• 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.

atferrari

Well-Known Member
My ignore list is going to include a fresh member in few seconds.
 

JimB

Super Moderator
Most Helpful Member

Mickster

Well-Known Member
I read them and try to get some sort of understanding of how they came to the conclusions that they have.
It seemed pretty obvious that the OP was just going to keep going round in circles, no matter what answers were given, so that’s why I asked the direct Yes/No question. As the answer was No, there’s no point continuing to try and help, IMO.
 

AnalogKid

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Have you both looked up this patent mentioned below?
Read it front to back. Lotsa hand waving, zero detail about the hard parts. Electrical activity in the brain was documented in 1875, so no secret there. This patent was applied for shortly after the first MRI images were published, so no secret there either. Note that the former required having your skull removed, and the latter required a *building* full of equipment. Better than sawing open your skull, but still ... not exactly covert.

With a rack full of (secret, non-detailed, unknown) image processing gear, the patent technique can tell you if a person is alive or dead, and possibly awake or asleep. But it cannot do either of the two absolutely critical things needed to support your claims:

1. Implant an image of a cat in your "mind's eye".

2. Detect that you are replaying in your head "The Spirit of Radio".

ak

Correction: 1974 - ... rack<s> (as in three-to-five) full of image processing gear ... Also, "monitoring brainwaves" and detecting a specific thought are so vastly different as to be non-related. The software would take at least 45 years to develop. We know this because it has been 45 years and it still does not exist.

Full disclosure: I used "The Spirit of Radio" as an example because it is swirling around in my head. My brother and I are going to perform it at the family reunion. Bass and drums only, no guitar or vocals. Use the system detailed in the patent to determine which of the two I play.
 
Last edited:

AnalogKid

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
My brother and I are going to perform it at the family reunion. Bass and drums only, no guitar or vocals. Use the system detailed in the patent to determine which of the two I play.
Snarkiness aside, let's examine this.

An FMRI system can detect activity in certain areas of the brain. Note, "activity" is just that and nothing more; no specific thoughts, images, etc. You can compare this to a baseline scan of the same brain and area and deduce changes in that activity. Under *extremely tightly controlled conditions* you can make a judgement (not admissible in court as direct evidence) about stuff. For example, you can see if activity in the pleasure centers increases or decreases a few minutes after seeing an image of a Nazi death camp; or (spoiler) of my brother playing bass. But the "resolution" is poor. Again in this example, I really enjoy experiencing my brother playing bass, and I really enjoy playing drums. To me, the two are very different sensations. To the machine (again, huge structure, massive electrical needs, *liquid helium* cooling system) they are ***identical***.

FMRI resolution is a few millimeters and requires that your head be clamped in a stabilizing cage. That is a loooooooooooooooong way from guys in a disguised panel van outside your house "reading thoughts".

ak
 

Beau Schwabe

Active Member
Does anyone see a fundamental problem here? Yes distilled water does not conduct, but start adding impurities to it and get back to me later on what you find happens to the level of conductivity. Just don't use a monitor for "conducting" your test please.
 
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.
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.
The patent has been cited by 20 institutes including MIT and University of Cincinati. Why would they do that if it didn't work?
 

Mickster

Well-Known Member
There’s a patent for a space elevator,
US9085897B2...
 
I read them and try to get some sort of understanding of how they came to the conclusions that they have.
It seemed pretty obvious that the OP was just going to keep going round in circles, no matter what answers were given, so that’s why I asked the direct Yes/No question. As the answer was No, there’s no point continuing to try and help, IMO.
As you consider this futile, why post in this thread?

There’s a patent for a space elevator,
US9085897B2...
Has it been cited by MIT?
 

Nigel Goodwin

Super Moderator
Most Helpful Member
The patent has been cited by 20 institutes including MIT and University of Cincinati. Why would they do that if it didn't work?
What has that got to do with it?, MIT do mostly complete crap, as most such institutions do - there have been an occasional great idea to come out of MIT (as with everywhere else), but most is utter rubbish. I can't remember what the last news bulletin was from MIT, but it was something absolutely rubbish, as if they had nothing useful to show, but just HAD to get something on the news.

As for what they might, or might not, be doing work on - Universities use the 'shotgun' approach, they tend to have people working on ANYTHING, almost all will be complete failures (it makes no difference to your degree), but just occasionally something wonderful will result from it, such as the invention of Graphine at Manchester.

Negative results are just as important as positive ones, and the VAST majority of University work give negative results.

As an example when my daughter was doing her Chemistry Phd, the instructions were to prepare the specimen (I'm not sure what it was, but nothing overly complicated) and place in a fridge for SEVERAL years - as the Phd was 3.25 years, it's seems highly likely the said specimens still in the fridge :D

But as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the content of that Patent is nothing like what you're claiming anyway - there's also been a recent news article about controlling machinery directly from the brain, but again it's nothing like what it sounds, and similar things have been done for decades.

