in the body
but at 1% of the incident power of the high frequencies, -20 dB. The
idea of shaking organs is not reasonable. I read some vending machine
company is test marketing such a device that suggests you "have a
coke" as you pass in front of it while no one around you can hear it.

The problem with using this is sound has an r-square loss with r
measured in wavelengths not absolute distance. The higher the
frequency the shorter the absolute distance. So the attenuation is
much greater per foot at 20,000 Hz than 2000 Hz. And that means it
isn't all that good for projecting very far as a weapon.

And now you know all the principles there are to know before getting
into designing acoustice weapons. But if you do, do a patent search.
It has been a chimera for inventors since at least the 1920s.

--
If voters were disqualified if they could not find
Iraq on a map, Kerry would win in a landslide.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3285

From:	eric bazan
Subject:	Re: Directed sonic weapons - 'lasers' 'canons' - feasible?
Date:	15 Nov 2004 15:04:03 -0800

Matt Giwer wrote in message news:...
> eric bazan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
(...)
>
> This sort of thing comes up regularly. It is not magic and in fact it
> is quite feasable except ... whoever is operating it is closer to it
> than the people it is aimed at. So how are they to be protected from
> the noise? Ear plugs can't be the answer as rioters can get ear plugs.
(...)
> To get directionality the projector has to be several wavelengths
> normal to the transmit direction. wavelength = speed of sound /
> frequency. At 1000 ft/sec and 100 Hz a wavelength is 10 feet. We are
> talking a very big sound source. At 10-20 Hz it is too big to consider
> mobile.
>
(...)

Matt,

Sounds like you have some idea what you're talking about.
Perhaps I should have phrased things differently. How about a
controlled or directed shockwave?

Consider: (excerpted from):
http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/soundweapon/ultrasonics.htm

"
Another method of generating a powerful focused infrasonic shock wave is
to create multiple controlled explosions per second in a sealed chamber
and direct the force from the explosions in only one direction. This
method entails injecting an explosive gas into a sealed chamber and then
igniting the gas. Ports leading from the sealed chamber allow the force of
the explosion to be directed in only one direction. Repeating this
controlled explosion many times per second creates the powerful focused
infrasonic wave. The infrasonic wave can only be felt not seen or heard.
The military also has created a weapon that uses this principle. The weapon
is portable and light enough to be carried by only a single person. This
weapon can also single out one person in a crowd and disable or even kill
him without affecting anyone else in the crowd.
"

And, from the emails on this guys site:
http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/soundweapon/response.htm

"
Hey Old Buddy,

How is it going? I am one of the gang from r dot com also known as
www.racism.com. You should check out a post by Joe Z on Alt.mindcontrol
on the acoustic zip gun. It sounds like that could be one of
the causes of your problems. Joe posted the first part I posted the second.

It is powered by extremely powerful compressed air columns in excess
of 3000lb psi. It fills up a pressure chamber, at which point a release
valve or rather a quick release trigger releases the gas. AT this point
it forces it's way into a smaller tube, preferably in a circular motion.
Upon exiting the air is traveling in excess of Mach 1.

The trick here though is the size of the opening. If it is gauged right
(study the tuba) it will not only create a sonic boom but a
'low-frequency sonic boom!! It can't be heard, only felt. In addition
the low frequency shockwave will carry an extremely high impact
force wave along--THROUGH THE WALLS---- The effects on beings are
devastating. These things can be quite small.

This is a very 'dooable no-tech' way of creating probably the most
intense sound wave possible and not spending a zillion dollars.
"

The device I'm considering would have a limited range, but it
would be a line-of-sight weapon. With the unusual propery of
being invisible and inaudible - and being able to pass through
walls, etc. Again, it would be *felt* by anyone in it's path.
As to how tightly focused it could be, I dunno.

This could be used to fake a haunted house, for example (it would
feel like an 'invisible presence' touched/jolted you). It could
also be used to keep someone awake at night, and just generally
be used to harass people. Again, do you think this is possible?

Again, Thanks,

-Eric B

From:	Matt Giwer
Subject:	Re: Directed sonic weapons - 'lasers' 'canons' - feasible?
Date:	Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:00:42 GMT

eric bazan wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote in message news:...
>
>>eric bazan wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>
> (...)
>
>> This sort of thing comes up regularly. It is not magic and in fact it
>>is quite feasable except ... whoever is operating it is closer to it
>>than the people it is aimed at. So how are they to be protected from
>>the noise? Ear plugs can't be the answer as rioters can get ear plugs.
>
> (...)
>
>> To get directionality the projector has to be several wavelengths
>>normal to the transmit direction. wavelength = speed of sound /
>>frequency. At 1000 ft/sec and 100 Hz a wavelength is 10 feet. We are
>>talking a very big sound source. At 10-20 Hz it is too big to consider
>>mobile.
>>
>
> (...)
>
> Matt,

> Sounds like you have some idea what you're talking about.
> Perhaps I should have phrased things differently. How about a
> controlled or directed shockwave?

