Can Infrasound Explain Ghostly Apparitions?

  • Thread starter zoobyshoe
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Ghosts Uk
In summary, a computer expert named Vic Tandy debunked a ghost sighting in a haunted laboratory in Warwick, England by discovering that the ghostly figure was caused by infrasound waves vibrating a fencing foil in the lab. He later tested for infrasound in a famous haunted cellar and found similar results. Tandy's research has sparked interest in the effects of infrasound on humans and has led to further exploration and experimentation.
  • #36
NateTG managed to dig up these two reports that relate to IS testing on humans.

19800007533, and 19730008358

So I guess the good news is that we do find IS research at NASA, but the bad news is that nowhere is the correct number seen. Also, these reports are not available online.

A total of 23 technical reports come up at the NASA report server when one searches "infrasound". Only these two are indicated as relating to human testing. This server may not include contractor work...dunno

I was still hoping to hear back from Tandy. I guess I will just contact NASA.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
I've only seen one or two lines of car amplifiers that can output IS. I believe Alpine class-T amps can, and Chronic class-D and class-T amps. Anyway, even if they could, most subwoofers have such horrible response at IS frequencies that you'd have a hard time breaking 100db. Odds are that your eyes were shaking from the sheer amount of compression/decompression of air that was occurring, perhaps some sort of resonant frequency within your car. Competition steroes have been known to do that, even when they are driven by amps that can only produce a 60hz sine wave.

Anyway, a tool that you all might find useful for this study is SBaGen. http://uazu.net/sbagen/
It's a tool that was built to produce binaural beat frequencies (using the difference between two frequencies to create a common frequency). The interesting thing is that it plays one frequency on one speaker and the other on another speaker so you are actually separating the sources. Might allow for some interesting side-experiments.
 
  • #38
Anyway, a tool that you all might find useful for this study is SBaGen. http://uazu.net/sbagen/
It's a tool that was built to produce binaural beat frequencies

Pergatory,

This sounds interesting. Have you ever tried this yourself? I didn't see mention of what the frequency the original tones might be and what range of the beat frequency it could produce. Infrasound?
 
  • #39
I've tried it a little, with no definite results. Sometimes I feel strange or slightly euphoric somehow but nothing that seems extra-ordinary. Probably just my mind playing tricks on me.

The scope of the program is entirely unrelated to infrasound in theory, but happens to follow a mutual method. The intended use is to have headphones on so that the two sound waves are not actually intersecting but that the binaural beat is created in the brain waves after the sound has been interpreted by the ears, theoretically. As i said early, it doesn't seem to do anything and seems like an attempt to connect unrelated things. Fortunately for us, brain waves range from 0.5hz (delta) to 30hz (beta) so yes, infrasound is a primary function. Additionally, it let's you program your own tone sets so you can define exactly what base tone and beat frequency you want (among other things). Despite being a total failure, I think this program could be quite useful! :) Wish I had time to play with it on my own! I love stuff like this.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
What kind of CD player, amp, and speakers do you have - ie make, model, approximate year of production...? I wanted to check the technical data.

the head unit:
http://www.onlinecarstereo.com/CarAudio/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductID=13608

I can't remember exactly what brand the amp is, I'll get back to you with this info. I know its a 2 channel amp 300 w rms and I have it bridged pushing 12 12" MTX in a sealed box. The two speakers actually function as one the way the box is designed.

What was the volume level set to at the time?
I probably had the volume about 2/3 to max. The amp was set to just below max output.

What is the name of the test track...or do you have any links on the specifications?

This also I cannot remember. It had the Hz frequency ranges that it spanned through in the name of the track.

Has this ever happened since. Can you duplicate the effect?

Oh ya, I love tripping my friends out with it.

Did this happen in the day or at night? If at night, how is your night vision?

Either. I have 20/20 vision, night vision is fine.

I assume that the effect stopped when you stopped the CD?

Yes.


I don't know if the vehicle has anything to do with it, but it was in a 81 datsun 720 extended cab. I also have 2 pioneer 6x9 4 way speakers, and 2 5 1/4 3 way speakers. I doubt those speakers had any effect. The windows were rolled up, and the sun roof was closed, but does not latch. Other times I've noticed the sun roof opening and closing with the music, I never paid any attention during the twitching vision.

