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.

 

NSA Mind Control Technology and A.I. Revealed

page: 18
99
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by somerandomuser
Got Deepthought's view on this:



From Deepthought:

Very, very close guys. The E-field that propagates along the axon is not a group phenomenom. The influx of ions changes the potential of the cell's membrane. So, this E-field is produced by the membrane itself, as such, it is a time-varying field for the purpose of Maxwell's equations.

Hope this helps,


Looks like we were both off a bit here.


I dunno, I'm pretty sure it is. You most certainly get time-varying fields transverse to the axon, that's what the ion channels and pumps are for. However, once the depolarized volume is in the middle of the axon, the actual potential difference between the volume and the axon ends is the same no matter where the volume is in the length of the axon. I'd concede a boundary issue as the volume forms at one end. But once you have the depolarized area in place, the actual e-fields between that area, wherever it is, and the ends of the axon are relatively stable. Once it reaches the far end you end up with another boundary transition. So I'll give you two impulse functions at the beginning and end. Everything else is either ion channels opening in front or ion pumps spinning away in the back. You'll get a different rate of change at the two edges.

It's even weirder with saltatory conduction. Leaving that alone for now.




posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by somerandomuser

Looks like you are copying the posts for offline editing.


If you don't, the ATS demons will wait for you to post a magnum opus, then eat it.

ps sayonara for tonight. Since you're eating up all my play time, go figure out the nature of optically triggered exothermic reactions in carbon nanotubes (and probably graphene). I need to understand the mechanism well enough to fake a grant paper.


I just can't tell you why. Think of it as service to God, Country, and the DOE. (flag waving in background, cue Lee Greenwood singing "God Bless the USA")
edit on 19-2-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
I dunno, I'm pretty sure it is. You most certainly get time-varying fields transverse to the axon, that's what the ion channels and pumps are for. However, once the depolarized volume is in the middle of the axon, the actual potential difference between the volume and the axon ends is the same no matter where the volume is in the length of the axon. I'd concede a boundary issue as the volume forms at one end. But once you have the depolarized area in place, the actual e-fields between that area, wherever it is, and the ends of the axon are relatively stable. Once it reaches the far end you end up with another boundary transition. So I'll give you two impulse functions at the beginning and end. Everything else is either ion channels opening in front or ion pumps spinning away in the back. You'll get a different rate of change at the two edges.

It's even weirder with saltatory conduction. Leaving that alone for now.


Everything I can find appears to agree with Deepthought's view:



Thus, the membrane potential is physically located only in the immediate vicinity of the membrane. It is the separation of these charges across the membrane that is the basis of the membrane voltage.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, the membrane potential is a time-varying E-field, otherwise there would be no membrane voltage.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by somerandomuser

Looks like you are copying the posts for offline editing.


If you don't, the ATS demons will wait for you to post a magnum opus, then eat it.

ps sayonara for tonight. Since you're eating up all my play time, go figure out the nature of optically triggered exothermic reactions in carbon nanotubes (and probably graphene). I need to understand the mechanism well enough to fake a grant paper.


I just can't tell you why. Think of it as service to God, Country, and the DOE. (flag waving in background, cue Lee Greenwood singing "God Bless the USA")
edit on 19-2-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)


I'll get right on it...if you cut me in.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by somerandomuser
So, the membrane potential is a time-varying E-field, otherwise there would be no membrane voltage.


No, no I agree the *membrane* potential is time-varying. It's the only thing that is in a real sense, if you exclude boundary conditions and impulse functions which are *probably* second-order. Still need to think a lot about that.

The e-field changes are all membrane changes, transverse to the axon. The action potential is what I'm saying is not a real charge motion. It's a group phenomenon caused by the membrane changes. Sort of analogous to the "wave" in a stadium. Nothing's really propagating down the bleachers, it's individual people raising and lowering their arms. In the axon, the action potential seems to propagate down the axon like a charge, but it's caused by ion channels removing and adding charge from the sides. The ion flow down the axon is always one direction and doesn't alternate. Unless the action potential's at one end or the other, then you get what looks like an impulse function as the axonal ion current starts or stops.

Anyway, it's the first really nice day outside since I got back, (eric cartman voice on) so you guys can kiss my ass (eric cartman voice off). I only get a few days, then it's back to cafeteria food and night shifts for a couple more months.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by somerandomuser
I'll get right on it...if you cut me in.