A "shockwave" implies and impulse of some sort. It can be represented
as a sum of frequencies. Because of the attenuation is proportional to
the distance in wavelengths the highest frequencies dissipate first.
At any significant distance the shock becomes a rumble. For example
the closer you are to an explosion the sharper the sound, firing a gun
against hearing one in the distance.

Directivity is still governed by the dimensions of the object in
terms of wavelengths. So the highest frequencies are the most
directional. But again to make all the energy highly directional it
still has to be big.

However ever any damage done by it is simply proportional to the
energy in the shockwave. It can't be anything else. So why not use
explosives? A backpack full of capacitors might equal the energy in
the powder of a single rifle cartridge. How you charge them is a
separate problem. (Rail guns are being investigated because the
maximum velocity of chemical propellants is the limiting factor.)

So none of this discussion makes a bit of sense.

> Consider: (excerpted from):
> http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/soundweapon/ultrasonics.htm
>
> "
> Another method of generating a powerful focused infrasonic shock wave is
> to create multiple controlled explosions per second in a sealed chamber
> and direct the force from the explosions in only one direction. This
> method entails injecting an explosive gas into a sealed chamber and then
> igniting the gas. Ports leading from the sealed chamber allow the force of
> the explosion to be directed in only one direction. Repeating this
> controlled explosion many times per second creates the powerful focused
> infrasonic wave. The infrasonic wave can only be felt not seen or heard.
> The military also has created a weapon that uses this principle. The weapon
> is portable and light enough to be carried by only a single person. This
> weapon can also single out one person in a crowd and disable or even kill
> him without affecting anyone else in the crowd.
> "

Just like the smoke from the barrel of a gun, once sound leaves the
device it expands in all directions, period. Directionality only comes
from phase addition and cancellation. You get beampatterns rather like
you can find for amateur radio antennas. That is always the case. You
get antenna gain, not a laser.

The exception to this is nonlinear acoustics. The two high
frequencies have the beam patterns/antenna gains but the difference
frequency is more like a laser. It has no "sidelobes" in the common
parlance.

> And, from the emails on this guys site:
> http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/soundweapon/response.htm
>
> "
> Hey Old Buddy,
>
> How is it going? I am one of the gang from r dot com also known as
> www.racism.com. You should check out a post by Joe Z on Alt.mindcontrol
> on the acoustic zip gun. It sounds like that could be one of
> the causes of your problems. Joe posted the first part I posted the second.
>
> It is powered by extremely powerful compressed air columns in excess
> of 3000lb psi. It fills up a pressure chamber, at which point a release
> valve or rather a quick release trigger releases the gas. AT this point
> it forces it's way into a smaller tube, preferably in a circular motion.
> Upon exiting the air is traveling in excess of Mach 1.
>
> The trick here though is the size of the opening. If it is gauged right
> (study the tuba) it will not only create a sonic boom but a
> 'low-frequency sonic boom!! It can't be heard, only felt. In addition
> the low frequency shockwave will carry an extremely high impact
> force wave along--THROUGH THE WALLS---- The effects on beings are
> devastating. These things can be quite small.
>
> This is a very 'dooable no-tech' way of creating probably the most
> intense sound wave possible and not spending a zillion dollars.
> "

Same for that. The description is so loose it is not clear what it
being said. Through walls? Ever lived in an apartment? Sounds goes
through walls. However the walls will absorb their fraction of the
sound energy. There is a concept of acoustic impedance. The impedance
of air and a wall are difference. Therefore the wall is effected. If
you want to break a lamp on the other side of the wall be prepared to
do serious damage to the wall.

> The device I'm considering would have a limited range, but it
> would be a line-of-sight weapon. With the unusual propery of
> being invisible and inaudible - and being able to pass through
> walls, etc. Again, it would be *felt* by anyone in it's path.
> As to how tightly focused it could be, I dunno.

How can it be "felt" by anything in its path but not "felt" by walls?
The wall would move more than the receiving object as the impedance
mismatch is about the same and sound would be reflected from the
"shooting side" of the wall, energy lost in transmission through it
and energy lost exiting the wall as that is another impedance mismatch.

> This could be used to fake a haunted house, for example (it would
> feel like an 'invisible presence' touched/jolted you). It could
> also be used to keep someone awake at night, and just generally
> be used to harass people. Again, do you think this is possible?

No. Not if you want to sleep on the sending side of the wall.

--
If voters were disqualified if they could not find
Iraq on a map, Kerry would win in a landslide.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3285

From:	eric bazan
Subject:	Re: Directed sonic weapons - 'lasers' 'canons' - feasible?
Date:	16 Nov 2004 15:50:54 -0800

Matt Giwer wrote in message news:<_kjmd.29717$8G4.14572@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>...
> eric bazan wrote:
> > Matt Giwer wrote in message news:...
> >
> >>eric bazan wrote:
> >>
(BIG SNIP)
(...)
>
> Same for that. The description is so loose it is not clear what it
> being said. Through walls? Ever lived in an apartment? Sounds goes
> through walls. However the walls will absorb their fraction of the
> sound energy. There is a concept of acoustic impedance. The impedance
> of air and a wall are difference. Therefore the wall is effected. If
> you want to break a lamp on the other side of the wall be prepared to
> do serious damage to the wall.
>

Matt,

Agree with your assesment. There's enough information in this
guys posts to be intriguing at a glance, but concept doesn't hold
up well to closer scrutiny. Besides, if such a device was possible,
I doubt it could be kept secret for long, given it's obvious
(military and otherwise) applications.

