 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
80.177.28.171
In Reply to: RE: "But I do feel that gear should be able to work well in the real world without band-aids." posted by rick_m on November 10, 2008 at 08:27:09
>>> "May is clear to a fault that their products are believed to work directly upon the listener." <<<
Rick m, can you also see the reply I have done to Unclestu ?
The stumbling block seems to be the expression you used - "works directly upon the listener".
These words imply that 'something' is either physically wafting across/past or wafting through the person or actually physically touching them.
Can I describe a hypothetical situation. Something in your room makes you suddenly alert. You don't know what it is but the hairs at the back of your neck suddenly stand up - in other words you have reacted to something !!!
Would you describe that as 'something working DIRECTLY on the person', or having an INDIRECT effect on the person ? If it is not physically touching the person or radiating through them - as in radiation or magnetism - then surely it has to be described as 'indirect' ?
If we can get some common ground in language, we might be able to progress further.
Regards,
May Belt.
Follow Ups:
Hi May,
Yes, I can see replies to all posts.
My experience is that that sort of alertness is sensory, usually hearing, sometimes smells, rarely sight if I'm at home. While I often don't know the source at first I always know which sense it came in on and initially investigate further using that sense.
In the above case the path is through the senses. If my brief experiment with generating a "Schumann resonance" frequency is telling, then there are also other routes. In both cases however I would say the effect was directly upon the person. If, on the other hand, I generate a signal which causes problems by altering the output of my audio system but doesn't if it's not active, I would say that is acting directly on the system, not on the listener who hears it as an alteration of the system's output. You've said it yourself a zillion times: Does it affect the sound waves in the room?
That's my take on it at any rate...
Regards, Rick
You see rick m. My problem with Unclestu's experiment with the Schumann generator (and his subsequent conclusion) is that he was HOLDING (touching) the Schumann device all the time during the experiment !! Which, as far as Unclestu is concerned, was how he wanted to TEST whether it was having a direct effect on a human being !! I think his observation was correct - that the sound changed for both him and the others in the listening room when the Schumann device was removed from the room - I have no problem with his observation - it is his method of testing and his conclusion which I challenge.
I think that if he had placed the Schumann device outside the room - but NOT touching it - and with him being still in the room - the result would be the same - the sound would have changed. TOUCHING it would be irrelevant - it is WHERE the Schumann device WAS in relation to the human beings in the room that matters.
Let me explain what my definition is of the questions I asked you regarding a direct or indirect effect.
If you work in a dry cleaning establishment and you develop constant headaches and nausea I would say that the dry cleaning chemicals are having a DIRECT on you - they are wafting around you and might even be getting at your skin..
So, I would say that the chemicals are 'having an adverse effect on the human being' but this particular effect would be DIRECT.
If you work under a radio transmitter and you develop constant headaches and nausea, I would say that you are being DIRECTLY affected by the radio waves. So, I would say that the radio waves are 'having an adverse effect on the human being' but this particular effect on the human being would be DIRECT.
If you are in a room and see a snake and you immediately freeze dead in your tracks I would say that 'you, the human being is being affected by the presence of the snake' but this effect is INDIRECT. The snake is not doing anything to you. It is not coiling itself around you, it is not biting you, it is just there - present - in the room !!! In fact, it might be as frightened of you as you are of it !!
But you can see where confusion can start if I use the sentence "it is the human being who is being affected". I am constantly meaning INDIRECTLY affected but, nevertheless affected.
The indirect effect of the snake (your reaction) has been programmed into you by millions of years of evolution. It is there, within you !!!
In exactly the same way that your body is programmed, by evolution, to be sensing/reading the temperature of your environment every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day of your life - in order to maintain, for you, a constant body temperature. It is programmed so to do - whether you are aware of it or not, and whether you want it to or not !!!
Peter did not start with a particular concept and then develop products (devices and techniques) within and from that concept. It was the other way round. The surprise event came first, then the realisation, then developing the techniques.
Similar to Louis Pasteur's experience. 100 years ago the famous French chemist (i.e a 'professional in chemistry') Louis Pasteur, made his own wine. But he found that when he left the tops of the bottles open to allow the fermentation bubbles to escape his wine went off. He tried different experiments and, suddenly, he found that if he used a particular device on the bottles, one which allowed the fermentation bubbles to escape but kept the outside air from getting in, his wine was OK from then on. From that experience he deduced that there 'must be something in the air' which had been getting at his wine - what he named 'vibrios'. Here was an example of a 'professional in chemistry' being taken by surprise yes by something he had done in his normal domestic life, but being observant enough and aware enough to realise the implications of what he had discovered.
Dr Joseph Lister, a Scottish doctor and surgeon who, along with all his other fellow doctors and surgeons had many patients developing septicaemia and dying after operations was told about Pasteur's observations. Lister began to ask himself "Could there be 'some germs in the air' (like Pasteur had found) which might be getting into the patients open wounds and causing septicaemia ?" So started Lister's tortuous journey attempting to introduce antiseptic techniques into the world of medicine !!!!!
Peter's journey has been similar. A 'professional in audio' suddenly discovering 'things changing the sound' which defied logic and began to change our understanding of how we perceive (particularly) sound !!
Back to audio. Let me use just one example - one which I have used many times.
Say the human being is 'programmed' by evolution to read/sense their environment every second of every minute of every hour of every day of their lives, checking for danger/predators/intruders - to enable them to 'sign off' their environment as 'safe'. Supposing there is - 30 feet away from them - something in the room which is pulsating away - 50 to 60 times per second. They immediately interpret what they SENSE as a danger/predator/intruder and stay under tension - unable to 'sign off' their environment as 'safe'!!! You see. It is not WHAT that object is physically - it is how the human being is INTERPRETING it !!! It is not WHAT the human being can SEE, or HEAR, or TASTE, or SMELL, or TOUCH - it is what they sense !! Because the necessity to sense/read the environment evolved long before the development of the five senses as we know them now !! In exactly the same way that the body's necessity to sense/read the temperature of the environment to maintain a constant body temperature was developed long before our understanding of such things or of thermometers !!
The object I referred to in the room was (is) the AC power cable. But the effect is not DIRECT - conventional theory would say that 30 feet away from the human being the electro magnetic field would have decayed with distance - so would have no direct effect on the human being 30 feet away from it ! How many times have the 'experts' measured the field from a computer screen or a television screen and declared that X feet away from it, there is no measurement, therefore there is no field left, therefore there is no (radiation) problem sitting (working) X feet away ?
Now. The pulsating thing (the AC power cord) cannot be affecting the acoustic air pressure waves (and therefore affecting the sound) i.e making the sound worse. Unclestu would argue that the pulsating AC power cord could be adversely affecting the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment. Yes - it obviously could and people will continue to believe that that is what is happening - UNTIL you do something strange. Until you leave the AC power cord exactly where it is (with it's supposed adverse effect on the audio signal), pulsating away in exactly the same way but 'treat' it in a certain way - and the sound is better !!!! The electro- magnetic field surrounding the cable would STILL be there, the 'supposed' adverse effect on the audio signal going through the equipment would STILL be there, unchanged, but the sound was 'better' !!! This now challenges the existing belief structure.
The 'treatment' is to superimpose, onto the pulsating cable, a 'reassuring energy pattern' which enables the human being to be better able to 'sign off' their environment as 'safe'. Which, in turn, means that they are under less tension and which means that they are able to resolve more of the information within the music - information which has been there, in the room, all the time.
Because, as well as being programmed by evolution to read/sense the environment for danger, the human being has also been programmed by evolution to read/sense the environment for energy patterns of 'reassurance' - for signs that say "It's OK. The danger/predator/intruder has gone away. Or, "It's OK. Relax, I am a member of your family, herd, group, shoal, flock."
Back to Unclestu's experiments with the Schumann generator. I think that the Schumann device is doing something along those lines - creating conditions in the environment, reassuring conditions which the human being has been programmed to search for which, in turn, allows the human to be better able to 'sign off' their environment as 'safe'. Which, in turn, allows the human beings to be under less tension, which then allows the human being to resolve more of the information within the music !! How many times do you read in people's descriptions of their experiences with the Schumann device that "as well as the sound being better they feel much more relaxed" ?????? And, that is why I used the Schumann device as an example in my articles in Positive Feedback Online.