The principles are quite simple - there are a number of different waveforms in the brain, and these can be detected via electrodes on the skull with huge amounts of amplification. Certain of this waveforms can be altered by performing certain actions (such as meditating), and the change in waveform can be detected by the electronics, and used to perform an action - such as switching alight ON when you reach a certain level of meditation, and OFF when you're below that level.

That's pretty much the level of current technology, and not much has really changed for a number of decades.
 
Read it front to back. Lotsa hand waving, zero detail about the hard parts. Electrical activity in the brain was documented in 1875, so no secret there. This patent was applied for shortly after the first MRI images were published, so no secret there either. Note that the former required having your skull removed, and the latter required a *building* full of equipment. Better than sawing open your skull, but still ... not exactly covert.

With a rack full of (secret, non-detailed, unknown) image processing gear, the patent technique can tell you if a person is alive or dead, and possibly awake or asleep. But it cannot do either of the two absolutely critical things needed to support your claims:

1. Implant an image of a cat in your "mind's eye".

2. Detect that you are replaying in your head "The Spirit of Radio".

ak

Correction: 1974 - ... rack<s> (as in three-to-five) full of image processing gear ... Also, "monitoring brainwaves" and detecting a specific thought are so vastly different as to be non-related. The software would take at least 45 years to develop. We know this because it has been 45 years and it still does not exist.

Full disclosure: I used "The Spirit of Radio" as an example because it is swirling around in my head. My brother and I are going to perform it at the family reunion. Bass and drums only, no guitar or vocals. Use the system detailed in the patent to determine which of the two I play.
How would you know all the technological improvements which have taken place since you studied? How many improvements might have been kept secret from the entire world? In the 70s, if you had to make a call you needed a device which was about the size of a watermelon, now you have something which can fit in your pocket, and it does more than just calling. Most likely the device which you have in your pocket called smartphone has more processing power than mainframe computers which put the man on the moon. Back then, a microphone's sensors needed to be about the size of a tennis ball, now the microphones in your smartphone are so small, I'm sure, most people can't even identify it. Your ideas are stuck on your understanding of technology of 70s, what you think requires building full of equipment, might now be done by nothing more than a device of the size of a chocolate bar, maybe even by a small circle, like a coin.

I'm not a software engineer so I don't know how much time it would take to build the software you say will do that, but the time can be reduced by throwing more people at it. With AI, it can be reduced even further. If you are not a software engineer, it is also wrong for you to make such prediction.

I again bring up the example of image of black hole, which was 50 MILLION LIGHT-YEARS away, how many other black holes do you think would have been in the way of that black hole they were looking for? They had to isolate the one they were looking for from the signals of many black holes, if it could be done with that, there is no reason it cannot be done with brain, neurons, etc. The same technology can be used to force a person to think along certain lines, see images, etc. Do you know about Mohammed from Islam religion, he claimed he heard from God, I'm not sure but Jesus Christ seemed to have claimed similar things.

The problem here is that most of you have a electrical background, whereas the technology of mind-reading/mind-control also requires an understanding of neuroscience, electrical engineering and many other disciplines, the people who have developed these technologies would have had experts from all these fields, combining them they would have achieved it. What you think is impossible, might not be impossible when you bring neuroscientists, etc to the purpose of mind-reading/mind-control.

Since I asked that question about Faraday shield, I noticed a marked decrease in the intensity of what I was feeling till then. Now you may give me a fancy cause for this, but I think the scumbags who were using mind-reading/mind-control worried that if build Faraday shield and use it, I'll be somewhat invulnerable, this would be disadvantageous to them, so to prevent that scenario, they backed off a little, to lure me into a false sense of security, that I don't need a faraday shield, so that I may still be vulnerable to their torture.
 

unclejed613

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
There is no possible way that someone or something could have known something I have thought or felt.
there are a few things at work here that don't require mind reading or mind control to explain.
first, you must be aware that you are looking at this matter subjectively. all the pieces seem to fit a preconceived conclusion, so you are cementing them in place with "confirmation bias".


second, there's a concept known as "zeitgeist", which, translated to english is"spirit of the time". people are influenced in very similar ways, especially if they share a common culture, and this effect is magnified in our modern culture by the instantaneous nature of communications. there is a related principal in science and engineering, which is a very good example of "zeitgeist". it was originally explained by the science fiction writer Robert Heinlein, who used the phrase “When railroading time comes you can railroad—but not before.” (from "A Door Into Summer")
what he meant was, before the infrastructure, materials, and technology came to a certain state in history, nobody was building railroads, because the science and engineering to build a railroad didn't exist. even though steam engines were originally invented in ancient Greece, nobody made the connection that steam power could take the place of horsepower. the materials didn't exist (especially steel), and the understanding of mechanical devices had not progressed far enough. precision metalworking was only done in small scale, and usually only for decorative purposes. it was when steam power was made to operate machinery, the supply of steel was of good quality and sufficient amounts of it were available, mechanical processes better understood, and metalwork had developed precision fabrication, that all the pieces were in place. when the state of technology got to that point, engineers and tinkerers all suddenly started independently working on the idea of railroads. think of the example of Nikola Tesla, who invented remote control by radio, RADAR, and many other things the world wasn't quite ready for. to use the example of RADAR, Tesla had demonstrated the idea in the 1920's. RADAR didn't actually get developed until the late 1930s when the level of technology could finally implement a usable RADAR system. once the level of technology could support RADAR, everybody was developing it (some faster than others... during WWII, Britain and the USA developed RADAR very quickly, with Germany developing RADAR a close second, and Japan developed crude RADAR systems that could act as a "tripwire" (the radar could tell when aircraft or ships were somewhere within range, but not direction, range, altitude, position or course). much RADAR development was completely independent, but the fact that "everybody" started developing it in secret all at the same time, does not point to mind reading, but Heinlein's "railroading principal". as the speed and availability of instantaneous communication increases, it increases the likelihood that many people will have the same ideas at the same time, but it's part of human nature, not some kind of mind control program.

third, we all gravitate towards people of like mind, so our thoughts sometimes aren't completely our own, because they reflect some common interest, and we unconsciously plagiarize each other.

fourth, when you begin looking for something in particular, you begin finding it everywhere... if i wanted to find a piece of pitchblende so that i could use it to test an idea of a simple radiation detector, pretty soon, i would be overwhelmed at how many rocks there are that are green, or have green streaks in them. of course, not many of them would contain pitchblende, so i would be seeing a lot of "false positives", but when you are looking for pitchblende you are looking for green rocks
 

unclejed613

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Since I asked that question about Faraday shield, I noticed a marked decrease in the intensity of what I was feeling till then. Now you may give me a fancy cause for this, but I think the scumbags who were using mind-reading/mind-control worried that if build Faraday shield and use it, I'll be somewhat invulnerable, this would be disadvantageous to them, so to prevent that scenario, they backed off a little, to lure me into a false sense of security, that I don't need a faraday shield, so that I may still be vulnerable to their torture.
there is a characteristic of government agencies where they have to regularly ask for funding. to justify funding, they need to have a valid reason to spend that money. so, how much money is a government agency willing to spend on you? what makes you so valuable that they are supposedly paying personnel to watch and monitor you around the clock? how much are they spending on technical hardware to keep you under their thumb? you would need to be a terrorist, drug smuggler, foreign spy or some other high profile target for them to spend that kind of money and effort. this is the threat model you are assuming.
 

AnalogKid

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
How would you know all the technological improvements which have taken place since you studied?
I read a *lot*. Whatever you think that means, multiply by 10.
How many improvements might have been kept secret from the entire world? In the 70s, if you had to make a call you needed a device which was about the size of a watermelon, now you have something which can fit in your pocket, and it does more than just calling. Most likely the device which you have in your pocket called smartphone has more processing power than mainframe computers which put the man on the moon. Back then, a microphone's sensors needed to be about the size of a tennis ball, now the microphones in your smartphone are so small, I'm sure, most people can't even identify it. Your ideas are stuck on your understanding of technology of 70s, what you think requires building full of equipment, might now be done by nothing more than a device of the size of a chocolate bar, maybe even by a small circle, like a coin
Where to begin. This is not the first time you have stated (as opposed to opined) that my knowledge is somehow old, as if the physics of the universe have magically changes when no one was looking. Of course, you have been wrong every time, but it supports you pre-conceptions so you keep going with it. The *only* reason I mentioned 1974 is that that is the date of the patent that *you* referenced. I mentioned the racks of equipment needed to support the concept because most people - like you - do not have the technical background to see what is *not* in the patent description. I am way more aware than most people of the advancements in electronics and software over the last 5 decades, for the simple reason that I worked in electronics and software for the last 5 decades, including both university-level research and military equipment. Not only do I know what a smart phone can do, I know why and how, right down to the component and OS levels.

BTW, back then, the electret microphone cartridge already was in use world wide for about 20 years, and was about the size of a marble. Dynamic mics were the standard for quality because those electret cartridges had very poor bass response. But even way back then, the actual dynamic cartridge was much smaller than you describe. Today's MEMS microphones (in your phone) are much smaller, and an absolute ***** to solder in place by hand, but they sound like crap.

Also, a typical smartphone CPU has a higher clock speed than the "big iron" mainframes of the 60's, and a ton more memory. But they are completely bogged down by much worse net I/O bandwidth and indescribably bad software design.

ak
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

EE World Online Articles

Loading

 
Top