[Top] [All Lists]

Re: the lowest natural sound yet detected

Subject: Re: the lowest natural sound yet detected
From: michael fish <>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 18:44:02 +0100 (BST)
actually, aaron [at the risk of sounding extremely pedantic], i believe tha=
t altercation took place on the lowercase sound list. the phonography list =
is much too polite for that type of argeybargey, i would have thought.

just thought i'd stick up for those nice gentle, unassuming phonographers :=


Aaron Ximm <> wrote:

> If the sound is able to propagate through space, it would be a very thin

There was a contentious debate about this story on the phonography list;

...but some members of the list took issue with whether ultra- and infra-
sound not "hearable" is "really" sound.

Want to chat instantly with your online friends?=A0Get the FREE Yahoo!Messe=

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU