Science and Technology news... :: View topic - The crankiest FTL site.....................................

gabydewilde · Guest

On Nov 14, 9:38 am, Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
[quote]On 30 Oct, 17:28, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

Wrong again. I couldn>t care less.

I>m beginning to suspect that you>re one of those self-proclaimed
"scientists" who has managed to convince himself that simply ignoring
evidence that you don>t like the sound of is consistent with the
practice of science.

It isn>t.

It>s just sheer blind arrogance.

[/quote]
No it>s not.

He is telling you to doubt, write a doubtful response.

You respond by doing exactly what he ordered you to.

You see?

That is why it>s not real.

You are imagining things.

Do you also believe in the tooth fairy?

[quote]In 1963 R G Malech, together with two of his colleagues, published a
paper entitled "The reflectarray antenna", see:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel6/8234/25407/0113....

This paper is still cited in research studies carried out by
scientific institutions such as NASA>s Jet Propulsion Laboratory
today, e.g.:

http://www.ursi.org/B/EMTS_2007/O6-29/1-Huang024.pdf

The point is this; when we consider the implications of Malech>s 1976
patent entitled "Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and
altering brain waves" (US patent 3951134), it would be dishonest of us
not to acknowledge that in the field of electromagnetic science he
probably had a very good understanding of what he was talking about.

In other words, he wasn>t an idiot.

I already know that you agree with me on this point because you
previously wrote of him:

"... so more likely cynic than crackpot."

"Cynic "? How do you know that you haven>t simply made this up to suit
your own predjudice? Perhaps he was deadly serious? And perhaps we
could find out which is the truth.

For example, if "cynic", did the publication of the patent enhance
Malech>s reputation amongst his (presumably also cynical) peers when
experimenters subsequently attempted to build his invention but
couldn>t make it work? Or, if "deadly serious", did the publication of
the patent damage his reputation amongst his peers when experimenters
subsequently attempted to build his invention but couldn>t make it
work?

Or, on the other hand, maybe it did work. (Remember that BBC tv
program about Vanessa Mae? It certainly appeared to work on her.)

Perhaps we could ask R G Malech what happened. If only we could
contact him.

By the way, I just searched sci.physics.electromag for <malech> to
find one of my own recent postings, and I discovered a much earlier
reference to US patent number 3951134 which was made in January 2002
by Breck Stapleton ("Could it be Posible? another patent Apparatus and
method for remotely monitoring and altering brain")*.

I think Breck made an interesting point which might be of relevance to
us in our quest to find out what happened to R G Malech and his
invention -

"and this one might be rejected automatically by most, however would a
company that has been in business since 1947, pay patent maintenance
since 1976, if the device didn>t work?

... Dorne & Margolin have been manufacturing antennas since 1947.
They merged with Tiger Industries and AIL in 1998 and were bought by
EDO in 2000.http://www.nycedo.com/edocorp/page9.htm"

Breck>s URL for EDO Corp is out of date, the company website is now
at:

http://www.edocorp.com/EDOAntennaProducts.htm

What do you think? Is it possible that EDO Corp believes in Malech>s
invention? Perhaps we should ask them too.

(I>ve also checked out Breck Stapleton>s usenet history which is very
short but quite interesting.)

Keith P Walsh

PS, *it appears that Breck Stapleton was responding to one of my own
threads from January 2002 in which I was involved in a similar debate
to ours over how to respond scientifically to the implications of a
controversial patent document ("World Patent For Amalgam Tester"). I>m
ashamed to say that I don>t think I even noticed Breck>s contribution
at the time. I certainly don>t remember it. My apologies Breck.

Does anyone know if anyone has bothered to try and duplicate A W
Johansson>s "Amalgam Tester" results yet? It>s nearly seven years now
since I last asked.[/quote]

Herbert Brandt · Guest

Keith P Walsh schrieb:
[quote]On 30 Oct, 17:28, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
Wrong again. I couldn>t care less.

I>m beginning to suspect that you>re one of those self-proclaimed
"scientists" who has managed to convince himself that simply ignoring
evidence that you don>t like the sound of is consistent with the
practice of science.

It isn>t.

It>s just sheer blind arrogance.