I'd also suspect Pergatory is correct. Thining back, I can remember feeling the air moving, and it being quite hard to breath. If you spoke, you get the voice through running fan effect.

I'm not suggesting my setup would produce the exact effect your looking for, but probably something similar. I know you can get software for a pc that can produce many different frequencys. Perhaps you could find one to produce the 18.9 your looking for.

If you have an old power supply for a computer around, you can use that to power a car amp pretty decently.
 
  • #41
Ok, so I was do a lil digging.

http://www.cyberartscamp.org/webdesign/2003/week5/xavier1/annoyances/infrasound.html

A short excerpt:

This annoyance is extremely effective, and is just plain mean in the wrong hands. It relies on the fact that infrasonic sound waves (sound just below the range of human hearing) cause strange effects in humans. At low volume, they can cause mild nauseau and uncomfortablness. At higher volumes, it can cause incontrollable vomiting. Be careful though, it can also break windows and pottery.

Not a whole lot there, just basically tells you to get a sub and a waveform generator, soft or hardware and hook the output of the generator to the speaker.

http://www.infrasonicmusic.co.uk/background.htm

Kind of backs up what Zooby was reffering to with organs.

I found a lot of sites for Infrasound by searching for "Infrasound Generator Software"

I might have to try to set one of these up myself. Imagine how much a Haunted house (the fake ones at halloween) could benefit from such a device.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
WOW! Thanks Evo.
I am sending this to Tandy.

Also, no response from Tandy so far, and waiting for the NASA technical reports help desk to respond.
 
  • #44
From the absract linked by Evo:

Caution is necessary in future research because artifacts produced by faulty experimental procedures can suggest genuine psychological or physiological effects.

It would be nice to get the complete text of this article to find out what the above sentence means.

When they maintain there is no "nystagmus" this doesn't necessarily mean there is no shaking of the eyeball. A nystagmus is a specific neurologically-caused kind of eye oscillation, which is not the same thing as a shaking caused by enharmonic vibration. The sentence I quoted makes me wonder if the article is making a distinction between what was wrongly assumed to be a neurological effect of infrasound and what proved instead to be a mechanical effect.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
A nystagmus is a specific neurologically-caused kind of eye oscillation,
That's not correct. Apparantly the term nystagmus can be used for any "shaking" of the eyeball. Causes for chronic nystagmus are unknown.

Even dizziness can cause "nystagmus".

Merriam Webster dictionary

Main Entry: nys·tag·mus
Pronunciation: nis-'tag-m&s
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek nystagmos drowsiness, from nystazein to doze; probably akin to Lithuanian snusti to doze
: a rapid involuntary oscillation of the eyeballs (as from dizziness)

a link on causes of nystagmus
"A number of ocular oscillations have been called "nystagmus", such as voluntary nystagmus or convergence retraction nystagmus. These do not have a true slow phase, but are composed of back-to-back saccades. They should be classified as saccadic oscillations (Table 2). Nonetheless, clinical usage has kept these oscillations in the nystagmus category and most will be discussed in the section: Special types of nystagmus."

The section - INDUCED NYSTAGMUS lists external causes of nystagmus. The only type of audio induced nystagmus listed is Audiokinetic nystagmus, it has nothing to do with infrasound, but the movement of the sound around the person or moving the person, interesting. Maybe if the infrasound was spun around the person it would cause nystagmus? But would it be the infrasound or the movement of the sound that is the culprit? "Audiokinetic nystagmus is a jerk nystagmus induced by sound. It is produced in darkness by rotating a sound source or by rotating a subject at constant velocity in the presence of a fixed sound source."

http://www.wfubmc.edu/neurology/lectures/nystagmus/nys.html#CONVERGENCE
 
Last edited:
  • #46
Originally posted by Evo
That's not correct. Apparantly the term nystagmus can be used for any "shaking" of the eyeball.
No, it is clear from the link you provided that it only applies to oscillations that are caused neurologically and effected via the sufferers muscles. When you say even dizziness can cause it, this is because dizziness creates the neurological conditions for nystagmus as a secondary symptoms. They even mention "voluntary nystagmus" - when someone is trying to fake a neurological disorder (in order to perform a differential diagnosis), and this, too, is neurological: it is initiated in the brain, and the brain causes the muscles of the eye to move.

All this is opposed to the mechanical shaking of the eye you would get, allegedly, from infrasound. The infrasound would be directly shaking the eyeball rather than causing a neurological event of some kind which has nystagmus as a symptom.

Look at it this way: if a person presses their head against a washing machine which is vibrating because the load is unbalanced it will shake their eyeballs. This is mechanical shaking, not nystagmus. Infrasound, being at the resonant frequency of the eyeball, would be doing a more elegant version of the same thing.

The abstract you linked to gives a hint in that last sentence I quoted that the actual paper may be making a distinction between former claims that infrasound produces nystagmus, meaning it affects the brain and/or nervous system, and the reality of mere mechanical shaking, in which the brain would not be affected.

This would be an important difference since the paper seemed aimed at evaluating safety guidelines that were in place concerning exposure to infrasound.

It is hard to say, though, from the abstract. It asserts that former claims are "exaggerated" without going into detail about what the former claims were.
Causes for chronic nystagmus are unknown.
I suppose it is possible they can't find the cause in some cases but it is well known that chronic nystagmus is associated with the lesions of multiple sclerosis in some people with that disease, and also that it happens in people with brainstem lesions from anyone of a number of causes.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
Hey zooby, Since the claims made are that infrasound causes "vibration" of the eyeball and from the context of the sentance "Claims that infrasound adversely affects human performance, makes people "drunk," and directly elicits nystagmus", it would make sense that they are using the term "nystagmus" to describe the "claimed" shaking.

Since there appear to be no "claims" of infrasound causing neurological symptoms of involuntary eye movement, it wouldn't make sense for them to try to disprove a claim that has not been made, would it?

I am sure that the paper is addressing the type of eye vibrations that Tandy claims. But, I cannot say 100%, I'm just going with the most logical explanation based on what the claims are.

Infrasound can cause internal vibrations, but seem to be in the chest and abdominal area.

"Caution is necessary in future research because artifacts produced by faulty experimental procedures can suggest genuine psychological or physiological effects." I can't tell what he means here either. I am looking into ordering the paper (can't find it online). I find this whole infrasound thing very interesting.

I've got to go, but I will post something else I found in a bit.
 
  • #48
I received a reply from Tandy

Short on time right now so I will just pass this on. I haven't had time to do anything but a quick review but I am greatly encouraged by his response.

Hi ********[Ivan]

Thanks for the source.. I am worried about the low levels that seem to be involved in the link between infrasound and ghosts. Of course the laboratory tests are all very controlled so they don't take into account combinational factors. I say infrasound + spooky environment increases the odds of feeling a presence... in my view infrasound acts as catalyst. In the ghost in the machine I had no idea of amplitude because of the lack of proper testing gear. In subsequent tests, there seem to be effects at 40-50dB which I agree seems too low if the laboratory tests are correct. Of course within the bounds of what we are testing we could both be right. I would not recommend a change in standards based on my current work... there is more to be done. I would welcome your comments... are you doing research in this area?

More Detail on NASA stuff

"The Effects of Whole-Body Vibrations".

It was published by the Springer Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg 1986. The
authors are H. Dupuis and G. Zerlett.

This is the "Open Literature" report (19870046176 A), published
literature, available through university, public and/or corporate
libraries. Alternatively, you may wish to contact a commercial
document
delivery service. One service is listed below.

AIAA Dispatch
5109 Cherry Street
Kansas City, MO 64110-2498
Phone (800) 662-1545
Fax (816) 926-8794
E-mail dispatch@lindahall.org



DOCUMENT ID: 19770013810 N (77N20754) IM
Unclassified (Unrestricted - Publicly Available)

TI: Mechanical resonant frequency of the human eye in vivo; Ph.D.
Thesis
AU: Ohlbaum, M. K. (Aerospace Medical Research Labs.,
Wright-Patterson AFB,
OH, United States)
RN: AD-A030476/AMRL-TR-75-113
PJN: AF PROJ. 7222
DT: Thesis
LA: English
OS: Aerospace Medical Research Labs. (Wright-Patterson AFB, OH,
United States)
FS: Department of Energy (United States) [Other US Government]
PB: United States
PD: Aug 01, 1976
AV: Hardcopy - A06 CASI A06 (105p)/Microfiche - A02 CASI A02
(105p)
SC: 52 (AEROSPACE MEDICINE)

All the best

Vic

Comments?
 
