Low frecuency generator - Schumann Resonance

[joseche]

I consider myself as a spectical person, in fact I am also atheist but lately the Schumann Resonance has got my attention and I want to put myself to the test with it.

Is it possible to build a 7.83Hz generator within a budget ( $50 ) ?

Has anyone in this forum checked this kind of experiment ?

Thanks

 

[canadaelk]

Man: you got to check your spelling: did you mean sceptical or special?

And what has atheism (I prefer to call myself a freethinker) to do with SR?

Such an oscillator can be built with $10 worth of parts, but to build the power stage costs a lot more and the resulting lawsuits will cost an awfull lot more. E

 

[joseche]

#1: sceptical

#2: don't believe the effects of SR

#3: Why a lawsuits ?, what patent ? ( I don't think it will be a problem for me because I am not in US ! )

 

[alec_t]

It's certainly possible to build a 7.83Hz oscillator, driving a coil, within that budget, but what output power do you need? I guess it would be A LOT if it normally takes something like a lighning strike to excite such resonances.

Why a lawsuits ?

Because in most countries it's illegal to transmit high power EM radiation unless it's within prescribed frequency bands and you have a licence.

 

[carbonzit]

Heh; if you want to feast your mind on the kind of crackpot "science" that fills the Internets, check out this page.

Yikes.

 

[Ian Rogers]

Watch out carbonzit I got told off for linking web sites like that!!!

 

[carbonzit]

Butbutbut ... it's relevant to the topic! Just look at the title of this thread ...

Sheesh. This is why I hate moderated fora.

 

[canadaelk]

At the end of that ZERO POINt site it should have said:

Old man, holding sign: "The End Is Nigh!"
Teenager: "OMG, I can't afford an i4"

Zero Point: apt description! E

 

[joseche]

So, going back to the topic,

Can I generate a sine wave at 7.83Hz and 2 watt ?

Where can I see a schematic for something like that ?

 

[carbonzit]

You say "2 watt", but it's important to know the voltage and current:

1 volt @ 2 amps? 10 millivolts at 200 amps? 250 volts @ 8 mA?

 

[jpanhalt]

If I²R = watts and that is into a 50Ω line, isn't the current and voltage defined?

I expect this to be a piquant discussion of rubbish. What better to do on a rainy weekend?

John

 

[carbonzit]

Where do you get "50Ω line"? I didn't see that anywhere. And yes, rubbish. Hopefully entertaining rubbish ...

 

[jpanhalt]

I figured he was using a 50Ω or 75Ω coax cable stuck somewhere to prevent destruction of the planet and mankind.

John

 

[alec_t]

Provided the output is limited to 2W I don't think we need worry too much about the planet being destroyed. Phew!....

 

[Boncuk]

A very interesting topic.

Ultra low frequencies were used as weapons during WWI mounting huge loudspeakers on trucks and have the ground tremble (and the heart of any creature within the range of the speakers).

They killed thousands of soldiers (no heart can beat ~470 times per minute without damage) until one day the wind turned and killed friendly troopers.

Better start out at real low power unless you want to commit suicide.

Boncuk

 

[tcmtech]

Ultra low frequencies were used as weapons during WWI mounting huge loudspeakers on trucks and have the ground tremble (and the heart of any creature within the range of the speakers).

They killed thousands of soldiers (no heart can beat ~470 times per minute without damage) until one day the wind turned and killed friendly troopers.

I have to call BS on that one being that in WWI (circa 1914 - 1919) basic audio amplification was all vacuum tube based and loud speaker design was very poor at best and subsonic design was even less understood. That and producing the massive amounts of sound energy needed to stop or at least alter the heart beat in an open air space is still unbelievably difficult and impractical even by todays standards which such equipment would not fit on any truck that was built in the 1914 -1919 era.

Mostly I call BS because LF sound is highly omidirectional and wind change would have little effect on its intensity and direction.

 

[Boncuk]

I have to call BS on that one being that in WWI (circa 1914 - 1919) basic audio amplification was all vacuum tube based and loud speaker design was very poor at best and subsonic design was even less understood. That and producing the massive amounts of sound energy needed to stop or at least alter the heart beat in an open air space is still unbelievably difficult and impractical even by todays standards which such equipment would not fit on any truck that was built in the 1914 -1919 era.

Mostly I call BS because LF sound is highly omidirectional and wind change would have little effect on its intensity and direction.

You are firing into a bush not knowing if there is a target.

Who told you the sound was generated using vacuum tubes?
Who told you infra sound is omnidirectional?

Just give this a read!

 

[jpanhalt]

But there is no date to reference that article. We Westerners generally think of WWI as trench warfare and poison gas. I was aware of various "secret" weapons, including a sound cannon, developed during and before WWII. I was not aware it had been used in WWI.

John

 

[unclejed613]

actually, Schumann Resonance isn't "goofy science".... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_resonances

from a quick read, it's a phenomenon that is measurable, and repeatable, and the theory on the subject is well developed. i don't know if 2 watts is going to be much of an exciter at such low frequencies (especially since the longest antenna one can manage will still be a very tiny fraction of a wavelength), but there won't be any government agencies busting down his door for trying either, as anything below 10khz is not regulated anywhere in the world.

 

[unclejed613]

the "sound cannon" was developed by germany in WWII (not the first war), and wasn't very effective. it wasn't even electronic. it used a series of resonant combustion chambers firing gas explosions. it's purpose was to disorient enemy troops. it was never fielded, as it wasn't very effective except up very close (inverse square law applies to sound as well as electromagnetic energy)