Catmandoo Posted February 23, 2020 Posted February 23, 2020 1 hour ago, SWWASAS said: With low frequencies come long wave lengths so speaker boxes or the barrel application needs a long distance to build the wave form. Klipsch Audio Technologies has been around since 1946. They have dealt with the 'long distance' factor for low frequencies. Years ago they came out with the "Klipschorn corner horn" It is a 'folded horn' type of build and has to be placed in a corner. I think it has a 15" subwoofer. We had Speakerlab in Seattle. They offered pre-cut kits to build various speaker types. They had a corner horn. Put vinyl on the turntable, have a tube type amp and crank the bass and you could feel the sound in your gut. The conduit in the walls would rattle. The neighbors could pick up on it. The corner horns are good. Interested parties should check out the newer offerings from Klipsch. Klipschorn corner horn units are still available but they are huge. Think of the possibilities of having stereo infrasonics. Rock on. Tell the neighbors that you are not sorry
SWWASAS Posted February 23, 2020 BFF Patron Posted February 23, 2020 3 minutes ago, Catmandoo said: Klipsch Audio Technologies has been around since 1946. They have dealt with the 'long distance' factor for low frequencies. Years ago they came out with the "Klipschorn corner horn" It is a 'folded horn' type of build and has to be placed in a corner. I think it has a 15" subwoofer. We had Speakerlab in Seattle. They offered pre-cut kits to build various speaker types. They had a corner horn. Put vinyl on the turntable, have a tube type amp and crank the bass and you could feel the sound in your gut. The conduit in the walls would rattle. The neighbors could pick up on it. The corner horns are good. Interested parties should check out the newer offerings from Klipsch. Klipschorn corner horn units are still available but they are huge. Think of the possibilities of having stereo infrasonics. Rock on. Tell the neighbors that you are not sorry I have Kipsch Cornwalls. They are 38 tall, 25.25 wide, and 15.5 deep. The Corner Horn was just too big for the places I lived in military housing. I picked them up at the factory in Arkansas. They have a 15 inch woofer a smaller midrange and a tweeter. The enclosures are port vented. An old design it is not really suited for modern rock music where the musicians use unported high compliance speakers. But for classical played at moderate sound levels you cannot get much better. They are of course the first thing people see when they walk in the house. I also have a powered subwoofer in the corner of the room.
ExTrumpet Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 On 2/23/2020 at 2:54 PM, SWWASAS said: I have Kipsch Cornwalls. They are 38 tall, 25.25 wide, and 15.5 deep. The Corner Horn was just too big for the places I lived in military housing. I picked them up at the factory in Arkansas. They have a 15 inch woofer a smaller midrange and a tweeter. The enclosures are port vented. An old design it is not really suited for modern rock music where the musicians use unported high compliance speakers. But for classical played at moderate sound levels you cannot get much better. They are of course the first thing people see when they walk in the house. I also have a powered subwoofer in the corner of the room. LaScalla or BelleKlipsch were awesome too. They were the closest to the corner horns. I ended up buying Chorus II's but always loved the LaScalla's. I never had a corner big enough for the corner horns!! Klipsch Heresy are still my favorite "small" speaker!
SWWASAS Posted February 25, 2020 BFF Patron Posted February 25, 2020 On 2/23/2020 at 9:05 AM, SWWASAS said: My detector is semi portable but not something a zoo would let you set up. I think now there are detectors that have been developed for industrial use that are far more portable. Infrasound has been identified as an industrial hazard. Those huge windmills that generate electricity also produce high levels of infrasound. I will find one for industrial use and use that in the field. With two instruments, one being my digital recorder, I can certainly validate it if it is used against me. I might have to be dangerously aggressive to provoke a BF to use it. Not sure what the dividing line would be between ticking them off enough to zap me or ticking them off enough that they would enjoy ripping my head off more. I am hoping, like I theorize, that they use single pings of infrasound as some sort of signals. That would be good because it would take ticking them off out of the equation and possibly lead to some way to use it to locate them. Infrasound can travel great distances. Around the globe when atomic weapons are detonated. Lets theorize that BF uses infra sound on a regular basis. Who knows maybe they snore in infra sound? If so they could be detected at relatively large distances. While the link I provide here is related to detection of meteors, the math included in this paper could be used to determine the position of a source of infra sound if you have several sensors deployed in an area. By comparing arrival times at the different sensors, the formulas could determine exact locations. According to the paper, infrasound near the surface travels at the speed of sound, it is dependent on temperature and wind direction/velocity so these need to be factored in the the calculation. If the sensors are linked by radio to the central processing location, calculations by computer could quickly determine the location of the signal. Here is the link to the meteor paper. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209099771630075X In the mean time the first objective would be to determine if BF uses infrasound on a regular basis without the presence of humans. One sensor, I have one, could be used to determine that. Since BF may not be the only source of infrasound in the woods, care would have to be taken to eliminate known causes. They include earthquakes, sonic booms, thunderstorms, tornados, and of course meteors I have mentioned. The USGS records and plots earthquakes in a given region, so that can be used to eliminate them. Thunderstorms and tornadoes are rare in the PNW so can be ignored when detected and forecast. Sonic booms and meteors would be random and data not available but fortunately are rare in this area. Areas near military training restricted areas would be problematic as sonic booms would be common there. If that sales engineer responds to my quote, I might have access to a more portable infrasound detector if I can afford the thing. That would allow determining an area to run the experiment and set up an detection array. If provoking a BF to use infrasound is necessary, this methodology would hold no promise because you would already have to know where BF are to provoke them.
BlackRockBigfoot Posted February 26, 2020 Posted February 26, 2020 On 2/25/2020 at 2:30 PM, SWWASAS said: Lets theorize that BF uses infra sound on a regular basis. Who knows maybe they snore in infra sound? If so they could be detected at relatively large distances. While the link I provide here is related to detection of meteors, the math included in this paper could be used to determine the position of a source of infra sound if you have several sensors deployed in an area. By comparing arrival times at the different sensors, the formulas could determine exact locations. According to the paper, infrasound near the surface travels at the speed of sound, it is dependent on temperature and wind direction/velocity so these need to be factored in the the calculation. If the sensors are linked by radio to the central processing location, calculations by computer could quickly determine the location of the signal. Here is the link to the meteor paper. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209099771630075X In the mean time the first objective would be to determine if BF uses infrasound on a regular basis without the presence of humans. One sensor, I have one, could be used to determine that. Since BF may not be the only source of infrasound in the woods, care would have to be taken to eliminate known causes. They include earthquakes, sonic booms, thunderstorms, tornados, and of course meteors I have mentioned. The USGS records and plots earthquakes in a given region, so that can be used to eliminate them. Thunderstorms and tornadoes are rare in the PNW so can be ignored when detected and forecast. Sonic booms and meteors would be random and data not available but fortunately are rare in this area. Areas near military training restricted areas would be problematic as sonic booms would be common there. If that sales engineer responds to my quote, I might have access to a more portable infrasound detector if I can afford the thing. That would allow determining an area to run the experiment and set up an detection array. If provoking a BF to use infrasound is necessary, this methodology would hold no promise because you would already have to know where BF are to provoke them. Are you getting something custom made or is it a piece of equipment already in existence?
SWWASAS Posted February 26, 2020 BFF Patron Posted February 26, 2020 It is not custom made but has several optional features including recording and frequency weighting. It is truly portable and hand held. The sales engineer contacted me and asked some questions about how I planned to use it and I said it was to monitor large animals use of infrasound. Anyway have not heard anything back since then. There are all kinds of industrial sound monitoring gear available at moderate prices because of industrial safety but most do not operate below 30HZ. I suspect that they all use a Chinese module that I found separately with the same tech specs. I did find a accelerometer intended to monitor humans in an industrial setting that functions down to about 1 HZ. It probably would work if a BF zapped you strongly enough to make you vibrate or shake. Cost unknown but most likely over $1000. It also has a menu of different sensors depending on what you are interested in monitoring. I found a microphone that can detect sound down to .15 HZ. It is just a microphone intended to be hooked up to some sort of oscillograph to record the signal. But just the microphone was over $1800. It was industrial and listed uses included recording sonic booms and thunderstorms. There are several ways I can see to detect and record infrasound but they are not portable much beyond being transported in a vehicle. Certainly not something I can conceive of carrying in my pack. Since I already have such a device I really do not need to construct another. Something hand held below a pound total would be good.
SWWASAS Posted February 26, 2020 BFF Patron Posted February 26, 2020 Well I received the quote and it is totally out of the question. Listed price with options is $12,750.00 I can likely engineer something on my own for far less than that. The problem with engineering my own gear is that I need to first produce infrasound to have a source to use to develop a recorder. That microphone might be a starting point. I really do not want to get into writing software again. Did that, had a business, and got taken to the cleaners by people stealing from me. 1
BlackRockBigfoot Posted February 26, 2020 Posted February 26, 2020 12 minutes ago, SWWASAS said: Well I received the quote and it is totally out of the question. Listed price with options is $12,750.00 I can likely engineer something on my own for far less than that. The problem with engineering my own gear is that I need to first produce infrasound to have a source to use to develop a recorder. That microphone might be a starting point. I really do not want to get into writing software again. Did that, had a business, and got taken to the cleaners by people stealing from me. $12,750??? I don't know if this would be viable, but if you were to design and build one yourself...then perhaps you could offset some of the cost eventually by making and selling them to other researchers? Your knowledge of infrasound and its measurement is leaps and bounds beyond mine...and what I assume to be most other researchers,so that might not be viable. The equipment might be too complex for a layman to find of any use. Again, as far as sound and acoustics I don't know enough to know what I don't know.
