 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Acoustics / July 2006"Black" Tones?
Hi: I am curious to know what the auditory equivalent of black light is. Black light is long-wave UV light around 400 nanometers. The auditory equivalent of black light would then be long-wave ultrasound [i.e. slightly above 20,000 Hz]. Right? I am thinking of designing a Sine-Wave tone generator that produces sound in the frequencies that would be like "black light for the human ear". My design produces two frequencies together. They frequency difference is exactly that of notes [white keys] C and D on a piano. Both these frequencies are played exactly together. The tones are pure sine-waves. These frequencies are similar to those played on the Emergency Broadcasting System. What are the parameters? The EBS plays sine-wave tones in the human audible range [obviously not "black sound"] but the frequency difference of these two tones is similar to what I was describing [C and D on a paino]. EBS plays tones somewhere in the mid-human hearing range. The frequency difference of the two tones induces fear in listeners which alerts them to the emergency being reported. This type of fear is a severe one which occurs when wierd things occur that one cannot understand. I have a friend whose eyes water whenever he listens to the EBS or disruptions on the AM radio. I seem to like it though. The fear induced by the frequency difference gives me an adrenaline rush [lot like flying into outer space where there are lot of new and wierd things to learn about!]. This is one of the reasons I would like to construct a "black" sine-wave tone generator. The other reason is of course my interest in sound and audio-visual equivalents. I also find high-pitched sine-waves pleasing to my ears. When I listen to sine-waves *slighty* above 20,000 Hz, I can only partially "hear" them but I can still feel "tickling" or "pressure" my ears whenever they are played. Would this frequency be in the "black tone" range? Thanks, Radium On 7/14/06 9:10 AM, in article 1152893431.318572.292470@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: > I am curious to know what the auditory equivalent of black light is. I am curious as to how someone can create such nonsense. Very few wild ideas will lead to the breakthroughs that change the world. The creator of such outlandish ideas should at least be able to tell that most of them are crazy. The few that filter through can then be broadcast to get other opinions. Radium knows squat and cannot filter any crackpot ideas out. Instead, the burden is placed on others. Anyone with a modicum of scientific knowledge would know what the answer to the above question is. While I usually do not look at such posts, every now and then I look at one for my amusement. Bill -- Ferme le Bush > Hi: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > ears whenever they are played. Would this frequency be in the "black > tone" range? There is no truly relevant comparison between light and sound, they are two different senses in different mediums. The only black tones are the ones made when you play the black keys on your leyboard. :-) Your questions are really getting stupid. If you must research such things, try Google, Yahoo Search or Ask.com. >> Hi: >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Your questions are really getting stupid. If you must research such > things, try Google, Yahoo Search or Ask.com. You might also try posting your stupid questions in alt.music.home-studio where Mike (Porky) Rieves demonstrates his lack of education and technical ignorance on a regular basis. > Black light is long-wave UV light around 400 nanometers. The most coomon use of UV "Black" light is its capability to cause materials to flouresce in the visible region longer than 400nm. The radio equivalent of this is the MASER, which can also be accomplished with Lasers. There are some that have that have harnessed this principale (nonlinear interactions), manifested as "Parametric Sonar". This, like the MASER, requires a very strong "pump" wave, which in your example is the "black light". Off hand, I think that the "parametric sonar" priciple comes close to what you are referencing. It's not yet certain that the "pressure" felt in one's ear is such. Angelo Campanella >> Black light is long-wave UV light around 400 nanometers. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Angelo Campanella Have a look at http://www.holosonics.com/technology.html Kari Pesonen I sure would like to see some measurement results of these things :-). Especially low freq > >> Black light is long-wave UV light around 400 nanometers. > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Kari Pesonen Not sure if we are thinking of the same thing, but "BLACK NOISE" (opposite of white-noise) is basically quiet (no sound) with random bursts of energy. > Not sure if we are thinking of the same thing, but "BLACK NOISE" > (opposite of white-noise) is basically quiet (no sound) with random > bursts of energy. The 'black' question seems to be one of idle curiosity. (If 'white' existis, then what must be 'black'; a conundrum.) Whence we all set about trying to satisfy the wish of that conundrum. Angelo Campanella > > Not sure if we are thinking of the same thing, but "BLACK NOISE" > > (opposite of white-noise) is basically quiet (no sound) with random [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Angelo Campanella In this case, the conundrum is more like: 1. If black "light" exists, then what must be black "tone"? OR 2. If there is a "visual" something, what is its "auditory" equivalent? > > < ...snip... > > > The 'black' question seems to be one of idle curiosity. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > 2. If there is a "visual" something, what is its "auditory" equivalent? OR 3. if light were a flavor, what would it taste like? OR 4. If sound were an odor, what would it smell like? ...etc. Why must there be a cross mappings of the senses? Later... Ron Capik <<< cynic-in-training >>> -- > > > < ...snip... > > > > The 'black' question seems to be one of idle curiosity. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Ron Capik <<< cynic-in-training >>> > -- Both light and sound has frequency and amplitude. Chemicals [which BTW, are responsible for smells and tastes] do not have frequency of amplitude. So get this smell and taste stuff outa here, no offense. In alt.sci.physics.acoustics, Radium <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: > 2. If there is a "visual" something, what is its "auditory" equivalent? So then what is the auditory equivalent of the color yellow?  SignatureA nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. --Edward R. Murrow > In alt.sci.physics.acoustics, Radium <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: > > > 2. If there is a "visual" something, what is its "auditory" equivalent? > So then what is the auditory equivalent of the color yellow? Difficult to say. The auditory equivalent of red color is probably somewhere around 20 hz because that is around the lowest frequency most humans can perceive fully as sound. Below 20 hz, the "sound" begins to lose its auditory qualities and become a tactile -- rather than auditory -- entity. To answer your question about yellow, I think the auditory equivalent is probably around 200 - 300 hz, but I this is a very rough estimate and I could be SO wrong. > -- > A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. > --Edward R. Murrow In alt.sci.physics.acoustics, Radium <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: > > So then what is the auditory equivalent of the color yellow? > Below 20 hz, the "sound" begins to > lose its auditory qualities and become a tactile -- rather than > auditory -- entity. Ah! Is THAT why infrared radiation smells so bad? SignatureA nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. --Edward R. Murrow > Not sure if we are thinking of the same thing, but "BLACK NOISE" > (opposite of white-noise) is basically quiet (no sound) with random > bursts of energy. I am not at all talking about "black noise". I am talking about "black tone". There is a huge difference. Black-tone is to the ear what black-light [400 nm light] is to the eye. >> Not sure if we are thinking of the same thing, but "BLACK NOISE" >> (opposite of white-noise) is basically quiet (no sound) with random [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Black-tone is to the ear what black-light [400 nm light] is to the eye. Black light is so called because it is light that we can't see (the light given off by black light bulbs isn't really black light, it's high frequency visible light). Black sound, if anyone other than you chose to call it that, would be sound that we can't hear. Strong UV light sources can damage the eye and strong ultrasonic sound can damage the ears, so both should be avoided. > >> Not sure if we are thinking of the same thing, but "BLACK NOISE" > >> (opposite of white-noise) is basically quiet (no sound) with random [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > Black-tone is to the ear what black-light [400 nm light] is to the eye. > Black light is so called because it is light that we can't see (the light > given off by black light bulbs isn't really black light, it's high frequency > visible light). Black sound, if anyone other than you chose to call it that, > would be sound that we can't hear. Strong UV light sources can damage the > eye and strong ultrasonic sound can damage the ears, so both should be > avoided. Okay. What frequency of sound would be to the ear what 400 nm light is to the eye? >> >> Not sure if we are thinking of the same thing, but "BLACK NOISE" >> >> (opposite of white-noise) is basically quiet (no sound) with [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > What frequency of sound would be to the ear what 400 nm light is to > the eye? It's fascinating to observe how quickly an exchange between a technical moron and a troll can devolve from idle nonsense to total absurdity. > >> >> Not sure if we are thinking of the same thing, but "BLACK NOISE" > >> >> (opposite of white-noise) is basically quiet (no sound) with [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > It's fascinating to observe how quickly an exchange between a technical > moron and a troll can devolve from idle nonsense to total absurdity. I asked "What frequency of sound would be to the ear what 400 nm -- or 750 THz -- light is to the eye?" What is absurb about my question? > What frequency of sound would be to the ear what 400 nm light is to the > eye? First, the nit-picker's version: "Light is but one octave from about 400 to 800 nanometers, but sound that we hear is perhaps 7 octaves." (more not pickers will attack that statement). So there is analogy". My version: Since 400 nm is "just above", I'll propose 20 to 25 kHz (since I knew one person that heard 21 kHz). Thus, "black light" might be the dog whistle or movement sensor frequency. But UV is famous (besides causing sunburn) for causing fluorescence. So, are we in a sunburn discussion or a fluorescence discussion? Angelo Campanella > Have a look at > http://www.holosonics.com/technology.html I am not sure whether the paramtric system depicted has a sigificant domestic value, certainly not for wide area entertainment as for essentially all existing PA and entertainment systems. Perhaps that parametric approach works for targeted sound delivery points, e.g. answering the door, where you want speech sound only at the head of the visitor, or speaking to just one or two persons in a room full of occupants. Angelo Campanella > > Have a look at > > http://www.holosonics.com/technology.html [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Angelo Campanella Ang, such devices using IM distortion to get beamed sound are made for musea to point info at a narrow spot. The ship mounted ones look good. In recent piracy reports, the crew refers to "sound cannons" to deter boarding parties. It's interesting to see the interviews where in the background stands what appear to be a rather hefty version of the audio spotlight. >>>Have a look at >>>http://www.holosonics.com/technology.html [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > such devices using IM distortion to get beamed sound are made for musea > to point info at a narrow spot. > > Black light is long-wave UV light around 400 nanometers. > > The most coomon use of UV "Black" light is its capability to cause > materials to flouresce in the visible region longer than 400nm. > The radio equivalent of this is the MASER, which can also be > accomplished with Lasers. The radio equivalent is different from the acoustic equivalent. > There are some that have that have harnessed this principale (nonlinear > interactions), manifested as "Parametric Sonar". Interesting. > This, like the MASER, requires a very strong "pump" wave, which in your > example is the "black light". > Off hand, I think that the "parametric sonar" priciple comes close to > what you are referencing. Does the parametric sonar use any ultrasonic transducers? > It's not yet certain that the "pressure" felt in one's ear is such. > > Angelo Campanella |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.