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

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: tanka418

You are aware that, in this instance, the electromagnetic field is the same as the magnetic field. In face the only difference is that the electromagnetic field is created by the orderly movement of electrons along a compact path. And a magnetic field is created by the alignment of magnetic dipoles within a material.

not in the case of an LCD which is what we were discussing

What is being discussed in the patient is the effect of weak electromagnetic fields on the skin.

no. no. no. from the patent (sigh...)

The human eye is less sensitive to changes in hue than to changes in brightness. In composite video this fact allows using a chrominance bandwidth that is smaller than the luminance bandwidth. But it also has the consequence that pulsing of the chrominance for fixed luminance allows larger pulse amplitudes while staying within the subliminal pulse regime. Eq. (3) shows how to pulse the chrominance components R-Y and B-Y while keeping Y fixed;

eye eye eye. not forgetting the Near-infrared window in biological tissue where photons will actually penetrate the skin and according to this patent stimulate nerve ending in a predictable way.

he also mentions experiments on crayfish in the paper. doesnt mean the patent is about crayfish.

you say ""That part about how the current is replaced by voltage actually shows a lack of understanding about how this would work. While in the LCD, the opacity and color of the crystal filter is controlled by voltage; voltage does not contribute to the intensity of any electromagnetic effects present...only current can do that.'

RGB values are entirely dependent on either voltage, or timing and current. In the LCD the crystal filter is controlled by voltage, in the CRT color and brightness are controlled by both current and timing...the beam must be striking an appropriate colored phosphor dot.

So if you say voltage does not contribute to the intensity of any electromagnetic effects present AND In the LCD the crystal filter is controlled by voltage isnt the intensity of the electromagnetic field (the image on the monitor) controlled by voltage?
the pulsation he describes repeatedly in the patent is a matter of pulsations in the RGB values of the pixels and/or the backlight of the monitor.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: tanka418

well, theres this from the patent

Screen emissions also occur for liquid crystal displays (LCD). The pulsed electric fields may have considerable amplitude for LCDs that have their driving electrodes on opposite sides of the liquid crystal cell, for passive matrix as well as for active matrix design, such as thin film technology (TFT). For arrangements with in-plane switching (IPS) however, the driving electrodes are positioned in a single plane, so that the screen emission is very small. For arrangements other than IPS, the electric field is closely approximated by the fringe field of a two-plate condenser, for the simple case that the image is uniform and extends over the full screen. For a circular LCD screen with radius R, the field on the center line can be readily calculated as due to pulsed dipoles that are uniformly distributed over the screen, with the result

E d(z)=(½)VR 2/(z 2 +R 2)[fraction (3/2)],  (21)

where Ed(z) is the amplitude of the pulsed electric field at a distance z from the screen and V is a voltage pulse amplitude, in which the aperture ratio of the LCD has been taken into account. Eq. (21) can be used as an approximation for screens of any shape, by taking R as the radius of a circle with the same area as the screen.

Wow...IPS technology...seriously dates this...late 80's solution for viewing angle and color issues. Virtually all LCD displays to day are thin film transistor(TFT).

And then we have that wee equation; which I have an issue with...the distance variable is never squared nor is its square rot used in this guy's math. In the real world both the "E" and "H" fields operate on an inverse square of the distance...which this guy's math does not properly reflect...course that could also be the poor representation of the equations involved.

originally posted by: dashen

"What is being discussed in the patient is the effect of weak electromagnetic fields on the skin."

no. no. no. from the patent (sigh...)

Sigh indeed! That bit about the effects of weak electromagnetic fields on the skin is from the first sentence of the paper...and you accuse me of not reading it!

eye eye eye. not forgetting the Near-infrared window in biological tissue where photons will actually penetrate the skin and according to this patent stimulate nerve ending in a predictable way.

Again, this person has established a premise, and proceeds to talk about something different. The original premise was the effect of fields on the skin, and now it is changed to the effects of visible light on the nervous system via the eye. These are two completely different things...apples and oranges.