I don't see how the coherence of any kind of focused sonic
wave could be maintained over any distance, especially while
traveling through different substances. And I don't see how
it could be powerful enough to be felt, but not noticed as
it traveled through the wall to reach its target.

-Eric B

From:	jakdedert
Subject:	Re: Directed sonic weapons - 'lasers' 'canons' - feasible?
Date:	Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:11:05 -0600

"Matt Giwer" wrote in message
news:mFZld.35243$As5.14855@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> eric bazan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This may sound a little strange, but I'm looking for feedback
> > on this concept. See:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project217.html
> >
> > Basically this guy is asserting that new types of 'sonic' weapons
> > are being, and have been developed. Since the 1960's and on. Also,
> > most people in the public appear to be largely ignorant of them.
>
> This sort of thing comes up regularly. It is not magic and in fact it
> is quite feasable except ... whoever is operating it is closer to it
> than the people it is aimed at. So how are they to be protected from
> the noise? Ear plugs can't be the answer as rioters can get ear plugs.
>
> Sound is easy to get in phase as in lasers. You can do it with home
> stereo speakers. The classic Bose speaker had 16 (?) or so all in
> phase in each speaker enclosure.
>
> Assigning odd properties to sound is also common and old and not
> supported by evidence. But anyone with a stereo and an oscillator or
> three can experiment to their heart's content. There are no secrets in
> the acoustic spectrum.
>
> There are some particularly annoying frequencies and combinations of
> frequencies which sort of well known but are not exactly the same for
> everyone so there is no best for a crowd. They are around 9000 Hz. A
> combination of 9000 and 9030 or thereabouts fairly annoying. Warbling
> the 9030 between 9020 and 9040 is annoys a good fraction of people.
> But that is about all there is do it. Earplugs will work just fine.
>
> And the old idea of lower frequencies to vibrate organs sounds good
> but the lower the frequency the harder to generate at a high volume.
> And the harder it is to shield the operator from it.
>
> To get directionality the projector has to be several wavelengths
> normal to the transmit direction. wavelength = speed of sound /
> frequency. At 1000 ft/sec and 100 Hz a wavelength is 10 feet. We are
> talking a very big sound source. At 10-20 Hz it is too big to consider
> mobile.
>
> Nonlinear acoustics will produce a difference frequency in the body
> but at 1% of the incident power of the high frequencies, -20 dB. The
> idea of shaking organs is not reasonable. I read some vending machine
> company is test marketing such a device that suggests you "have a
> coke" as you pass in front of it while no one around you can hear it.
>
> The problem with using this is sound has an r-square loss with r
> measured in wavelengths not absolute distance. The higher the
> frequency the shorter the absolute distance. So the attenuation is
> much greater per foot at 20,000 Hz than 2000 Hz. And that means it
> isn't all that good for projecting very far as a weapon.
>
> And now you know all the principles there are to know before getting
> into designing acoustice weapons. But if you do, do a patent search.
> It has been a chimera for inventors since at least the 1920s.
>
> --
> If voters were disqualified if they could not find
> Iraq on a map, Kerry would win in a landslide.
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3285

You might have a look at this report from the ASA, and comment. It seems an
interesting concept.....

http://www.acoustics.org/press/133rd/2pea.html

jak

From:	Matt Giwer
Subject:	Re: Directed sonic weapons - 'lasers' 'canons' - feasible?
Date:	Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:25:06 GMT

jakdedert wrote:
> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
> news:mFZld.35243$As5.14855@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>eric bazan wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>This may sound a little strange, but I'm looking for feedback
>>>on this concept. See:
>>>
>>>http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project217.html
>>>
>>>Basically this guy is asserting that new types of 'sonic' weapons
>>>are being, and have been developed. Since the 1960's and on. Also,
>>>most people in the public appear to be largely ignorant of them.
>>
>>This sort of thing comes up regularly. It is not magic and in fact it
>>is quite feasable except ... whoever is operating it is closer to it
>>than the people it is aimed at. So how are they to be protected from
>>the noise? Ear plugs can't be the answer as rioters can get ear plugs.
>>
>>Sound is easy to get in phase as in lasers. You can do it with home
>>stereo speakers. The classic Bose speaker had 16 (?) or so all in
>>phase in each speaker enclosure.
>>
>>Assigning odd properties to sound is also common and old and not
>>supported by evidence. But anyone with a stereo and an oscillator or
>>three can experiment to their heart's content. There are no secrets in
>>the acoustic spectrum.
>>
>>There are some particularly annoying frequencies and combinations of
>>frequencies which sort of well known but are not exactly the same for
>>everyone so there is no best for a crowd. They are around 9000 Hz. A
>>combination of 9000 and 9030 or thereabouts fairly annoying. Warbling
>>the 9030 between 9020 and 9040 is annoys a good fraction of people.
>>But that is about all there is do it. Earplugs will work just fine.
>>
>>And the old idea of lower frequencies to vibrate organs sounds good
>>but the lower the frequency the harder to generate at a high volume.
>>And the harder it is to shield the operator from it.
>>
>>To get directionality the projector has to be several wavelengths
>>normal to the transmit direction. wavelength = speed of sound /
>>frequency. At 1000 ft/sec and 100 Hz a wavelength is 10 feet. We are
>>talking a very big sound source. At 10-20 Hz it is too big to consider
>>mobile.