In 1963 R G Malech, together with two of his colleagues, published a
paper entitled "The reflectarray antenna", see:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel6/8234/25407/01138112.pdf?arnumber=1138112

This paper is still cited in research studies carried out by
scientific institutions such as NASA>s Jet Propulsion Laboratory
today, e.g.:

http://www.ursi.org/B/EMTS_2007/O6-29/1-Huang024.pdf

The point is this; when we consider the implications of Malech>s 1976
patent entitled "Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and
altering brain waves" (US patent 3951134), it would be dishonest of us
not to acknowledge that in the field of electromagnetic science he
probably had a very good understanding of what he was talking about.

In other words, he wasn>t an idiot.

I already know that you agree with me on this point because you
previously wrote of him:

"... so more likely cynic than crackpot."

"Cynic "? How do you know that you haven>t simply made this up to suit
your own predjudice? Perhaps he was deadly serious? And perhaps we
could find out which is the truth.

For example, if "cynic", did the publication of the patent enhance
Malech>s reputation amongst his (presumably also cynical) peers when
experimenters subsequently attempted to build his invention but
couldn>t make it work? Or, if "deadly serious", did the publication of
the patent damage his reputation amongst his peers when experimenters
subsequently attempted to build his invention but couldn>t make it
work?

Or, on the other hand, maybe it did work. (Remember that BBC tv
program about Vanessa Mae? It certainly appeared to work on her.)

Perhaps we could ask R G Malech what happened. If only we could
contact him.

By the way, I just searched sci.physics.electromag for <malech> to
find one of my own recent postings, and I discovered a much earlier
reference to US patent number 3951134 which was made in January 2002
by Breck Stapleton ("Could it be Posible? another patent Apparatus and
method for remotely monitoring and altering brain")*.

I think Breck made an interesting point which might be of relevance to
us in our quest to find out what happened to R G Malech and his
invention -

"and this one might be rejected automatically by most, however would a
company that has been in business since 1947, pay patent maintenance
since 1976, if the device didn>t work?

... Dorne & Margolin have been manufacturing antennas since 1947.
They merged with Tiger Industries and AIL in 1998 and were bought by
EDO in 2000. http://www.nycedo.com/edocorp/page9.htm"

Breck>s URL for EDO Corp is out of date, the company website is now
at:

http://www.edocorp.com/EDOAntennaProducts.htm

What do you think? Is it possible that EDO Corp believes in Malech>s
invention? Perhaps we should ask them too.

(I>ve also checked out Breck Stapleton>s usenet history which is very
short but quite interesting.)

Keith P Walsh

PS, *it appears that Breck Stapleton was responding to one of my own
threads from January 2002 in which I was involved in a similar debate
to ours over how to respond scientifically to the implications of a
controversial patent document ("World Patent For Amalgam Tester"). I>m
ashamed to say that I don>t think I even noticed Breck>s contribution
at the time. I certainly don>t remember it. My apologies Breck.

Does anyone know if anyone has bothered to try and duplicate A W
Johansson>s "Amalgam Tester" results yet? It>s nearly seven years now
since I last asked.

Hello Keith,[/quote]

don´t bother the dude gaby.....!
I think, gaby is a desinformation-dude......

His postings are not worth to be read.

For your information :

In december 2007 EDO-Corporation was taken over by ITT-Corporation.
ITT-Corporation is a leading corporation in electronic arms industry.
Just see its website.
I think it is useless to ask ITT, if they use the Malech-Patent.
Shurely they ARE NOT ALLOWED to say the truth, DUE TO THE SECURITY OF
THE US.
This will be the same reason because people will not know anything of
the AKWEI-LAWSUIT.
Perhaps you might ask the NSA, Fort Meade, MD.
I imagine, this inquiry could lead to a message to the CIA.
These guys you should not joke with.

Herbert

Keith P Walsh · Guest

On Nov 14, 7:25 pm, gabydewilde <fotot...@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]
Do you also believe in the tooth fairy?

[/quote]
No I don>t belive in the tooth fairy. (But thanks for the prompt - it
would be fun to suggest that I had willed you to prompt me with this
question without you having realised it, but I don>t really think that
I did.)

However, I do believe that the electromagntic behavior of teeth with
metal amalgam fillings in them should be different from that of teeth
without any fillings at all.

And I think that anyone would have to be rather ignorant to believe
otherwise.