  • #49


Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Comments?
Well, I'm glad he gave you the information about the NASA papers.

I thought his remarks were somewhat obscure. (What does he mean by "ghost in the machine"?)
It sounds like he's thinking of proposing that given a spooky environment, and no expectation of being artificially interfered with by infrasound, the effects happen at a lower decibel level.

I noticed that some of his sentences trail off with three dots. Was this in his original mail, Ivan, or did you delete anything?

Zooby
 
  • #50
Originally posted by Evo
Hey zooby, Since the claims made are that infrasound causes "vibration" of the eyeball and from the context of the sentance "Claims that infrasound adversely affects human performance, makes people "drunk," and directly elicits nystagmus", it would make sense that they are using the term "nystagmus" to describe the "claimed" shaking.
It is possible they are misusing the term nystagmus, yes. This is why I thought it would be good to read the whole paper.
Since there appear to be no "claims" of infrasound causing neurological symptoms of involuntary eye movement, it wouldn't make sense for them to try to disprove a claim that has not been made, would it?
We don't know if there are any such claims prior to that paper because they don't go into detail about the claims they are refuting. The last sentence of the abstract, which I quoted, gives the impression they weren't happy with the rigour of prior studies.
I am sure that the paper is addressing the type of eye vibrations that Tandy claims. But, I cannot say 100%, I'm just going with the most logical explanation based on what the claims are.
The abstract you linked to was published in 1976. It is unrelated to the NASA paper Tandy has been referring to. Since they use the word nystagmus and no mechanical terms, there is no reason to be confident they are referring to mechanical shaking.
"Caution is necessary in future research because artifacts produced by faulty experimental procedures can suggest genuine psychological or physiological effects." I can't tell what he means here either. I am looking into ordering the paper (can't find it online). I find this whole infrasound thing very interesting.
It would be nice to be able to read the whole paper. Abstracts have to be brief and all they do is summarize. There is no doubt that in the full paper they go into specifics about what studies they're seeking to refute. They will also include all info about those studies in a bibliography so that they can be tracked down and read.

Anyway, as far as eyeball shaking it looks like the NASA paper Tandy just identified is devoted exclusively to this phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
  • #51
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
It is possible they are misusing the term nystagmus, yes. This is why I thought it would be good to read the whole paper.
I agree.


Originally posted by Zoobyshoe - It would be nice to be able to read the whole paper. Abstracts have to be brief and all they do is summarize. There is no doubt that in the full paper they go into specifics about what studies they're seeking to refute. They will also include all info about those studies in a bibliography so that they can be tracked down and read.
I agree, I'm trying to get a copy.

Anyway, as far as eyeball shaking it looks like the NASA paper Tandy just identified is devoted exclusively to this phenomenon. [/B][/QUOTE] Have you found the paper? I'd like to read it.

I found another paper by the first authors and it's about whole body vibrations caused by sports like skiing, etc... not infrasound. Is the other paper to do with infrasound?
 
  • #52


Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Well, I'm glad he gave you the information about the NASA papers.

I thought his remarks were somewhat obscure. (What does he mean by "ghost in the machine"?)
"Ghost in the machine" is the title of the paper he submitted to the journal of the Society for Psychical Research.
 
  • #53


Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Well, I'm glad he gave you the information about the NASA papers.

I thought his remarks were somewhat obscure. (What does he mean by "ghost in the machine"?)
It sounds like he's thinking of proposing that given a spooky environment, and no expectation of being artificially interfered with by infrasound, the effects happen at a lower decibel level.

I noticed that some of his sentences trail off with three dots. Was this in his original mail, Ivan, or did you delete anything?

Zooby

First, I am glad to see what appears to be a valid reference. I like debating theories and claims; not attacking people [with the one exception of President Bush ]. It always makes me feel a little sick when I catch someone who knowingly perpetuates a fraudulent claim...especially someone who appears to be credible. Also, I am not familiar with his "ghost machine" reference.

I have posted his response in total. I would only delete personal references that do not apply to the discussion or their public claims. In this case there were none. Also, to a certain extent I feel that people like Tandy are fair game for discussion and for posting as I have done here, but I also think it would be unfair to quote his emails any further without his knowledge. I am going to ask him to join in the discussion. If he doesn't then I guess we're on our own.
 
