Slashdot Mirror


Directed Sound

yawningyellowyak writes "Technology Review has an interesting article on directed sound. Ultrasonic 'sound' is sent out from a 'speaker' and the distortion encountered on hitting the air produces hearable sound, but only in certain spots. You could be standing right next to someone and they would hear nothing. One step closer to the cone of silence!"

251 comments

  1. Can I smell something ? by EpsCylonB · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This tech is the very definition of vapourware, it's been in development for years.

    1. Re:Can I smell something ? by cyber_rigger · · Score: 1, Funny



      Spock did this on Star Trek years ago to freak out the aliens.

    2. Re:Can I smell something ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are working sets that have been sold in a limited amount, according to the article. By definition it's _not_ vapourware, wouldn't you agree?

    3. Re:Can I smell something ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually its already available if Richard Glen Boire in this weeks issue of New Scientist (24/April) is anything to go by.

      US$600 and falling

      -dgr

    4. Re:Can I smell something ? by waitigetit · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Sound hitting the air? Uhuh, that makes as much sense as waves hitting the sea.

      Probably just some interference effect they use.

      OTOH, I've heard of the same effect being tested for creating extremely low (10Hz) frequency sounds, for crowdcontrol: Apparently, low frequencies make you feel too ill to fight.

      --
      I could care less, but not without a lobotomy
    5. Re:Can I smell something ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually it isnt vaporware, they showed a working version of it on TechTV a while ago. So its not a matter of it existing, but a matter of when companys are going to use it.

    6. Re:Can I smell something ? by MrAndrews · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't know what the official definition of vapourware is, but I have seen this in use from rooftops at MIT (it's fun to see the reaction of people as they try and figure out if anyone else heard that voice), and am helping in the development of a line of products that use these speakers as a key component.

      I think the reason you probably haven't seen it yet is that there aren't many finished products made yet, and part of that might have to do with the fact that lots of local bylaws seem concerned with this kind of thing (they liken it to talking on cell phones while driving).

      It won't be long before this is everywhere. I think the tech is just slightly outpacing the market right now.

    7. Re:Can I smell something ? by PaschalNee · · Score: 4, Informative

      Based on this it seemed to be pretty far advanced (and that was two years ago). Granted I've yet to see it being used commercially.

    8. Re:Can I smell something ? by hal200 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      FWIW, I saw this demonstrated on The Screensavers on TechTV a couple months ago. It seemed to work when they turned it on the studio audience. Only the people that the machine was pointed directly at could hear it. It could have been an elaborate hoax, but then again, so could the Moon Landing...

      --

      I just want to take over the world...Why does that automatically make me EVIL?

    9. Re:Can I smell something ? by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Naaaah, not vapourware, because it really does exist. It's more like ignoreware. If they kept ignoring it things would work out ok. One can dream.

      But yes, it is a rather old story. Last year my mom asked me if I'd heard of it and wondered if it were something she should invest in.

      If my mom has heard of it as an investment opportunity it's definately old news.

      I told her what it was being promoted as useful for and she decided she didn't want to encourage that sort of shit with her money.

      KFG

    10. Re:Can I smell something ? by onthefenceman · · Score: 1

      This tech is the very definition of vapourware, it's been in development for years.

      Not true. If you have enough money, either of these guys will sell you a working product. A product that simply can't find many takers at its price is very different from one that is incomplete technically. If Duke Nukem Forever were to appear on the shelf tomorrow for the low, low price of $4999, would you buy it?

      --
      Have you seen my stapler?
    11. Re:Can I smell something ? by Misch · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. It's been on /. twice before.

      --

      --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
    12. Re:Can I smell something ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      First commercial applications.... Ads. Right out of Minority Report.

      John Anderton, you look like you need a ....

    13. Re:Can I smell something ? by raygundan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, this particular little invention is what really drove the concept of "vapourware" home for me. I read about it first while I was in college, back in *1998*. I followed it excitedly, because at the time it was touted as a lightweight, low-power, flat-frequency-response speaker system. The directionality was just a side effect. Turns out it's not all it's cracked up to be in the audio quality department, but hey... that side effect is still there six years later, so let's capitalize on that instead!

      As I tried to keep up with who was developing what with the tech (it's been licensed over and over, but nobody's ever built anything commercially available) I got more and more depressed with the whole thing. And I learned an important life lesson... until you can click "Buy Now," (and sometimes not even then) it may as well not exist unless you intend to build your own from a copy of the patent. I try to just ignore announcements like "Hypersonic Sound" now.

    14. Re:Can I smell something ? by SuchiRu · · Score: 1

      This is true. This sort of thing has been around for QUITE a while. I mean it is sometimes used at music concerts. Although they try not to have them, but they do. It will sound scrambled in some spots durring a concert. It's the same general idea. Come on, I mean we were talking about this stuff in a high school physics class yesterday for god's sake. Nothing new, but it is interesting.

    15. Re:Can I smell something ? by deanj · · Score: 1

      Apparently you don't go to museums much. Our local museum has this technology at various display points throughout the various exhibits.

    16. Re:Can I smell something ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, the sound actually isn't bad at all
      on the units from Holosonics. And you can
      bet that Joe wouldn't license anything to
      anyone. (I've never heard any of the
      competitor's products, so I don't know
      how they compare.)

      At any rate, they seem to be selling a
      decent trickle of them now. I don't know
      what they charge for them, though. I'll
      bet that they aren't cheap.

    17. Re:Can I smell something ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the pace technology is used these days, if it was far advanced two years ago and it's still not in common use today, then there is something seriously wrong. There are tons of uses to this, marketing as already mentioned, but also stuff like coaches giving instructions to players on the field. So the question is, why isn't this being used yet?

    18. Re:Can I smell something ? by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      I thought Spock did this on Star Trek years ago to alienate the freaks.

    19. Re:Can I smell something ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can just see the fine folks at MIT now, directing this randomly in the crowd, and saying things like "I want you to think about what you've done and repent, and from now on, stop playing with yourself."

    20. Re:Can I smell something ? by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      "(they liken it to talking on cell phones while driving)"

      Dashboard says: Error 618143-Baker. Warning. Speeding in traffic stupidly endangers this unit. Have dealer mechanic service this unit within ten hours for continued operation. Tell dealer the error code from this message. *giggle*

    21. Re:Can I smell something ? by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 3, Funny
      see the reaction of people as they try and figure out if anyone else heard that voice

      God: (standing on a chair behind Noah, he rings a bell once) NOAH.
      Noah: (Looks up) Is someone calling me? (Shrugs and goes back to his work)
      God: (Ding) NOAH!!
      Noah: Who is that?
      God: It's the Lord, Noah.
      Noah: Right ... Where are ya? What do ya want? I've been good.
      God: I want you to build an ark.
      Noah: Right ... What's an ark?
      God: Get some wood and build it 300 cubits by 80 cubits by 40 cubits.
      Noah: Right ... What's a cubit?
      God: Well never mind. Don't worry about that right now. After you build the ark, I want you to go out into the world and collect all the animals of the world, two by two, male and female, and put them into the ark.
      Noah: Right ... Who is this really? What's going on? How come you want me to do all these weird things?
      God: I'm going to destroy the world.
      Noah: Right ... Am I on Candid Camera? How are you gonna do it?
      God: I'm going to make it rain for a thousand days and drown them right out.
      Noah: Right ... Listen, do this and you'll save water. Let it rain for forty days and forty nights and wait for the sewers to back up.
      God: Right...
      Narrator: So Noah began to build the ark. Of course his neighbors were not too happy about it. Can you imagine leaving for the office at 7 AM and seeing an ark?
      Neighbor: (enters whistling, with brief case) Hey! You over there.
      Noah: What do you want?
      Neighbor: What is this thing?
      Noah: It's an ark.
      Neighbor: Uh huh, well you want to get it out of my driveway? I've gotta get to work. Hey listen, what's this thing for anyway?
      Noah: I can't tell you, ha ha ha.
      Neighbor: Can't you even give me a little hint?
      Noah: You want a hint?
      Neighbor: Yes, please.
      Noah: Well, how long can you tread water? Ha ha ha
      Neighbor: There's one in every neighborhood. (Shakes head and leaves)
      Narrator: Well Noah finally got the ark built. Then he had the task of gathering all the animals two by two.
      Noah: Hey, anybody know how to tell the difference between a male and a female mosquito? (Looking in a box) I told your rabbits before, only two! (He puts box in boat) Whew, finally the last two animals are on board. Let's get this thing closed up before God asks me to do something else. I'm six hundred years old. I am getting too old for this sort of thing.
      God: Noah!
      Noah: I knew it. What do you want now?
      God: You're going to have to take one of those hippos off and get another one.
      Noah: Why?
      God: 'Cause you got two males. You need a female.
      Noah: I'm too tired to bring anything else on board. You change one of them.
      God: Come on, you know I don't work like that.
      Noah: But I'm sick and tired of this. I've been working all day everyday like crazy for months now, dawn to dusk. I'm tired of this.
      God: Noah
      Noah: Yeah?
      God: how long can you tread water? Ha ha ha
      Noah: Yeah, well I got news for you. You keep talking about this flood and I haven't seen a drop of rain. Meanwhile, the whole neighborhood is making fun of me. I told one of my friends I'd been talking to the Lord and he laughed so hard he wet his pants. Do you know I'm the only guy in town with an ark in his yard? People are picketing and calling the heath department, strangers walk up to me and say "How's it going, Tarzan?" I am sick and tired of all of this, you let me get a pregnant elephant . . . Do you give me an instruction book? . . . No!!! Here I am standing under the elephant and brrrrrrrrump! Right on top of me! I'm telling you, I've had enough. You're supposed to see all and know all, well have you seen the bottom of that ark? Who's going to clean up that mess? Not me, I tell you. I quit. I'm tired of this. I'm going to let the animals out and burn that ark down. I can't believe you made me do all this . . . (God takes a watering can and begins to pour w

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    22. Re:Can I smell something ? by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      I've yet to see it being used commercially.