SWWASAS Posted February 26, 2020 BFF Patron Posted February 26, 2020 Still working the issue. From what I am finding most of the cost is two factors. Frequency response below 20HZ and small and light weight hand held size. The small and light weight factor and response below 20HZ are diametrically opposed design factors. The specs for the device list the microphone and preamp used in the device. The microphone is a condenser mike that has a 5 to 20,000 HZ frequency response. The preamp has the same 5 to 20,000 HZ specs. Quite frankly I would want something capable of detecting sound below 4 HZ since I detected that when I got zapped. The mike and preamp are available separately. As some of you may know a condenser mike takes various voltages up to 200V as a bias voltage since it functions as a condenser in a circuit that has a movable diaphragm next to a fixed one a few microns away. The microphone is less than 1/2 inch in diameter. A larger microphone or one that functions on pressure differential should be a lot cheaper. I have the feeling that a 15 inch disk of light gage aluminum sheet with an attached coil in a strong magnetic field would detect infrasound as well as any microphone that exists. It certainly would cost a fraction of the one I mentioned above. Whatever I make will not cost but a fraction of the one that was quoted. Rather than produce them I would just say how to make them with available materials. 1
Nancy Frye Posted March 1, 2020 Posted March 1, 2020 On 2/23/2020 at 6:14 AM, WSA said: On watching the recent HTH videos I have to say I’m having trouble getting his central issue...that mainstream researchers “don’t care” about the average Working Joe witness and how traumatic an encounter can be, etc. I could see if he had an axe to grind with a community of skeptics who dismiss witnesses as liars, hoaxers or gullible, but researchers invested in proving existence to the public and the scientific world ? Seems they would be their natural allies. What better way to show empathy than through the validation of the experience? I can’t say for sure, never having had a Class A sighting, but I would imagine a great deal of the emotional upheaval in having one might usually be the lack of a realistic framework to put the experience in context. BF researchers have produced a lot of information that helps with this.... If you haven't read Scott Carpenter's book yet (Truth Denied), I highly recommend doing so. It would be nice if all scientists were honest truth seekers, but sadly this is not the case. In the bigfoot/sasquatch world, there are even more people religiously wedded to various theories and hypotheses concerning these hairy woodmen. There are many "researchers" who have blatantly attacked and attempted sabotage of other researchers, credentialed or not. Many of the worst offenders have become downright predatory, constantly on the offensive toward anybody who might have evidence that would endanger their profitable business. They are like the oncology world: why cure cancer when you can make money off of cancer patients? Many of these so-called "researchers" are making bank by "looking" for bigfoot. They don't seem to have any real interest in finding these things or delivering hard evidence. That would throw a monkey wrench into the works. At any rate, Mr. Isdahl has stated over and over that he's not interested in proving anything or finding evidence, because he feels that this has already been done, despite a concerted effort from certain quarters to suppress information and/or destroy the careers of honest truth seekers. He's championing people who have had encounters and experiences and don't know where to turn. He's starting to help people find the courage to share their traumas and thus share the burden with other like-minded individuals, and I admire the heck out of him for it. 3
BlackRockBigfoot Posted March 2, 2020 Posted March 2, 2020 On 12/19/2019 at 10:45 AM, BlackRockBigfoot said: Quite honestly, I love his channel. Not only has he stepped on the toes of those who think that the Bigfoot community is their own personal fiefdom, he has been willing to weather a great deal of abuse from the hunting community as well. This has to have hurt his credibility in the hunting world, but he seems to be the sort of guy who doesn't shy away from conflict. It's kind of early to tell, but if he sticks to his stated purpose of trying to give a voice to those who have kind of felt put off by prominent figures in Bigfoot research...he is ok by me. One of the things that bother me about this field is the self aggrandizement that takes over. The focus becomes on those who take part in the subject, as opposed to the subject itself. The weird little Bigfoot cults of personality that crop up weird me out. If he is going to start slaughtering some sacred cows... I'm all for it. We have been debating the finer points of Bigfoot trivia ad nauseum for decades. If arguing over what color shirt John Green wore on case #43758 was going to solve this mystery, it would have happened years ago. Let's flip the table over and reset the game board. I think that Steve is going to do that to a small degree. I quoted myself, because my opinion on Steve has evolved over the past few months. So far, all we have seen are some accounts that have been read off of his phone and a few pictures...some of which have been in circulation for awhile. That's all well and good, I guess. His channel is popular, so hopefully it does help with bringing this subject more serious attention. However, I can find dozens of podcasts doing the exact same thing, often with the supposed witnesses themselves recounting their stories. The only difference that I can see is that Steve has a pedigree in the outdoors...and