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

a reply to: tanka418 Yes I followed your post in here and there does seem to be some certain amount of bs to the whole system but at the same time some major functions were proven at least in theory to the patent office. Perhaps the bs lcd part was not enough to negate the whole?

I can say for certain that a handheld emf meter will spike near many lcd screens and if any amount of emf is present then it is just a matter of manipulating that present emf.

I suppose to know for sure one would have to know the varibles in human nervous system and create an artificial system where emf is then raised to levels that create some disturbance in the electrical system. It would not matter the extremity of the disturbance just that flucations of some form happened.

So that would be the proof needed and not an actual screen effecting a human.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: tanka418
Perhaps the bs lcd part was not enough to negate the whole?

obviously, though even I do not doubt the effects of a CRT...

I can say for certain that a handheld emf meter will spike near many lcd screens and if any amount of emf is present then it is just a matter of manipulating that present emf.

So, you've done this experiment?
What kind of LCD screen was it; LED or other? There is s significant and very important difference in how the back light is produced...

Was the emf detected dynamic or steady state?

Perhaps we should draw some distinction between "electromotive" and electromagnetic forces...electromotive doesn't necessarily imply current flow, while electromagnetic does. And of course the whole thing was based on electromagnetic fields.

a reply to: tanka418

No it is all over my head I was referring to going around a room with a cheap emf meter and finding that the tv and the computer would make the little lights go on in the meter. That is the height of my understanding on the subject. Something like ghost hunters would use.lol

I just had to chime in on the patent application part because I have filled a few out and one does have to prove in theory that something works to get patent pending status and one also has to have a working model in order to get a patent approval.

Looking back I see it could even be other components inside the tv that set off the meter. I am remembering that the hits were coming from the lower part of the set and the sides more than the screen itself and the computer lit up all over.

Just gonna chime in again and say visible light is electromagnetic radiation.
Thanks for stopping by

a reply to: dashen
For what it is worth many sources agree with you and looking from that angle it seems that any information encoded in light could potentially interfere with humans in different ways.



en.wikipedia.org...

Makes me wonder why such highly respected scientific minds would deny such and make such claims about the patent process without any shred of evidence. coverup?

I do not mind admitting that I am a mental midget but I can add sometimes and their math is funnier than mine. I suppose we will learn that both sides are twisting facts and meanings to fit agendeas

A case where looking from the outside it is clear but the details can really muddy the waters.

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.

He's the type that know's everything about nothing. I'm sure his answer is "But you can still not check the box?"

Between dashen and tanka arguing over 1 detail, I came to point out, the detail you both continue to focus on is the TV. While dashen is clearly speaking in terms of multiple applied electronics working together, tanka is hooked on some kind of detail that the TV, can't do something it doesn't need to, if multiple electronics are applied together.

dashens point, is that, if visual response, in addition to magnetic field, is necessary, any TV can pulse light. The point isn't intently the TV can generate magnetic field. Or any field. Just pulse light.

originally posted by: dashen
Just gonna chime in again and say visible light is electromagnetic radiation.
Thanks for stopping by

While I will agree with you...again in this respect...

You be sure to let me know when visible light gives you a reading on your magnetometer...'kay?

originally posted by: imjack

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.

He's the type that know's everything about nothing. I'm sure his answer is "But you can still not check the box?"

Between dashen and tanka arguing over 1 detail, I came to point out, the detail you both continue to focus on is the TV. While dashen is clearly speaking in terms of multiple applied electronics working together, tanka is hooked on some kind of detail that the TV, can't do something it doesn't need to, if multiple electronics are applied together.

dashens point, is that, if visual response, in addition to magnetic field, is necessary, any TV can pulse light. The point isn't intently the TV can generate magnetic field. Or any field. Just pulse light.

You have kind of failed to understand the argument...Remember; the original premise was effects of weak electromagnetic fields on the skin...that is kind of opposed to the eye.

And that little "detail" I talk about is the "weak electromagnetic field"; how it is generated, how it is projected, how it is modulated. I give the "TV", as you put it (more accurately a CRT display) credit simply because it's operation requires current flow...only current flow can produce electromagnetic fields, as opposed to the LCD which does not rely on current, but rather voltage.

I suppose all this is rather difficult to grasp IF One know little about electricity...But, take heart...all this sort of stuff is first semester Electrical Engineering...easy to actually understand once One wants to.

a reply to: tanka418

There is no misunderstanding on my end.
whereas a CRT will provide many wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation including ionizing wavelengths.
An LCD display uses a filter to filter out certain wavelengths to make a picture visible.
the LCD display does not put out as many wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation
This patent relies on the lower end of the spectrum.
I believe both can be modified to output low intensity near infrared radiation

Which because of the absorption in biological tissue of infrared radiation as stated above could theoretically cause the overall nerve stimulation of the skin as described in the patent

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: tanka418

This patent relies on the lower end of the spectrum.
I believe both can be modified to output low intensity near infrared radiation

Which because of the absorption in biological tissue of infrared radiation as stated above could theoretically cause the overall nerve stimulation of the skin as described in the patent

No...actually either can radiate low level IR as heat loss, this IR radiation can not be "modulated" or controlled in any useful way.

