Talk:The Hum/Archive 1

Afflicted sufferer

I started hearing the hum 2 years ago, and am lucky that I hear it mainly in early March and through October, November & December. It also seems to occur more (although not exclusively) on Monday and Tuesday nights, and peaks at around 2-3 am, when the whole house seems to vibrate, hum, and make the odd 'bumping' noise. I can hear the noise build up from around 12 midnight. It starts as an intermittent drone, becoming more regular and intense. I hear it louder in the house, although it is perceivable outside and appears to be air-borne. At around 3am it starts to abate, then increases again around 7am. As I go to work at 8.30, I'm not sure if it persists through the day, although I suspect it is drowned out by 'regular' noise. It can be drowned out by playing rainwater or 'white noise' through earphones, which does give some relief and allow some sleep during the worst periods. The noise seems to come and go in cycles, and has peaks and troughs.

The hum is at such a low frequency that the ears are almost straining to hear it, which makes the experience even more uncomfortable. I can assure people that what I hear does exist and is not generated within my body. I only seem to hear it when at home, or at other coastal locations along the North Sea coast of the UK, leading me to believe it is somehow associated with the sea. I find it hard to believe that others around me cannot hear it, as it seems so loud and intrusive to me, but I have also met people who are able to hear it at the same times as me. This proves to me that either we all suffer from the same illness at the same time, or the noise is real and is only percievable by some people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.11.145.176 (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Would be a good idea to have ears tested, and not just for normal hearing test, but test beyond the normal hearing spectrum, see what all range of hertz you can detect. Most likey you can hear such that others cannot, and i would think we have technology a bit better than a standare microphone that could listen to the sound in the coastal areas where you can hear these sounds, and see what frequency is being put out, from there it would be a matter of determining where the sound waves are coming from to find a source.

UNBEARBLE!!!! It is real.I have been up all night in agony, while my wife could hear absolutely nothing.My hearing has been tested and only have small loss in the highest frequency (I am 35). This happened once before in January, also on a Sunday morning around 1:30. i can tell you it is UNBEARABLE and NOT tinnitus. I am on the fourth floor of a wood frame apartment, and when I went outside it was gone, but EVERY floor inside had it. It sounds , well thats the thing, it DOESNT sound, its like a vibration inside your head at the same frequency as an idling truck half a block down the street, or a deisel train miles away. Earplugs do absolutely nothing, the only relief is to crank some white noise to drown it out (perhaps why it is imperceptable during the day).If this happened every night, I would be driven to suicide, it is that bad. There are large hydro lines two blocks away. This is in Tsawwassen BC Canada.Pflo 19:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Paul Floyd.

OMG! This happens to me every night! And no, it is not a problem with my ear or body, I can actually hear it soutside my house and if I go to the back of the house the nosie goes away. -weirdo—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.108.253 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been experiencing this on and off for a about a year. At first it was more intermittent and I attributed it to a piece of machinery on a construction site. I heard it only late at night in bed after turning off the tv, and early in the morning. There were a few months where I don't remembering hearing it but the last month it has gotten increasingly worse, causing me to begin to research it. I had no idea how to describe it but I just started googling, coming up with tinittus. The last week it has gotten so bad I decided to google again for additional info and yesterday discovered the Taos Hum. After reading all of the descriptions people have given as far as the sound you hear, the time of day, etc. I am CERTAIN this is what I am experiencing. I continue to only hear it in complete silence, it sounds like a low distant hum - sort of like a distant small engine aircraft. Sometimes it starts and stops, sometimes it's constant. Like the above sufferer I think everyday noises drown it out but that it is there constantly. I only hear it indoors, and not only in one house. You just wonder what the source is. I am going to start keeping a log.Bednarluck (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello all and thank you for posting the info so far. I live in Austin TX and I've been hearing similar hums at both houses I own. In our house in north side of the city I can hear this at various times of year. It's usually audible when there has been no rain for a while. Rain will make the sound less audible when it is happening. I also hear it in the house in south Austin, however there the sound resonates with amplification at a certain spot while sitting on my staircase. There is one spot there where the wall is on both sides of the stair case. The width between the walls seems to be perfect for amplifying the sound so that it resonates so loudly that anyone can hear it clearly. We also hear the sound at night, usually past midnight just like other people have reported. I've been trying to figure out what the sound is for years now. It was a big problem for me when I first started to notice it because it kept me from falling asleep. Not even earplugs would prevent me from hearing it. On the contrary, earplugs would make the sound clearer as other house noises were removed. I thought at first that it was my refrigerator or A/C unit, so I turned off the electricity for the whole house, but the hum stayed exactly the same. My theory on why I am able to hear it is because I have been around computers for almost 20 years and work in a quiet environment. My ears must have somehow gotten tuned in to the hum because of the consistent humming off all the electronic devices that surround me. I thought about calling the University of Texas to help me identify the source of the sound, but I have not done so yet. The humming is not there all the time and not every night, so they would have to react on demand. It also happens late at night. I don't have any recording equipment and I don't know any sound engineers, but I think that if the sound could be recorded and sped up, then a pattern might emerge. Anyone in Austin area that can record low level vibrations is welcomed to record this hum. By now I have learned to live with it, but I still wonder what the origin of the hum is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.58.63.120 (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Afflicted sufferers can describe their experiences at The World Hum Database and Mapping Project which was launched in December 2012. There is a form for input, a database of the input people did already and a map that shows places, where people reported they heard the hum. 178.12.41.104 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Impedance