      If you're not a subscriber, of course you wouldn't have been hearing it for the past year. Everyone else joined then, where have you been?

      Sure beats an iPod to be able to choose tunes and handle email while in the mall or supermarket. And the keychain controller's batteries last for three months. But I think I'm going to upgrade my service and get rid of the ads.

    23. Re:Can I smell something ? by thgreatoz · · Score: 1

      Bill Cosby - Noah (Right!)

      --
      When their numbers dwindled from 50 to 8, the dwarves began to suspect Hungry.
  2. Cone of Silence by Epistax · · Score: 4, Funny

    One step closer to the cone of silence!

    Damn. I'm still grappling with the unmistakable cone of ignorance

    1. Re:Cone of Silence by MoonBuggy · · Score: 0

      I'll take silence over ignorance any day!

    2. Re:Cone of Silence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      *someone in the cone of silence*

      *sees peoples mouths moving. realizes they are talking to him.

      "I'm in the cone of silence, you insensitive clods!"


      Insensitive Clods: "What?"

    3. Re:Cone of Silence by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that after all these years the Cone of Silence, the useless security divice from the spy spoof Get Smart, still needs no introduction.

      The power of Nicelodeon has indeed grown large.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    4. Re:Cone of Silence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrong cone of silence. The one original poster is refering to is far more nerdy.

  3. The missus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    standing right next to someone and they would hear nothing

    That would be great if someone could rig my wife up with one of these... the silence would be bliss! :)

  4. Sweeeeet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny


    Now if they can project "burnt toast smell" I'll really be able to make people think they're nuts.

    1. Re:Sweeeeet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmmm, directed mid-afternoon fresh popcorn smell.

    2. Re:Sweeeeet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You can do that, with a vortex cannon.

    3. Re:Sweeeeet by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      You can do that, with a vortex cannon.

      Yeah, but she tends to ignore the toast smell until she finds where her bra landed, and by then the smell has dissipated. Totally ruins the scent advertising.

  5. duplicate by P0lyh34) · · Score: 1

    from like over a year or so ago.

    --
    -Polyhead-
    1. Re:duplicate by rbullo · · Score: 1, Funny

      Prove it.

      --
      OH NOES!!! IT APPEARS YUO DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR DIS HERE PIZZA! WAHT EVER ARE YOU GOING TO DO!?!?
    2. Re:duplicate by Dan+Yocum · · Score: 1

      What's old is new, again.

      I, for one, welcome the return of our poodle skirted, beehive hairdoo'd overlords.

  6. Ahhhh by jabbadabbadoo · · Score: 4, Funny

    At last - high volume p0rn without waking up my girlfriend!!!

    1. Re:Ahhhh by Epistax · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sorry, it doesn't work on the noises you make.

    2. Re:Ahhhh by amstrad · · Score: 3, Funny
      At last - high volume p0rn without waking up my girlfriend!!!
      ...or the person in the next cubicle
    3. Re:Ahhhh by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh yeah, like, that's exactly what I want. Lying in bed with my girlfriend watching p0rn and then not getting laid.

      I think you might want to rethink that plan Sparky.

      KFG

    4. Re:Ahhhh by Noah+Adler · · Score: 0, Funny

      You meant parents, right?

    5. Re:Ahhhh by wcrowe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe not. Have you seen his girlfriend?

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    6. Re:Ahhhh by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if you're already lying in bed with your girlfriend and not getting laid, might as well watch the p0rn. =)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Ahhhh by tepples · · Score: 1

      Lying in bed with my girlfriend watching p0rn and then not getting laid.

      Many girlfriends refuse to do 90% of what you see in exploitive erotic videos.

    8. Re:Ahhhh by tedgyz · · Score: 3, Funny

      The colloquial term for this is marriage.

      --
      "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
  7. Cone of Silence? More like cone of annoyance. by Maestro4k · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Seriously, marketers will be in heaven, able to target ads at passerbys. Now you can look forward to being inundated with directed sound ads while walking the street. It'll be far more annoying because it'll be harder to ignore than ambient noise (ads running on outside speakers, people hawking their businesses on the sidewalk).

    And we think spam is bad...

  8. this is nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I don't see how this is anything new. I saw a show on TechTV about a year ago where some guy had perfected what most other companies had given up on (he is an inventor and has come up with a lot of other tech things). What he perfected was a speaker which could be totally directional and was completely flat. Some of the applications he considered were having them installed in a vending machine. For example, you could hear the sound of coke being poured into a glass - fizzing, glub glub glubbing, ice clanking as the soda fills the glass - that would only be audible if you were directly in front of the vending machine but step aside and you would not be able to hear anything at all.

    1. Re:this is nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After reading the article, I see that this *is* the same guy (Elwood "Woody" something or other).

      I thought this was already in existance. They demonstrated it on TechTV (sort of) and I had the impression it was a done deal. Oh well. *yawn*

  9. Messin with people by binaryDigit · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can you imagine how this could be used to really screw with peoples heads?

    On the edge psycho person: "Hey, did you hear that voice"
    Unknowing friend: "No, I didn't hear anything"
    On the edge psycho person: "Quit messing with me man, I can hear that voice a clear as day"
    Unknowing friend: "I told you, all I hear is some elevator music"
    On the edge psycho person: "AAARGH, get it out of my head, it's telling me to, to, to ..."
    Unknowing friend: "TO WHAT, TO WHAT!?!"
    On the edge psycho person: "GO TO AISLE 4 FOR A 2 FOR 1 ON LIGHT DAYS! AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH"

    All kidding aside, there actually is a fair bit of harm one could use this tech for. Make the "sound" of high enough intensity, and it would make a very effective, and undetectable weapon.

    1. Re:Messin with people by EpsCylonB · · Score: 3, Funny

      All kidding aside, there actually is a fair bit of harm one could use this tech for. Make the "sound" of high enough intensity, and it would make a very effective, and undetectable weapon.

      so you could use it to kill harkonens...

    2. Re:Messin with people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean, undetectable? All you need is a microphone and a pair of headphones.

    3. Re:Messin with people by Bibulous · · Score: 5, Funny

      I saw a TV programme about this a while ago.

      One of the guys who was developing it enjoyed pointing it down towards people on the street and speaking to them. He said they got really creeped out and started looking around to see if anyone else heard it.

      I think it'd be more fun to involve two people and two speakers. Have a sort of devil and angel think going on.

      "Kill that guy over there!"
      "No, don't do it"
      "Go on, don't listen to that pussy!"

    4. Re:Messin with people by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1
      I think it'd be more fun to involve two people and two speakers. Have a sort of devil and angel think going on.

      Of course, one directed to the left ear, and the other to the right.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:Messin with people by Blnky · · Score: 1

      Lol, Sweet. I was so hoping someone would mention that. Every time I hear of directed sound I can't help but think "Mua'dib!". Thanks for making my day.

    6. Re:Messin with people by electrichamster · · Score: 1

      I had the same idea a few weeks ago when wandering round a local church - imagine placing these speakers in the roof attached to positional motors.

      I'd love to see how people praying actually reacted when they heard the "Voice of god" :D

    7. Re:Messin with people by azzy · · Score: 1

      Kick the rock, punch it, shout at it!

    8. Re:Messin with people by Adriax · · Score: 4, Funny

      "This is the lord, your god. I have decreed that you may save 15% or more on your car insurance by switching to Geico!"

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    9. Re:Messin with people by E10Reads · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, this is already being implamented by the US Military in Iraq. It is used at checkpoints to speak to aproaching parties. And the Military has signed a new contract with American Technology for $1.1 million to deliver these LRAD's (long range acoustice divices) to the Marines. "LRAD is a breakthrough long-range hailing and warning, directed acoustic device that is designed to determine intent, change behavior, and support various rules of engagement. With LRAD, a sentry can issue a focused verbal challenge with instructions in excess of 300 hundred yards, and follow up with a warning tone to cause behavior change. Recorded messages can be selected and delivered over LRAD in multiple languages."[from an American Technology press release. regarding this contract] So far this is the biggest contract the company has and most likely, for years to come, the most lucrative applications will come from military applications, both as defense and as weapons. But ultimatly, comercial application will exceed the military in the technology's application and source of revenue for ATC.

  10. Hope it will work for "boom cars" by old+man+of+the+c · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But I doubt the car owners would want it. Why have a loud sound system in a car if the whole world can't hear (and know about) it.

    1. Re:Hope it will work for "boom cars" by zazzel · · Score: 1

      They would probably love it - to create silence *within* their car. So the unwilling audience gets all the "boom" while the driver enjoys the silence inside his HSS-enhanced car :)

    2. Re:Hope it will work for "boom cars" by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      So diffrent passengers can listen to diffrent music.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
  11. The Lucas Sound Studio @ Disney by adzoox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Has anyone ever been into into the Lucas Sound Studio at MGM in Disney world? I believe it's co sponsored by AT&T.

    * There's something similar to this. You put on headphones.

    * You're in a booth about the size of a small 1/2 bathroom.