So if you say voltage does not contribute to the intensity of any electromagnetic effects present AND In the LCD the crystal filter is controlled by voltage isnt the intensity of the electromagnetic field (the image on the monitor) controlled by voltage?


the pulsation he describes repeatedly in the patent is a matter of pulsations in the RGB values of the pixels and/or the backlight of the monitor.

No...voltage does not contribute. What you are seeing is the effect of a voltage controlled filter, and not the effect of voltage upon the creation of the field being filtered. I'm talking about the field, and voltage does not contribute, current does

By the way; the backlight in your monitor does not change in color or brightness.

Elsewhere in the paper your author talks about the "E" field extending out fro an LCD monitor, but I don't think he tells you that the presence "E" field only constitutes an electrostatic field and not an electromagnetic one, the two are distinctly different.

Frankly, I thought the standards for obtaining a patient were a bit more stringent, but I guess nearly anything that sounds good to the uninitiated will work.

a reply to: tanka418

And conveniently glossed over the part about the near infrared window in biological tissue....

And you said that the rgb values are controlled by voltage. He said intensity for his purposes is a matter of rgb variations.

a reply to: tanka418

Also still conveniently ignoring the fact that pulsating images and pulsing colors have been shown in nature to induce hypnosis and other neurological effects as in the case of a squid or cuttlefish.
Also ignoring the fact that the near-infrared biological window in living tissue meshes nicely with his theory that weak electromagnetic pulses will stimulate subcutaneous nerves, and I mean electromagnetic pulses from the near-infrared to ultraviolet range.
I am NOT a scientist as I mentioned earlier in this thread.
Your intimate knowledge of the workings of some forms of LCD monitor do not dismiss the above points

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: tanka418

Also still conveniently ignoring the fact that pulsating images and pulsing colors have been shown in nature to induce hypnosis and other neurological effects as in the case of a squid or cuttlefish.
Also ignoring the fact that the near-infrared biological window in living tissue meshes nicely with his theory that weak electromagnetic pulses will stimulate subcutaneous nerves, and I mean electromagnetic pulses from the near-infrared to ultraviolet range.

Yes ignoring that which is not germane to the subject.

Remember the little experiment I mentioned a few posts ago? You should try it...it will help to illustrate the fact that visible light, from the near infrared to the ultraviolet do not penetrate skin very well. In fact, electromagnetic radiation of those short wave lengths don't penetrate anything well, especially at the low power densities that would be at play...you keep trying to make this into something that it isn't.

a reply to: tanka418

I have had infrared LEDs on me and they feel hot.
the heat is caused by water molecules absorbing infrared radiation that penetrates the skin which registers as the heat sensation.
A monitor casting an electromagnetic field in the infrared range would cause subtle heating differences on the skin of someone nearby.
And still no mention of the matter of the pulsating images

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: tanka418

I have had infrared LEDs on me and they feel hot.
the heat is caused by water molecules absorbing infrared radiation that penetrates the skin which registers as the heat sensation.
A monitor casting an electromagnetic field in the infrared range would cause subtle heating differences on the skin of someone nearby.
And still no mention of the matter of the pulsating images

That's nice...you are aware that this wee report contains no usable data, right?

What are the LED's specifications?
what is the power source?
How much current are you limiting the LED's to?
How close to your skin are they?

Did you know that LED's are very low power, defused, lasers? Which kind of invalidates the data due to the vast differences in the nature of the EM radiation (omnidirectional vs. defused coherent).

Oh, and just a wee question; Why / how would an LCD monitor create EM in the infrared range, except for losses due to heat?

a reply to: dashen

Anyone with an idea can file a patent on that idea. It doesn't have to work, it doesn't have to be produced, it doesn't have to be functional.
The idea itself can be patented.
There are plenty of people who imagine concepts of the future by extrapolation and probability, then patent those ideas before corporations get hold of them.
Google does it, Microsoft does it, all the defense, robotics and major pharma companies do it.
Seems to me he's doing nothing more than buying up patents in a field he knows a bit about on the belief that something could be done with it in the future.