Back to Unclestu's results. I think one way of explaining the results he obtained was that, with the Schumann device in the listening room, all the people listening were sensing a more 'reassuring energy pattern ', therefore creating less tension in THEM, which resulted in them resolving the musical information better. Take the Schumann device out of the room, the 'reassurance' is lost, back comes their tension, the sound is perceived as 'worse'!!!! It has nothing to do with actually holding the device - the effect is not a DIRECT effect on the human being.
I can fully understand people's dilemma when looking at the devices we produce and recommend. I can fully understand how they can ask "How on earth can pieces of different Foils, application of Cream, writing beneficial messages change the acoustic air pressure waves, or affect the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment ? How on earth can they have an effect on a human being if it is not by auto-suggestion etc. Etc. Etc. (all the list I have given previously). They don't fit the existing (audio) belief structure.
Unclestu was attempting to prove whether it was the human being who was being affected by the Schumann device or not (by actually holding the device). He did not prove NO !!! All he proved was that the sound was better when the Schumann device was in the room and worse when it was taken out of the room !! He had presumed that if it was him (holding the device and being beneficially affected by it) then with the device out of the room, the sound would still be as good for HIM - because he was still holding it !!
If the Schumann device, in the room, was enabling the human beings in that room to be under less tension, then the sound WOULD BE worse when the Schumann device was taken out of the room. Now, to prove whether the Schumann device is 'beneficially affecting the actual audio signal travelling through the audio equipment' (as suggested by Unclestu) you do the experiment of taking the Schumann device out of the room, experience the sound to be worse, still leave the Schumann device out of the room and create other 'reassuring' energy patterns in the room. If the sound is then perceived as back being good again, with the Schumann device still out of the room, then the explanation of 'the Schumann device affecting the audio signal' no longer holds water - and yet the original OBSERVATION was correct. The sound WAS better when the Schumann device was in the room.
You now have an observation without a explanation from conventional theory. Join the club of the many other experimentalists.
One problem with a lot of the listening tests carried out is if there is a particular belief structure, then the test which will be carried out will be governed by that belief structure.
Regards,
May Belt.
Hi May,
You definitely have a different view of it than I do. I regard my senses as part of me so if they're affected, I'm affected. But I can see where you're coming from. Watching a boxer get slugged on TV isn't exactly the same as being on the receiving end of it myself. So when you say direct, I'll understand that usually you mean bypassing our senses, or at least believed to. Of course I've no idea what the mechanism is for sensing ULF radiation. I wouldn't be surprised if it's done in the inner ear.
As to radiation from things like power cord and Schumann generators, in free space they extend to infinity, but eventually become indiscernible from the rest of the noise that they are now part of. Taking the Schumann box out of the room probably had no effect upon the field strength in the room other than mere distance, most interior walls would have little effect on it. The near field of a loop drops off with the third power of the distance on axis beyond one radius, so bending your elbow while you hold the device would have a tremendous effect on the field that hits you depending upon it's orientation but walking a few feet out of a reasonable sized room into another would have little effect as it's now a much weaker field and unless the orientation is exact, probably dropping with the square of the distance which was much further in the first place.
If there's anything that makes my eyes cross about much of this stuff, it's the belief in walls. Walls make a substantial effect on airborne waves since they are a very deliberate opaque to them. They wouldn't keep us snug otherwise. They may have an effect on light depending upon the material, but unless specially designed, they are largely transparent to RF energy.
So... by dint of my razor sharp logic, I conclude that the most likely thing walls affect is human judgement. This seems especially the case when a gadget is said to work in the house and in your car while you are in the house, but not on the step. If the effect stops by just moving it to an adjacent interior room, the effects seem limited to smell or judgment. And if it's smell, one should be able to tell by the transient response as smells linger.
You are spot on about listening tests. Any tests for that matter. You find what you look for. If what you are looking for is well correlated with what you care about, things are good, if not, well...