VVVVVVVV

>>Nonlinear acoustics will produce a difference frequency in the body
>>but at 1% of the incident power of the high frequencies, -20 dB. The
>>idea of shaking organs is not reasonable. I read some vending machine
>>company is test marketing such a device that suggests you "have a
>>coke" as you pass in front of it while no one around you can hear it.

^^^^^^^^

>>The problem with using this is sound has an r-square loss with r
>>measured in wavelengths not absolute distance. The higher the
>>frequency the shorter the absolute distance. So the attenuation is
>>much greater per foot at 20,000 Hz than 2000 Hz. And that means it
>>isn't all that good for projecting very far as a weapon.

>>And now you know all the principles there are to know before getting
>>into designing acoustice weapons. But if you do, do a patent search.
>>It has been a chimera for inventors since at least the 1920s.

>>--
>>If voters were disqualified if they could not find
>>Iraq on a map, Kerry would win in a landslide.
>>-- The Iron Webmaster, 3285

> You might have a look at this report from the ASA, and comment. It seems an
> interesting concept.....
>
> http://www.acoustics.org/press/133rd/2pea.html

HyperSonic Sound is produced without the excess baggage of
conventional speakers--there are no voice coils, cones, crossover
networks, or enclosures. The result is sound with a potential purity
and fidelity never before attained.

....

Non-Linearity of Air

When two sound sources are positioned relatively closely together and
are of a sufficiently high intensity, two new tones appear: a tone
lower than either of the two original ones and a tone which is higher
than the original two.

That is the nonlinear effect I mentioned.

--
Fallujah problems started when Americans slaughtered 600 of them
to revenge the murder of four armed American mercenaries. What
kind of justification is this?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3278

From:	jakdedert
Subject:	Re: Directed sonic weapons - 'lasers' 'canons' - feasible?
Date:	Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:37:11 -0600

Matt Giwer wrote:
> jakdedert wrote:
>> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
>> news:mFZld.35243$As5.14855@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>>> eric bazan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> This may sound a little strange, but I'm looking for feedback
>>>> on this concept. See:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project217.html
>>>>
>>>> Basically this guy is asserting that new types of 'sonic' weapons
>>>> are being, and have been developed. Since the 1960's and on. Also,
>>>> most people in the public appear to be largely ignorant of them.
>>>
>>> This sort of thing comes up regularly. It is not magic and in fact
>>> it is quite feasable except ... whoever is operating it is closer
>>> to it than the people it is aimed at. So how are they to be
>>> protected from the noise? Ear plugs can't be the answer as rioters
>>> can get ear plugs.
>>>
>>> Sound is easy to get in phase as in lasers. You can do it with home
>>> stereo speakers. The classic Bose speaker had 16 (?) or so all in
>>> phase in each speaker enclosure.
>>>
>>> Assigning odd properties to sound is also common and old and not
>>> supported by evidence. But anyone with a stereo and an oscillator or
>>> three can experiment to their heart's content. There are no secrets
>>> in the acoustic spectrum.
>>>
>>> There are some particularly annoying frequencies and combinations of
>>> frequencies which sort of well known but are not exactly the same
>>> for everyone so there is no best for a crowd. They are around 9000
>>> Hz. A combination of 9000 and 9030 or thereabouts fairly annoying.
>>> Warbling the 9030 between 9020 and 9040 is annoys a good fraction
>>> of people. But that is about all there is do it. Earplugs will work
>>> just fine.
>>>
>>> And the old idea of lower frequencies to vibrate organs sounds good
>>> but the lower the frequency the harder to generate at a high volume.
>>> And the harder it is to shield the operator from it.
>>>
>>> To get directionality the projector has to be several wavelengths
>>> normal to the transmit direction. wavelength = speed of sound /
>>> frequency. At 1000 ft/sec and 100 Hz a wavelength is 10 feet. We are
>>> talking a very big sound source. At 10-20 Hz it is too big to
>>> consider mobile.
>
> VVVVVVVV
>
>>> Nonlinear acoustics will produce a difference frequency in the body
>>> but at 1% of the incident power of the high frequencies, -20 dB. The
>>> idea of shaking organs is not reasonable. I read some vending
>>> machine company is test marketing such a device that suggests you
>>> "have a coke" as you pass in front of it while no one around you
>>> can hear it.
>
> ^^^^^^^^
>
>>> The problem with using this is sound has an r-square loss with r
>>> measured in wavelengths not absolute distance. The higher the
>>> frequency the shorter the absolute distance. So the attenuation is
>>> much greater per foot at 20,000 Hz than 2000 Hz. And that means it
>>> isn't all that good for projecting very far as a weapon.
>
>>> And now you know all the principles there are to know before getting
>>> into designing acoustice weapons. But if you do, do a patent search.
>>> It has been a chimera for inventors since at least the 1920s.
>
>>> --
>>> If voters were disqualified if they could not find
>>> Iraq on a map, Kerry would win in a landslide.
>>> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3285
>
>> You might have a look at this report from the ASA, and comment. It
>> seems an interesting concept.....
>>
>> http://www.acoustics.org/press/133rd/2pea.html
>
> HyperSonic Sound is produced without the excess baggage of
> conventional speakers--there are no voice coils, cones, crossover
> networks, or enclosures. The result is sound with a potential purity
> and fidelity never before attained.
>
> ...
>
> Non-Linearity of Air
>
> When two sound sources are positioned relatively closely together and
> are of a sufficiently high intensity, two new tones appear: a tone
> lower than either of the two original ones and a tone which is higher
> than the original two.
>
> That is the nonlinear effect I mentioned.