  • #54


Originally posted by Evo
"Ghost in the machine" is the title of the paper he submitted to the journal of the Society for Psychical Research.

thank you.

I must have seen this but ignored the name.
 
  • #55
Zooby:
Anyway, as far as eyeball shaking it looks like the NASA paper Tandy just identified is devoted exclusively to this phenomenon.

Evo:
Have you found the paper? I'd like to read it.

No, I haven't read the paper. Ivan just got all the info about it from Tandy. (See his post on the previous page of this thread) I say it looks like it is exclusively devoted to this phenomenon because of the title:"Mechanical resonant frequency of the Human Eyeball in Vivo."
 
  • #56


Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
First, I am glad to see what appears to be a valid reference.
Same here.
I have posted his response in total. I would only delete personal references that do not apply to the discussion or their public claims.
I didn't think you would delete anything without explanation, but I had to ask, because you said you were posting in a hurry. The peculiar "..." thing he does must be some kind of idiosynchracy, then.
 
  • #57
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Anyway, as far as eyeball shaking it looks like the NASA paper Tandy just identified is devoted exclusively to this phenomenon.
I don't doubt there is resonance, what I have yet to see is any evidence that the resonance is significant enough to cause "apparitions".

The paper is titled "Mechanical resonant frequency of the human eye in vivo" According to Tandy "Meanwhile a NASA Technical Report (19770013810) mentions a resonant frequency for the human eye of 18 Hz causing severe "smearing" of vision." (This is the second paper he references in his e-mail, the one we are discussing in this post.) Smearing of vision? That's it? What percent of subjects reported this? How many were tested?

This article may only have one sentence as a side note saying "out of 500 test subjects, one person reported smearing of his vision".

Perhaps the article will say "of 500 test subjects, 475 reported smearing of vision", that might make me think "hey, maybe he's onto something". But if this is the case, why would this test be the only one that reports any type of vision distortion?

If what Tandy says about the smearing of vision, (and he further goes on to suggest it may only be peripheral?) see link below, is all he has to go on, I'm disappointed, I would love for someone to have found the explanation, but I need to read the papers before I can agree or disagree with his assumptions.

http://www.the-bureau.org/Conclusions.htm

I believe he is sincere in his belief, but I don't think this is the answer we're looking for to explain "hauntings".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
Originally posted by Evo Smearing of vision? That's it? What percent of subjects reported this? How many were tested?
Goodness, you're impatient. Ivan hasn't even gotten ahold of this paper yet.
This article may only have one sentence as a side note saying "out of 500 test subjects, one person reported smearing of his vision".
It very well might say this. Let's wait till we can read the paper.
Perhaps the article will say "of 500 test subjects, 475 reported smearing of vision", that might make me think "hey, maybe he's onto something". But if this is the case, why would this test be the only one that reports any type of vision distortion?
Perhaps it will. We should probably read it before getting exited one way or the other.
If what Tandy says about the smearing of vision, (and he further goes on to suggest it may only be peripheral?) see link below, is all he has to go on, I'm disappointed, I would love for someone to have found the explanation, but I need to read the papers before I can agree or disagree with his assumptions.
Read the papers first? Novel idea!

Tandy has never claimed anything but the appearance of a blurry, grey moving figure in his periferal vision during his own experience. I posted two versions of his story in my opening post to this thread. I'm not sure where you got the impression it was anything more definite than that.
I believe he is sincere in his belief, but I don't think this is the answer we're looking for to explain "hauntings".
Well, I'm not sure what answer you're looking for, but this explanation would certainly cover some of them, particularly the vague ones that resemble the one Tandy had. It makes perfect sense that the combination of a spooky place, compounded by unpleasant emotions and then the vague appearance of something in one's periferal vision that disappears when you look directly at it would cause some people to conclude they'd been visited by a ghost.
 
  • #59
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Goodness, you're impatient. Ivan hasn't even gotten ahold of this paper yet.
One of my bad qualities, I'm known to go without food or sleep when I am trying to find a piece of a puzzle.

Tandy has never claimed anything but the appearance of a blurry, grey moving figure in his periferal vision during his own experience. I posted two versions of his story in my opening post to this thread. I'm not sure where you got the impression it was anything more definite than that.
From the website of the company he is working with to manufacture his devices.