If I can get DOE to buy off on the research grant, you might meet your first real MIBs and have an ad-hoc security clearance experience, unless we can find some way to hide the money transfer.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
The action potential is what I'm saying is not a real charge motion. It's a group phenomenon caused by the membrane changes.


But the action potential is the membrane voltage in motion, or an E-field in motion. Think of a battery, you could claim the voltage in a circuit is the result of a group phenomenon at the terminals. So, as it is an E-field in motion, the following applies:



An electric field that changes with time, such as due to the motion of charged particles in the field, influences the local magnetic field. That is, the electric and magnetic fields are not completely separate phenomena; what one observer perceives as an electric field, another observer in a different frame of reference perceives as a mixture of electric and magnetic fields.

en.wikipedia.org...




Originally posted by Bedlam
The ion flow down the axon is always one direction and doesn't alternate.


True, but the action potentional itself is an E-field changing from a negative state to a positive state. That's an alternating current.

Found a good video for anyone following this:




posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by somerandomuser
I'll get right on it...if you cut me in.


If I can get DOE to buy off on the research grant, you might meet your first real MIBs and have an ad-hoc security clearance experience, unless we can find some way to hide the money transfer.


Ok, my first idea would be a modified form of the Wigner effect. Use a laser to knock out the atoms and build a displacement cascade. In theory, this should work. You could do a study on optimal firing patterns and interstitial arrangements.

I'm sure its good enough for a research grant.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by somerandomuser

But the action potential is the membrane voltage in motion, or an E-field in motion.


No, the membrane depolarization is the e-field in motion. When the ion channels open in the axon wall, or the ion pumps return the charged ions to the lumen, you get charge motion through the membrane sort of perpendicular to the wall. Opening of the ion channels causes a depolarized blob in the axonal lumen. The ion channels at the leading edge of the blob are then provoked to open, and the depolarized area spreads a little more at the front, and the ion pumps behind it restore the resting potential, so the depolarized blob changes location. But the only major charge motion is transverse to the lumen wall.



Think of a battery, you could claim the voltage in a circuit is the result of a group phenomenon at the terminals. So, as it is an E-field in motion, the following applies:


It's not the same. It's more like one of those chasers around a movie marquee. It looks like a blob of light is moving around the periphery but it's just individual lamps in the chain turning on and off, nothing's really in motion.




True, but the action potentional itself is an E-field changing from a negative state to a positive state. That's an alternating current.


But that field is changing across the membrane perpendicularly from inside the axon lumen to outside. I agree that component IS composed of moving charges. But the action potential propagating down the axon is like a movie chaser or people doing the wave at the stadium - it's not a charge in motion. It's a discharged bit of axonal goo whose location changes in time, but not due to something charged moving down the length of the axon, it's due to charges moving in and out of the axon wall just ahead and just behind of the current location of the depolarized spot.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by somerandomuser

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by somerandomuser
I'll get right on it...if you cut me in.


If I can get DOE to buy off on the research grant, you might meet your first real MIBs and have an ad-hoc security clearance experience, unless we can find some way to hide the money transfer.


Ok, my first idea would be a modified form of the Wigner effect. Use a laser to knock out the atoms and build a displacement cascade. In theory, this should work. You could do a study on optimal firing patterns and interstitial arrangements.

I'm sure its good enough for a research grant.


Heck, for all of me it might be what's happening.

I was initially looking at optical dyes, trying to sort of lase them by causing a population inversion with an external optical pump, then letting them decay, or stimulating them to decay all at once, but trying to couple the drop into activation energy of another non-photochemical reaction. Visions of zwitterions were dancing in my head, when someone in a meeting whom I don't have regular access to said 'you know, you can get this wild exothermic reaction from carbon nanotubes to certain wavelengths of monochromatic light', which was even better, because one form of what I'm trying to couple the activation energy into uses graphene for one of the reactants. Heck, if I can toggle the graphene off, or use carbon nanotubes instead of graphene and then trigger that, I can cut the firechain complexity somewhat. And I needed it to be optically picky anyway for safety reasons.

Then I got my eight days off and it's all in a notebook. Oh well, I should maybe have a normal hobby.

Ideally, it'll take a nice high milliwatt/cm^2 pulse in some narrow near UV band, and be insensitive to anything else, and wackily exothermic, and have a total reaction time in the low nanosecond range. Whether I can get that is the big question.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
No, the membrane depolarization is the e-field in motion.


hmmm...