The DoD, specifically the Navy, has been testing the concept, as much as a
hailing device as a weapon:
http://www.woodynorris.com/Articles/NewYorkTimesMagazine.htm

"For the moment, though, HSS is unfinished business. As night must follow
day, there are Defense Department applications. Norris and A.T.C. have been
busy honing something called High Intensity Directed Acoustics (HIDA, in
house jargon). It is directional sound -- an offshoot of HSS -- but one that
never, ever transmits Handel or waterfall sounds. Although the technology
thus far has been routinely referred to as a "nonlethal weapon," the
Pentagon now prefers to stress the friendlier-sounding "hailing intruders"
function.

In reality, HIDA is both warning and weapon. If used from a battleship, it
can ward off stray crafts at 500 yards with a pinpointed verbal warning.
Should the offending vessel continue to within 200 yards, the stern warnings
are replaced by 120-decibel sounds that are as physically disabling as
shrapnel. Certain noises, projected at the right pitch, can incapacitate
even a stone-deaf terrorist; the bones in your head are brutalized by a
tone's full effect whether you're clutching the sides of your skull in agony
or not. "Besides," Norris says, laughing darkly, "grabbing your ears is as
good as a pair of handcuffs."

If the U.S.S. Cole had been equipped with a HIDA system, the attack of
October 2000 could never have succeeded. Most of the sounds under military
consideration are classified, but some are approved for public consumption.
One truly harrowing noise is that of a baby crying, played backward, and
combined with another tone. As usual, Woody Norris is pleased to
demonstrate. Woody Norris is pleased about everything.

Nimbly holding a big black plate, Norris stands with me in an A.T.C. sound
chamber. Since he's poised behind the weapon, he will hear no sound once
it's powered up: not a peep. "HIDA can instantaneously cause loss of
equilibrium, vomiting, migraines -- really, we can pretty much pick our
ailment," he says brightly. "We've delivered a couple dozen units so far,
but will have a lot more out by June. They're talking millions!" (Last
month, A.T.C. cut a five-year, multimillion-dollar licensing agreement with
General Dynamics, one of the giants of the military-industrial complex.)"

Recently, Norris' company backed out of a contract with General Dynamics,
which was developing, marketing and implementing the technology. Perhaps
they lost sight of the 'Grail' themselves. The stated reason was
nonperformance on GD's part. I'm still excited about this technology, which
in fact, is the basis for the 'talking soda machine' referred to above.
It's simple enough in concept to perhaps lend itself to home
experimentation.....?

jak

From:	Matt Giwer
Subject:	Re: Directed sonic weapons - 'lasers' 'canons' - feasible?
Date:	Wed, 17 Nov 2004 05:53:32 GMT