Well, I'm not sure what answer you're looking for, but this explanation would certainly cover some of them, particularly the vague ones that resemble the one Tandy had. It makes perfect sense that the combination of a spooky place, compounded by unpleasant emotions and then the vague appearance of something in one's periferal vision that disappears when you look directly at it would cause some people to conclude they'd been visited by a ghost.
But those types of reports don't draw attention.
 
Last edited:
  • #60
quote:
take into account combinational factors... infrasound + spooky environment increases the odds of feeling a presence... in my view infrasound acts as catalyst.
----

Furthermore-temperature and humidity-and as a guess 'humidity' may be part of the 'combination'--ghosts appear winter and summer--same as fog--if you 'see' the analogy-certainly humidity has an effect on sound---infrasound?

what exactly is 'vibrating' the eyeball?--is it the 'liquid' eyeball, or, are muscles reacting (twitching,having a spasm--if chest starts vibrating,will this cause eyeball vibration if...)

Conditions may exist that would produce a 'wet or dry eyeball'==i'm thinking of numerous reports of certain 'smells' in the air--sulphur like---a'nother 'combinational factor' than may be present and more likely to be 'in the air' in higher concentrations when there is high humidity--yet below the threshold of smell or 'noticed but forgotten'.

(like the smell of leaking gas--((for example, we had a leak here after new furnace was installed, i could smell it when i first entered the room,only an instant 'whiff'...the fellow who came to check it out commented that 'i must have a good sense of smell,as he didn't notice anything'...eventually found it

my point--always been curious about these reports of the 'smells'--like 'old eggs',burnt match, sulphur,'gas', etc.----and as the smell of an onion produces tears in the eye...'see' where I'm going?

number of 'factors' here may be working together to cause the 'eyeball shakes'='hautings"=background infrasound causes sulphur molecules to vibrate which increase olafactory sense producing 'eyeball shake'.

also curious is "smearing of vision"--it's not like every night he was 'seeing ghosts';
something unique happened,right?...i have 'smearing of vision' whenever i stop taking vitamin B (result of too much ale the night before,alcohol consumes vit B affecting vision/mind/brain). So, it's getting complicated, and this, I think, is his point=="take into account combinational factors"... (I use the "..." a lot myself, and it 'means'- 'follow this thought,you may have questions,i'm willing to discuss further but it will take too long at the momment,much more can be said on this, etc...


really fascinating,keep up the investigations...
 
  • #61
Originally posted by Evo
One of my bad qualities, I'm known to go without food or sleep when I am trying to find a piece of a puzzle.

Now you sound more like me than Tsunami.

I will get back to this thread as soon as work lightens up a bit. Hopefully this will only take a few days or so.
 
  • #62
Thank you for contacting the NASA STI Help Desk.

I believe you are probably using the NTRS: NASA Technical Reports Server for your searches. The NTRS is available at the following web address:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/

If I am wrong, please let me know what server you are using.

Documents with the numbers 19800007533 and 19730008358 are listed on the NTRS, although the full text is not available there. Document number 19770013810 is not listed on the NTRS. The probable reason is that 19770013810, unlike the other two documents, was not issued by NASA, but is a U.S. Air Force report. NASA's goal for the NTRS is to provide a source of all publicly available NASA scientific and technical information, and to enhance those resources with certain other aerospace related materials. Since 19770013810 is not a NASA document, it is less likely to appear on the NTRS. I would like to note further that a search for "infrasound" would not have retrieved this document even if it were on the NTRS server, since that is not the subject of the report and the word does not appear in the citation.

The report is available for purchase from here at the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI) for the price listed below, plus shipping and handling per copy. A reproduction will be supplied unless otherwise noted. Prices are subject to change without notice.

Doc ID 19770013810
"Mechanical resonant frequency of the human eye in vivo; Ph.D. Thesis," by M.K. Ohlbaum. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. August 1, 1976. 105 pages. Report No. AMRL-TR-75-113. AD-A030476.

Price: $35.50 within the U.S.A.
S&H: $ 2.00

We require prepayment in the form of Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Diner's Club, check, or money order (U.S. currency). Please make your check or money order payable to: NASA Center for AeroSpace Information.