In biology, depolarization is a change in a cell's membrane potential, making it more positive, or less negative.

en.wikipedia.org...



In physiology, an action potential is a short-lasting event in which the electrical membrane potential of a cell rapidly rises and falls, following a consistent trajectory...

...Synaptic inputs to a neuron cause the membrane to depolarize or hyperpolarize; that is, they cause the membrane potential to rise or fall. Action potentials are triggered when enough depolarization accumulates to bring the membrane potential up to threshold.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, an action potential is just the E-field reaching a threshold. It is still an E-field in motion.



Originally posted by Bedlam
It's not the same. It's more like one of those chasers around a movie marquee. It looks like a blob of light is moving around the periphery but it's just individual lamps in the chain turning on and off, nothing's really in motion.


I don't agree with this. The charges in motion are moving an E-field down the axon, not a collection of E-fields that appear as the ions rush in.

The charges are propagating a wave.



Originally posted by Bedlam
But that field is changing across the membrane perpendicularly from inside the axon lumen to outside. I agree that component IS composed of moving charges. But the action potential propagating down the axon is like a movie chaser or people doing the wave at the stadium - it's not a charge in motion. It's a discharged bit of axonal goo whose location changes in time, but not due to something charged moving down the length of the axon, it's due to charges moving in and out of the axon wall just ahead and just behind of the current location of the depolarized spot.


An E-field does not require a charge in motion, in the sense you are referring to it. As I said above, the depolarisation causes an E-field to form, the action potential is triggered and that E-field is moved along the axon.

If this were not the case. we would observe the action potential as a progressive series of pulses running the length of the axon, as the gaps between the gates would cause the potential to change.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
Heck, for all of me it might be what's happening.


Well, if you can get it to work and can get it to scale it up. You have a safe new power source that could replace coal. You just need to release enough energy to set it on fire.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Deepthought just sent me this:



Transmembrane potential generated by a magnetically induced transverse electric field in a cylindrical axonal model.

During the electrical stimulation of a uniform, long, and straight nerve axon, the electric field oriented parallel to the axon has been widely accepted as the major field component that activates the axon. Recent experimental evidence has shown that the electric field oriented transverse to the axon is also sufficient to activate the axon, by inducing a transmembrane potential within the axon. The transverse field can be generated by a time-varying magnetic field via electromagnetic induction. The aim of this study was to investigate the factors that influence the transmembrane potential induced by a transverse field during magnetic stimulation. Using an unmyelinated axon model, we have provided an analytic expression for the transmembrane potential under spatially uniform, time-varying magnetic stimulation. Polarization of the axon was dependent on the properties of the magnetic field (i.e., orientation to the axon, magnitude, and frequency). Polarization of the axon was also dependent on its own geometrical (i.e., radius of the axon and thickness of the membrane) and electrical properties (i.e., conductivities and dielectric permittivities). Therefore, this article provides evidence that aside from optimal coil design, tissue properties may also play an important role in determining the efficacy of axonal activation under magnetic stimulation. The mathematical basis of this conclusion was discussed. The analytic solution can potentially be used to modify the activation function in current cable equations describing magnetic stimulation.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Looks like there are two mechanisms.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by somerandomuser

So, an action potential is just the E-field reaching a threshold. It is still an E-field in motion.


I get the impression we're talking around each other instead of communicating. I can't talk without a white board in front of me to do sketches. Not sure if it means I'm verbally challenged or mainly visual when I think.



An E-field does not require a charge in motion, in the sense you are referring to it. As I said above, the depolarisation causes an E-field to form, the action potential is triggered and that E-field is moved along the axon.


Ah, but the e-field longitudinal to the axon doesn't change - not once the depolarized area forms and starts to propagate and you get away from that damned boundary condition. Consider the depolarized blob about a third of the way down from left to right. The potential difference (there's your e-field..) from the repolarized left end in the resting state to the center of the blob is (Vrest - Vdepolarized), right? Same to the right end - the right end is at the resting state potential, the blob center is about zero potential since the ion channels on the wall of the axon around the blob are all open and are forming a sort of short circuit.

Now, consider the depolarized area has swept 2/3 of the way down. What's the potential difference left to right NOW? The same value. It's still (Vrest - Vdepolarized). And to the right? The same value. No change in the value of the potential, the e-field is static. No moving charges either, other than the passive axonal ion current (Ica from the article). But what's Ica doing the whole time? It's unidirectional too. The positively charged calcium ions are going to move away from the zero potential blob towards the negatively charged resting potential areas, unless I've swapped the signs (doing this from memory). And they always will - the flow is always away, and always about the same rate, whereever the blob is at on the lumen. Except for when it starts and finishes when it hits the end.



If this were not the case. we would observe the action potential as a progressive series of pulses running the length of the axon, as the gaps between the gates would cause the potential to change.


You actually do. Good observation! It's not so obvious in non-myelinated axons, because the ion channels/pumps are comparatively dense and fairly evenly scattered. But when you've got nodal axons, you see the action potential area jump in discrete little hops. Go look up saltatory conduction. Several posts in the thread I've said something like 'things get weird with myelinated axons due to saltatory conduction, I'm going to ignore it for now', and that's what I was talking about.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by somerandomuser
Looks like there are two mechanisms.


At first glance, it sort of sounds like what I've been describing - you have a time-varying transverse component caused by ion channels and pumps and a somewhat static one down the axon, more static once the action potential area starts to propagate, it's weirder at the ends.

Edit to add - I've got to go file my homestead exemption today now that it's not a federal holiday, and I've got some running around to do pre-return. But I'm going to carve out time to read that article you kept posting sometime today.

Here's another thing I suddenly noticed hadn't come up from your end, although I sort of brushed it, and that's the whole near field/far field propagating or not issue as far as your signal goes. When you have antennas that are really badly off in terms of physical size to wavelength, it really screws things up as far as getting the signal to be a propagating radio wave, which is why at one point I started asking you to ponder why ELF/VLF antenna structures were so large even though they couldn't be resonant anyway. Why not make them tiny? But they don't. Why? It all goes back to efficiency, mostly tied to the radiation resistance term. With ELF, it's pretty wonky and oddball because pretty much everything is always in the reactive near field or the radiative near field where everything is tough to predict. It's not the same as far-field aka propagating radio waves. For example, that power density thing with the sphere - that's for far field. In the near field, the e-field drops off as the cube of the distance. It gets odder. Given the wavelengths involved, even satellites are probably going to be in the near field, the reactive near field for 400 Hz goes out something like 750km.

If you have electrically short dipoles, and this has to be the king of all electrically short situations, the e-field generated tends be 'quasi-static', and trade energy back and forth with the radiator rather than propagate, unless you use really wacky reactive compensation which neurons are really short on.

Electrically long dipoles have a sort of opposite effect and spew all their power into non-propagating h-fields, although you won't have that issue with ELF.

While I'm off doing domestic stuff, you might want to look at "electrically short dipole", remember most of the issues they'll be discussing become tough to deal with at dipole physical lengths of 0.1 of the wavelength. In your case it's more like 1E-8 of the wavelength. So multiply the issues by 10 million.

This isn't as good as what's in a couple of books I have lying around here but I don't have to scan and upload it, so look at it as a preview.

Of note:



The eight-watt ELF signal radiates from the dual-site system... (later) ...the Naval transmitter facility can bring as many as three Cummins diesel 1,000 kilowatt three phase power generators online to supply up to three million watts of power for the site. (The three million watts of power is an adjunct to three million more it took from the power grid, IIRC, and yet they get only eight watts out with a huge antenna compared to 1cm, and 6MW of transmitter input power, why? Because radiating ELF is crappily inefficient even when you work at it...Tom)

The submarines can receive ELF messages but they cannot transmit ELF signals because of the large power requirements, the large transmitter size, and the large antenna required to transmit ELF.



Another thing to consider, and I still haven't gotten past the first one or two OP articles, is that you can't get better resolution of emitting sources less than about a wavelength - in this case a wavelength of about 750km - so if your method of mind reading involves actually knowing where in someone's head that neuron was - or separating out any two sources on, say, a complete hemisphere of the world from space, then you are going to have some issues. ELF is big and mushy, and you can't localize it because of resolution limits.




edit on 21-2-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Ha! I don't know if you believe in serendipity, but I was putzing around looking for a good article on short dipole radiation resistance and hit this. (pdf)

They talk about having to use quasi-static field approximations because the antenna length is too short, but this is also one of those seminal papers like Dr Helliwell's stuff. In the intro, they talk about VLF wave particle interactions from a satellite. Helliwell ended up doing some of the work from the ground in the Antarctic, and years later, the same stuff was first done at HAARP, then from the STS on some of those classified missions, and now from satellites as discussed in that paper in 1967. One practical application of that was to clear the inner magnetosphere of high speed electrons trapped there by CMEs and high altitude nuclear detonations, so your satellites don't fry.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Right, before we go any further, let's summarise the evidence so far:

1. Scientific paper demonstrating the reception of ELF waves from humans.
2. 3 scientific abstracts demonstrating the control of neural firing patterns using ELF E-Field.
3. A scientific paper demonstrating the control of neural firing patterns using a time-varying magnetic field.

So, we need to identify the source of point 1. We have two candidates, the depolarisation/action potential and a transverse E-Field.

We also need to identify the mechanism for point two. What exactly is the external E-Field interacting with that induces the axon into firing.

Finally, we have a very good description of the mechanism, but nothing on the frequencies used.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
I get the impression we're talking around each other instead of communicating. I can't talk without a white board in front of me to do sketches. Not sure if it means I'm verbally challenged or mainly visual when I think.


I got Deepthought to help with this:



From Deepthought:

I use MS paint a lot.


I do get his point. In a strict interpretation, depolarization is the change of potential, whereas an action potential describes the entire mechanism of the propagation when a certain threshold is reached.


Well, that was simple.



Originally posted by Bedlam[
Ah, but the e-field longitudinal to the axon doesn't change - not once the depolarized area forms and starts to propagate and you get away from that damned boundary condition...

...You actually do. Good observation! It's not so obvious in non-myelinated axons, because the ion channels/pumps are comparatively dense and fairly evenly scattered. But when you've got nodal axons, you see the action potential area jump in discrete little hops. Go look up saltatory conduction. Several posts in the thread I've said something like 'things get weird with myelinated axons due to saltatory conduction, I'm going to ignore it for now', and that's what I was talking about.


and...



From Deepthought:

I am not opposed to this. If the exact mechanism was simple, then everybody would be doing it. We are also moving from classical viewpoints, to quantum theory at this stage. I may have found an explanation that fits with Bedlam's viewpoint and may explain why ELF fields can control firing patterns.

Modeling the effect of an external electric field on the velocity of spike propagation in a nerve fiber

John M. Myers
Gordon McKay Laboratory, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Received 21 April 1999; published in the issue dated November 1999

The effect of an externally generated electric field on the propagation of action potentials is modeled, assuming the Hodgkin-Huxley equation for the voltage-dependent conductance of the membrane of a nerve fiber. With some simplifying assumptions, this conductance together with Maxwell’s equations leads to the Hodgkin-Huxley differential equations for propagation, modified by a term proportional to the gradient of the externally generated electric field component along the nerve fiber. Computer solution of these equations shows the influence of an electric field gradient on propagation velocity. When the electric field oscillates, voltage spikes starting later along a given axon advance or lag relative to earlier spikes, so the time between spikes at the receiving end differs from the time between spike originations. The amount that a low-frequency electric field modulates pulse timing at the end of a fiber relative to that at the beginning is estimated under several conditions.
pre.aps.org...


I am starting to see this also, correct me if I am wrong, but by modulating the pulse timing with an ELF field, you could effect neural codings based upon rate.
edit on 21-2-2012 by somerandomuser because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Just a thought...if we have an E-Field running parallel to the axon, and we have charged particles moving transverse to that field, then we have an E-Field that is changing with time.

It would be like ripples in a pond and an action potential like a big splash.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
Here's another thing I suddenly noticed hadn't come up from your end, although I sort of brushed it, and that's the whole near field/far field propagating or not issue as far as your signal goes...


True, but we are not trying to radiate watts of power and we are also not dealing with a traditional antenna design. I think before we can discuss this properly, we need to identify the mechanisms that produced the detectable ELF waves from a human. If we can do that, then we will have a better idea of how much power is actually radiated.


Originally posted by Bedlam
Another thing to consider, and I still haven't gotten past the first one or two OP articles, is that you can't get better resolution of emitting sources less than about a wavelength - in this case a wavelength of about 750km - so if your method of mind reading involves actually knowing where in someone's head that neuron was - or separating out any two sources on, say, a complete hemisphere of the world from space, then you are going to have some issues. ELF is big and mushy, and you can't localize it because of resolution limits.


Well, we don't need to know where the neuron is. Also, triangulation can be achieved, but its an entirely different issue. I'll just say that the signal is not limited to ELF, but extends up the band too. At this point, we will just assume that a machine is hacking its way through a collection of signals.
edit on 21-2-2012 by somerandomuser because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join