jakdedert wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>>jakdedert wrote:
>>
>>>"Matt Giwer" wrote in message
>>>news:mFZld.35243$As5.14855@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>eric bazan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>This may sound a little strange, but I'm looking for feedback
>>>>>on this concept. See:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project217.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Basically this guy is asserting that new types of 'sonic' weapons
>>>>>are being, and have been developed. Since the 1960's and on. Also,
>>>>>most people in the public appear to be largely ignorant of them.
>>>>
>>>>This sort of thing comes up regularly. It is not magic and in fact
>>>>it is quite feasable except ... whoever is operating it is closer
>>>>to it than the people it is aimed at. So how are they to be
>>>>protected from the noise? Ear plugs can't be the answer as rioters
>>>>can get ear plugs.
>>>>
>>>>Sound is easy to get in phase as in lasers. You can do it with home
>>>>stereo speakers. The classic Bose speaker had 16 (?) or so all in
>>>>phase in each speaker enclosure.
>>>>
>>>>Assigning odd properties to sound is also common and old and not
>>>>supported by evidence. But anyone with a stereo and an oscillator or
>>>>three can experiment to their heart's content. There are no secrets
>>>>in the acoustic spectrum.
>>>>
>>>>There are some particularly annoying frequencies and combinations of
>>>>frequencies which sort of well known but are not exactly the same
>>>>for everyone so there is no best for a crowd. They are around 9000
>>>>Hz. A combination of 9000 and 9030 or thereabouts fairly annoying.
>>>>Warbling the 9030 between 9020 and 9040 is annoys a good fraction
>>>>of people. But that is about all there is do it. Earplugs will work
>>>>just fine.
>>>>
>>>>And the old idea of lower frequencies to vibrate organs sounds good
>>>>but the lower the frequency the harder to generate at a high volume.
>>>>And the harder it is to shield the operator from it.
>>>>
>>>>To get directionality the projector has to be several wavelengths
>>>>normal to the transmit direction. wavelength = speed of sound /
>>>>frequency. At 1000 ft/sec and 100 Hz a wavelength is 10 feet. We are
>>>>talking a very big sound source. At 10-20 Hz it is too big to
>>>>consider mobile.
>>
>>VVVVVVVV
>>
>>
>>>>Nonlinear acoustics will produce a difference frequency in the body
>>>>but at 1% of the incident power of the high frequencies, -20 dB. The
>>>>idea of shaking organs is not reasonable. I read some vending
>>>>machine company is test marketing such a device that suggests you
>>>>"have a coke" as you pass in front of it while no one around you
>>>>can hear it.
>>
>>^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>>>>The problem with using this is sound has an r-square loss with r
>>>>measured in wavelengths not absolute distance. The higher the
>>>>frequency the shorter the absolute distance. So the attenuation is
>>>>much greater per foot at 20,000 Hz than 2000 Hz. And that means it
>>>>isn't all that good for projecting very far as a weapon.
>>
>>>>And now you know all the principles there are to know before getting
>>>>into designing acoustice weapons. But if you do, do a patent search.
>>>>It has been a chimera for inventors since at least the 1920s.
>>
>>>>--
>>>>If voters were disqualified if they could not find
>>>>Iraq on a map, Kerry would win in a landslide.
>>>>-- The Iron Webmaster, 3285
>>
>>>You might have a look at this report from the ASA, and comment. It
>>>seems an interesting concept.....
>>>
>>>http://www.acoustics.org/press/133rd/2pea.html
>>
>>HyperSonic Sound is produced without the excess baggage of
>>conventional speakers--there are no voice coils, cones, crossover
>>networks, or enclosures. The result is sound with a potential purity
>>and fidelity never before attained.
>>
>>...
>>
>>Non-Linearity of Air
>>
>>When two sound sources are positioned relatively closely together and
>>are of a sufficiently high intensity, two new tones appear: a tone
>>lower than either of the two original ones and a tone which is higher
>>than the original two.
>>
>>That is the nonlinear effect I mentioned.
>
>
> The DoD, specifically the Navy, has been testing the concept, as much as a
> hailing device as a weapon:
> http://www.woodynorris.com/Articles/NewYorkTimesMagazine.htm
>
> "For the moment, though, HSS is unfinished business. As night must follow
> day, there are Defense Department applications. Norris and A.T.C. have been
> busy honing something called High Intensity Directed Acoustics (HIDA, in
> house jargon). It is directional sound -- an offshoot of HSS -- but one that
> never, ever transmits Handel or waterfall sounds. Although the technology
> thus far has been routinely referred to as a "nonlethal weapon," the
> Pentagon now prefers to stress the friendlier-sounding "hailing intruders"
> function.

Also from the article an application I mentioned.

"Imagine, he says, walking by a soda machine (say, one of the five
million in Japan that will soon employ HSS), triggering a proximity
detector, then hearing what you alone hear -- the plink of ice cubes
and the invocation, "Wouldn't a Coke taste great right about now?"

> In reality, HIDA is both warning and weapon. If used from a battleship, it
> can ward off stray crafts at 500 yards with a pinpointed verbal warning.
> Should the offending vessel continue to within 200 yards, the stern warnings
> are replaced by 120-decibel sounds that are as physically disabling as
> shrapnel. Certain noises, projected at the right pitch, can incapacitate
> even a stone-deaf terrorist; the bones in your head are brutalized by a
> tone's full effect whether you're clutching the sides of your skull in agony
> or not. "Besides," Norris says, laughing darkly, "grabbing your ears is as
> good as a pair of handcuffs."

The idea of volume of the difference frequency (Sound Pressure Level)
being that high is very difficult to conceive.

> If the U.S.S. Cole had been equipped with a HIDA system, the attack of
> October 2000 could never have succeeded. Most of the sounds under military
> consideration are classified, but some are approved for public consumption.
> One truly harrowing noise is that of a baby crying, played backward, and
> combined with another tone. As usual, Woody Norris is pleased to
> demonstrate. Woody Norris is pleased about everything.