The thing that makes this sort of noise so exceptionally bothersome is that most materials do nothing to impede its passage. The article addresses this peripherally but it should be spelled out more clearly. For example, when you close a window you think it will attenuate noise, but for low frequency noises you can scarcely tell the difference if it's open or shut. Likewise most pillows are completely worthless at keeping out such sounds, although I think a genuine down-filled pillow is fairly useful. Any hearers doubting their sanity need merely take a large filled container of water with a flat or recessed bottom and hold it to one ear; this completely blocks the noise. (A hand works the same way, but since it produces a white noise/muscular vibration of its own this is not as satisfactory a test)

The difficulty in finding the source is also related to the low frequency. With a 2000-Hz sound, you can hear thousandth-of-a-second differences between when the sound reaches either ear and deduce rather precisely its orientation. But with an 8-Hz sound a thousandth of a second means maybe 1/100 difference in pressure between your ears at any given moment. In theory if you held long tubes to either ear you could extend your ability to triangulate to these frequencies, but they'd have to be made out of a material impervious to the noise.

Anyway, what is most needed for the enlightenment of all concerned is a list of material impeding low frequency sound. I fear this is a short list, but anything is welcome. As a stopgap measure it can provide people with effective sound-blocking materials to buttress their walls. It also would provide a very straightforward blind test by which hearers can prove that their perception is absolutely objective - line one room with the material, leave the other without, finish them to look the same, and see if people can tell one from the other. 204.186.14.60 04:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed link

I removed this link: "Article alleging 'The Hum' is caused by vibrations of the earth's crust: - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1315974,00.html " because it clearly does not refer to the the same phenomenon - the hum described there is a hum of 2 to 7 millihertz, which could never be heard by human ears (typical range down to 20 hertz).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.252.80.110 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 18 October 2005

Is this that noise TVs make?

I'm always able to tell when there's a tv on in a house because of this low humming that they make, especially the old cathode (non flat screen) kind, that can be heard much further away than the tv's speakers, and even when the sound is turned right off. I'm wondering if this is at all related to this "The Hum" phenomenon? --Krsont 16:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The article states "no identifiable cause is found after the ordinary possibilities (e.g., household appliances, traffic noise, etc.) have been eliminated"

I have heard the hum two night nights now (for the first time) & one of the things I have tried is to switch off power to the house so no electrical appliances including TV's were on.

This story is starting to sound like it has a connection to "Binaural Beats" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_beats

Krsont: People with good hearing (usually quite young) can hear the 15,000+ Hz "whine" of the flyback transformer in 'cathode' TVs. (When I was young I could walk by a house and hear if the TV was turned on.) But that's not a "humming" sound... it's more of a very-high-pitched buzz. Much like what you hear when your ears are 'ringing' from tinnitus. Twang 22:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is similar: When i am charging my Nintendo DS, there is a high pitched whine that i can hear, but not everyone can. --Quadraxis 23:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Although this is not to be confused with the whine that you get from Intel processors?

How often do you see Intel processors these days without a fan attached? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.44.143 (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Taos Hum binaural beats

This story is starting to sound like it has a connection to "Binaural Beats" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_beats the hum is the INTRESTING MYSTRY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.20.59 (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Re Kokomo Hum 'citation needed'

Is the citation sought for the existence of a Kokomo hum? Or for it being among the most publicized? Because articles on the existence are easily found on the net. Is this a 'lazy' citation request? Or misplaced? Twang 22:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Too credulous!