Regards, Rick
fact that low frequencies, like those generated by a Schumann generator, travel much farther than high frequencies. There may be something to May's hypothesis. That being said, however, I had also tried placing the Schumann generator on the ground inside and outside the room and walked inside the playing room to check the sound difference, if any. The wall was standard hollow wall gyp board construction and thus is not very soundproof at any frequency really, but one would suspect that it should deflect some sound and the effect should be lessened the farther you are away from the generator (inverse square law). No perceptible differences were heard between inside and outside: System comprised of full sized Kharma speakers and a full set if Lamm electronics. I forget what CD player was used, but the TT was a Walker reference, for what it is worth.
Unplugging the Schumann produced an instantaneous change in both locations.
In the case of the negative ions, there is a change in the intensity of the effect as you place the generator closer to the electronics.
Stu
Stu,
The Schumann generators I'm thinking of generate about a 10Hz magnetic field from an internal loop antenna. Almost any interior wall will be transparent to that sort of signal so I think your results make sense. I want to play with them some more, it's interesting and likely not too dangerous. If my posts suddenly seem very strange, fly over and unplug my brain machine...
Maybe I can make my fortune selling Electronic Pseudo-Tarnhelms (EPTs). They wouldn't actually make you invisible but you'd be so mellow you wouldn't care.
Rick
Please don't say, "Magnetic field." :-)
Question:
How can a relatively small/short loop or coil antenna produce a 10 Hz frequency EM wave?
Geoff,
Just had a thought (last one for this year?). Rather than use the Biot-Savart law, you can use FEMM to do a model and get a picture (suitable for framing) with colors and vectors showing the field at any listening position. It's a cinch to model because it's axisymmetric and you lose no generality beyond 1r by using single current filament.
And it's free.
Rick
But it's not the "field" per se that's the issue. It's the frequency and the wavelength. (Neither of which is a characteristic of a magnetic field.)On subj, recall that Acoustic Revive has demo'd their SF generator in large auditorium, so (close) proximity to listener might not be an issue either.
Edits: 11/13/08
Acoutic revive recommends that the Schuman generator be placed at ear level.
using the formula Frequency=wavelength/speed of sound the Schumann wavelength comes to 8,847.9 feet.
Stu
but the AR device produces an electromagnetic wave (vice acoustic wave) so a different formula must be utilized.
Cheers, Geoff
The definition fits most any frequency, except for those needing correction in a medium. You could substitute the speed of light, if in a vacuum, and the pulse is purely electromagnetic. That loop antenna in the AR is not any where close to that wavelength, however, since it is coiled in a 6 by 6 square (approximately).
Stu
Stu,
Any size loop can be used for any frequency. The rub is the radiation resistance. In other words if a loop is very small with respect to the wavelength of the signal it won't couple for beans to the ether. I touched on this in some earlier postings with Geoff when I was at the coast. Since I'm home now and have access to my library I can put some numbers to it.
The radiation resistance of a small loop per Kraus, Antennas, 1950 is:
Rr=31,200[n(A/lambda^2)]. Where n=turns,A=loop area,lambda=wavelength.
Running the numbers for F=8.3Hz gives a Rr=5.6E-12ohms. Free space is around 377ohms so there is huge mismatch. That just means that there will be almost no far-field radiation. Near-field, which in this case is about anywhere in the same hemisphere, the field will be predominantly magnetic and as I suggested can be readily calculated using the Biot-Savart law or modeled with FEMM. Easier yet, we've all seen the "lines of force" in iron filings from a bar magnet, imagine one of those sticking vertically through the axis of the loop and you will have a good mental picture of the relative field strength and vectors produced by the loop.
By the way, I used 10 turns in the numeric example above. The inner turns on a PCB loop do essentially nothing because their area is small so I figured that was a reasonable estimate.
So forget the wavelength, it's just a red-herring in this case. All that matters is the magnetic field and the sensitivity of the listener or equipment or whatever to it. As you get further away, it just gets weaker if you stay on the same angle. It will be much stronger on axis than off to the side and drop more quickly as you get away from it. If you really want a dose, put it on top of your head. But I don't recommend that on general principles. I'm with Thurber: "Leave your mind alone."
Rick
as the tiny flicker of light ignites above my head (cognitive impairment and all that stuff, you know).....Maybe I should pick up the book on antennas I have sitting beside me, but I only read the part on radio reception, where you wanted the antennas at a fraction of the received bandwidth.
