Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ptsal
In theory one could drive enough energy in the audio band above hearing range, say 25-40KHz to saturate most small microphones. The microphones would in effect be unable to sense in the audio band since their sensor is being driven from one extreme to the other at high frequency.

Practically speaking, since audio in that range is fairly directional, and you need a lot of power, the utility of such a jammer is questionable. It would of course probably drive away every rodent and dog in the neighborhood.

Some people suspect the sonic injuries that occurred in Cuba to our diplomats resulted from interaction between ultrasonic sources, so I would not encourage anyone to make such a jamming device at home, or expose anyone to such a strong ultrasonic audio field. It could be hazardous, so leave that kind of thing to research labs.

12 posted on 03/11/2018 8:12:19 AM PDT by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: freeandfreezing

No, even if a microphone had response that extended to that frequncy range (very doubtful in a mic intended for voice surveillance), it will respond to all frequencies and a simple filter would remove your jamming signal leaving the voice intact. But no one interested in surveillance would consider using a mic with response higher than the voice range so it’s a moot point. In any case, it wouldn’t work.


16 posted on 03/11/2018 8:47:47 AM PDT by bigbob (Trust Trump. Trust Sessions. The Great Awakening is at hand...MAGA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson