If, like me, you have a standard western fretboard it will scaled in 12 equal portions. Each scale is either double or half the adjacent one. Each note is a 1/12 higher or lower of the the adjacent note. The notes are found by the respective formula (2^1/12) and (0.5^1/12).
A notable problem with this is that the notes at the frets do not exactly equate to harmonics of other notes. For example: If A is set to 440Hz then 330 and 660 would equate to lower and higher harmonics by half. But the closet that can be played without bending the strings, which can't be done with open strings, is E at 329.63 and 659.26.
The two common methods are to use a pitch pipe or electronic equivalent or the 5,5,5,4,5 fret routine in a six string setting:
As a simple way of spreading out the errors inherent is the equal temperament scale, I tune as follows:
With six strings
- I tune both E's and then the second fret of the D string (E) to the two E's
- Then I tune the G string to the G on the two E's
- Then the A to the A on the G string and finally
- The D on the B string to the open D string.
The only difference with a 12 string, to keep the tension down I tune low, about a 1/12 and tune the lightest G string first. One the two G's are done I then do the E's and then as the 6 string order.
Next page for more on the issues with harmonics and the western scale
Pages: 1· 2
The basis of harmonics is that one frequency includes another as a factor, i.e. one number is half or twice another. Scales in music call these octaves, as the tradition is that the eight note from a given frequency Note 1 either up or down is a scaled harmonic. The familiar (doh 1, ray 2, me 3, fah 4, so 5, la 6, tee 7, and back to doh 8)
The initial query that comes to mind is why are certain frequencies used repeatedly in music? Is it just a habit, an addiction or is there some ancient and ongoing connection to the world we reside in.
We are all aware of the day and it's two divisions, night and day. They are often spoken of in periods of 6hours and 3hours, but then 1 hour not 1&half.
We then go further away from the basic scale of dividing by two and divide the hour into 60 minutes, each minute into 60 seconds, each second into 60 thirds, each third into 60 fourths
To most people the smallest part used is the second and that infrequently. Sports people and technicians then take the second and continue to divide it by 10, 100, 1000 etc.
There are useful reasons for all this but the point is that the second is used to define music notes by the number of vibrations occurring in each second. More recently called a Hertz* 1Hz being one cycle per second.
The problem is that a) a second is not a natural harmonic of a day being one 86400th of a day The closed natural harmonics are 2^16 (65,536) and 2^17 (131,072) in that scale/octave 86400 would be between a 'so' (82570) and a 'la' (87480) approx, the closet being the 'la'
I don't drive so my interactions with vehicles is as a pedestrian. I don't plan weaving within the traffic when there is a wave of cars but their is always a trough sooner or later, should that coincide with traffic lights is not a concern I have.
Still I have to accept that I'm getting old and I may gauge the spaces and time in error, not only that, it may well be that I fall and am not sprightly enough to bounce off the tarmac and dodge the steel.
What brought me to this spiel?
I was in Bristol this last weekend and I wove between the traffic with a young child in my arms; it's been playing on my mind and I feel dirty. That I put my notions of safety into to action like that with no thought of how the mother, who was watching, felt. Such levels of danger and inconsideration embarrass me.
I am not going to do it again. I will be more considerate to the young and their mothers, though I doubt I will show such consideration for the drivers.
Data from STATS 19 show that pedestrian accident rates are higher over the pedestrian crossing points than these away from it, or within 50 meters of pedestrian crossing facilities. This is contrary to the expectations that accidents should be least over these crossing facilities.
Although intended to query the spacial existence of em waves I hope to draw closer to the mental processes involved and the reasons for the processes.
There are two major theories to consider: a) Transparency: in that light passes through an object, read radio waves pass through air and brick and b) if light does at all travel or if there is a coincidence of apparent transmission and reception as in the quantum state that if one changes all must change. This later quantum argument is extreme and goes to the heart of all arguments.
Transparency Apart from the common concepts of light passing through glass and water, - no doubt crystals were thought of as glass like and modern plastics are another matter - there is the reception of radio waves inside an apparently opaque structure.
Light is a variety of electromagnetic waves that the eye responds to by sending signal to an interpreter in the brain; these frequencies are high compared to radio signals but essentially are no different that the fact that high and low notes in music are just different frequencies of air pressure changes on the ear drum.
