It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Patent #US 6506148 B2. -Nervous system manipulation by electromagnetic fields from monitors

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dashen

Stick your finger in a light socket. Guess what?
I've had a couple of MRIs though. Very powerful magnetic field. I didn't feel a thing; physical or otherwise.




I dont think your findings were peer reviewed.
have you tried getting an MRI with your finger in a light socket?

edit on 23-8-2015 by dashen because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   
So the stimulation of watching porn on the internet is a planned event?



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
So the stimulation of watching porn on the internet is a planned event?

The Internet companies are in cahoots with the lotion companies no doubt.
Probably Kleenex too.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dashen

except that the rest of the article suggests positive results
You think that this suggests positive results? Seriously?

Replication of either the negative or positive effects of exposure on cognition is sorely lacking in the scientific literature and more work is required to verify and reconcile differences between studies reporting either contradictory or no effects.




It says more results are needed. At least the studies are being conducted-- and I think that is the point.
I would normally say that most things contrary to nature, such as satellite EMF technology, is normally going to be injurious to the human body, including the including head brain tissue function.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Thats a bunch of bologna.. EMF ElectroMagneticFrequencies are not a health hazard? EMF is actually responsible for a great deal of torture conducted by the us gov. Read what Leuren Moret has to say about that or maybe Deborah Tavares, Barrie Towers from the UK.

Of course EMF is a health hazard. I would not trust studies conducted by the powers that be.

It's like saying ChemoTherapy is not bad for you, and that there is no alternative cure for cancer.
Hurray corporate medicine and science.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen

This is a very valid thing. I personally experience sincere nausea on older monitors with a low frequency refresh in contrast to the higher frequency of overhead fluorescent lighting in offices.

I discovered this close to 20 years ago, early on in my computer programming career. With a bit of experimentation, I realized that working with a different text editor than Notepad where I could change the background color from white to something more soothing and not as high of a contrast as black and white helped significantly.

So, this being said, hell yes...this is very real technology. No, it was not "used against me". Rather, someone has realized what I've known for 20 years, and figured out a way to "weaponize" it.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Ahh the hynotizing power of varying flashes of light on a TV screen and ultrasonic suggestion.

SUBLIMINAL INDOCTRINATION INTENSIFIES......



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Have you people forgotten about the Japanese video of a couple of decades that had flashing red colors that was sending some kids into seizer?



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Xenu is pleased.

*evil laughter intensifies*



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Everyone, put your money where your mouth is, and watch this on a big screen with the lights off and the volume turned way up.
m.youtube.com...

Then tell you you don't feel pumped or excited.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: SheepDipped

Is this your film?



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
But, does it work?



From the patent....

. The subject was facing the “hot” electrode of the doublet, so that at the subject center the electric field was the sum of the parts (21) and (23), for positive values of z. It was thought important to use a sine wave, since that would be the “commercially” preferred pulse shape which allows larger pulse amplitudes without being noticed. The only readily available sine wave generator with the required voltage was an oscillator with a rather coarse frequency control that cannot be set accurately, although the frequency is quite stable and can be measured accurately. For the experiment a pulse frequency of 0.506 Hz was accepted, although it differs considerably from the steady ptosis frequency for this case. The subject experienced several ptosis cycles of moderate intensity, starting 8 minutes into the experiment run. It is concluded that the ½ Hz sensory resonance was excited, and that the stimulating field was close to the weakest field capable of excitation. From Eqs. (21) and (23), the electric field pulse amplitude at the center of mass of the subject was found to be 7.9 mV/m. That an electric field with such a small pulse amplitude, applied to the whole body, is capable of exciting the ½ Hz sensory resonance is consistent with experimental results reported in the '874 patent, although these were obtained for the 2.4 Hz resonance. Next, the distance z max was determined at which the 30″ TV tube with 1% image intensity pulse amplitude produces an electric field with a pulse amplitude of 7.9 mV/m, along the center line of the screen. From Eqs. (13) and (19) one finds z max =362.9 cm. At more than 11 feet, this is a rather large distance for viewing a 30″ TV. Yet, the experiment and theory discussed show that the ½ Hz sensory resonance can be excited at this large distance, by pulsing the image intensity subliminally. Of course, the excitation occurs as well for a range of smaller viewing distances. It is thus apparent that the human nervous system can be manipulated by screen emissions from subliminal TV image pulses



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I just gotta ask, because applying for and seeing through an approved patent is expensive and time consuming, what exactly, Phage, would be the motive to pursue a patent for something that didn't work?

