• Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Will this solution block EMF from LCD/LED monitors?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TEMPEST keeps other people from reading your monitor using radio waves emitted by the monitor/cables/computer.
there is no technology that can "read your mind". there have been experiments with controlling hardware by "thinking", but such systems require extensive "training" by the user, and often the equipment must read a variety of sensors (eye movement, muscle reflexes, as well as specific EEG electrodes) to get a useful response.

similarly, there are no "mind control" techniques that use electromagnetic influence on the brain. there are however, mind control techniques that use propaganda and pseudo science to separate people's money from their wallets.... more specifically by convincing somebody that they require expensive hardware to isolate the user from "harmful" electromagnetic waves. with or without technology, everybody is constantly exposed to electromagnetic waves covering the whole spectrum quite literally from DC to Daylight, all from natural sources. the sun is a huge emitter of radio waves, the earth's atmosphere is constantly generating radio waves from 8hz to thousands of Ghz. there's EM radiation that everyone is exposed to that covers everything from far IR, to light, UV radiation, X-rays, Gamma Rays, cosmic rays.

if you stick around this board long enough, you will find the intent of people here is not to hassle you, but try to inform you that pseudo science is no science at all, and you're better off keeping your money in your wallet so you can better use it on useful things...

there's nothing like pseudo science to raise our ire on this board, EMF-phobia, Flat Earth nonsense, and Over-Unity/Perpetual Motion machines are the three most common subjects that will rain fire down on the thread.
I appreciate your post.

I have my own reasons for believing that mind reading and mind control exists. Because I think I personally experienced them. There is no possible way that someone or something could have known something I have thought or felt. One can infer and deduce things from writings and Internet activity, but there are limitations to it, I saw references to things in a short span of time after I thought about them, when I wouldn't even have given indications to it through my activity on digital devices.

For this reason, I'm left with no choice but to think they were able to read my mind, or control it to think along certain lines and let me see some reference to it.

I thought a lot about how this could be done, ultrasonic frequencies, but I don't have auditory hallucinations. Subliminals through monitor, which is a possibility but that doesn't explain to me how they could make references to what I thought when I wasn't near any digital devices. As I started researching about it, I was seeing these results about electromagnetic things and it seemed to explain the same phenomena which I was experiencing so I thought it would be the cause. As a lay person my understanding of these things are close to null, your explanation that EMF permeates everything is similar to saying water isn't dangerous or it cannot be used to cut as it is everywhere, but if you have been to the dentist, they have instruments, which uses water to clean teeth, the force with which it is ejected, almost feels like it can cut. Is it not possible to use EMF purposefully to read mind or control it?

Page 8 of this link: https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/files/Bioeffects_of_Selected_Non-Lethal_Weapons.pdf

Shows micorwave auditory effect, some other report over the same thing says they can make phrases and words understood by a person without making that person hear it.
 

rjenkinsgb

Active Member
your explanation that EMF permeates everything is similar to saying water isn't dangerous or it cannot be used to cut as it is everywhere, but if you have been to the dentist, they have instruments, which uses water to clean teeth, the force with which it is ejected, almost feels like it can cut. Is it not possible to use EMF purposefully to read mind or control it?
The key again is POWER - the amount of energy involved.
A reading lamp vs. a cutting laser, or the impact from being hit with a feather vs. being hit with a hammer!

Low level EM is totally harmless; it either has no effect at all (the frequency is too low and the human body too small to absorb any power whatsoever) or it is converted to heat when dissipated within flesh - as in, you feel warmth when exposed to 1000 Watts per square metre from sunlight.

Normal electronics, wifi, phones etc. use fractions of a watt. If you filled a swimming pool with active mobile phones and swam about in it like a kids "ball pool", you would still only pick up a fraction of what you get from simple sunlight. There is not enough to be sensed or have any effect at all.


We are not saying that some "influencing" effects are not possible, with the right equipment - but the equipment involved is large, heavy, expensive, needs power and above all needs very close proximity.

It's not something that can be done invisibly or in public - and _why_ would any normal person be targeted anyway?
Governments don't have enough resources to track all the known major criminals and terrorists. Believing they would target any normal person is paranoia.


The human brain is exceptionally good at seeing and implying connections between things; inferring connections that are not actually visible (or even exist).
For your entire life, you mind has been building mental models of every object you see - ie. as an adult, you "know" what the far side of any recognisable object looks like without walking around it every time.