The article fails to mention one important possibility: there is no hum at all. Rather, individuals have become convinced they hear something that they do not. This would explain the differences in duration, etc., already mentioned. Surely there is a relevant source suggesting this obvious possibility? Phiwum 18:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but with one important factor left out: most people who end up researching this do so because they hear it or are impacted by it, not the other way around.

It's not widespread knowledge that the hum exists/is reported, and also, the variations reported are comparatively small (and easily explained by: people trying to describe something that is not clearly heard because it is at the edge of their sensory capabilities). Wolfbeast (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

City Island Hum

I live on City Island in the Bronx New York and we have had this hum for years.

Supercool Dude 02:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Overpasses

Another issue that should be addressed is how much sound is emitted by highway overpasses. Typically under heavy vehicles some of these bridges vibrate like violin strings (over an echo chamber, yet) with a very low, dizzying frequency that carries for tremendous distances. I'm not sure if they're city-wide sources, however. 204.186.14.60

There aren't any highways in Taos, so no overpasses. Yworo (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Vestibular variation

I would be very curious to see whether there are observable differences in the vestibular structure of "hearers" from "non-hearers". In my case, since low-frequency sounds cause considerable vertigo I tend to think that the semicircular canals might be serving as organs of hearing. (I've never had a good sense of balance for rolls or other gymnastic maneuvers, so there might be a trade-off there) I would suspect that an analysis by NMR would turn up some difference in width, length, or shape. 204.186.14.60 04:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that we are talking about the inconsistency in current hearing models. For want of better theories it is still accepted that the cochlea is the only organ responsible for hearing and the vestibula only for balance. Many facts show that this can no longer be accepted. Have a look at the recent paper:

Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 603–624, 201, Hum and Otoacoustic Emissions May Arise Out of the Same Mechanisms, Franz G. Frosch, frosch.com@t-online.de

Abstract: Hum, a low-frequency subjective tone, affects approximately 2% of the population. Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions are sounds emitted from the inner ear, which in some cases are also perceived as tinnitus. The mechanisms of their generation, however, are still not well understood. In this paper, it is demonstrated that many properties reported by hum sufferers (derived from both questionnaires and my own measurements) are also found in spontaneous otoacoustic emissions. The similarities of such responses suggest that both phenomena may be formed by the same mechanism. A hearing model is proposed that overcomes the limitations of the current models and explains the occurrences of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions and hum. Keywords: Hum—otoacoustic emission—Van der Pol-oscillator—hearing model—tinnitus Brummfrosch (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Reptilian machinery

Removed:

The Reptilian race which dwells within the hollow earth uses enormous machines to move the tectonic plates at precise times. This hum, it is speculated, is the whir of an unoiled gear.

Damn their scaly hides! Fixed the wikilink. Bromley86 (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Faraway water tank

Sounds like a faraway water tank constantly filling... Jidanni (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps a random alternation of two tones

$ perl -we 'for(0..33){print int rand 2?"_":"-"}'
_------_-___-_--__-__----____-_-__

Jidanni (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Own article?

don't you think the Taos hum deserves its own article?

"Explanation" not even a sentence

Under the "Man-made noises" section, the first "sentence" doesn't even have a verb. Therefore, it is at best unclear and grammatically incorrect. At worst, it is impossible to understand. I would have corrected it myself, but I'm not even entirely sure what exactly is trying to be communicated.

Damienivan (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes here it at night,and ask my boyfriend what it is,He usally says the traffic,but sometimes every now and then I hear a higher frequency.When this happens a earthquake usually happens within a week somewhere around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.201.49 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Radio transmitters??

I would like to say, as a U.S. resident, that I have experienced an awful hum/vibration since last summer (vibration up to Dec 2008, then both/either until the present day Aug 2009). Maybe I am more sensitive, or maybe my phenomena is different, it definitely has a direction component. I "followed" the sound (using map/compass) to a point that I could not hear it, but the vibration was extremely strong. The general area (8 miles from here) had a large radio transmitter nearby, but I thought nothing of it because I was convinced that it was a mechanical sound from a factory or something similar. Now, to my confoundment, the sound has COMPLETELY CHANGED DIRECTION (in early August 2009) (approximately 180 degrees!) and has become MUCH worse! (Insomnia, alternately sleeping/waking from Low Frequency noise/vibration.)