I also believe that according to the established rules of scientific
understanding the only way to find out what the differences in the
electromagnetic behaviors of these two types of teeth are would be to
measure them.

Would you not agree?

Keith P Walsh

PS, Apologies for the above digression, but metal amalgam fillings are
placed in children>s teeth. Does anyone know if experimental
investigations have ever been carried out in order to measure the
electromagnetic properties (i.e., permittivity, permeability and
conductivity) of metal dental fillings. And, in view of the fact that
dental amalgam is an inhomogeneous mixture of dissimilar metals, would
you expect these properties to vary from point to point within the
material? I think I would.

z · Guest

On Nov 17, 4:31 am, Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Nov 14, 7:25 pm, gabydewilde <fotot...@gmail.com> wrote:

Do you also believe in the tooth fairy?

No I don>t belive in the tooth fairy. (But thanks for the prompt - it
would be fun to suggest that I had willed you to prompt me with this
question without you having realised it, but I don>t really think that
I did.)

However, I do believe that the electromagntic behavior of teeth with
metal amalgam fillings in them should be different from that of teeth
without any fillings at all.

And I think that anyone would have to be rather ignorant to believe
otherwise.

I also believe that according to the established rules of scientific
understanding the only way to find out what the differences in the
electromagnetic behaviors of these two types of teeth are would be to
measure them.

Would you not agree?

Keith P Walsh

PS, Apologies for the above digression, but metal amalgam fillings are
placed in children>s teeth. Does anyone know if experimental
investigations have ever been carried out in order to measure the
electromagnetic properties (i.e., permittivity, permeability and
conductivity) of metal dental fillings. And, in view of the fact that
dental amalgam is an inhomogeneous mixture of dissimilar metals, would
you expect these properties to vary from point to point within the
material? I think I would.
[/quote]
well sure; the classic tales of people who could pick up radio
stations in their fillings, due to (at very least) rectifying
junctions between regions in the fillings; some with reasonably good
evidence that they are true.

Guest

In sci.physics.electromag Keith P Walsh <keith.p.walsh@btinternet.com> wrote:

[quote]
Keith P Walsh

PS, Apologies for the above digression, but metal amalgam fillings are
placed in children>s teeth. Does anyone know if experimental
investigations have ever been carried out in order to measure the
electromagnetic properties (i.e., permittivity, permeability and
conductivity) of metal dental fillings. And, in view of the fact that
dental amalgam is an inhomogeneous mixture of dissimilar metals, would
you expect these properties to vary from point to point within the
material? I think I would.
[/quote]
Are you back on that tired old horse?

Over two years ago I offered to pay for the equipment to make such
measurements if you would make the measurements and publish them.

You declined.

You care nothing about children or anything other than your trolling
nonsense.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

gabydewilde · Guest

On Nov 20, 8:15 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
[quote]In sci.physics.electromag Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com> wrote:

Keith P Walsh

PS, Apologies for the above digression, but metal amalgam fillings are
placed in children>s teeth. Does anyone know if experimental
investigations have ever been carried out in order to measure the
electromagnetic properties (i.e., permittivity, permeability and
conductivity) of metal dental fillings. And, in view of the fact that
dental amalgam is an inhomogeneous mixture of dissimilar metals, would
you expect these properties to vary from point to point within the
material? I think I would.

Are you back on that tired old horse?

Over two years ago I offered to pay for the equipment to make such
measurements if you would make the measurements and publish them.

You declined.

You care nothing about children or anything other than your trolling
nonsense.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
[/quote]

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2977

To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of
all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in
space by the United States, and to require the President to take
action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based
weapons.

[snip]
(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information
weapons;

(ii) chemtrails;

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons
systems;

(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic
weapons;

(v) laser weapons systems;

(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or
extraterrestrial weapons; and

pfft!

zzbunker@netscape.net · Guest

On Nov 21, 3:17 pm, gabydewilde <fotot...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 20, 8:15 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics.electromag Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com> wrote:

Keith P Walsh

PS, Apologies for the above digression, but metal amalgam fillings are
placed in children>s teeth. Does anyone know if experimental
investigations have ever been carried out in order to measure the
electromagnetic properties (i.e., permittivity, permeability and
conductivity) of metal dental fillings. And, in view of the fact that
dental amalgam is an inhomogeneous mixture of dissimilar metals, would
you expect these properties to vary from point to point within the
material? I think I would.