    *It goes completely dark, but you are told to close your eyes for an even better effect.

    You then proceed to "become a CEO" for a day of a Fortune 500 company - you get your hair cut and blowdried in the boardroom - you CAN FEEL the scissors and hear them close to your ears and atop your head. Then you can FEEL HEAT from the blowdryer - and it's nothing but sound rather an auditory/perceptual illusion.

    Imagine if this could be done with the directory sound.

    --
    Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
    1. Re:The Lucas Sound Studio @ Disney by Shawn+Parr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is actually accomplished through Binaural recording. It is achieved by created a human shaped and sounding head and putting microphones where the ears are. It works by accurately capturing the phase relationships in addition to the normal frequency and volume differences heard between your ears. Quite different technology as in order for it to work you would have to have exquisite aim with not just one beam of sound, but two, one for each ear.

    2. Re:The Lucas Sound Studio @ Disney by jafuser · · Score: 1

      What you're describing is slightly different from the original post, but also quite cool.

      This effect is called binaural audio. It's done by capturing the sound using very good microphones in the ear canals of something like a mannequin head. Playback is done with good headphones which line right up with where the sound was recorded, for a very realistic "3d sound" effect.

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
    3. Re:The Lucas Sound Studio @ Disney by celimage · · Score: 1

      Its also called "Dummyhead" sound. Which fits the CEO scenario

  12. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which was a dupe of this one from July 2002!

  13. How soon till it gets abused? by houghi · · Score: 1

    produces hearable sound, but only in certain spots

    I bet that as soon as this goes into production, it will be abused in one way or another, like cookies that were ment to show us advertisement thatwe REALY were interested in and databases with emailadresses that would only send us mail that would give us offers we want.

    Instead of you hearing something and me hearing nothing, it will be that we all hear everything.

    It might be very interesting and I still think if you do not want to hear something, just turn the sound off. Also now at least you know people are talking on their cell phones. Soon that will be impossible, as the sound will be pointed directly to the persons ear.

    Mmmm. That even might be usefull. Next imagine a microphone that works the same way and we can walk around and nobody knows that I am talking to myself, again.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  14. directed sound by FiniteLoop · · Score: 1

    its been around some time:
    word spy
    how stuff works

  15. Re:Cone of Silence? More like cone of annoyance. by theparanoidcynic · · Score: 1

    For us engineery/hackery types it'll actually be kind of an adventure. It'll be an arms race between our noise-cancellation technology and the advertisers' ever more advanced yap-up technology.
    Or, we can just wear headphones to drown out the idiocy . . . .

    --
    Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
  16. But Max, the Cone of Silence doesn't work! by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Funny

    "One step closer to the cone of silence!"

    "Uh.... what was that, Chief?"

  17. More Details... by MisterLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative
    This is more commonly called "HSS", or "HyperSonic Sound", rather than "UltraSonic Sound". The earliest citation to the term "Directed Sound" goes to American Technology Corp.:

    "We are focused on achieving high volume applications featuring the unique benefits of HSS directed sound. --"To the Shareholders of American Technology Corp." Business Wire, March 25, 2002

    1. Re:More Details... by HEbGb · · Score: 1

      The Audio Spotlight maker has been using "directed audio" since 1997, five years ahead of American Technology.

    2. Re:More Details... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there goes wordspy's credibility...

    3. Re:More Details... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      You'll find a sonic projector in one of L. Sprague de Camp's Johnny Black stories. The Incorrigible, Astounding Jan 1939, I believe.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  18. Re:Cone of Silence? More like cone of annoyance. by zopu · · Score: 1

    I think that the problem with spam isn't just how irritating it is, but also how difficult it is to get rid of. We're bombarded by it every day. This technology (in the short term at least)requires a physical presence of the 'spamming' hardware to point the sound at you. It could easily be spotted and sorted out on an individual case.

  19. Marketing Consequences? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Seriously, marketers will be in heaven, able to target ads at passerbys. Now you can look forward to being inundated with directed sound ads while walking the street. It'll be far more annoying because it'll be harder to ignore than ambient noise (ads running on outside speakers, people hawking their businesses on the sidewalk).

    And we think spam is bad...

    1. Re:Marketing Consequences? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you ever get that extraordinary feeling of deja vu...?

  20. Vaporware? How dare you! by JelloGnome · · Score: 1

    Maybe they should have come out with Directed Smell first.

    1. Re:Vaporware? How dare you! by sammaffei · · Score: 2

      New Olypmic Event: Sychronized Precision Farting!

      --

      Political correctness is the newest form of slavery.

    2. Re:Vaporware? How dare you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that would infringe on the Planet Express "Smelloscope" patent.

  21. Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Microsoft did it years ago already, with DirectSound! Or am I missing something ;-)

    1. Re:Prior Art by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I used to love reading that book when I was in 7th and 8th grade. I had forgotten all about it.

    2. Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought that many book years ago. It's got some really cool circuits and projects in it.

    3. Re:Prior art by borgboy · · Score: 1

      A clue? Originality? An ability to avoid pandering to the slashthink?

      --
      meh.
  22. Re:Cone of Silence? More like cone of annoyance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Arrrgh, My ears...the earplugs do nothing!"

  23. DUPEY DUPE DUPE by justforaday · · Score: 5, Informative

    from here and here.

    i'm sure this'll come around again in the next few months...

    --
    I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    1. Re:DUPEY DUPE DUPE by danguyf · · Score: 1

      If it's the second dupe, that would make it 'tripe', yes?

  24. Already in use by Big+Nothing · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This kind of technology (although not as refined as mentioned in the article) has been in use for quite some time. For example, in Oslo Lufthavn (Oslo/Norway international airport) there are "quiet spots" where a speaker is used in combination with a parabole to create "sound spots" in the airport lounge area. The sound (sea waves, bird song, etc.) is basically only audible to the person standing directly under the speaker/parabole.

    --
    SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
  25. Re:duplicate - Link by Maddog+Batty · · Score: 3, Informative

    Previous story is here

    Not difficult to find from July 2002.

    --
    wot no sig
  26. Mechanism by which this works? by tttonyyy · · Score: 1
    But in a directional-sound system, the distortion is actually the mechanism that generates the audible sound, breaking the ultrasound waves into lower-frequency, audible sound waves along a straight, narrow path.

    Does anyone have an info/links on how this works?

    I'd hazard a wild guess that an ultrasound carrier is amplitude modulated with audio frequencies and that the ear drum and associated structure acts like a demodulator and low-pass filter. I'd also be interested to know if it works at one of the industry standard ultrasonic transducer resonant frequencies (IE 40kHz).

    --
    biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
  27. Re:Cone of Silence? More like cone of annoyance. by stavrosrowley · · Score: 1

    I regretably entered a competition for a favour to someone, about innovations and technology. This incorporated directing personal advertising on hoardings which can be activated by someones mobile device! Personally I had to write the proposal with enthusiasm, but we all know it would never work!! People would hate the spam personal advertising, with pictures, let alone sound that u cannot ignore!

  28. Pop Sci by pcmanjon · · Score: 0

    This same technolodgy was mentioned in popular science half a year ago, and had the guys name who developed it and everything.

    It works by directing sounds onto an object via the air

    When the waves hit your skin, you hear sound, but the waves are projected in a single direction, like a lazer beam, instead of projected everyhwhere, like a light bulb

  29. Nonsense. by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

    I accomplished the same thing with a PVC Y-pipe and a couple of speakers. Put the speakers on both "arms" of the Y.

    You run the same signal through both speakers, but invert the phase on one of the speakers.

    And that was in high school AP physics.

  30. Frequency change=nonlinearity=high levels by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Linear transformations cannot create new frequencies, only alter the relative intensity of frequencies that already exist. If ultrasonic sound is being heard, some nonlinearity somewhere is converting it to audible sound.

    The thing that I have to wonder about is that this kind of nonlinearity implies fairly high (ultrasonic) sound intensities, and suggests that stuff inside your head is being driven beyond its elastic limit. The big thing that seems to me to be missing from the article is any statement of the ultrasonic sound power level, in decibels, that is being delivered to your head (and the ratio between the actual ultrasonic sound level and the apparent audible sound level).

    How does this compare, for example, to the sound levels used for ultrasonic imaging in medicine?

    I'm not suggesting that the process is necessarily dangerous, but it isn't obvious that it's intrinsically safe, either. It's one thing to be subjected to high-power ultrasound a few dozen times during your lifetime for the purpose of preserving your health. It's quite another to be subjected to it day in and day out, for your convenience in listening to music, or for some advertiser's convenience in interrupting your train of thought.

    1. Re:Frequency change=nonlinearity=high levels by frozen_kangaroo · · Score: 1
      I thought this too.

      I didn't realise air was that non-linear. Is the signal mixing in the air, or in your eardrums ?

      If they did it from the rooftops at MIT, the required levels can't be that high ...

    2. Re:Frequency change=nonlinearity=high levels by jafuser · · Score: 1, Informative

      I thought the basic principle of this was creating a beat frequency matching the original sound effect you want people to hear?

      Beat frequencies are usually demonstrated by tapping two tuning forks. The difference between their frequencies is audible as a third "beat" frequency.