I decided to try and triangulate the sound, and it led me to a group of very large transmission towers (5 miles from me), but I cannot hear it at the "source"! As I wrote, I was originally expecting a mechanical source, but strong circumstantial evidence (IMHO) says it is the transmitters affecting the atmosphere to a point that very low frequency sound is created! The vibration I feel is probably created by the sound hitting solid objects.

Of course, feel free to disagree. If you cannot hear it, then you may feel that it's all in my head. I would expect some hard evidence, too, but I have no idea how to record such a low freq sound, and how do you record a vibration?? (Brandon, Florida) LexIcon (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You dont say what type of transmitters, if they are say ELF/SLFVLF Naval transmitters, then you may be onto something. "group of very large transmission towers" would be consistent with this usage. Quoting from here Listening to Leonids[1] "Here's how it works:

"Radio waves induce currents in electrical conductors. "Strong, low-frequency currents can literally shake ordinary objects," explains Dennis Gallagher, a space physicist at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. "When things shake, they launch vibrations into the air, which is what we hear.

Higher-frequency radio waves, like TV transmissions or FM radio broadcasts, oscillate much too fast (hundreds of millions of times per second) to substantially shake conductors. Even if they did, we couldn't hear the resulting MHz-frequency sound waves, which are far above the frequency range of a human ear.

But VLF waves can do the job. Keay discovered that even a pair of glasses could be made to vibrate slightly. Perhaps that explains the experience of Erich in Troy, New York: "When I was out [viewing the Leonids on Nov. 18th]," he reported, "I had my head back on the ground and heard a sizzling sound. My head was close to grass and leaves and I wear wire frame glasses as well. The sound was definitely simultaneous with the observation of a rather large streak."

So there is a POSSIBLE scientific basis. As for recording, a seismograph perhaps?--220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If radio transmission towers can be made to create, somehow, beat frequency waves in air in the audible spectrum, the transmissions themselves could be any frequency. For instance, if one of them transmits at 100,000,000 Hz and a very near neighbor transmits at 100,000,030 Hz then, if there is a mechanism for translation from radio interference to sound waves, the radio waves could be creating a 30 Hz interference tone. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

VERY GOOD POINT! I think, "Intermodulation distortion" is the term for a similar interference phenomenon with radio waves. I doubt if RF could affect air directly, if it was EXTREMELY powerful it might cause the air to Ionise and perhaps 'crackle', but I expect that much higher than SLF(≤30Hz say, that's HERTZ not Kilo-Hertz) frequencies (SHF/EHF Microwave) would be required. Not 100% sure, SLF comms not my area of expertise.
The article 'Passive intermodulation' or 'Rusty bolt effect' seems to cover things such as 'Radio' teeth, or dentures that 'receive' radio signals. I wonder how many people hearing the 'Hum' have dentures, dental fillings, or other metallic 'implants'? Could large radio towers themselves vibrate at barely audible audio frequencies under the influence of the SLF radio transmissions? Possible, but they should be designed NOT to do so. If the antenna did, it could, in extreme cases, come apart, think Verazanno-Narrows Bridge.

The SLF that is apparently used for communication with submerged 'vessels' (shall we say), requires very high power as they are trying to push a signal that can be received anywhere in the worlds' oceans. Not very efficient, as it requires VERY large antennas (MILES long) eg. 30Mhz=10 Metre wavelength, 30Hz=10,000,000 Km wavelength!!, so the antennas are just a 'little' shorter than optimum ;).

See also

• Microwave auditory effect/Frey Effect.
• Communication with submarines
• Spurious emission

'Chart' for reference,as my frequency designations were a bit off. This has taken heaps longer than I thought, as I researched (mostly on Wikipedia), all the possibilities I could think off. Shame if it's all BS in the end! Maybe the radio antennas/guy wires just vibrate because of the wind !--220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad sources and overall fringe theory claim.