Are you back on that tired old horse?

Over two years ago I offered to pay for the equipment to make such
measurements if you would make the measurements and publish them.

You declined.

You care nothing about children or anything other than your trolling
nonsense.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2977

To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of
all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in
space by the United States, and to require the President to take
action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based
weapons.
[/quote]
Well, it is was easily predicted the tards in Looney-Toon-Ville
would eventually
do that. But>s it>s still why the people the crap with Engineering/
Sceince/ Medince/
Technology.Computer/Robotics Brains invented the Cruise Missiles.
Laser-Guided Bombs, Drones,
AAVs, AUVs, Phalanx, Adaptive Pv Cells, On-Line-Publishing, Laser-
Guided Lasers,
Post Ford Batteries, USB, Post AT&T Phonics, GPS[]. and Post
McDonald>s Holograms.
Rather than more crapola for the Air Farce, Budget Bender, Martian
Wanks.

[quote]
[snip]
(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information
weapons;

(ii) chemtrails;

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons
systems;

(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic
weapons;

(v) laser weapons systems;

(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or
extraterrestrial weapons; and

pfft!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -[/quote]

Richard Herring · Guest

In message
<e180ad43-cf6e-4b5c-bd6d-c6c7a4ced4f2@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Keith P Walsh <keith.p.walsh@btinternet.com> writes
[quote]On 30 Oct, 17:28, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

Wrong again. I couldn>t care less.

I>m beginning to suspect that you>re one of those self-proclaimed
"scientists" who has managed to convince himself that simply ignoring
evidence that you don>t like the sound of is consistent with the
practice of science.
[/quote]
What "evidence"?

[quote]
It isn>t.

It>s just sheer blind arrogance.
[/quote]
If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it
isn>t, it ain>t.
[quote]
In 1963 R G Malech, together with two of his colleagues, published a
paper entitled "The reflectarray antenna", see:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel6/8234/25407/0113811
2.pdf?arnumber=1138112

This paper is still cited in research studies carried out by
scientific institutions such as NASA>s Jet Propulsion Laboratory
today, e.g.:

http://www.ursi.org/B/EMTS_2007/O6-29/1-Huang024.pdf

The point is this; when we consider the implications of Malech>s 1976
patent entitled "Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and
altering brain waves" (US patent 3951134), it would be dishonest of us
not to acknowledge that in the field of electromagnetic science he
probably had a very good understanding of what he was talking about.

In other words, he wasn>t an idiot.

I already know that you agree with me on this point because you
previously wrote of him:

"... so more likely cynic than crackpot."

"Cynic "? How do you know that you haven>t simply made this up to suit
your own predjudice? Perhaps he was deadly serious? And perhaps we
could find out which is the truth.

I have asked you several times whether you have actually read Malech>s[/quote]
patent. Each time you have avoided answering the question. I conclude
that either you have not read the patent, or you have not understood it.
If you had read and understood it, you would already know the answer.

[quote]For example, if "cynic", did the publication of the patent enhance
Malech>s reputation amongst his (presumably also cynical) peers when
experimenters subsequently attempted to build his invention but
couldn>t make it work? Or, if "deadly serious", did the publication of
the patent damage his reputation amongst his peers when experimenters
subsequently attempted to build his invention but couldn>t make it
work?
[/quote]
False dichotomy. The answer is "neither of the above" On the basis of
that patent, *nobody* could build "his invention" for the simple reason
that it does not describe one. Don>t be deceived by the patentese: what
it really describes is a collection of engineering techniques that might
be useful in a remote measurement and control system operating on
nonlinear electromagnetic processes.

[quote]
Or, on the other hand, maybe it did work.
[/quote]
What is "it"?

[quote](Remember that BBC tv
program about Vanessa Mae?
[/quote]
No.

[quote]It certainly appeared to work on her.)
[/quote]
What is "it"?

[quote]
Perhaps we could ask R G Malech what happened. If only we could
contact him.

By the way, I just searched sci.physics.electromag for <malech> to
find one of my own recent postings, and I discovered a much earlier
reference to US patent number 3951134 which was made in January 2002
by Breck Stapleton ("Could it be Posible? another patent Apparatus and
method for remotely monitoring and altering brain")*.
[/quote]
This isn>t a popularity contest. Other people>s opinions about the
patent are of no great interest if you can read and understand it for
yourself.
[quote]
I think Breck made an interesting point which might be of relevance to
us in our quest to find out what happened to R G Malech and his
invention -

"and this one might be rejected automatically by most, however would a
company that has been in business since 1947, pay patent maintenance
since 1976, if the device didn>t work?
[/quote]
Because what is patented is not a "device" but a collection of
potentially useful engineering techniques.

--
Richard Herring

Herbert Brandt · Guest

Richard Herring schrieb:
[quote]In message
e180ad43-cf6e-4b5c-bd6d-c6c7a4ced4f2@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Keith P Walsh <keith.p.walsh@btinternet.com> writes
On 30 Oct, 17:28, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

Wrong again. I couldn>t care less.

I>m beginning to suspect that you>re one of those self-proclaimed
"scientists" who has managed to convince himself that simply ignoring
evidence that you don>t like the sound of is consistent with the
practice of science.

What "evidence"?

It isn>t.

It>s just sheer blind arrogance.

If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it
isn>t, it ain>t.

In 1963 R G Malech, together with two of his colleagues, published a
paper entitled "The reflectarray antenna", see:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel6/8234/25407/0113811
2.pdf?arnumber=1138112

This paper is still cited in research studies carried out by
scientific institutions such as NASA>s Jet Propulsion Laboratory
today, e.g.:

http://www.ursi.org/B/EMTS_2007/O6-29/1-Huang024.pdf

The point is this; when we consider the implications of Malech>s 1976
patent entitled "Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and
altering brain waves" (US patent 3951134), it would be dishonest of us
not to acknowledge that in the field of electromagnetic science he
probably had a very good understanding of what he was talking about.

In other words, he wasn>t an idiot.

I already know that you agree with me on this point because you
previously wrote of him:

"... so more likely cynic than crackpot."

"Cynic "? How do you know that you haven>t simply made this up to suit
your own predjudice? Perhaps he was deadly serious? And perhaps we
could find out which is the truth.

I have asked you several times whether you have actually read Malech>s
patent. Each time you have avoided answering the question. I conclude
that either you have not read the patent, or you have not understood it.
If you had read and understood it, you would already know the answer.

For example, if "cynic", did the publication of the patent enhance
Malech>s reputation amongst his (presumably also cynical) peers when
experimenters subsequently attempted to build his invention but
couldn>t make it work? Or, if "deadly serious", did the publication of
the patent damage his reputation amongst his peers when experimenters
subsequently attempted to build his invention but couldn>t make it
work?

False dichotomy. The answer is "neither of the above" On the basis of
that patent, *nobody* could build "his invention" for the simple reason
that it does not describe one. Don>t be deceived by the patentese: what
it really describes is a collection of engineering techniques that might
be useful in a remote measurement and control system operating on
nonlinear electromagnetic processes.

Or, on the other hand, maybe it did work.

What is "it"?

(Remember that BBC tv
program about Vanessa Mae?

No.

It certainly appeared to work on her.)

What is "it"?

Perhaps we could ask R G Malech what happened. If only we could
contact him.

By the way, I just searched sci.physics.electromag for <malech> to
find one of my own recent postings, and I discovered a much earlier
reference to US patent number 3951134 which was made in January 2002
by Breck Stapleton ("Could it be Posible? another patent Apparatus and
method for remotely monitoring and altering brain")*.

This isn>t a popularity contest. Other people>s opinions about the
patent are of no great interest if you can read and understand it for
yourself.

I think Breck made an interesting point which might be of relevance to
us in our quest to find out what happened to R G Malech and his
invention -

"and this one might be rejected automatically by most, however would a
company that has been in business since 1947, pay patent maintenance
since 1976, if the device didn>t work?

Because what is patented is not a "device" but a collection of
potentially useful engineering techniques.
[/quote]

Commonly a patent very often CONSISTS of useful known techniques !