Terry Pratchett makes a joke of it in some of his books - everyone has "second sight", seeing things that are not there is completely normal, but "first sight" - sticking to absolute facts without inferences - is extremely difficult.

[eg. Any time Police interview a group of witnesses to an accident etc., it's rare for any two to have "seen" the same exact events].


Everything from "The man in the moon" & optical illusions to numerology and many other types of conspiracy theory rely on peoples minds seeing inferences or sequences etc. to other things as factual connections, where in reality they simply do not exist, while true random chance coincidences are very common.

A good example is using a random number generator to produce lottery numbers. It will often produce adjacent numbers - which instinctively feel wrong and non-random, but it's your mind falsely assuming any connection or coincidence between things is not random.
 

Nigel Goodwin

Super Moderator
Most Helpful Member
saying water isn't dangerous or it cannot be used to cut as it is everywhere, but if you have been to the dentist, they have instruments, which uses water to clean teeth, the force with which it is ejected, almost feels like it can cut. Is it not possible to use EMF purposefully to read mind or control it?
You're obviously not aware of water cutters, used to cut steel plate with just a jet of water.

However, your EMF ideas are ludicrous and a wild flight of fantasy - even assuming such a thing 'might' be possible?, it would be many decades (if not centuries?) in the future.
 

AnalogKid

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
your explanation that EMF permeates everything is similar to saying water isn't dangerous or it cannot be used to cut as it is everywhere
No, it isn't, and no one here is saying anything like that. Keep in mind that you are debating with people who know exactly how microwave ovens work. In a sense, that is exactly why you came to this forum in the first place. Both EMF and water are dangerous, and useful, in concentrated forms.

Also, not a good analogy. Much better ones are air and gravity.

Separate from that, dangerous and able-to-manipulate-neurons-deep-inside-the-brain are two very different things.

ak
 

alec_t

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
There is no possible way that someone or something could have known something I have thought or felt.
Precisely. So that rules out mind-reading.
On the other hand it is possible to surmise how someone feels or what they are thinking, based on e.g. physical demeanour or behavioural patterns.
 
Precisely. So that rules out mind-reading.
On the other hand it is possible to surmise how someone feels or what they are thinking, based on e.g. physical demeanour or behavioural patterns.
That's possible. There was no way they could have seen my physical demeanor, even knowing my behavior patterns wouldn't have allowed them to know a specific thing I thought.
 
The key again is POWER - the amount of energy involved.
A reading lamp vs. a cutting laser, or the impact from being hit with a feather vs. being hit with a hammer!

Low level EM is totally harmless; it either has no effect at all (the frequency is too low and the human body too small to absorb any power whatsoever) or it is converted to heat when dissipated within flesh - as in, you feel warmth when exposed to 1000 Watts per square metre from sunlight.

Normal electronics, wifi, phones etc. use fractions of a watt. If you filled a swimming pool with active mobile phones and swam about in it like a kids "ball pool", you would still only pick up a fraction of what you get from simple sunlight. There is not enough to be sensed or have any effect at all.


We are not saying that some "influencing" effects are not possible, with the right equipment - but the equipment involved is large, heavy, expensive, needs power and above all needs very close proximity.

It's not something that can be done invisibly or in public - and _why_ would any normal person be targeted anyway?
Governments don't have enough resources to track all the known major criminals and terrorists. Believing they would target any normal person is paranoia.


The human brain is exceptionally good at seeing and implying connections between things; inferring connections that are not actually visible (or even exist).
For your entire life, you mind has been building mental models of every object you see - ie. as an adult, you "know" what the far side of any recognisable object looks like without walking around it every time.

Terry Pratchett makes a joke of it in some of his books - everyone has "second sight", seeing things that are not there is completely normal, but "first sight" - sticking to absolute facts without inferences - is extremely difficult.

[eg. Any time Police interview a group of witnesses to an accident etc., it's rare for any two to have "seen" the same exact events].


Everything from "The man in the moon" & optical illusions to numerology and many other types of conspiracy theory rely on peoples minds seeing inferences or sequences etc. to other things as factual connections, where in reality they simply do not exist, while true random chance coincidences are very common.

A good example is using a random number generator to produce lottery numbers. It will often produce adjacent numbers - which instinctively feel wrong and non-random, but it's your mind falsely assuming any connection or coincidence between things is not random.
Link: https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/files/Bioeffects_of_Selected_Non-Lethal_Weapons.pdf

Page 8:
. One study (in 1975)usilg human volunteers, identilied the threshold energy ofmicrowave-auditory rcsponscsin humans as a function ofpulse width for 2450 MHz radioftequency energy. it is alsofound that about 40 J/cmz incident energy density per pulse wai required.
Page 9:
They found that, regardless ofthe peak ofthe power density and the pulse width, the per-pulse threshold foia normalsubject is neax 20 mJ/kg. The avemge elevation ofbrain temperature associated with ajust-perceptible pulse was estimated to be about 5xl0 6. C
Do those power requirements seem like large amounts to you?
 
You're obviously not aware of water cutters, used to cut steel plate with just a jet of water.

However, your EMF ideas are ludicrous and a wild flight of fantasy - even assuming such a thing 'might' be possible?, it would be many decades (if not centuries?) in the future.
No, it isn't, and no one here is saying anything like that. Keep in mind that you are debating with people who know exactly how microwave ovens work. In a sense, that is exactly why you came to this forum in the first place. Both EMF and water are dangerous, and useful, in concentrated forms.

Also, not a good analogy. Much better ones are air and gravity.

Separate from that, dangerous and able-to-manipulate-neurons-deep-inside-the-brain are two very different things.

ak
Please search Google for "Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves".

You'll get a patent for it, it has been available since 1974. And it has also been used to remotely monitor and alter brain waves.
 

Mickster

Well-Known Member
Please answer Yes or No to the question below, no other answers are permitted:

Is there anything that we can tell you, or inform you of, that will change your insistence that someone is reading/controlling your mind?

Remember, Yes or No only.
 

Mickster

Well-Known Member
Then it is my personal opinion, that any further responses to this thread are an exercise in futility.
This forum has numerous electronics industry professionals, experts, professors and very experienced hobbyists as members, who try to help out any other member with concerns that they may have.
Some of those aforementioned members have been active on this, and other threads of yours.
If you can not be convinced that your assumptions are incorrect by our members, who give up their personal time to help out, free of charge, then it is again my personal opinion that you should seek the professional services, at your own cost, of someone who can give a clinical opinion.

My views are my own and may not necessarily represent those of the other members.

I wish you good luck with the direction you choose on your future path, and hope that things work out for you.
 
Then it is my personal opinion, that any further responses to this thread are an exercise in futility.
This forum has numerous electronics industry professionals, experts, professors and very experienced hobbyists as members, who try to help out any other member with concerns that they may have.
Some of those aforementioned members have been active on this, and other threads of yours.
If you can not be convinced that your assumptions are incorrect by our members, who give up their personal time to help out, free of charge, then it is again my personal opinion that you should seek the professional services, at your own cost, of someone who can give a clinical opinion.

My views are my own and may not necessarily represent those of the other members.

I wish you good luck with the direction you choose on your future path, and hope that things work out for you.
I find your assumptions about me insulting. As if I came to the conclusion of mind reading/ mind control on a fallacious and biased reasoning. Do you have such a low opinion of everyone or me in particular?

Did you really think I haven't considered all the possible explanations for the things I experienced, and only when others weren't satisfactorily explaining the phenomena, that I settled on mind-reading/mind-control.
 

Mickster

Well-Known Member
Sorry that you feel insulted. I do not know you personally, wish you no harm, and do not arbitrarily form opinions on anyone, without firstly listening to what they have to say.

Please remember that it was you who came to an electronic engineering site and made claims of persons unknown reading/controlling your mind. That type of topic is far out on the fringes of what we typically deal with here.

Maybe there are other, more-suitable-for-you, forums out there, which are better able to cater for your views?

Kind regards.

And remember....
Me:
Is there anything that we can tell you, or inform you of, that will change your insistence that someone is reading/controlling your mind?
You:
So, if we cannot change your views with sound reason and logic (without trying to do so electronically) why are you even staying here as a member?
 
Last edited:

AnalogKid

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Did you really think I haven't considered all the possible explanations
I am 100% dead-bang positive you haven't. Based on your postings, one possible explanation you have not considered is that it is something you have not considered.