And yeah, from the OP's last entry, it apparently is reported to work. Why would you think it didn't?
edit on 24-8-2015 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

I just gotta ask, because applying for and seeing through an approved patent is expensive and time consuming, what exactly, Phage, would be the motive to pursue a patent for something that didn't work?


Not all that expensive for an individual, a few hundred bucks maybe. Why? For the most part, attempting to get someone else to pay for the research, development, and marketing (through licensing) would be a good reason. No risk and (maybe) something to gain.

I wonder if this one works:
www.google.com...

Motives? Does this guy think he's going to get rich or was there some other motivation for extending the "expense and time" to obtain it?
www.google.com...

edit on 8/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Except those patents were probably filed by some redneck yahoos.
the patent. We are discussing was filed by a prolific scientist and physicist with published theories and who has been working for defense contractors since the 1960s.
Plus the patent mentions working models with positive results
edit on 25-8-2015 by dashen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
OP...did you pay any attention to the date on that body of work?

This is 2015, and, Cathode Ray Tubes are, for the most part, gone. They haven't been used in consumer electronics for nearly a decade now...and of course, you would be very hard pressed to even find one. If you tried to use it; you would be seriously disappointed by its performance since it would not have anywhere near the resolution you are used to.

And as for the effects your paper describes; while absolutely real...never had enough "power" to affect anything more than a few inches from the back of the tube...those are/were very small signals, and, very regular well...it was afterall only a "scan".


In any case the while thing is virtually useless information due to it being rather obsolete.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418
I'm afraid you may have missed a few parts of the patent Text.
The effect has nothing to do with cathode ray tubes or flat screens.
Essentially anything That can produce A pulsing image that can be viewed by the eye Even subliminally produce the desired effect
And the main thing seems to be the pulse rate.
I am only reading the text of the patent. I cannot possibly know if it really works this way Without testing it myself

edit on 26-8-2015 by dashen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: tanka418
I'm afraid you may have missed a few parts of the patent Text.
The effect has nothing to do with cathode ray tubes or flat screens.
Essentially anything That can produce A pulsing image that can be viewed by the eye Even subliminally produce the desired effect
And the main thing seems to be the pulse rate.
I am only reading the text of the patent. I cannot possibly know if it really works this way Without testing it myself


Oh...my bad...so this, from your OP



ABSTRACT
Physiological effects have been observed in a human subject in response to stimulation of the skin with weak electromagnetic fields that are pulsed with certain frequencies near ½ Hz or 2.4 Hz, such as to excite a sensory resonance. Many computer monitors and TV tubes, when displaying pulsed images, emit pulsed electromagnetic fields of sufficient amplitudes to cause such excitation.


is there...for what then...to mislead? Would seem you are trying to talk apples AND oranges...perhaps you should decide the two phenomena are quite different in all respects.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Hey, im just quoting.
But it wouldn't hurt to read the whole thing before complaining about what I posted.
i dont see a contradiction though.
A CRT and a modern flat screen are both capable of emitting low intensity pulses
edit on 26-8-2015 by dashen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: dashen

You and your conspiracy theory. Buncha conspiracy crazies spouting this crazy stuff.

You nutters need to go back on your medication and stop overreacting to US patents about nervous system manipulation via the monitor flicker rate and monitor emf. Its Conspiracy! Tin foil hat! Black helicopters flying over head made of aluminum foil.

When your psychosis clears up please post some solid facts not patented black op technology or declassified defense department memos. DoD is full of conspiracy theory and black helicopters and tin foil!

Gotta be nuts like tom brady right?


Of course we can be manipulated though modulated emf if our bodies are a conductive sack of saline and electrolytes and our nervous system is electro-chemical based. Its not like we are made of paper,glass or rubber(insulators).


edit on 26-8-2015 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: spelling



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join