Certainly since the Schumann generator is roughly half the footprint of a piece of paper and uses a wall wart power supply it can not generate much of a magnetic field (I gotta dig up mu gaussmeter).
The magnetic field should be toroidal since the loop antenna in the unit is in the form of a square pattern on a printed circuit board. I would assume that the field is then most intense when in line with the sides of the unit rather than in the vertical plane, directly above or below the unit. If so then placing the unit at the ear level would be preferable to placing on top of the head and thus the manuals admonition the place the unit at ear level. Sorry, just musing out loud....
Thanks,
Stu
Hi Stu,
I can make you a picture, but let me try to describe it. The magnetic field circles the current path. The mnemonic is the "right hand rule": if you grab the wire with your right hand and have your thumb in the direction of the current, you fingers are aligned with the magnetic field which comes out of your nails.
Thinking along those lines imagine a loop wrapped around a clock face which you are viewing from the center. If you grab it at 3:00 your thumb points up (iffins the clock is on a wall) and you fingers point at you from the right. If you grab it at 9:00 your thumb points towards the floor and your fingers point at you from the left. And you just threw your back out of joint trying to do the demonstration. The punch line is no matter where you grab it, the field is coming towards you from the inside of the loop and going away from you on the outside.
You're right about the field being sort of toroidal, but that is only when very near the conductor. The field mostly cancels out as you get a little ways away from the loop. It's all a matter of symmetry. Along the wire the field coming out on the inside is matched by field going in on the outside. The center of the loop is "special", again due to symmetry. It is where the vectors from the whole loop sum together in a single direction. The matching vectors outside of the loop are at infinity so it can actually escape.
So... As you get a little way from the loop, the strongest signal is on axis, in the center and the polarization is orthogonal to the plane of the loop. Going back to the loop wound around a clock, just rip the hands off and jam a bar magnet in the hole and the field looks about the same.
If the loop works best about head level off to the side, you can get the same polarization and a stronger signal by gluing it to your beanie. Another way to think of it is imagine that you've got the loop off to the side six feet away. How much of the overall field does your head occupy? Bear in mind that near-field magnetic fields are closed so all the "lines" that are are everywhere outside the loop, go through the inside of the loop also, so obviously they are much more concentrated there.
You probably can't measure it with your gauss meter, although you might be able to see the needle wiggle.
You are right again, you do want your loop to be a fraction of the wavelength. These are, just a very small fraction. The smaller the fraction, the worse the coupling and thus the lower the radiation resistance.
I need to look up more info on the Schumann levels, but it probably takes far less of a loop or drive levels to exceed that signal strength than you would suppose because you are very close to your local loop. It's easy to generate either an electric or magnetic field locally at most any frequency, the wavelength is inconsequential as you don't give a hoot about far field.
If you antenna book covers loops, give it scan. Sort of interesting stuff if you've got a bend in that direction.
Rick
Got it: I picture it sort of like those pulsars in space.....of course not quite as intense.
Incidentally, I may have sent you some ERS a long time ago; it was that grey stiff paper.
Stu
Stu,
I don't see it in the bag with the remaining quartz and blu-tak. I also can't cogitate up a mental image of it but you well may have. I'll keep my eyes open, if I got it it's probably in a stack somewhere, as my wife will attest I'm not one to throw stuff out...
I think I've got some available time coming up and among other things will try to do some measurements on the stuff you sent. Nothing fancy but worth a shot. I've been using the core over the power transformer right along.
I'm not sure that having a tame pulsar in my room is a very comforting thought, but I suppose the radiation pattern is similar!
Rick
For purposes of this audio-related discussion, could the Schumann Freq. Generator be a CD (acoustic wave generator)? (or is that snake oil?)
Beats Me.
I suppose so since there were posts a few months ago about that very product... Hmmm, I just did a little search to thoughtfully help you find the information and lo and behold, the information came from YOU back in March.
So... what's the deal, did the CD do anything for you?
BTW, it certainly wasn't my intention to try and pass myself off as knowledgeable about things Schumann as I decidedly am not. But I am interested. On the other hand I may know more about small loops than most folks since I used to use them in designs and that gives me a little something to throw into the collective kettle.
Rick
I played around with the CD that produces the Schumann Freq. using 2 beat frequencies, with speakers and headphones, but didn't obtain results I could hang my hat on...G
Edits: 11/17/08
Thanks, good info.