I have done my best to identify bad sources, uncited claims, weasel words etc. in this article, of which there are many. The changes I would like to make to this article exceed what I would be comfortable doing as a casual wiki-goer, so I've added templates to what I could find to bring more attention to the claims made in this article and get a bigger discussion going before any significant gutting is done. If you feel more comfortable making significant changes, please do so. -Martin W (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the mainstream theory... As in university research... Is that the phenomenon does exist. Which surprised me. On what basis it exists is a whole different question. However, I'd agree that the intro is full of uncited claims, weasel words etc. I've added some references for claims made in the body of the text but think the intro needs rewriting to better represent the phenomenon from the mainstream perspective and so plan to remove the new age references to "humlings" etc which seems to me superfluous. Of course other editors are welcome to reinsert them if they feel it's appropriate. --Dakinijones (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried to figure out whether this was a fringe claim from this article and then from other sources. I haven't looked at the peer reviewed articles yet though and maybe that would answer my question. The thing that makes it look like a fringe claim in this article is that no evidence is provided of the simple kind of testing that could be done to at least get some insight into the phenomena. How about just using some high quality acoustic recording equipment to record the sound when it supposedly happens? Then it would be a simple matter to test whether people that claim to hear the hum can hear the hum from a recording. This would go along way to pin down whether this is an acoustic phenomena or not. What is the point of theorizing about causes of this phenomena until at least it is possible to determine whether it is actually acoustic or not? --Davefoc (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, article is terribly written and cites worthless sources (e.g., Earthpulse press, which is a conspiracy theory website). "Earthpulse" is basically a fringe website, and the objections here are full of original research and speculation. I would also contest the claim that there is a "mainstream" theory that the hum exists, because the article is full of different claims. (Clearly a phenomenon exists here in that some people have this experience, but to say the "hum exists" would require a precise definition of what "exists" means.) I would agree that this article meets notability, but it needs a serious editing session and probably a rewrite or two. It certainly needs to be flagged as low quality and needing improved sourcing and cleanup. 50.196.170.193 (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Animal response

Animals also respond to very low sound frequencies. Elephants form a protective circle when hearing a certain sound.

"Elephants make low-frequency calls, many of which, though loud, are too low for humans to hear. These sounds allow elephants to communicate with one another at distances of five or six miles. " "... elephants may communicate without using their voices is by seismic vibrations. These are sensed either through the soft padding on the feet, or through the trunk, which is laid on the ground for such a purpose. These vibrations may indicate any number of things to the elephant detecting them, and this beast will communicate the next course of action to other members of the herd.

One non-vocal method of communication that has become a distinct behavioural pattern for elephants is that of synchronised freezing. On suspicion of pending danger, every member of the herd or clan will freeze in unison. This enables them to focus all of their senses and attention on unfamiliar smells and sounds around them."

Dogs respond when a recorded low frequency sound is played, the dogs stop barking.http://www.petalk.org/LaughingDog.pdf

Someone might train a dog and/or elephant to locate the source of the unpleasant noise. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The source

http://homepages.tesco.net/~John.Dawes2/cause.htm

That website claims it's gravitational waves created by electrical grids all over the world. It's not a sound, but a noise created in your own head due to it sensing these waves. It explains why it's heard mostly in or near (within up to hundreds of miles from) cities, why it's heard all over the globe, why blocking it out doesn't work, why it occurs mostly in people over 50 (it's biological and not a real sound), why it it is stronger indoors or not heard at all outdoors, why it is heard stronger on weekends, early mornings and holiday, why it seems to have the same intensity over hundreds of square miles, and why any search for the sound or source is always futile. --Mac OS X 10:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, proof hum in our heads: My neighbor was cutting grass, so I put on my air force grade ear muffs. Low and behold the many decibel cutting sound was gone, revealing just the remaining two-tone hum sound exactly the same intensity as at night... i.e., the hum is no normal sound that can be blocked, but instead it must be produced inside our heads like John Dawes says Jidanni (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I also notice the hum etc. noises increase during the few moments when one is "straining to force a bowel movement out". So more support for John Dawes' views, at least for me. Jidanni (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder, does putting on earmuffs and/or opening or closing windows have any effect on the sound? Given the descriptions (similar to tinnitus, seems to come from inside the head but can be recorded, happens in certain geographical areas especially near coasts and in valleys, may only/not be noticeable indoors) it does seem like it's related to air pressure in the ear (and I'd expect earmuffs would impact that). 65.95.209.254 (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Some possible explanations??

Quote From the 'article'

"Electromagnetic waves caused by meteors
A variant of the audio frequency electromagnetic emissions generated upon the entry of a meteor and its disintegration in the upper atmosphere. The disintegration of larger meteors in the upper atmosphere is known to release megawatts of power in the audio frequency range, primarily through the interaction of the resulting ionization trail with the Earth's magnetic field.[9]"

What a load of gobbledygook, especially the start, "A variant of the audio frequency electromagnetic emissions" sounds like it has been edited to the point of incomprehensibility. Audio(a physical phenomena) and electromagnetic(non-physical/energy) are two very different things.

Is this a serious article? What does snopes.com (urban myth website) say about it? I'm sure the hum physically exists in some cases, but, in many possibly only between peoples ears? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In this case, someone has apparently inserted their own conjecture, because the cited article nowhere mentions The Hum. Consequently, I have deleted the passage. Plazak (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Fish story

Houseboat dwellers around Sausalito, California have been witness to the "Sausalito Hum" for years on end during the summer months. Biologists believe the noise is made by the singing toadfish, also called the plainfin midshipman. Identified animal sources such as this might be worthy of mention in the article.—Quicksilver^{T @} 20:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Howard County, Maryland

Noticing a 65 Hz hum nearly all the time but prominent at night. 128.8.8.73 (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Palo Alto, California

Original Research follows... After a couple years, I concluded the hum originated from surrounding Air Conditioners. I had to vacation somewhere tropical to figure it out. - Rgrant (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The ocurrence of the Hum in Costa Rica keeps being removed...

I wonder why Username:Yworo keeps undoing the recent occurrence of the Hum in Costa Rica... this is supported by some of the most respected news channels and newspapers -La Nacion, Telenoticas- and the most circulated newspaper -Diario Extra- in the country. This has been well documented with the following links:

• http://www.nacion.com/2012-01-09/Sucesos/Autoridades-desconocen-origen-de-sonido--como-de-explosion--de-medianoche.aspx?Page=3
• http://www.extratv42.com/c42/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3203:zumbido-en-el-cielo-causa-expectativa-entre-los-costarricenses&catid=37:extranoticias&Itemid=109
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGz489VqHjU

So, please STOP undoing the edits as Wikipedia is a collaborative tool.

Regards,

Fred — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.59.72 (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That information does not belong to an encyclopedia, it may even fit on wikinews. The article says that the Hum is "heard" in all the globe, that include yours, if wikipedia listed every "hum" this article would be pretty huge, so that information ia going to be deleted!!!! now go! --190.60.93.218 (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Cell Towers

There are several sites that list cell towers as the cause of this hum. Whether they are reliable sources or not, I don't know. Much of these reports seem to be from Florida. http://www.mast-victims.org/index.php?content=journal&action=view&type=journal&id=201 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.30.144 (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wellington Hum

Report of a Hum in Wellington, New Zealand getting some local media coverage: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10839506 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.73.198.161 (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

BBC News Southampton UK 24th Oct 2013

looks like this category http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-24658172 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.135.116.105 (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Auckland Hum?

Does anyone know why the subject of the Auckland Hum only has one line regarding it, while the majority of the text is in regards to the Taos and Hueytown Hums? What does the statements made about them specifically have to do with Auckland? Makes no sense at all.Calidude84 (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The Auckland Hum entry was added to the list by cutting and pasting text that had previously been in the description, where the comparison to other hums made sense. I suspect the text needs to be copied back there (whilst retaining the Auckland Hum entry in the list) as it represents scientific research, but I've not fully reviewed the article recently so I may be wrong. Bromley86 (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible source: geophysics+resonance

I don't have ready reference material (hence this talk entry instead of an article edit), although something to this effect is already mentioned under "further reading", but what seems to be missing in the article as a potential source is geophysics, possibly combined with crust resonance.

Think about it: we're living on a thin crust over a constantly moving mantle of molten rock with high concentrations of metals. We know next to nothing about what goes on down there, except that there's a constant, shifting flow of billions of pounds of rock between our feet. Just using the science I am aware of, that by itself could easily cause the hum, and localize it to certain locations based on crust density and material (If, for example, mining sites are more prone to it, perhaps it's not the mining, but rather the typical crust material you would find rich ore deposits in) if you factor in VLF resonance on a geological scale.

I could even go further and suggest a combination of physical resonance and EM resonance caused by the movement of large masses of (metal-infused) molten mantle material, but that is just speculation at this point.

If anyone can find research material on this possible geophysical cause, I think it should be added to the main article. Wolfbeast (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but it would, of course, have to be from a reliable source. This seems unlikely to happen. Bromley86 (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Bromley86 (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Recording - actual or purported?

The article mentions Tom Moir's recording of the hum. Aoidh added "purported". I think we're having a misunderstanding. The cite used was indeed a direct link to the sound file rather than a link to the newspaper report, which was included at a later mention 3 paras below. Presumably your OR concern is addressed if we redo the cites? As well as the contemporary Morning Herald cite currently used in the article, there are other more recent reports where Moir is more definitive that the sound captured was that being heard by those he was dealing with.[2][3] Bromley86 (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Herald says this individual "believes he's captured a recording" and the other articles you linked are similar in that they do not support your edit. None of those sources support a claim that it's an "actual recording", only that someone claims that it might be. - Aoidh (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Fair enough. For future reference, at what point would that purport become actual?

For example, I take it there might be an issue with the Fish possible explanation. We say:

"A previous hum in Sausalito, also on the west coast of the US, was determined to be the mating call of the male Midshipman."

But the cite only refers to John McCosker's (expert) opinion, based on measurements, that they're one and the same. It does seem to be commonly accepted that they are the source (more recent cite[4]), but that's potentially still purported territory. Bromley86 (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

London/Southampton 1940s

Removed this section. It was reported in Deming, who in turn was citing a Houston Chronicle article, the text of which appears to be here[5] (it's dated correctly and includes the precise text quoted in Deming, notably the misspelling of Southampton). But I've been able to find no other mention, which is odd considering the Bristol Hum (800ish people) received so much attention. So, cut. Bromley86 (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sentence cut pasted here

An investigation by a team of scientists in Taos dismissed the possibility that the Hum was tinnitus as highly unlikely.

The source uses "Taos Hum Investigation: Informal Report" at best as its source. Earthpulse is not exactly a reliable source - the article goes on to say "Flanagan's NeurophoneTM research offers a possible explanation for the Taos hum. As Mullins has pointed out, we are surrounded by a large number of low frequency devices ­ devices all operating around 60Hz. Given Flanagan's NeurophoneTM concept, it is possible that this concentration of frequency may well be resonating with the skin causing a direct neural link between the skin and the brain. "

The devices around us are not "around" 60 Hz, they are dead on it (50 Hz in some jurisdictions).

If someone cares to find the actual report by the scientists and its conclusions in this regard, that would be great. Huw Powell (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to work up the will to have a go at this article. You're absolutely correct; Earthpulse is not a great source, especially when we have the original (not, as some have presented, a journal, but a newsletter of a decent scientific body). That's incidentally what EP is referring to when they cite Mullins. Here's an easier-to-read/search version (text is almost identical, although I seem to remember there were a few words that were different between the two.

Here's everything they said on tinnitus (one para). "It has been proposed that the hum might represent some kind of low frequency tinnitus arising from a disturbance in the cochlea of the inner ear. One problem with such explanations is that tinnitus itself is not well understood. Most individuals with tinnitus match the tone they perceive between 3 to 6 kHz and rarely if ever does a tinnitus sufferer match to a tone below 1 kHz. Why should such a phenomenon skip from regions of the cochlea where 3 to 6 kHz tones are represented over intermediate zones to the extreme apical end of the cochlea where the lowest frequencies of sound are represented ? Furthermore, many hearers insist that they can hear beats between their perceived tone and the objective tone generated in matching experiments. Beats have not been demonstrated conclusively in matching experiments using subjects with tinnitus."

There's a question as to whether they're the right source for points on tinnitus, even if what they say makes sense. Bromley86 (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Colliding ocean waves

I've just read through the 4 source we have for this. They're good enough and back up what the article says. However, what the article doesn't say is that the waves have a frequency of "about 10 millihertz, much too low for humans to hear".1 Another source mentions 0.01–10 Hz,2 which is at least theoretically possible given that the lower threshold of human hearing is apparently 12 hertz; the problem is, the hum it's talking about there is an atmospheric hum. The ocean hum is reported in that source as "infrasonic background noise of 3–7 mHz", which is again far below the extremities of human hearing.

None of the sources refer to the Hum phenomenon, or humans hearing this hum. So I think we should cut it. I suspect that'll be seconded shortly, but I'll give it a while to see if anyone else has comments. Bromley86 (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your proposal. By the way, the dynamic of hearing of low frequencies ends below 20 Hz. The colliding ocean waves therefore can neither be heard with the ears nor have to do anything with Hum. Please remove them from our Hum-page. Brummfrosch (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Bromley86 (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Major revision to "Possible explanations" flawed, reverted

I completely disagree with the major revision to the "Possible explanations" section, reducing it from five separate sections to two sections, removing 3000 bytes of text, and conflating discussion of explanations together in a way that makes each explanation less understandable and also appears to synthesize rejections of hypotheses in a manner in which they are not synthesized in any single source, which is a form of original research which is not permitted per WP:SYN. I have therefore reverted those changed.

Editors should please remember that major revisions to an article should be discussed on the talk page in advance by the editor proposing them. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is helpful to discuss such a change of possible explanations from five to two sections. I was a bit too fast. Therefore I would like to discuss the reasons for this change-proposal:

Hum is a global phenomenon, which can be deduced from the history-list. If we accept this fact, we easily can see, that the possible explanations "Mechanical devices", "Colliding ocean waves" and "Fish" cannot be the primary source of the Hum. In addition we should be aware that hum by sure is not of an acoustic source, which has been confirmed by Mullins and others very convincingly. See section Taos Hum.

Then we can change these topics more or less as follows:

"Hum is a phenomenon that is found globally, has a global distribution, which can be easily deduced from the worldwide mention here at the history side. Therefore, explanations that attempt to attribute Hum to local events, such as mechanical devices in Kokomo, in West Seattle Hum or in Wellington Hum , or to colliding ocean waves, or the mating call of Midshipman fish. can be excluded as primary source.

References

Several other hypotheses are considered and discussed as possible sources of the Hum. Recent observers of the Hum have posited that perhaps the effects of digital mobile communications might be the cause for Hum. However, such theories are anachronistic, because the Hum has been present long before such devices existed. Similarly, the electromagnetic fields of power supply lines are another improbable cause."

Your comments are appreciated.--Brummfrosch (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's the problem... we are not allowed to make deductions, that's original research. We are also not permitted to clump things together in a way that in which no individual source discusses the matter, that's synthesis, a form of original research. If you have a source that discusses all these explanation in a single article and dismisses them all together for all locations, then that would be okay, but I don't believe any of the sources do so. It is also original research to apply the dismissal of an explanation of one local phenomena to dismiss that explanation in the case of phenomena located elsewhere, which is generalizing beyond the sources. Therefore I argue that the current article structure with a section for each proposed explanation is not only superior, it's pretty much required by our prohibition on original research. Yworo (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand. Probably it is better to include the results of a current original research paper that found out that hum and spontaneous otoacoustic emissions do have the same origin. Should I run this way? Thank you.Brummfrosch (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the paper published in a peer-reviewed journal? Yworo (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is.Brummfrosch (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Then I have no objection. Let's see how it turns out. Yworo (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The first part of the section ”Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions” be unchanged. Only the sentence “However, these emissions occur with equal frequency across age groups within the population, [citation needed] and the Hum typically occurs in regional clusters and to older people.[5]:575” has to be removed, because it is not/ wrongly cited. The first part of this sentence is an unproven claim, and the citation of literature (5) of the second part is wrong, because Deming does not report anything on clusters on pages 575-576, but reports on page 581 the contrary: “that hum is not clustered around a supposed source.” Here the proposed chapter:

Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions

Human ears generate their own noises, called spontaneous otoacoustic emissions (SOAEs), which affect between 38 percent to 60 percent of people, although the majority are unaware of these sounds.[45] The people who hear these sounds typically hear a faint buzzing or ringing, especially if they are otherwise in complete silence.[46] Recordings of sounds that appear to be the Hum, such as that made in Auckland, would indicate that SOAEs cannot explain all occurrences of the Hum.[22]

On the other side has the Hum many properties similar to those attributed to SOAEs. The frequencies for both are audible to approximately 2% of the population and they tend to decrease during the years. They can be regarded as Van der Pol oscillators, which generate beats with neighboring external sounds, and may be located in places of extremely improved hearing abilities. Research indicates that both SOAEs and the Hum can be removed with a dose of 2.4g aspirin after the first day of medication, and that they can be eliminated during certain head rotations. It can be expected that the same inner ear structures are responsible for the generation of both SOAEs and the Hum. Brummfrosch (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

References