HERBERT

Richard Herring · Guest

In message <501be$4935119e$54ad5ba5$5170@news1.surfino.com>, Herbert
Brandt <socialghost2003@yahoo.de> writes
[quote]Richard Herring schrieb:
In message
e180ad43-cf6e-4b5c-bd6d-c6c7a4ced4f2@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Keith P Walsh <keith.p.walsh@btinternet.com> writes
I think Breck made an interesting point which might be of relevance to
us in our quest to find out what happened to R G Malech and his
invention -

"and this one might be rejected automatically by most, however would a
company that has been in business since 1947, pay patent maintenance
since 1976, if the device didn>t work?
Because what is patented is not a "device" but a collection of
potentially useful engineering techniques.

Commonly a patent very often CONSISTS of useful known techniques !

[/quote]
Exactly. The trick is to make it look like a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof"

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/what.htm

--
Richard Herring

Keith P Walsh · Guest

On 1 Dec, 11:35, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
[quote]
Because what is patented is not a "device" but a collection of
potentially useful engineering techniques.

[/quote]
Wrong.

Have you actually read Malech>s patent (US patent no. 3951134)?

The first sentence reads, "Apparatus for and method of sensing brain
waves at a position remote from a subject whereby electromagnetic
signals of different frequencies are simultaneously transmitted to the
brain of the subject in which signals interfere with one another to
yield a waveform which is modulated by the subject>s brain."

The word "apparatus" refers to the description of a device
(incorporated in the patent) whereby it is implied that such a device
might be physically constructed.

(The schematic diagram comprises a particular arrangement of component
devices, such as "band pass filter", "RF power divider", "frequency
doubler", etc.; all of which do exist in the real physical world and
all of which are in regular use in electronics/electromagnetic
applications.)

Now, I understand perfectly well that it would not have been necessary
for this device to have been physically constructed in order for this
patent to have been granted.

And I understand equally well that it would not have been necessary to
give any practical demonstration that such a device is able to achieve
the described effects in order for the patent to have been granted.

Nevertheless I am honest enough to acknowledge that I am unable to
identify any aspect of either the description of the "apparatus", or
the description of the effects claimed for its use, which is
inconsistent with our established scientific knowledge of
electromagnetic phenomena.

(And I believe that if you are equally honest then you would have to
acknowledge that you are in the same position too.)

In fact, I would rather suggest that it WOULD be necessary for these
descriptions to be consistent with all established scientific
knowledge of electromagnetic phenomena, at least to the satisfaction
of the officers employed by the patent organisation, in order for the
patent to have been granted.

And I make no apology for reiterating the essential stipulation that
the only truly scientific way to find out whether such a device could
work in practice would be to build it and attempt to operate it.

Do you know of any scientific reason why the device described in US
patent no. 3951134 could not be built?

Or have you simply convinced yourself for emotional reasons that it
couldn>t? (I know, "false dichotomy!")

Keith P Walsh

Keith P Walsh · Guest

On 8 Dec, 11:07, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

[quote]
Inconsistency is not the issue.

But if the patent hasn>t raised a few unanswered questions, you can>t
have read it very attentively. It begs a number of questions about the
brain, e.g. does brain tissue actually exhibit the kind of nonlinearity
assumed in the patent? If so, is its nonlinearity actually modulated by
neurological activity? Do "brain waves" actually provide any information
about mental state and thought processes? And in the electromagnetic
field, what spatial resolution do you think could be achieved using the
frequencies described in the patent? Do you think it would be adequate
to image "brain waves"? How much power do you think it would take to
produce a detectable signal using this method? Could it be done without
frying the subject>s brain?

[/quote]
Richard,

Malech>s patent was granted in 1976.

Do you imagine that you are the first person to raise these questions?

And do you imagine that no-one has ever bothered to look for
scientific (i.e. experimental) answers to them?