      I could be wrong on this, but when I heard this effect during a science awards show at Epcot 5-6 years ago, that's how I assumed it was done =)

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
    3. Re:Frequency change=nonlinearity=high levels by dmayle · · Score: 1, Informative

      You've missed what happens completely. Two different ultra-sonic sounds combine at the focal point, join together linearly, and the beat frequency they create is sonic. Plain old normal sound. The signals themselves are ultra sonic (ie. S1 and S2), but the diff is sonic (S1-S2, or the beat subtracted from S1+S2)

    4. Re:Frequency change=nonlinearity=high levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Two different ultra-sonic sounds combine at the focal point, join together linearly, and the beat frequency they create is sonic.

      Nope. That's one way to do it, but that definitely isn't how they are doing it here.

      Read The Fucking Article:

      Each of their systems contains a signal processor, an amplifier, and a platelike device that shoots out beams of ultrasound.

      There's only one source of sound, not two.

      Norris's and Pompei's devices instead generate narrow, laserlike beams of ultrasound waves, which have a frequency above 20,000 hertz, the upper limit of what the human ear can detect. Both audible sound waves from traditional speakers and ultrasound waves from a directional-sound system distort when they travel through the air; in a traditional sound system, the distortion slightly degrades the sound a listener ultimately hears. But in a directional-sound system, the distortion is actually the mechanism that generates the audible sound, breaking the ultrasound waves into lower-frequency, audible sound waves along a straight, narrow path.

      Either this article is absolute bullshit, or they really are doing it by nonlinearities of air. I find it highly unlikely that a journalist could have mangled a description of a dual-beam interference system into what is written in the article.

    5. Re:Frequency change=nonlinearity=high levels by frozen_kangaroo · · Score: 1
      Not letting you get away with that... Parent seems to have got the point.

      A linear system is one where F(a+b) = F(a) + F(b). This is not very exciting for this application because the two waves will just add together, and not create beat frequencies. For vanishingly "small" sounds this will hold true.

      To get beat frequencies you have to multiply them together not add them. A non-linear system (I notice in the article they make a point of mentioning "distortion," i.e. non-linearity) starts to create extra signals that contain a * b, amongst others, and they get more significant as you increase the amplitude. This is where you start to get beat frequencies appear in addition to your two initial signals.

      If a is cos (ut), your first signal, and b is cos (vt), a second signal and you multiply them together you get :

      cos (ut) . cos (vt) = (1/2)[cos (ut-vt) + cos (ut+vt)]

      which is your beat frequency and another higher frequency sum.

      So, to get this effect something has to be non-linear, and loud.

    6. Re:Frequency change=nonlinearity=high levels by xygorn · · Score: 1

      Look at your math the other way around: If you have your 2 signals cos(ut) and cos(vt) cos(ut) + cos(vt) = 2 ( cos ((u+v)t/2) . cos((u-v)t/2)) In this signal you get have a beat frequency that is caused by the cos((u-v)t/2) term.

      --
      I am a sig. I wish I were a more creative sig, but I am not. I guess everyone has something to strive for.
    7. Re:Frequency change=nonlinearity=high levels by dmayle · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have read the article, and what this particular article doesn't tell you (but has been in previous articles also posted on slashdot on the same tech), is that two ultrasound beams in parallel come out of the same emitter, and when they hit some object, they reflect in all sorts of directions, which causes them to interact, which cause the beat frequencies to be heard.

    8. Re:Frequency change=nonlinearity=high levels by dmayle · · Score: 1

      What you don't realize is that frequency is not a linear concept. If you take a 3 Khz sound (sine wave), and then add it to a 4 Khz sound, you end up with a 3 Khz sound, a 4 Khz sound, and a 1 Khz sound...

    9. Re:Frequency change=nonlinearity=high levels by frozen_kangaroo · · Score: 1

      Yes, I did look at that for a bit before posting because it did seem like a reason for it to work in linear media ... But if you look what your formula creates ( which is quite valid and correct!), it is exactly like an AM radio signal - a carrier modulated with a low frequency - the sum frequency multiplied by the difference frequency. You still will not hear this. If you look at the frequency spectrum you will see simply two signals one at u and one at v, and nothing down below. If you look on a scope, you will see a signal that looks like (u+v) contained in an envelope that looks like (u-v). But, still all components are ultrasonic. Only if you can get the two components to "intermodulate" will you really get the sum and difference frequencies to appear in the spectrum....

    10. Re:Frequency change=nonlinearity=high levels by Chowpok+Perkange · · Score: 1

      Five years ago I visited the lab at American Technology Corp. I can vouch for the fact that HSS does indeed work. I was even able to meet with Elwood Norris, the inventor, to discuss it.

      At that time, the emitter they demonstrated was an early prototype, yet the sound was very clear and not the least bit annoying. The only downside I witnessed was that it was unable to reproduce low-frequency sounds.

      It's quite spooky. Sound can be projected to a distant wall and it sounds like it is coming from that wall.

      The sound is sent along a "flashlight" beam of sound, so it does spread, but in a cone shape, not a laser-like coherent beam. I believe they can now create a more pin-point focus by separating the functional parts of the emitter.

      Some have misunderstood the technology and think that no one else outside the beam or focus will hear the sound. This is not true. Those outside the beam will hear the sound if it is reflected off objects in the beam itself. However, the volume is greatly reduced.

      So, if two folks were walking beside each other, the person in the beam would hear it and the person not in the beam would hear the reflected sound, but at a much lower volume.

      Absolutely fascinating technology. May qualify as a disruptive technology.

    11. Re:Frequency change=nonlinearity=high levels by unitron · · Score: 1

      If you beat 3KHz against 4KHz you get both the sum-7KHz-and the difference-1KHz.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    12. Re:Frequency change=nonlinearity=high levels by xygorn · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you are right. I should have thought of looking at the frequency spectrum, since I just finished 2 university courses on fourier analysis.

      --
      I am a sig. I wish I were a more creative sig, but I am not. I guess everyone has something to strive for.
  31. Prior Art by Kevin+Burtch · · Score: 4, Informative


    Tab books published instructions how to build a device that does exactly this decades ago... TAB!
    Yeah, I know the cover looks ridiculous... I bought it when I was a teen and still have it - neat projects inside and better written than the cover would indicate.

    --
    - Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
  32. Re:Cone of Silence? More like cone of annoyance. by ScottGant · · Score: 1, Funny

    There's a engineering project that's been around for some time now that offers the best noise-cancelation technology out there. It's quite easy to do, almost a 30 minute project for you DIY'ers (do it yourself). But so far, the results are almost 100% perminate.

    The only tool you need is an ice-pick and perhaps quite a few ultra-absorbant towels to help with the clean-up afterwards.

    After this project, you'll never again be bothered by advertisers sound projection systems. I can also go into a project that will cancel out visual advertisements.

    --

    "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
  33. neither one by ashot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    will dominate this market, because there is a new technique in acoustics that will eclipse the ultrasound method. Using something called time reversal, you can pinpoint the output of sound to a single location in 3 dimensional space, focusing around objects, people whatever; no beam, no drop off.

    This focusing can be done with more than just sound waves however, and the first applications are in medicine, however, it does apply to sound as well.

    The basic idea is that if you create a sound from some source location, and record all of the noise at another location, then play this noise signal backwards from the recorded location the sound will reappear in the one spot from which it was originally played. An analogy is that if you take a pool ball, put it right in front of a pocket, and then bounce it outwards really hard, letting it bounce against the walls multiple times, but noting the exact location of the last bounce of the ball, then if you reshot the ball at the exact spot where you last saw it bounce, it would go back in the whole.

    --
    -ashot
    1. Re:neither one by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The sound could well appear back where it was originally played (though I have my doubts since its impossible to measure all effects of the sound everywhere) to a person standing there but other people standing nearby will still hear sound but it'll just be a jumble of noise. So thats hardly directed sound is it?

    2. Re:neither one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      masterful troll

      the trouble with this idea is that the sound waves are still travelling in the wrong direction when they get to the initial source point, so the sound is still being played backwards.

      Good job though :)

    3. Re:neither one by gardyloo · · Score: 2, Informative

      For pure bamboozlement, the effect of an ultrasonic parametric array (the things that produce these "directed sound beams") can't be beaten -- I experienced a demonstration of one two years ago at the Physical Acoustics Summer School in California. It's pretty amazing to have the demonstrator up front with a little antenna looking thing, playing music through it... but you can't hear it! However, just one or two people in the audience have this awestruck look on their faces. Then, when he swings the thing about, a line of people will suddenly perk up, as the cone of sound sweeps by. So although the "ultrasound method," as you call it, may not be as practically useful as time-reversal acoustics, it's really going to capture the public's attention.

      Also, time-reversal acoustics is nothing new. The concepts have been around for a long, long time. It's just now, though, that digital amplifiers and computers are fast enough to quickly reverse tone bursts -- because sound travels so "slowly", it's difficult to get the "reversed" sound back to its source before conditions really change a lot. With light, though, this has been going on for a long time, because the danged stuff travels so fast (see any nonlinear optics book).
      So, you're right: Time-reversal acoustics is "new" in the sense that the technology has almost caught up to the science. Still, practical difficulties exist, and there are a LOT of environments in which it won't be able to be applied. Just like there are a lot of environments in which nonlinear parametric arrays will do you no good because the intrinsic nonlinearity of the medium isn't high enough.

    4. Re:neither one by ericandrade · · Score: 1

      It's a great idea. However it probably only works well with "laserlike" frequencies, high frequencies that bounce off materials in a straight way, like the pool ball.

      Lower frequencies aren't so directional, they diffuse alot. When they will be replayed from the noise location, they are going to go everywhere. It's going to be muddied even more, and everybody is going to hear it.

      That's why the time reversal technique seems to be working for medical uses, because it works great with ultrasound. It allows energy to concentrate on one area.

