wrote in message
ups.com
For example, for a long time scientists believed that the
vibrations of the basilar membrane in the cochlea was
brought about by a STANDING wave (say Helmholtz's
theory), a very plausible theory. After all, an organ
pipe or a blown trumpet or clarinet etc also produce
standing waves.
Only in the 1940s it became clear that what went into the
cochlea was a TRAVELING wave, not a standing wave. In
1960 Von Bekesy got the Nobel prize for this discovery.
So much for "a body of knowledge of a hundred years".
It then became clear that the basilar membrane, due to
heavy damping, did not allow for detailed pitch
discrimination. As we can, in reality, quite well hear
pitch differences (also measurable via the tuning curve),
the new theory was that there was some sharpening up
process going on, probably due to pitch sensitivity of
hearing cells and neurons. Not a bad idea, as this
happens in quite a few animals.
Only in the1980s it became clear that the basilar
membrane allowed for much sharper pitch dicrimination
than as thought before. It turned out that the membrane
deteriorated rapidly outside the living body. So they
started testing with heavily sedated animals. It turned
out that the heavy sedation also brought about a serious
deterioration of the functioning of the membrane, and
that the less the sedation is, the sharper the membrane
allows pitch discrimination.
So the new idea of the 1990s is that we do NOT need so
much this sharpening up theory. So much for a "hundred
years of established knowledge" in hearing theory. It's
only TEN years of knowledge, NOT hundred years.
When Gold came with the idea of otoacoustic emissions in
the late 1940s, nobody believed him. When dr. Kemp
ACTUALLY MEASURED them in the mid 1970s, he couldn't get
his article published in the "audio magazines", these
being the very serious scientific papers. His article was
FINALLY published in 1978:
Kemp DT (1978) Stimulated acoustic emissions from within
the human auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am 64: 1386-1391
Nobody believed him.
False claim.
Nowadays otoacoustic emissions tests are used ON A DAILY
BASIS with newborn infants to test whether they have
hearing problems. Nobody doubts their existence.
True statement. I was introduced to a practical demonstration of otoacoustic
emissions at a SMWTMS meeting at my house in the mid-1980s.
So much for "hundred years of well established knowledge".
Repeat after me: "All scientific findings are provisional, and only stand
until improved knowlege falsifies them or modifies their meanings".
But what does Nousaine know of hearing?
AFAIK Tom was at that SMWTMS hi fi club meeting in the mid-80s and saw the
demonstration of otoacoustic emissions just as surely as I did.
Nothing.
Delusions of omniscience and mind-reading noted.
What does he care? Nothing.
Note that SHP has resorted to putting words in Tom's mouth.
The same with the rest of them.
Where were you in the mid-1980s, SHP?
Incompetent clowns, all of them.
Ernesto.
Hmm, a signature? What does this mean?
note the similarity of the above to the the following:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...091a2718c054c3
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:01:23 GMT
From: (Ernst Raedecker)
Is this an example of plagiarism, or has SHP slipped up and revealed his
identity?