Keith P Walsh

PS, on 14th November I wrote, "Remember that BBC tv program about
Vanessa Mae?" and you replied, "No". I first described this program in
this thread on 8 August, the day after it was broadcast on tv. The
world-famous violinist Vanessa Mae was subjected to an experiment
whereby a contraption which produced a local electromagnetic field was
activated in close proximity to her head, and it was demonstrated that
under the influence of this contraption she was rendered momentarily
unable to complete a simple task (signing her name on a sheet of
paper). She was surprised by the effect, but she wasn>t confused by it
because she could see the device in operation, and the person
operating it had explained in general terms how the intended effect
was produced. So the principle that manipulation of the
electromagnetic field can be used to influence brain function directly
(i.e. WITHOUT the use of any TV or radio receiver equipment) has been
established. (Leastways, no-one that I know of has said, "That>s not
possible!") In this example, no part of Vanessa Mae>s brain or skull
was subjected to any "frying". And in his patent Robert G Malech had
anticipated (in 1976) that it would be necessary to avoid this when he
wrote, "Of course, the level of the the transmitted energy should be
kept below that which may be harmful to the subject". So, if you are
able to think scientifically, you may recognise that what we are
arguing about here is not whether or not this (directly affecting
brain function) can be done, but at what range and to what degree of
precision. The significant point is that if someone developed a
contraption which could produce the same effect on Vanessa Mae from
the house across the street from hers, and without her knowing that
anyone was over there, then not only would she be surprised, but it is
most likely that she would also be confused, because she would almost
certainly assume that there was something wrong with herself. Do you
know of any reason for believing that the range at which such effects
can be produced is restricted to something less than, say, 10 metres?
And here>s a supplementary question for you. Do you think that the
experiment on Vanessa Mae might have had a different outcome if she
had been wearing a tinfoil hat? Or (in typical "false dichotomy"
fashion) are you one of those "scientists" who have managed to
convince themselves that tinfoil hats don>t have any electromagnetic
properties? (No, I haven>t ever worn one.)

gabydewilde · Guest

On Dec 8, 12:07 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
[quote]
But it wouldn>t be an "apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and
altering brain waves" nor would it "determine mental state and monitor
thought processes"
[/quote]
Jesubs fucking crist?

What kind of moron are you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-ES8Bv0_8w

They are mind fucking people from space.

Implanting chips into people.

Inducting pain, reading and writing thoughts.

But for some magical reason you keep asserting denial as truth.

"MKULTRA"

Google it and familiarise yourself with the topic. Your blind ignorant
faith in the morals of US government research is very disgusting. To
do combat research is one thing, to apply gross ignorance to it is
quite another.

Here is some reference for you to educate your ignorance.

http://www.clipser.com/watch_video/104415

This isn>t even considered human experimentation. This is called
"combat training."

You are here to create artificial doubt of mind control technology eh?

Or did they turn you into a senseless robot?

Richard Herring · Guest

In message
<b0d5d299-41a0-4d76-bf62-472b6c78ee6e@j32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Keith P Walsh <keith.p.walsh@btinternet.com> writes
[quote]On 1 Dec, 11:35, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

Because what is patented is not a "device" but a collection of
potentially useful engineering techniques.

Wrong.

Have you actually read Malech>s patent (US patent no. 3951134)?
[/quote]
Yes. And understood it.
[quote]
The first sentence reads, "Apparatus for and method of sensing brain
waves at a position remote from a subject whereby electromagnetic
signals of different frequencies are simultaneously transmitted to the
brain of the subject in which signals interfere with one another to
yield a waveform which is modulated by the subject>s brain."

The word "apparatus" refers to the description of a device
(incorporated in the patent) whereby it is implied that such a device
might be physically constructed.
[/quote]
Indeed, and the patent does describe in principle a device for remote
sensing of electromagnetically nonlinear material.

But that>s only the first sentence of the abstract. Read on...

"The demodulated waveform is then [...] routed to a computer for further
processing and analysis. The demodulated waveform also can be used to
produce a compensating signal which is transmitted back to the brain to
effect a desired change in electrical activity therein. "

There isn>t the slightest hint in the rest of the patent of how that
might be achieved.
[quote]
(The schematic diagram comprises a particular arrangement of component
devices, such as "band pass filter", "RF power divider", "frequency
doubler", etc.; all of which do exist in the real physical world and
all of which are in regular use in electronics/electromagnetic
applications.)
[/quote]
Indeed it does.

However, Claim 1 refers to "means for interpreting said response
signal", Claim 6 refers to "interpreting means", Claim 7 refers to
"means for producing an electromagnetic wave control signal", Claim 10
to "a signal ... to vary the brain wave activity", Claim 11 to "as in
claim 10 ... obtaining a standard signal". The description refers to a
computer which "can determine a compensating waveform for transmission
to the brain 10 to alter the natural brain waves", "a source 70
representative of brain wave activity associated with a desired
nuerological [sic] response", and a computer which can "[analyze
subject>s brain waves to] determine his mental state and monitor his
thought processes"

Those are not.