The ranges for warning suggested are excessive. And a few rounds from
a vulcan cannon much more effective as a warning. The problem with the
Cole was it did nothing. The CO was courts martialed for not
implementing standing orders.

> Nimbly holding a big black plate, Norris stands with me in an A.T.C. sound
> chamber. Since he's poised behind the weapon, he will hear no sound once
> it's powered up: not a peep. "HIDA can instantaneously cause loss of
> equilibrium, vomiting, migraines -- really, we can pretty much pick our
> ailment," he says brightly. "We've delivered a couple dozen units so far,
> but will have a lot more out by June. They're talking millions!" (Last
> month, A.T.C. cut a five-year, multimillion-dollar licensing agreement with
> General Dynamics, one of the giants of the military-industrial complex.)"

> Recently, Norris' company backed out of a contract with General Dynamics,
> which was developing, marketing and implementing the technology. Perhaps
> they lost sight of the 'Grail' themselves. The stated reason was
> nonperformance on GD's part. I'm still excited about this technology, which
> in fact, is the basis for the 'talking soda machine' referred to above.
> It's simple enough in concept to perhaps lend itself to home
> experimentation.....?

The phenomenom was originally observed by Brown University but the
year escapes me. Basic research was funded by the Office of Naval
Research in the late 1960s and early 70s. The lead lab was the Defense
Research Lab of U of Texas at Austin. I funded Raytheon for a proof of
concept of an application in (I think) 1972. It broke all records
appearing as an operational system in the fleet a year later. (So far
as I know it was never declassified so I can't go further.) There were
some other applications explored.

In the early 80s I had an agreement to join a new company if it could
get the funding to develop the sorts of things talked about in this
article. Unfortunately that didn't happen.

This is neither new nor earthshaking. It may be its time has come or
it may disappear again. The major obstacle is the process is only
about 1% efficient requiring a very high volume source.

--
Should all countries imitate Israel and have
jews-only neighborhoods?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3266

From:	jakdedert
Subject:	Re: Directed sonic weapons - 'lasers' 'canons' - feasible?
Date:	Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:51:18 -0600

Matt Giwer wrote:
> jakdedert wrote:

> In the early 80s I had an agreement to join a new company if it could
> get the funding to develop the sorts of things talked about in this
> article. Unfortunately that didn't happen.
>
> This is neither new nor earthshaking. It may be its time has come or
> it may disappear again. The major obstacle is the process is only
> about 1% efficient requiring a very high volume source.

That's been 'kind of' my take: why hasn't it taken off, if it is as
earth-shattering as described. Maybe it will end up as one of those "100
mpg carburetor: supressed by the oil companies" stories that surface from
time to time.

Thank you for your take....

jak

From:	Asimov
Subject:	Re: Directed sonic weapons - 'lasers' 'canons' - feasible?
Date:	Tuesday, 16 Nov 2004 10:59:26 -500

"jakdedert" bravely wrote to "All" (15 Nov 04 14:11:05)
--- on the heady topic of "Re: Directed sonic weapons - 'lasers' 'canons' -
feasible?"

ja> From: "jakdedert"

ja> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
ja> news:mFZld.35243$As5.14855@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> eric bazan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This may sound a little strange, but I'm looking for feedback
> > on this concept. See:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project217.html
> >
> > Basically this guy is asserting that new types of 'sonic' weapons
> > are being, and have been developed. Since the 1960's and on. Also,
> > most people in the public appear to be largely ignorant of them.
>
> This sort of thing comes up regularly. It is not magic and in fact it
> is quite feasable except ... whoever is operating it is closer to it
> than the people it is aimed at. So how are they to be protected from
> the noise? Ear plugs can't be the answer as rioters can get ear plugs.
>
> Sound is easy to get in phase as in lasers. You can do it with home
> stereo speakers. The classic Bose speaker had 16 (?) or so all in
> phase in each speaker enclosure.
>
> Assigning odd properties to sound is also common and old and not
> supported by evidence. But anyone with a stereo and an oscillator or
> three can experiment to their heart's content. There are no secrets in
> the acoustic spectrum.
>
> There are some particularly annoying frequencies and combinations of
> frequencies which sort of well known but are not exactly the same for
> everyone so there is no best for a crowd. They are around 9000 Hz. A
> combination of 9000 and 9030 or thereabouts fairly annoying. Warbling
> the 9030 between 9020 and 9040 is annoys a good fraction of people.
> But that is about all there is do it. Earplugs will work just fine.
>
> And the old idea of lower frequencies to vibrate organs sounds good
> but the lower the frequency the harder to generate at a high volume.
> And the harder it is to shield the operator from it.
>
> To get directionality the projector has to be several wavelengths
> normal to the transmit direction. wavelength = speed of sound /
> frequency. At 1000 ft/sec and 100 Hz a wavelength is 10 feet. We are
> talking a very big sound source. At 10-20 Hz it is too big to consider
> mobile.
>
> Nonlinear acoustics will produce a difference frequency in the body
> but at 1% of the incident power of the high frequencies, -20 dB. The
> idea of shaking organs is not reasonable. I read some vending machine
> company is test marketing such a device that suggests you "have a
> coke" as you pass in front of it while no one around you can hear it.
>
> The problem with using this is sound has an r-square loss with r
> measured in wavelengths not absolute distance. The higher the
> frequency the shorter the absolute distance. So the attenuation is
> much greater per foot at 20,000 Hz than 2000 Hz. And that means it
> isn't all that good for projecting very far as a weapon.
>
> And now you know all the principles there are to know before getting
> into designing acoustice weapons. But if you do, do a patent search.
> It has been a chimera for inventors since at least the 1920s.
>
> --
> If voters were disqualified if they could not find
> Iraq on a map, Kerry would win in a landslide.
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3285

ja> You might have a look at this report from the ASA, and comment. It
ja> seems an interesting concept.....

ja> http://www.acoustics.org/press/133rd/2pea.html

I think I've heard of something called "Time Reversed Acoustics" which
in theory can reconstruct a focused wavefront from multiple emitters.
For example if the sound of an explosion is recorded from an array of
microphones around the event, these then can playback their recordings
to recreate the explosion at the original point. Or something like
that.

A*s*i*m*o*v

.... Chickens: How eggs make more eggs.

From:	Ron
Subject:	Re: Directed sonic weapons - 'lasers' 'canons' - feasible?
Date:	Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:28:21 GMT

Please accept this as only anecdotal, since I don't have any documentation
to share. A friend was talking about a company in our area (southwest USA)
that is working on a device which is aimed at the outside of a building and
which produces a noise so annoying to the occupants that they would be
forced outside. One intended application is for use by law enforcement in
cases of hostage situations, etc. I'm still not sure that I understand the
principle.
-Ron

> "eric bazan" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This may sound a little strange, but I'm looking for feedback
> on this concept. See:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project217.html
>
> ... snip ...
>
> Consider: a device capable of 'firing' a directed ultrasonic (above
> human hearing) wave. It would have a range of a few hundred
> feet, and would pass through most commonly used building materials
> with ease. It would not be heard, but if it happened to strike
> a person it would be felt. Like a jolt or a slap, depending on the
> energy. Such a device could be used to scare and harass people
> without them knowing what's going on. It could be fired from another
> building at the target, and would leave no evidence.
>
> For more on what this guy is contending see (warning, verbose):
> http://members.aol.com/ultra21753/ultra.htm
> http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/soundweapon/ultrasonics.htm
>
> Just off the top of my head I can't refute this concept. I'd
> appreciate any opinions on this - is it possible (already been
> done?) or just bunk? Appreciate your feedback.
>
> Thank, Eric B

From:	John
Subject:	Re: Directed sonic weapons - 'lasers' 'canons' - feasible?
Date:	Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:01:15 +1100

"Ron" wrote in message
news:FKSld.84968$Kl3.60941@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Please accept this as only anecdotal, since I don't have any documentation
> to share. A friend was talking about a company in our area (southwest USA)
> that is working on a device which is aimed at the outside of a building
> and
> which produces a noise so annoying to the occupants that they would be
> forced outside.

So what's the name of his band then?

From:	Dale Farmer
Subject:	Re: Directed sonic weapons - 'lasers' 'canons' - feasible?
Date:	Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:40:27 GMT

eric bazan wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This may sound a little strange, but I'm looking for feedback
> on this concept. See:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project217.html
>
> Basically this guy is asserting that new types of 'sonic' weapons
> are being, and have been developed. Since the 1960's and on. Also,
> most people in the public appear to be largely ignorant of them.
>
> He contends that (as an example) types of utlrasonic 'lasers'
> and 'canons' have been developed, some of these apparently can
> be lethal. The type I'm intereseted in would be used more to
> harass and scare people with.
>
> C

Some acoustic widgets have been experimented with by the
US DoD. I have not heard of any that have actually gone out on
field trials against real live mobs. This was mainly intended for
things like defending of US embassies, guarded by the Marine
Corps, and by army folks looking to give 'peace keepers' a less
lethal alternative than bullets and shrapnel. The prison and police
industry have also been interested in such things.
There were ones that sent out very low frequencies that
stimulated peristalsis in the lower bowl, giving the recipient
the urgent desire to go find a private place to do their
business. There were ones that just found a very irritating
mix of frequencies and broadcast them very loudly, much like a
heavy metal band does at one of their concerts. Then there was
ones that just blasted out sheer volume, at levels that were
calculated to interfere with speech, again much like a heavy
metal band.
THe low frequency ones sortof worked, but the mechanism
to focus the sound was rather large, and pretty much non-portable.
THe other ones had undesirable side effects, i.e. permanent hearing
loss on the targets, and everyone else in the vicinity. ALthough it was

portable, if your definition of portable included a largish truck.
THe research went on to focus on assorted chemical irritants,
like capsacium(sp?) pepper, mace, etc. Those were rather more
effective and controllable. So, no klingon sonic disrupters yet.

--Dale