The CRT has a vacuumed tube which requires a "heater" just to work, and that heater accounts for nearly ALL of the IR generated. None of the actual visual components of either system radiate into the IR range, or above violet. The CRT however, again because it is a vacuum tube display also radiates x-rays. (X-Rays are produced when and where the electron beam strikes the viewing surface.)

The CRT display may, as a part of normal operation, radiate complex electromagnetic patterns based on the view or content of the viewing area.

In the LCD there is a small amount of IR as heat loss , now much depends on whether the display uses and LED back light or a fluorescent back light...

Either device may, depending on power supply design emit a very small amount of either 50Hz or 120Hz...this component would be no-controllable, and very "fixed".

a reply to: imjack

Finally!
Even if an LCD monitor is incapable of producing an electromagnetic field that would make tanka happy I believe your common Wi-Fi router would.
Which because the premise of this patent is a combined electronic assault would work with or without a CRT

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: dashen
Just gonna chime in again and say visible light is electromagnetic radiation.
Thanks for stopping by

While I will agree with you...again in this respect...

You be sure to let me know when visible light gives you a reading on your magnetometer...'kay?

but that does not mean that light would have to register on some meter in order to illicit a nerveous system response.
I was speaking to a nero med student today that said everytime she walks into the sun she sneezes.

I was told that just yesterday my own mother was riding in a car facing the sun and began to have a seizure until the light was shielded from her eyes.

All in all I think that at some point we should be able to agree that the op has some form of truth to it especially when we take into account that the patent office agrees.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: imjack

Finally!
Even if an LCD monitor is incapable of producing an electromagnetic field that would make tanka happy I believe your common Wi-Fi router would.
Which because the premise of this patent is a combined electronic assault would work with or without a CRT

Your common wifi router uses frequencies centered around 2.4 GHz and never varies by more than a few hundred megahertz. It's output is always very ordered, and cannot be manipulated in any way, save to modulate it with 1's and 's are some 10's to 100's of megahertz..

So...no! Not any more than you might get from a cell phone.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
originally posted by: tanka418

but that does not mean that light would have to register on some meter in order to illicit a nerveous system response.
I was speaking to a nero med student today that said everytime she walks into the sun she sneezes.

IF you can't measure it; how do you know it's there?

By the way; your med student's response is a common one, the sneezing in induced by bright light...and that would be easily measured.

However, it does not constitute a response as set forth in the original patient paper, as it is not a response to electromagnetic radiation on the skin...it is a response to the perceived intensity of the light upon the subjects optic nerve...some major/serious differences.

All in all I think that at some point we should be able to agree that the op has some form of truth to it especially when we take into account that the patent office agrees.

I thought we had already done that...but, y'all keep trying to expand this thing into something that is not covered in the original paper.

a reply to: tanka418

cell phone you say???

and you do understand of course that IR radiation is not the same thing as "heat"

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: tanka418

cell phone you say???

and you do understand of course that IR radiation is not the same thing as "heat"

yet heat is radiation?

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: tanka418

cell phone you say???

and you do understand of course that IR radiation is not the same thing as "heat"

It's not??!

And here they taught me that it was...

Hospitals and airplanes ban the use of cell phones, because their electromagnetic transmissions can interfere with sensitive electrical devices.

-- from your article.

You know, I hope, that this has never been true, and recently the FAA even admitted to it.

You have to understand that electromagnetic fields degrade rapidly...its an inverse square thing. Seriously man, you should have done your due diligence, you would have learned this...

a reply to: tanka418

are you saying a crt and lcd are incapable of producing an electromagnetic wavelength of 0.75–1.4 µm at the display surface?

a reply to: tanka418

heat is a transfer of energy from a hotter object to a colder one, usually resulting in an increase in entropy.(heightened molecular movement)
convection for instance is a form of heat transfer not involving IR.
IR is felt as heat because it is easily absorbed by water molecules in the skin which are then excited, which triggers nerves that register the effect as heat in the brain.
thermal radiation alternatively deals with the photonic emissions of all bodies warmer than absolute zero resulting from the kinetic motion of particles in matter. not necessarily in the IR range

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: tanka418

are you saying a crt and lcd are incapable of producing an electromagnetic wavelength of 0.75–1.4 µm at the display surface?

As heat loss, not as a component of display content.

By the way...the RED color (on LCD) is about 650nm and doesn't change...though it does have about 256 discrete intensities. There is a degree of non-linear mixing of the three primary colors, however, the difference products won't go below 650nm.