      As for the market domination, well, time reversal (on it's own) doesn't allow for sound to be heard in a directional way (the beam is sometimes a good thing).

      It probably needs methods for mapping the obstacles at which you need to reshoot the sounds. It's not a "take it out of the box and it will work" technology. And most importantly, it needs obstacles...

      Try using it outside!!

      sorry...

    5. Re:neither one by pdp0x14 · · Score: 1
      This is silly. Even if the time-reversal method could be made to work in the applications for which directed sound is suitable -- which I find outstandingly unlikely -- whether a solution is "better" technically or not frequently (usually?) has nothing to do with whether it ultimately dominates.

      There are issues of cost, compatibility with ancillary equipment, considerations like physical size, power consumption, and so on. And these are just the technical considerations.

      I don't think I need to go into the "betterness" of the Mac vs. the PC as an example.

    6. Re:neither one by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      I know a tiny bit about audio and that seems kinda far-fetched. Got any links?

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    7. Re:neither one by ashot · · Score: 1

      you would be right to be skeptial. The idea is still in the research phase, however the results are extremely promising and powerful.. the best I can do for you is this:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fc gi?cmd= Search&db=PubMed&term=time%20reversal%20acoustics% 20AND%20hasabstract[text]%20AND%20English[Lang]

      The reason that I know about it at all is because I know several people who are directly involved... give it about a year though =]

      --
      -ashot
    8. Re:neither one by ashot · · Score: 1

      not so. The point is that if a single beam gets muddied, thats fine. Only *one* location will have the focused signal from all of the different beams; the rest of the space will be nullified to nothing. The point is in the summation.

      When is the beam a good thing?

      You are right about the "take it out of box" part however..

      --
      -ashot
    9. Re:neither one by ashot · · Score: 1

      there may be a small amount of noise very near the space of focus, but similar things will happen with the ultrasound technique as well.
      Everywhere outside the space however, will have no signal (perhaps small amounts of noise) because the sum of the signals at this point will be random and will cancel (assuming a large number of signals).

      --
      -ashot
    10. Re:neither one by Jerf · · Score: 1

      though I have my doubts since its impossible to measure all effects of the sound everywhere

      No, it's not. The simple expedient of actually measuring the effects works perfectly.

      What we can't do is reverse engineer the sound, or generate such a sound from information about the environment. The cleverness of that technique is how it bypasses the need to do so, at the cost of being relatively limited.

      It would depend on a static environment, though; GP mentions going around "people" but if they move, kiss the effect goodbye.

    11. Re:neither one by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      That's a bad link....

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    12. Re:neither one by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      Random signals do not cancel.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    13. Re:neither one by ashot · · Score: 1

      remove ths space.

      --
      -ashot
    14. Re:neither one by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      How is that new? I noticed that when i was 5 in the ripples while taking a leak.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  34. Re:But how long until they come up with ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, and the flying car is still first on my list of "Why the hell haven't they built one yet. They promised!" technologies.


    "Roadside" breakdowns at 1500 ft. would be one
    good reason. ;)

  35. Is this possibly dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    This system relies on non-linearities to produce different frequencies. It's the same principle that is used to transform radio frequencies into audio in a radio. The basic frequency transforming component is called a mixer. Usually mixers are quite lossy. ie. you have to put a lot more energy in than you get out. In this case they are using the air or part of my body as the mixer so I expect that this process is really lossy. So the first question is: "How much energy are they bombarding me with?"

    Second: It is well known that ultrasonic energy at the right frequency produces a fear reaction in people. They are afraid but because they can't hear anything, they don't know why.

    For sure I don't want anyone pointing one of those things at me until it is PROVEN safe.

  36. Re:Oh Bullshit... by 10537 · · Score: 0

    I seem to recall from earlier investigations into the technology, it involves crossing two high-frequency sounds, with the "output" modulated on to one of the beams. The HF carriers "cancel out", and what's left is what you hear, apparently emanating from nowhere...

    --
    This sentence no verb.
  37. Other capabilities? by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

    Does it shoot a "laser" from a "Death Star". Which can be averted for "one million dollars"?

    --
    I hate sigs.
  38. Bit different by magefile · · Score: 1

    They're using ultrasound to make the interference pattern as tight as possible. Very cool - I can see, say, clipping a tracker pin (Wi-Fi, perhaps?) on my shirt, then telling my computer or stereo speakers to track that. That's probably one of the harder parts, though, making it self-directing like that. Bet your PVC couldn't do it. Could be a better way to listen to TV at night, or to play the FPS games whose sound effects my family loathes. Or ... well, there are oodles of applications that are consumer oriented

    1. Re:Bit different by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True. I bet it'd be more cost-effective in places like museums where quiet is desired, but some people might like to hear recordings on the exhibits.

  39. In stereo too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Ultrasonic 'sound' is sent out from a 'speaker' and the distortion encountered on hitting the air produces hearable sound, but only in certain spots.

    These 'spots' will be known as 'ears' and will be mounted on either side of the head.

  40. Re:But how long until they come up with ... by carou · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I can't talk long; the other people in the restaurant are starting to complain about the smell of my socks.

  41. Experiment IV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What they wanted
    was a sound that could kill someone from a distance
    so they go ahead
    and the meter's over in the red
    it's a mistake in the making

  42. Forgive my stupidity ... by magefile · · Score: 0

    WTF are harkonens? The first thing I thought of was those alien dogs from Half-Life, the ones that sent out the (oddly visible) sounds that hurt you.

    1. Re:Forgive my stupidity ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read Dune. Or watch the movie. Or play one of the games.

  43. Actually, no... by artemis67 · · Score: 1

    I saw the inventor demostrate this on TechTV months ago. As he panned the speaker across the microphone, you could hear the sound fade in and then fade out to total silence as he pointed the speaker away. Very, very cool.

  44. HyperSonic Sound (HSS) by andrewHYC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The company producing the equipment is American Technology Corporation at http://www.atcsd.com/tl_hss.html According to their own site one test showed a level of 110 db at 2 metres at 48KHz giving an apparent audio level (3 KHz) of 95 db. The level at 16 metres was 80 db at 48 KHz and still 90 db at 3KHz. Apparently they are already installing them in soft drink dispensing machines in Tokyo. (We soon won't know who is schizophrenic and who isn't). Cheers

  45. Hypersonic by Maimun · · Score: 1
    Normally, "supersonic" means moving faster than the speed of sound in the respective environment. And "hyper" normally is used as a stronger form of "super"[1]. E.g., supermarket <-> hypermarket, and so on.

    To me, hypersonic means moving much, much faster than the speed of sound. Which is not the intended meaning here -- they are talking about soundwaves, so how can the soundwaves move faster than sound?

    [1] - AFAIK, in Greek hyper means the same as super in Latin, namely above.

    1. Re:Hypersonic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For aeroplanes, the limit is something like Mach 5... anything faster than that is hypersonic. "Hypersonic sound" that goes Mach 5 would indeed be quite an interesting phenomenon, right up there with cold fusion and dry water.

    2. Re:Hypersonic by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 1
      Normally, "supersonic" means moving faster than the speed of sound in the respective environment.

      Except when it means "higher than audible frequencies." It's common usage. What about "supersonic cleaners?" They don't actually fly around the room at incredible velocity, y'know. If they did, they'd cost a lot more....

  46. Ultrasonic sound... by c0defiant · · Score: 1

    ...comin' out your speaker

    Rhythm is the key as we open up the door...

    1. Re:Ultrasonic sound... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. some musical rhythms can aim at your head... :)

  47. A sea of calm by the_twisted_pair · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would be simple to defeat though. The effect relies on heterodyning a signal (mixing HF to produce an intermodulation effect) so broadcasting white noise above the range of hearing should drown the wanted signal nicely - just like interference on an AM radio. Say a small device located near the billboard - or two piezo drivers on the outside of headphones, heck you could build it into your cellphone hands-free kit.

    Done well, you wouldn't hear a thing; even partial cancellation should reduce the adspeak into something akin to a distant ocean sound.

    I think there would be privacy isues to overcome on the part of the Admen first however - remember the hoo-haa over subliminal advertising?

    1. Re:A sea of calm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The next step would be for advertisers have another message ride along at a slightly different frequency from the main message, so cancellation would unmask the secondary message.

  48. Re:Cone of Silence? More like cone of annoyance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Mr Spelling Nazi,

    Your dictionary really sucks. The word you were looking for was permanent.

    Thankyou for your time.

  49. Re:Cone of Silence? More like cone of annoyance. by (trb001) · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While I agree that this would suck, it could have benefits. Anything used for spamming receives a *LOT* of funding...this sort of technology could mature very, very quickly because of its revenue stream, leading to other, more practical uses. Remember, if it weren't for pr0n, we would prolly still be surfing on 28.8 modems, not broadband.

    --trb

  50. Already done in the 80s? by femto · · Score: 1
    I remember seeing a TV segment on similar technology in the early 80s. It was an Australian show called "Towards 2000".

    It worked by causing interference patterns between two ultrasonic beams. The low frequency beats translated into audiable frequencies, forming a 'beam of sound'. It seems awfully similar to this 'new' technology to me.

    I'll try and dig up a reference.

  51. Cone of Silence by dalutong · · Score: 2, Funny

    *someone in the cone of silence*

    *sees peoples mouths moving. realizes they are talking to him.

    "I'm in the cone of silence, you insensitive clods!"

    --

    What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
  52. Another application... by damyan · · Score: 1

    They also get a mention in this article - which seems tailored towards a slightly different type of reader.

  53. Wouldn't the sound be reflected? by kunudo · · Score: 0

    hm?

  54. Sound Volume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when George Bush says 'God has spoken to him' we now know that it was these guys playing a joke.

    Seriously though, I was wondering how loud a sound can be before it spreads far outside its cone. Could you play your music at rock concert levels (100 db+) without others hearing it? Or is just useful at a small single speaker walkman level?

  55. My number one use... by sacrilicious · · Score: 0, Funny

    ... of this technology: a continuous looping tape focused on the neighbors' barking dog saying "Bad dog! Sit!"

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  56. awsome!!! by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    so now I don't have to hear the TV when I am not in the line of sight of the speaker face!!!

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  57. For all you South Park fans by smz420 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Imagine combining this technology with "The Brown Noise"...now that would be the ultimate weapon!

  58. Cone of Advertising, cone of secret Teleprompting by Anonym0us+Cow+Herd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not cone of silence!

    Cone of marketing.
    Cone of limited time only specials!
    Cone of "welcome passerby, if you look directly to your left...."
    Cone of "your girlfriend can't hear this, so listen closely..."

    Just so this post isn't totally lame, here is a potential useful application.

    Directed sound technology might be useful in applications where you want to give someone audible feedback or instructions, where someone normally would have one of those tiny earpieces. Cyrano de Bergerac. (See the commedy with Steve Martin called Roxane.) One man is secretly prompting another man with what to say to lure a potential girlfriend.

    Now you could send someone secret audible messages so that they say intelligent things instead of their own original thoughts. Useful for political campaigns where public figure is near to public crowd, near enough for them to notice any earpiece electronics he might be wearing.

    --
    The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
  59. This could create real life horror! by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Imagine it. You're innocently standing somewhere at night when you hear a disembodied voice that no one else around you can hear. Then all the cats and dogs start howling and bats start flying round in circles because they're all confused by the ultrasound. I wonder if Stephen King is an investor in this system??

  60. Finally! A weapon against boom box cars by Whumpsnatz · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now I'll be able to aim one of these babies at the car next to me that's disrupting my heartbeat with it's pulsing audio garbage. I'll aim Maria Callas at 'em - at 120 decibels.

  61. I've seen a reasonable facsimile of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...at the Wachovia (formerly First Union (formerly CoreStates)) Center in Philadelphia, which opened in 1996.

    There are multimedia exhibits in the concourse that each have a single, odd-looking speaker mounted on the ceiling directly above them, pointed straight down. They look more like funky light fixtures than speakers. The sound they emit is barely audible except to the person using the kiosk, who is standing in the 'sweet spot.'

  62. As seen in this story by Alien54 · · Score: 3, Informative
    You can see this originally in this slash story.

    "The fine folks at the MIT Sound Media Lab have come up with a cheap and practical way to focus sound: "A beam of light can be controlled in many ways - it can be aimed at one person in a crowd, spread to fill a room, or projected to create rich, distant imagery. We can now do these very same things with sound. The Audio Spotlight can be used in two major ways: As directed audio, sound is directed at a specific listener or area, to provide a private or area specific listening space. As projected audio, sound is projected against a distant object, creating an audio image. This audio image is literally a projected loudspeaker - sound appears to come directly from the projection, just like light." While still under development, they are testing applications of the device in collaboration with several of their media lab sponsors in preparation for eventual commercial release."

    I also recall another story someplace where a guy was messing with a portable version of this in a mall, spooking people out. Apparently the sound appears in the persons head, but you do know exactly which direction it is coming from.

    I can see the potential to harrass politicians and other public speakers right now. It is definitely an acquired skill to be able to speak without stumbling despite that kind of distraction.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  63. Friend testing a unit out by narcolepticjim · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine is testing one of the HSS models for use in a retail store. He said he was able to send a sound over 300 feet without loss of sound quality.

    A football field!

    I think a great use for this would be long-range lobbying of our elected officials as they exit cars, restaurants, etc.

    Also, I could finally pull off the "Real Genius" Kent prank.

    1. Re:Friend testing a unit out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A friend of mine is testing one of the HSS models for use in a retail store. He said he was able to send a sound over 300 feet without loss of sound quality.

      A football field!



      Thanks for clearing that up.

      Say, ever notice the only distances that don't get converted to "football fields" in the popular press are the football yardages in the sports section?

    2. Re:Friend testing a unit out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So far tonight, the offense has thrown for a total of three football fields, and ran for one and a half"

      I'm suprised John Madden doesn't do that yet.

  64. This is just what Microsoft needs... by shiftless · · Score: 1

    .. to complement Janus!

  65. I've been doing this for years by drfunch · · Score: 2, Funny

    As a college lecturer, I've been able to use directed sound to selectively impart knowledge to certain students in my class and not to others... at least that's what my students tell me:
    "We didn't cover that is class!"
    "You never said we had a test today!"
    "Homework due?! You didn't tell us that."

  66. These things can be dangerous by Charles+Dart · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My wife went to an tech award show last year at which this product won something. The presentor mentioned that the pentagon was also interested in the product. He said that it is possible to turn the volume up to lethal levels.

  67. Time to back-engineer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since this will invariably be used to make irritating ads, time to use a set of speakers and some computing power to devise a directed sound device detector. Figure out where the spam is coming from, then direct a high energy sound laser at the source, anihhilating it.

  68. whispering gallery by whovian · · Score: 1

    Ultrasonics aren't necessary to delivery focused sound waves. There's a whispering gallery exhibit at chicago's Museum of Science and Industry demonstrates this. The technology is simply to have send and receiver of hte sound at the foci of an ellipsoid. The speaker and listener don't even have to be facing one another.

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  69. Re:Cone of Silence? More like cone of annoyance. by schemanista · · Score: 1

    The scene in Minority Report which has the Tom Cruise character walking through a gauntlet of targeted advertising ("John Anderson, wouldn't you like a Guiness right now?" "John Anderson, this car offers you...") is my personal hell.

    --
    I saw that shot more than a few times back when Starbuck was a man. ~ lucabrasi999
  70. super!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sweet I'll donate one for John Kerry.. then one for Michael Moore, pretty soon the USA will be socialist free!

  71. Would this work with hip hop music? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could this technology be used to ensure that only the idiot next to me at the traffic light, who has more money than brains, and is listening to hip hop at 140db, hear his crap music?

  72. Re:Cone of Silence? More like cone of annoyance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking of which ... I wanted to raise this in the YRO section: my recent trips on Jet Blue airlines leaving from JFK have been marred by the noise of blaring TVs at the terminal. You cannot find a quiet spot to wait for your flight. Apparently no one reads anymore or they're not bothered by the barrage of a constant stream of noise from CNN and sports games. I wanted to take a gun and blow out the speakers it's so annoying. Anyone else encounter this crap?

  73. Facts about HSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facts:

    Prior art exists, but American Technology is the company with the most recent patents, and uses different techniques to make this into a practical sound system. Do a patent search

    American Technology currently has two versions using this technology. One for consumer applications (HSS) and one for military applications (LRAD). The second is not really a weapon so much as a long distance hailing system for use at check points, on ships, or when dealing with crowds of protesters. It can project a high decible warning tone that is painfull if need be or it can just be used to project coherent messages over great distances (could also be used for radioless communications out in the field).

    As far as safety, the technology has been in development for the last 8-10 years, and no issues were discovered. Apparently the ultrasonic frequencies used are not powerful enough to cause problems.

    The other company developing the technology was set up by an MIT student (now graduate). This technology was started a couple of years after American Technology made its announcements about HSS. Also, the second company only has one patent (for improved power supply), while American Technology has extensive patents covering all aspects of its design. American Technology is also currently producing actual commercial products, while as far as I can tell, the second company is still creating prototypes.

    1. Re:Facts about HSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you an investor of, or have any relationship with, ATC? You sound like you're either an employee, or a shill.

      Fact:

      LRAD has nothing to do with HSS - it's just a big loudspeaker.

      And, from their webpage it looks like Holosonics has installations in some of the world's most prominent museums. Where's HSS actually installed? I don't think the Smithsonian would use "prototypes" in their exhibits.

  74. Invention fosters invention by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
    When this comes into common use, I will be developing my own invention. A battery powered, portable and directional EMP.

    One could argue that there is a need for it now - self defense from man *and* machine...

    1. Re:Invention fosters invention by darkfire5252 · · Score: 1

      Kinda makes you wonder what size the batteries would have to be on that to get a decent range.

  75. New product: the iWhoopie Cushion by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 1
    Actually the title says it all. This will really be a lot of fun in church or other straight-laced environs. With a modest amount of luck you can have those three old ladies in the back row going at it like the trolls in The Hobbit.

    Later models will include the ability to "throw your voice" at a distance, which will obviously be a boon in planning meetings, when you can make your other-OS-weilding nemesis volunteer to get that new AI web recommendations module done and shipped by next month. That one will be the iEdgar....

    1. Re:New product: the iWhoopie Cushion by cbiffle · · Score: 1

      three old ladies in the back row going at it like the trolls in The Hobbit.

      Man, I don't know what kind of messed up version of The Hobbit you read, but I don't rememb... ...er. Right.

  76. In Theory... by mistermund · · Score: 4, Informative

    You could be standing right next to someone and they would hear nothing.

    That's the idea, but in reality it works a tad different. Wherever the beam hits sort of becomes the apparent source of the sound. So if you aim it at someone, they'll hear it quite clearly - more so than everyone else - but the sound will now appear to be coming from them. Quieter, but still apparent.