Radio waves, in the case of the BBC world service transmitted from Rugby, used a frequency of 15,000 cycles per second, the modern term is 15KHz (15 kilo hertz)
Television is in the range of 100's of megahertz
Mobile Phone around the 0.9 to 1.9 gigahertz
Bluetooth and wifi 2 to 6 gigahertz
So we have gone from generating electromagnetic waves of 15K that if it were sound would be audible to many people, especially the young to frequencies a million times that.
It may be easier to compare by the length of a wave. EM waves travel at a constant speed in a vacuum and that is the usual figure used. So a frequency that oscillates twice as fast will have a wavelength half the size.
Rugby (15KHz) 20Km
BBC Caradon Hill Digital (482.166 or 530.166)Mhz around 60cm
EE on 800Mhz (Rural) 37.5cm on 2.6GHz (London) 11.5cm
The Wi-Fi standard IEEE 802.11ad (60Ghz) 5mm
Active Denial System (ADS) which emits a beam of radiation with a wavelength of 3 mm
Carrying on from Food Availability
The obvious, eat or die brings up the same polarization and both cannot be addressed for what eats must by definition kill in turn and so will either be killed or die as ability to kill diminishes.
So we survive to kill another day, we kill so we can kill more. Is this the basis of conscious choice? That we perform to the DNA programme or refuse Does a plant have choice, does the sun? What of the consciousness of either are they unaware that their existence depends upon the annihilation of other beings, sentient or otherwise. Some plan!
The choice to feel, not just the warm or chilling breezes, the sun and see, the salt and sweetness, but the acquisition of security of consumption the company of other killers afraid to die but not to kill. A partner to justify and proliferate the killing DNA. These feeling generated by the mind of success in achievement and company. So is it a sunny holiday with a friendly killer on the beach of alone in the hills.
Is there really any benefit in one experience over the other? I can't seem to weight them like a speck of sand or a mountain, let alone a planet or solar system. That these experiences can be instilled by electrical impulses to the brain directly, without the holiday implies that it can be done without the killing, but can it be done without consumption.
What is this killing consumption we fight so hard for and call it life when it is only an idea of keeping at bay the fear that each of us may die and loose the ability to choose what to kill and at almost every turn it is really who should die for us to continue to kill. We best not kill the seed of killing but only the fruit, but is that enough or more properly is there enough fruit to consume - obviously not. Back to food availability
Consumption, Calories and Choice
Food for one may be poison for another and vis a versa. Plants are clearly different from animals and the DNA structures that demand replication are limited by the DNA's own structure. Not so the sun which can absorb any matter and add to it's weight, by sheer gravity.
Once a choice is made the immediate consequence is a limitation of further choice, unless the original choice can be undone. DNA's impact upon choice are far reaching and the host body cannot presently (2017) change the DNA and undo any, let alone many or all, of the choices bound in it's programme; and where it is possible then the host body will change proportionately.
Each time a choice is made an infinite numbers of options are denied yet a seemingly alternative never-ending number of choices appear again.
With DNA based consumers the selection, although predetermined by ancestry, is more frighteningly controlled by the archaeologically defined habitat.
For carnivores there must be enough other animals to consume, for fruitarians - enough fruit. Clearly the omnivore has a better chance of survival, being able to obtain nutrition from all and sundry. Plants are not best described in such terms and so I will avoid their needs here.
On the human front, food supplies nutrition and noting the intellectual variables from other animals it is clear to see that each person has a choice on what to eat, given there is adequate consumables both in quantity and variance.
As with plants I will leave any views on the intellectual choices, at this juncture, and focus on nutrition; for although this is article is designed as food for though, and maybe be poison to some, it has no basis except for it's grounding in nutrition of the body and the DNA's design to survive.
I am consciously trying to develop a binary approach to this argument, that is - although at any point there are in finite options the ultimate choice is - to choose or not to. The sun does not choose, or at least that is the basis on which unfettered consumption relies.
Each of us makes a choice, to eat or not, and what to eat. There is a basic nutritional issue of obtaining enough calories to continue to the next meal. That there are other assets in the food of choice is not the issue here and again will be put aside with the sun, plants and intellect.
Page 2: calories Page 3: choice