None of this means it's actually possible, or that it's being done, by anyone.

a reply to: Rocker2013
I would totally agree with you except the text of the patent indicates that he has working models that are proof of concept

originally posted by: Phage
But, does it work?

That is not a requirement of patent approval. You know that, right?

I remember research done on this concept a bit more than a decade ago, the idea was that you could use the EM field from a monitor to get a player into a certain emotional state in a game but then everyone switched away from CRT monitors and it ceased to be viable.

a reply to: Aazadan

Was doing a bit of searching but could not find anything relating to that.
Do you remember where you saw it?

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Aazadan

Was doing a bit of searching but could not find anything relating to that.
Do you remember where you saw it?

Sorry but no, until this thread I hadn't thought about it in the better part of a decade. At the time I was doing design work on an MMO which is how I knew about it, the concept came up in design meetings a lot after a couple papers on the subject were published but we never tried implementing it because it was deemed too high risk (could our programmers do it, would there be a customer backlash if they found out). The time we were discussing it would have been around 2004ish if that helps you track anything down.

a reply to: Aazadan

Do you remember any technical details or what principles it Relied on to produce that effect?

Scientific American - mind control by cell phone

Intriguing read

originally posted by: Phage
But, does it work?

That is not a requirement of patent approval. You know that, right?

Wrong!

Actually "does the unit work as described" is one of the questions on patent applications.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Phage
But, does it work?

That is not a requirement of patent approval. You know that, right?

Wrong!

Actually "does the unit work as described" is one of the questions on patent applications.

Have lots of patients do you? Filled out plenty of these "applications"?, have you?

Course, in this instance y'all don't have to worry...under the right conditions it will perform nearly as advertised...but; you have to pay close attention to those conditions1

And this system is nowhere near what it's cracked up to be.

a reply to: tanka418

LOL
Big difference in having patents and having filled out patent applications.

Yes I speak from experience. There is a question on the form as to if the unit performs certain functions and is able to carry out those functions.

One will not be issued a patent on a perpetual motion machine...

The unit here would have to have some type of functionality in order to get approval. Often it does not have to be demonstrated but explained in such a way that convinces the office that something is plausible. ie it can not be refuted or proven.

If any of you could prove that it is not possible then that would be taken into consideration by the officers.

a reply to: deadeyedick

So...the device doesn't have to work; just sound good on paper to someone who is not qualified to judge...

I say this because in this current instance the claim is made that the same effect can be had from LCD monitors...which is rather easy to prove wrong. The physical mechanisms required to generate such fields do not exist in the LCD...never have.

You see, IF the applicant had not tried to include the LCD, I would not have had any issues with the claim, but, he did, and to me that invalidates the whole thing, as it demonstrates the applicants lack of knowledge and scientific procedure.

There is also the frivolous and "fishing" nature of the whole thing...I would have thought the patient office would be a little better than that.

originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
a reply to: Phage

The fact that ir was even conceived and patented proves some sick people out there would be willing to use it.

Never mind if it works or not.

Actually, I believe ir tech was built upon under the theory by a guy I once knew...

He worked as a photographer, and as we all know, the room he developed his pictures was real dark, and hard to see in.
One day a light came on in his head, and he applied that idea in one of his dark rooms...

The amount of light given off by a red bulb wasn't enough to destroy the photographs, but did allow him to see what he was doing.

That's a story you can call fiction if'n y'all insist.

Anyways, they guy I described donated his idea (decades ago) to the university which employed him, a decent and honorable man.

If I may add;
Just b/c a good dude does something good for others...
in the wrong hands and all that,
night vision became a predatory device in the wrong hands. Used for war and death?

WTF do our evil overlords want to deprive us of this GD time? The ability to look beyond our own noses is hard enough.