    I've got 2 of the HSS units right here, and though they're super-cool for messing with people, (See other posts) they've got some drawbacks.
    1) There's no bass, treble only.
    2) The units we have come with a rather noisy cooling fan.
    3) They clip quite easily - you have to watch your volume levels.
    4) They're not terribly reliable. I've seen them in a few labs I've worked in or with, and we all seem to have the same issues.

    Overall a cool product, especially for the gee-whiz factory, but certainly not ready for practical use just yet.

    1. Re:In Theory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neat. How does HSS compare to the Audio Spotlight? Maybe the Audio Spotlight works better? [ I see they're in the Smithsonian ] Very interesting.

    2. Re:In Theory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would not accuse the Holosonic guys
      of having "no bass". But I've never
      heard the HSS units, so I can't directly
      compare. If you are standing outside of
      cone, but just close enough to hear
      something, it does sound tinny. But
      the sound seems pretty flat to me when
      actually in the cone.

  77. We've had this for years at Control. by hal2814 · · Score: 1

    I hate to tell you guys but directional sound and the cone of silence is nothing new. Back in the late 60s the Chief, Agent 86, and I...

    Oh wait, nevermind. There is no Control. We don't have a large cone of silence. I've never heard of this "directional sound" business.

    No that's not a phone ringing. That's just my shoe.

  78. Re:These things ... This is God Calling. by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    I'll bet the defense dept is interested! Imagine the possibilities. From a hidden location, aim one at a fundamentalist insert religion. Suddenly that person hears The Voice : "This is God / Allah / Vishnu / whomever, and I want you to destroy the Eiffel Tower / Church of the Holy Sepulchre / Wailing Wall / New York Stock Exchange / Kaaba Shrine". Or "I want you to build me an ark.".

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  79. Cone of silence... by Dwonis · · Score: 1
    What?

    What???

  80. Now I can build my theme CLUB!! ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Had a full themed club setup with scavenger type role
    plays where you had to sit or stand in a specific spot you were directed to in the club to recieve the next instructions.

    Would be able to do this if they can finish it ;)

  81. Re:Cone of Silence? More like cone of annoyance. by Major_Small · · Score: 2
    I doubt they'll have people in towers beaming you from across the street... they would probably just have it so that if you were window shopping and you were in front of a particular dress or something, you would hear a little about that dress... that would be helpful in some situations...

    IMO, this technology has alot more potential for good than bad... think about sitting in a library or something and listening to something on a computer without headphones, or going to a museum/car/computer show and hearing about some new technology without being distracted about somethign else?

    I don't think the example with the police officer and crowd control is a good idea though... the rest of the crowd kinda needs to hear what the police officer is saying... I would be kinda unnerved if there was a disturbance and all I see is a cop yelling but not saying anything...

  82. drink the Kool-Aid, Jim... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now all the geeks can hear God telling them to use Lunix

  83. freak out by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    "kill him"

    muhahaha

  84. Re:Cone of Silence? More like cone of annoyance. by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, marketers will be in heaven, able to target ads at passerbys.

    Targeting specific people in a crowd doesn't make any sense advertising-wise or cost-wise, especially if it costs more than broadcasting a message to the entire crowd.

    If marketers had any interest whatsoever in this type of advertising, there would be bullhorns in public places already constantly exhorting everyone to Drink Coke or Join The Army or whatever. As it stands, only political candidates and ice cream trucks are willing to do this.

  85. The vaporware problem by Animats · · Score: 1
    While this thing really does exist, Holosonics seems to have problems getting the product out. They announced a new version at CES back in January, but it's still not on their web site.

    Once they get it working and get the price down, there are good applications. PC speakers for office environments. Audio at trade shows. Anywhere there are many audio sources that you don't want to interfere.

    It's not clear what the holdup is. It doesn't seem that complicated.

  86. A message from God by frovingslosh · · Score: 1
    "No, they can't hear me! Only you can hear me! Now this is what I want you to do ...."

    Given that we already have states populated with people who want to outlaw teaching evolution and instead teach "creation science", as well as juries who are letting off people who kill their kids with rocks after God told them to do it, what could posiable go wrong with this technology?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  87. I remember something like this in D.C. by bl8n8r · · Score: 1

    In sixth grade.. went on a class field trip to Washington D.C. Touring one of those old-ass historical white pillar buildings, dont remember which one, but the tour guide stood a good distance from the group, and in a certain spot on the floor with his back turned, we could hear ever word he was whispering, but only when he was in that certain spot, and we were in our certain spot. amazing sheeat.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
    1. Re:I remember something like this in D.C. by TheSync · · Score: 1

      In the US Capitol, "The half-dome shape of National Statuary Hall produces an acoustical effect whereby, in some spots, a speaker many yards away may be heard more clearly than one closer at hand. The modern-day echoes occur in different locations from those in the 19th century, when the floor and ceiling of the hall were different."

  88. Re:Cone of Silence? More like cone of annoyance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He did mean what he said. His phrasing wasn't extreme enough for "fulmigrite" to be appropriate, and "mitla" is too subtle.

  89. Re:Cone of Silence? More like cone of annoyance. by Carnildo · · Score: 1

    project for you DIY'ers (do it yourself).

    Shouldn't that be "DIY'ers (do in yourself)"?

    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  90. The air by tepples · · Score: 1

    I'd hazard a wild guess that an ultrasound carrier is amplitude modulated with audio frequencies and that the ear drum and associated structure acts like a demodulator and low-pass filter.

    The article claims that the air between the ultrasonic speaker and the listener acts as your demodulator. Yes, air has a slightly nonlinear response, and some audiophiles who prefer tube amplifiers claim that tube distortion sounds like that of air.

  91. Ahhh by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    That was only in the original (awful) movie, not even the book. The only thing close was "the weapon" used by the honored matres in chapterhouse, but it was never really explained what it did.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  92. I'm sure there are applications, but... by Deraj+DeZine · · Score: 1
    You could be standing right next to someone and they would hear nothing.

    I can already accomplish this with a pair of headphones. I don't think that was the most impressive application of this technology =)

    --
    True story.
  93. Commercial by cpt_rhetoric · · Score: 1

    Guy turning around in circles, "Can you hear me now?"

  94. Get Smart by mickcim · · Score: 1

    Next step, getting those cell phones off our belts and in to our shoes.

  95. Ultrasound isn't the only method... by cr0sh · · Score: 1
    Another form of the technology uses modulated microwave energy.

    It is based on the observation by microwave (radar and other) technicians would experience what "sounded" like popping or static inside their heads (ie, it wasn't coming in their ears) when they worked on live equipment. Apparently the microwave energy was causing neurons in the aural region of the brain to fire, which came across as "hearing" (though in the head only).

    This was later refined so that tones, then later voice, could be sent. I have heard that voice actually sounds rather "gravelly" - it isn't really useful for more than that (and not even that, actually). There is a company that has a patent on it, and I know a few space and defence agencies have looked into it (there used to be some references on the net about this - NASA was one, I think Australia's "Dept of Defence" (or whatever they are known as) was looking into the possible military use of it).

    The conspiracy theory side of this is known as "voice to skull" technology (do a google on it and have fun). Let's take it a step further - imagine a psy-op "weapon" for propaganda purposes that could be pointed at a person, and spoken through - convincing the person that "someone was in his head" or he was "hearing voices in his head tell him things, bad things". Now, apply that to the "enemy". Then, apply that to the general local population (ie, US)...

    Who says that "mind control", "tinfoil hats" and such is all just "bunk"? There may be more to it than we will ever know...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  96. Would you...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One step closer to the cone of silence!

    Would you believe two cans with a piece of string?

    Missed it by that much.

  97. Mod me into the pool of grammar Nazis, but... by neuro.slug · · Score: 1

    hearable? hearable!? ... my 3rd grade teacher wishes to introduce you to her Cone of High Heel, sir!

    -- n

  98. Re:Cone of Advertising, cone of secret Teleprompti by JGski · · Score: 1
    Another interesting idea: Quiet/Loud nightclubs and bars. I don't patronize these places much any more, partly because the loudness of these places, partly due to the music I'd rather hear isn't played, partly because of my hearing (or loss thereof), and mostly because *I have to* converse socially to make spending the time worthwhile, which you can't do when it's that loud.

    I had previously brainstormed about how a club experience would be better for me: the big one is if you could have a "cone of silence": listen to the music you like, if you like, without any.

    I kind of imagine the party rooms from "Our Man Flint" on Galaxy Island where you move past the curtain to an ajoining room and it's instantly silent or a different genre of music (Ah, but you are a pleasure unit, dear :-) ;-) ).

    You could do it with everyone having an iPod/MP3 player and earbuds but then you could not converse. Another way to do that is to use those "sound parabolas" you see at some music stores (e.g. Fry's has them in the music CD section). Another way would be to use this ultrasonic directed sound technology.

    That's nice, but now take that to another level: what if you used phased-array technology and beamed hundreds of different ultrasonic signals to specific locations keyed off a person's location in the room (RFID, etc), where the sound follows them around as they walk. Only when you get in proximity to the person to you finally hear their "musical universe". Imagine a club that was simultaneously Deep House, IDM, Ambient, Jazz, Blues, Rock, etc. - that would be a trip. You could make it a club feature to allow each patron to build their own playlist.