Have you tried one of the electronic varieties?
No, can't say as I have.
Don't radio waves travel at near speed of light in air?
Could the AR device be producing two higher "beat" frequenices, indirectly obtaining the 7.83 Hz SF?
I admit I'm puzzled by the SF generators...
~ Cheers
0...
Transverse Electromagnetic Field?
Daisy field?
Field of dreams?
Out standing in my field?
I aim to please!
1...
Well, you squirt the AC current into the loop, the current goes round and round and it comes out transmogrified into a magnetic field. And heat. Mostly heat actually. Since the radiation resistance is low, it isn't a very good match to free space and the near field is almost all magnetic so it's usually called a magnetic field, especially by them's that are not too fussy. If you're in the mood you can calculate the field strength using the Biot-Savart law. It's especially easy for the on axis field from circular filaments.
3...
You're asking ME??? I would be glad to offer an absolute guess: Maybe it's the mean height of the listener's head sitting or standing. If that's the case it could indicate that whatever the mechanism is it is quite sensitive to the MAGNETIC field vector.
Regards, Rick
Posted by geoffkait
RE: "10Hz magnetic field from an internal loop antenna."
------------------------------
Please don't say "magnetic field."
A pop quiz for rick_m:
1. How can a relatively small loop antenna produce an 10 Hz EM wave?
2. Why is the recommended height above the floor for the SF generator
often reported as about 5 ft.?
The Schumann Frequency wavelength is rather on the long side. How long is it and how does it all fit into the room?
IIRC, the Schuman is 7.83 Hz a very long frequency. In the room where I experimented with the device, The back wall was open to a littel Japanese style garden, screened over but open to the elements. In addition, the back wall was likewise open to the true living room. There was more than sufficient length to generate a waveform, being open to the exterior of the home. The listening area measureed about 20 feet deep and opened into another room about 30 feet deep (it was a large house and the owner did well as a lawyer).
Stu
But how long is the SF wavelength?
WOULD YOU QUIT DELETING YOU POSTS BEFORE I GET MY SNAPPY REPLY DONE? I'm not about to waste one so here it is for your enjoyment:
Oh, that is a good one, how could I forget Sally?
Would you settle for magnetic component? As a practical matter that's about all there is in the near field of a loop antenna. And man at 10Hz near field goes a fer piece.
But hey, don't compromise your principles. Go ahead and build a 1/4 wave 10Hz vertical with good ground radials and fire it up, I'll know it's you even out here on the west coast as I get slammed by a wave of mellow...
R.
PS: The answer is about 1/250,000 the length of your antenna. Didn't you used to work on VLF stuff? Maybe you really could do a wave of mellow, the world could sure use it.
You do go on about magnetism, but no harm, I suppose. Wonder if anyone out there has used a Radio Shack Bulk Tape Eraser to administer a cranial massage.It was ELF - you know, the one with 14 miles of antenna....and that's for 75 Hz EM wave
You've probably seen me ask this a couple times, but how long is the wavelength for the Schumann Frequency?
:-)
Edits: 11/13/08
Let's see. That's about 24,000 miles for 7.8Hz, or one trip around the planet. What's that, mode II longitudinal I suppose. I'm at the coast and so had to do it with my computer's calculator which detest, but you're welcome.
ME go on about magnetism??? There is no magnetism without electric charges gallivanting around so "electromagnetic" is really rather repetitious and old fashioned wouldn't you say? Methinks that you are trying in vain to make an effete point. If you think a bar magnet only generates magnetism, just give it a spin. And loop antennas work down to DC.
Personally I wouldn't use any tape eraser that wasn't endorsed by Rose Mary Woods. Before your time?
Rick
One doesn't see the word effete and the name Rosemary Woods in the same post very often. Do you think Spiro Agnew would endorse spiracone antennas?
Ah, Spiro...
Haven't thought much of him in a long spell. Of course I didn't think much of him then. You know, more recent administrations may have upheld the standards of ethics established by those greats, but they sure haven't delivered the same level of entertainment...
You make an excellent point. Tricky Dick was my all time fav when it came to entertainment. But that's just me.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