I'm not being cute here. As a circuit designer, when you fire up a new design for the first time there are four things that might happen:

1. It works perfectly.
2. It powers up safely but does not work as intended.
3. It powers up safely and does nothing at all.
4. It goes *poof*, possibly with sparks, and always with that sweet, acrid smell of learning.

One of the things you learn through 50 years of circuit design, whether you want to or not, is that no matter how carefully you review your design, the BOM, the thermal and spacing conditions, the layout, and the assembly, and no matter how diligently you work to consider all possibilities, sometimes the universe hands you a #4 because you did not, in fact, consider everything.

ak
 

gophert

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
I am 100% dead-bang positive you haven't. Based on your postings, one possible explanation you have not considered is that it is something you have not considered.

I'm not being cute here. As a circuit designer, when you fire up a new design for the first time there are four things that might happen:

1. It works perfectly.
2. It powers up safely but does not work as intended.
3. It powers up safely and does nothing at all.
4. It goes *poof*, possibly with sparks, and always with that sweet, acrid smell of learning.

One of the things you learn through 50 years of circuit design, whether you want to or not, is that no matter how carefully you review your design, the BOM, the thermal and spacing conditions, the layout, and the assembly, and no matter how diligently you work to consider all possibilities, sometimes the universe hands you a #4 because you did not, in fact, consider everything.

ak

I had a number 4 today. I did not leave a large enough copper pads to anchor an SMD connector and they tend to tear off the board when some ham-fisted technicians connect the plug. My fault. I have seen their ham fists and I should have known better.
 

rjenkinsgb

Active Member
it is also found that about 40 J/cmz incident energy density per pulse wai required.
...
Do those power requirements seem like large amounts to you?
Yes.

Sunlight (1000W per square metre) = 100mW 0r 0.1 Watts per square centimetre. That's 0.1 Joule per second.
(Ten times higher than the legal limit for EM exposure from any electrical or radio equipment the public has access to, at 10mW per square cm).

40 Joules per square centimetre (assuming it's delivered in one second) is 400 times higher - it's the EM equivalent of heating something with a magnifying glass.

For something with about 20 square centimetres surface area, it's about the same energy as putting it in a 800W microwave oven for a second.

I reiterate:
We are not saying that some "influencing" effects are not possible, with the right equipment - but the equipment involved is large, heavy, expensive, needs power and above all needs very close proximity.

Sorry, but if cannot accept basic, well established and well proven facts of physics, there is no point continuing the discussion. YCEP..

Spend a few decades designing and working with radio, computer and power electronics then come back and discuss things, when you understand the realities of what you are trying to discuss.
 
I am 100% dead-bang positive you haven't. Based on your postings, one possible explanation you have not considered is that it is something you have not considered.

I'm not being cute here. As a circuit designer, when you fire up a new design for the first time there are four things that might happen:

1. It works perfectly.
2. It powers up safely but does not work as intended.
3. It powers up safely and does nothing at all.
4. It goes *poof*, possibly with sparks, and always with that sweet, acrid smell of learning.

One of the things you learn through 50 years of circuit design, whether you want to or not, is that no matter how carefully you review your design, the BOM, the thermal and spacing conditions, the layout, and the assembly, and no matter how diligently you work to consider all possibilities, sometimes the universe hands you a #4 because you did not, in fact, consider everything.

ak
I reiterate:



Sorry, but if cannot accept basic, well established and well proven facts of physics, there is no point continuing the discussion. YCEP..

Spend a few decades designing and working with radio, computer and power electronics then come back and discuss things, when you understand the realities of what you are trying to discuss.
Have you both looked up this patent mentioned below?

Please search Google for "Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves".

You'll get a patent for it, it has been available since 1974. And it has also been used to remotely monitor and alter brain waves.
 

ChrisP58

Well-Known Member
Please search Google for "Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves".

You'll get a patent for it, it has been available since 1974. And it has also been used to remotely monitor and alter brain waves.
Patents are granted based on it being a unique product, process or idea.

But there's no requirement that the product work, or to be useful, to be granted a patent.
 

kubeek

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Please search Google for "Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves".

You'll get a patent for it, it has been available since 1974. And it has also been used to remotely monitor and alter brain waves.
If I wanted, I can patent apparatus for talking to the dead, undead and Zeus himself, but that does not mean that any of the b.s. I write there needs to have even the slightest chance of actually working or being based on reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

EE World Online Articles

Loading

 
Top