    Just a crazy idea. However consider this prior art if anyone is thinking of patenting it. :-)

  99. Silent but deadly? by azphire · · Score: 1

    AWESOME! Now while at work sitting at my desk I don't have to ask my self if it's going to be an iffy fart! I can just let them all go and direct the sound to the floor or if my boss is pissing me off I can direct it at him.

    --Steele

  100. Not new, and unsafe..... by tiger99 · · Score: 1
    This technique has been around for some time, and is unsafe because it uses high ultrasonic power levels. To generate audio frequencies, you need to generate a beat frequency between two ultrasonic frequency, simply adding does not work, there has to be a non-linear element involved (as in RF mixing for example, in the front end of a radio receiver). The non-linear element is the air itself, but only if you push the level up way above 120dB. Now, many authorities believe that the safe pressure level is the same at ultrasonic frequencies as in the audio band, or maybe marginally higher, but there is not the slightest evidence to suggest that what you can't hear will not to damage, far more evidence says that it will. 120dB is the level at which damage begins almost immediately in the audio band. It is well-established that ultrasonic intruder alarms (about 125dB at 1 metre) cause headaches (I know this from direct experience), and seem to have fallen into disuse in most places. Same for most other high-power ultrasonics, you rarely see them nowadays. (Medical ultrasonics propagate through the liquid elements of the body, the power level is quite high, but the vast impedance mismatch at the air/liquid boundary causes a huge amount of attenuation so very little energy becomes airborne, same effect as why when you swim under water you can't hear people talking on the surface, but in reverse).

    I would be very alarmed indeed if I saw someone attempting to generate an acoustic pressure of over 120dB (I think they need 150dB to make this work well), and not just for my ears, to say nothing of the effects on certain animals, bats etc.

    This whole thing is just speculation and hype, with total disregard for safety and environmental issues.

    1. Re:Not new, and unsafe..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously don't understand the technology at all. The nonlinearity is of the air, not the ear. Read the holosonics website. I don't think there is any danger at all from these things - your fear is completely misplaced.

      There are no safety or environmental issues.

    2. Re:Not new, and unsafe..... by pontifier · · Score: 1

      I saw the exibit at the museum of science in boston, i thought it was interesting, but after a few minutes i did start to get a headache.

      I don't realy think these things are safe either. there's a lot of energy in ultrasound beams. I once burned my finger with the ultrasound beam from an ultrasonic fogger, and then i realised that the burn must go all the way through my finger. That thing gave be the same kind of headache when i ran it out of the water as the audio spotlights did.

      Also of note... when the beam from one of those foggers travels from water to thin plastic, the plastic on the opposite side melts and vaporises... i've used mine as a cheap ultrasonic welder.

      I'm not responsable if you burn yourself or inhale crazy vaporised plastic.

      --
      -John Fenley
  101. You're making this up by p3d0 · · Score: 1

    Sounds of similar frequencies create beat frequencies. It requires no nonlinearity; only alternating constructive and destructive interference of waves.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  102. Re:Cone of Advertising, cone of secret Teleprompti by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    Casino cheats could have a field day with this.

    --
    What?
  103. Imagine the practical jokes! by BadDream · · Score: 1

    (directed sound at Victim1):Your shoe is untied Victim1: Did you hear that? Victim2: Hear what? Victim1: That voice, didn't you hear it? Victim2: No. Victim1: It said "Your shoe is untied" (directed sound at Victim1): I said no such thing etc...

    --
    No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.
  104. Same for headphones by Atario · · Score: 1

    I'm serious. Get on any commuter train or bus, and you'll no doubt be subjected to the tinny sound of some dumbass's (or several dumbasses') music spilling from their headphones -- audible even over the sound of the vehicle. Give them ultrasonic directed-sound headphones and they can destroy their hearing to their hearts' content without annoying me.

    (And don't get me started about the double-dumbasses who get on with their laptop or one of those portable DVD players and cranks something up on regular speakers, never mind headphones.)

    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
  105. Obligatory Military Application by DrVomact · · Score: 1
    So what happens if you build one a couple of meters across and put a few hundred thousand watts through it?

    Sorry, but I gotta ask...

    --
    Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
  106. Re:Cone of Silence - misnomer. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1, Informative

    I find it interesting that after all these years the Cone of Silence, the useless security divice from the spy spoof Get Smart, still needs no introduction.

    It's doubly funny since the term actually predates Get Smart - and refers to something else entirely.

    The "Cone of Silence" is the area directly over a vertically-polarized radio antenna (i.e. off the end of the dipole) where there is little or no signal.

    In WW II, aircraft did a lot of navigation using radio beacons. The easy way to do this is to fly to, and over, a beacon, perhaps setting a course that went from beacon to beacon, rather than navigating by obtaining bearings from multiple beacons (although the latter was also done).

    As you approach a beacon the signal strength increases. But as you fly over it, through the "cone of silence", it suddenaly drops out - then reappears behind you. Then you know that you just went right over it - and thus exactly where you are - and that it's time to set your course for the next waypoint.

    With so many bomber crews (and stories about them) the term "cone of silence" became publically known. But with few people other than navigators and radiomen familiar enough with it to know exactly what was meant, it became a buzzword with the implication of having something to do with wartime and security.

    Which gave the writers of Get Smart an opportunity to use a rotten pun for a couple air minutes of slapstick by redefining it. B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  107. Uh? What was that? by Dark+Coder · · Score: 1

    I'm deaf, you insensitive clod!

  108. It's in New York too by ruzel · · Score: 1

    For those of you in New York, you can do this in Grand Central as well. Just behind the main hall over by the entrance to that Oyster diner (I forgot the name) there are a series of archways. If someone stands on one side and whispers into the corner of the archway, another person standing diagonally from them can hear them perfectly. It's eerie -- especially in a place as loud as Grand Central.
    ____________________________

  109. Made in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This looks suprisingly like a technology developed at Nortel back in the mid-1990s called SoundBeam. Even more interesting: it would seem that the MIT Media Lab picked up the Nortel technology and continued to use it in their own prototypes through the late 1990s.

    Nortel's brief description of the technology (available for licensing!) is here.

    The description of the MIT Media Lab device as an evolution of the Nortel design is here. The full site about the Media Lab device that used Nortel technology is here.

    Lots of people can "discover" the same physical effect. I'm just curious whether the MIT Audio Spotlight is another name for Nortel's SoundBeam or something different that they developed separately. If the MIT guys/gals developed their own, it's natural to wonder what its relationship to SoundBeam is, considering it seems to have been invented around the same time the Media Lab was making prototypes with the Nortel technology. Perhaps Nortel's pre-existing patent moots the "race to millions" that the Technology Review story implies. Regardless, the story is obviously a little more complicated than the Technology Review article.

  110. directed sound .. by DilutedImage · · Score: 1

    Cool, but nothing new ... Nor should any of the mentioned people be credited with it's invention. This technology, properly known as "linear sound-plane technology," has been around for several years. It really is an amazing technology, for obvious reasons. We've got two linear-plane speakers here at the office, and they are AMAZING. They are not exagerating when they say that one person can hear it, while another cannot. The width and depth of the plane can be controlled, and there is no variance in volume anywhere. Awesome stuff. .. 2

  111. pretty simple, but not what you think by magefile · · Score: 0

    As I understand it, two ultrasound beams are used. They are directed to create an interference pattern. The nature of such patterns, and of the focusing abilities of ultrasound, is that the relevant portion of the pattern can be focused on a pretty small region.

    The ultrasound beams create "beats" - they superimpose so that the frequencies "created" are audible (rather than being greater than 20 kHz, as the original ultrasound beams are, they're somewhere between 20 Hz and 20-ish kHz).

    Lots of jargon, but it's basic high school physics.

  112. Re:Cone of Silence? More like cone of annoyance. by Maestro4k · · Score: 2, Informative
    • If marketers had any interest whatsoever in this type of advertising, there would be bullhorns in public places already constantly exhorting everyone to Drink Coke or Join The Army or whatever. As it stands, only political candidates and ice cream trucks are willing to do this.
    Depends on where you are, in Tokyo it's extremely common to see people paid to hand out tissues advertising a shop/resteraunt, or just stand out front and yell (well, yell's not the right word, but close enough) at passerby's to advertise the shop. This tech combined with some sensors to track moving objects (aka people) could cut out the need to pay a person to do that, and make sure you hit even more people going by with your message.
  113. Cone of what? by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 1

    WHAT? WHAT DID YOU SAY????????

    (Dear Slashdot, yes, I *meant* to use all those caps, it is *supposed* to be like yelling!)

  114. Not even remotely similar by Jerf · · Score: 1

    That is not even remotely similar. RTFA.

    This is "directional sound" with no parabolic shapes in sight, made through an entirely different mechanism.

    1. Re:Not even remotely similar by Big+Nothing · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ. Granted, the basic technology is different, but the concept and overall result is much the same. And I _did_ RTFA.

      --
      SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
  115. Re:Cone of Advertising, cone of secret Teleprompti by PaschalNee · · Score: 1

    Cyrano de Bergerac. (See the commedy with Steve Martin called Roxane.)
    Or why not see the movie Cyrano de Bergerac or the play. Much better ending than the happy-clappy Roxanne.

  116. Obligatory Simpsons quote by Ben+Urban · · Score: 1

    Hey you! Join the Navy!

    --
    Every time you run "emerge", a Microsoft drone dies.
  117. Featured in Tomorrows World years ago... by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

    I remember being suprised with a clever demonstration at an ice rink on BBC's Tomorrows World (may it RIP). Don't know exactly how similar this is to that, but this isn't the first time it's been talked about.

    --
    John_Chalisque