he has great backdrops. I still enjoy his channel, but I have given up on anything earth shattering or even out of the ordinary coming out of it. These 'great things' that are coming that are continually alluded to are probably going to be another podcast....or maybe another Bigfoot organization. It's obvious that he doesn't have any great secret knowledge to share like he has hinted at in the past. He will introduce Carpenter's Nephilim theory and Ketchum's DNA study to people who were previously unfamiliar with them. Depending on your personal feelings on those subjects, that could either be a good thing or a bad thing. I think that the best that we can expect from his involvement in this field is perhaps opening people's minds who might be dismissive of this topic. Some of those people might be receptive due to Steve's background as an outdoorsman. However, putting him on a pedestal because he is somehow better than people who are 'making money' off this field is not working for me. His YouTube channel, which had a small degree of popularity before all of this Bigfoot involvement, has 110,000 viewers. Each video has between 50,000 and 180,000 views...and he puts out a lot of videos. That's bringing in some coin. Long and short of it, I enjoy his channel and watch his videos. But, let's be honest. He isn't turning out to be the savior of the Bigfoot community that many believed that he might become. I do think that his aggressive stance on Meldrum will put some off. He honestly seems like he is becoming just another 'Bigfoot celebrity'...with devotees and feuds with other names in the field just like all the rest. It's a shame. With his hunting background and location...he would be perfectly suited to put one on the slab. But, he says that he does not actively search for these creatures, so I guess that we are just left with submitted stories and cool backdrops. 2
Twist Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 Great post and summary BRB. I too enjoyed him more in the beginning but have changed my opinion to still probably a good guy but nothing new. I had higher hope for many of the same reasons you did. If anything I am disappointed if he hitches his wagon the Ketchum ponies. I just dont see eye to eye with that side of thing fully. In the end though, I cant blame or hate on a guy that can bring more spotlight to the subject and he seems to be doing that. 1
Huntster Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 The only interest I really had in this guy was the fact that he's a professional hunting guide. Folks, hunting guides in Alaska are universally sasquatch disbelievers or are perfectly silent on the issue. If they talk belief, it's at the lowest possible volumn, and likely in a one-on-one conversation. I don't know why that is, but I can guess. So when this guy started putting his staunch belief, along with an "I don't give a **** if you believe me or not" attitude, I was pretty impressed. And his attitude about killing one is similar to mine, I think, and I'm pretty confident that's because he knows what kind of trouble that would bring him. He's in a great position to get a good pic one day. He spends a lot of time glossing some prime sasquatch habitat. 1
MIB Posted March 5, 2020 Moderator Posted March 5, 2020 On 3/2/2020 at 1:17 PM, BlackRockBigfoot said: It's obvious that he doesn't have any great secret knowledge to share like he has hinted at in the past. He will introduce Carpenter's Nephilim theory and Ketchum's DNA study to people who were previously unfamiliar with them. Depending on your personal feelings on those subjects, that could either be a good thing or a bad thing. This. And that's very disappointing. Some of that .. nonsense .. should just go away. If he had chose to champion different people, credible researchers, I'd feel differently, but my interest in what he is doing is fading pretty quickly as he seems ever less interested in helping people than in using people's need for help to help himself. MIB
starchunk Posted March 5, 2020 Posted March 5, 2020 On 3/1/2020 at 2:09 AM, Nancy Frye said: If you haven't read Scott Carpenter's book yet (Truth Denied), I highly recommend doing so. It would be nice if all scientists were honest truth seekers, but sadly this is not the case. In the bigfoot/sasquatch world, there are even more people religiously wedded to various theories and hypotheses concerning these hairy woodmen. There are many "researchers" who have blatantly attacked and attempted sabotage of other researchers, credentialed or not. Many of the worst offenders have become downright predatory, constantly on the offensive toward anybody who might have evidence that would endanger their profitable business. They are like the oncology world: why cure cancer when you can make money off of cancer patients? Many of these so-called "researchers" are making bank by "looking" for bigfoot. They don't seem to have any real interest in finding these things or delivering hard evidence. That would throw a monkey wrench into the works. At any rate, Mr. Isdahl has stated over and over that he's not interested in proving anything or finding evidence, because he feels that this has already been done, despite a concerted effort from certain quarters to suppress information and/or destroy the careers of honest truth seekers. He's championing people who have had encounters and experiences and don't know where to turn. He's starting to help people find the courage to share their traumas and thus share the burden with other like-minded individuals, and I admire the heck out of him for it. If they're defending a profitable business <<<BFRO>>>> , then they are not as much researchers, as exploiting the subject for profit. Two different things.
Recommended Posts