Most orders are processed in-house within 3 business days and are delivered within 3-7 business days within the United States. One day in-house rush processing is available for an additional fee of $10.00 per item. The standard shipping and handling fee per item is $2.00. Federal Express shipping is also available for U.S. addresses for an additional fee of $7.00 per item.

You may place an order by:
1) completing the online STI Order Form at
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/ordersti.pl,
2) sending your order form to the NASA CASI STI Ordering Services fax number, or
3) mailing the order form to:

Attn: STI Ordering Services
NASA Center for AeroSpace Information
7121 Standard Drive
Hanover, MD 21076-1320

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the NASA STI Help Desk by telephone, fax, or email.



**************
NASA STI Help Desk
Tel: (301) 621-0390
Fax: (301) 621-0134
help@sti.nasa.gov

The NASA Scientific and Technical Information Program is dedicated to providing superior service. You may submit comments on our products and services by sending feedback via email to: help@sti.nasa.gov and indicating "STI Feedback" in the subject line. If you are a Federal Government employee, you may use the automated poll at http://poll.larc.nasa.gov/STI/.

If you are a repeat customer who prefers not to provide feedback each time you access services and products, we will assume that we have provided very satisfactory service unless we hear from you.

We greatly appreciate your patronage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
19770013810 seems to be the one we're most interested in. Tandy also mentioned 19870046176A, bu they said nothing about that one.

What are 19800007533 and 1973008358 about? You didn't mention you were asking about any but the ones Tandy mentioned.
 
  • #64
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking - Since 19770013810 is not a NASA document, it is less likely to appear on the NTRS. I would like to note further that a search for "infrasound" would not have retrieved this document even if it were on the NTRS server, since that is not the subject of the report and the word does not appear in the citation.
So, the document is not even about infrasound.

Kind of a leap for Tandy to use this to back up his "infrasound" theory, isn't it?
 
  • #65
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
What are 19800007533 and 1973008358 about? You didn't mention you were asking about any but the ones Tandy mentioned.

Those popped up when searching the tech reports for "infrasound" and "humans". The reports are not available online. They must be purchased.
 
  • #66
Originally posted by Evo
So, the document is not even about infrasound.

Kind of a leap for Tandy to use this to back up his "infrasound" theory, isn't it?

I am curious to see how much supporting evidence really exists. I find more and more that technical sorts will jump on any logical explanation, regardless of its merits or lack there of. This is why I am now so very skeptical of popular skeptics and skeptical sites.

Also, the comments made by Pergatory and Megashawn suggest to me that volume may be more critical than frequency. This is what bothered me about the original claim. I find many of the sources listed as unlikely candidates to produce enough volume [wave intensity].
 
Last edited:
  • #67
Originally posted by Evo
So, the document is not even about infrasound.

Kind of a leap for Tandy to use this to back up his "infrasound" theory, isn't it?
What it says is that the word "infrasound" does not appear in the title or the citation, which is the blurb used to briefly describe the report. It does not mean the word isn't used in the report, or that references aren't made to, for instance, "sound in the range of 18 cps" with regard to the resonance frequency of the human eyeball.
 
  • #68
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/ordersti.pl

Testing to see if I can get this link to work by removing the comma between .pl and the closing url bracket.
____________________

Edit: That did the trick. The comma was preventing NASA from being able to find the page.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #69
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
What it says is that the word "infrasound" does not appear in the title or the citation, which is the blurb used to briefly describe the report. It does not mean the word isn't used in the report, or that references aren't made to, for instance, "sound in the range of 18 cps" with regard to the resonance frequency of the human eyeball.
From what the guy at NASA is saying about the search function, that the article would not be found by searching on "infrasound" I think it would be safe to say that the word is not in the document at all.

I think Tandy may have been a bit over excited and perhaps made some overly optimistic assumptions based on a thought he had. He is correct that infrasound can cause "weird feelings", but the visual impairment tends to be unsubstantiated as yet.

I can find no research anywhere on humans that shows visual impairments of any type cause by infrasound. None. And I have done quite an extensive search. I am still open to the possibility of it, but I am still waiting for that bit of evidence to support it.
 
  • #70
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Those popped up when searching the tech reports for "infrasound" and "humans". The reports are not available online. They must be purchased.
Where were you searching? I'd be interested in reading the abstracts. I would also be interested in reading the abstract for the "eyeball in vivo" and other one Tandy mentioned.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top