[quote]
Now, I understand perfectly well that it would not have been necessary
for this device to have been physically constructed in order for this
patent to have been granted.

And I understand equally well that it would not have been necessary to
give any practical demonstration that such a device is able to achieve
the described effects in order for the patent to have been granted.

Nevertheless I am honest enough to acknowledge that I am unable to
identify any aspect of either the description of the "apparatus", or
the description of the effects claimed for its use, which is
inconsistent with our established scientific knowledge of
electromagnetic phenomena.
[/quote]
Inconsistency is not the issue.

But if the patent hasn>t raised a few unanswered questions, you can>t
have read it very attentively. It begs a number of questions about the
brain, e.g. does brain tissue actually exhibit the kind of nonlinearity
assumed in the patent? If so, is its nonlinearity actually modulated by
neurological activity? Do "brain waves" actually provide any information
about mental state and thought processes? And in the electromagnetic
field, what spatial resolution do you think could be achieved using the
frequencies described in the patent? Do you think it would be adequate
to image "brain waves"? How much power do you think it would take to
produce a detectable signal using this method? Could it be done without
frying the subject>s brain?

[quote]
(And I believe that if you are equally honest then you would have to
acknowledge that you are in the same position too.)
[/quote]
The reason why this patent doesn>t describe an "apparatus and method for
remotely monitoring and altering brain waves" is not inconsistency but
simple omission. Where is the part which "determine[s] a compensating
waveform for transmission to the brain to alter the natural brain waves"
or "determines [the subject>s] mental state and monitor[s] his thought
processes"?

[quote]
In fact, I would rather suggest that it WOULD be necessary for these
descriptions to be consistent with all established scientific
knowledge of electromagnetic phenomena, at least to the satisfaction
of the officers employed by the patent organisation, in order for the
patent to have been granted.
[/quote]
Your simple faith in the USPTO is very touching.
[quote]
And I make no apology for reiterating the essential stipulation that
the only truly scientific way to find out whether such a device could
work in practice would be to build it and attempt to operate it.
[/quote]
To do that you would first need a description _in principle_ of "such a
device".
[quote]
Do you know of any scientific reason why the device described in US
patent no. 3951134 could not be built?
[/quote]
Of course the device _actually_ described could be built. It would
perform some kind of measurement on nonlinear materials.

But it wouldn>t be an "apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and
altering brain waves" nor would it "determine mental state and monitor
thought processes" because the patent omits all description of the key
components for those processes.

[quote]
Or have you simply convinced yourself for emotional reasons that it
couldn>t? (I know, "false dichotomy!")
[/quote]
You>re good at fallacies, but not psychology.

--
Richard Herring

Benj · Guest

On Dec 8, 10:23 am, Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
[quote]On 8 Dec, 11:07, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
[/quote]

[quote]Indeed, and the patent does describe in principle a device for remote
sensing of electromagnetically nonlinear material.

But that>s only the first sentence of the abstract. Read on...

"The demodulated waveform is then [...] routed to a computer for further
processing and analysis. The demodulated waveform also can be used to
produce a compensating signal which is transmitted back to the brain to
effect a desired change in electrical activity therein. "

There isn>t the slightest hint in the rest of the patent of how that
might be achieved.
[/quote]
Duh, Richard, I guess that means that the computer analysis isn>t part
of this patent, then, doesn>t it? Notice that such a fact doesn>t
"debunk" any of the rest of the electromagnetic mechanisms claimed.

[quote]Malech>s patent was granted in 1976.

Do you imagine that you are the first person to raise these questions?

And do you imagine that no-one has ever bothered to look for
scientific (i.e. experimental) answers to them?
[/quote]
Don>t bother with the "debunker" Herring. He>s just trying to throw
chaff in the wind to mislead anyone not paying close attention. Given
the spy utility of such a device I can guess why he>s trying so hard
to convince everyone that they should pay no attention to the man
behind the curtain.

While as far as I know he could be correct that there is no evidence
that such an electromagnetic device will modulate brain functions or
remodulate an incident wave with brain waves, that principle is well
known in the spy world. It has been asserted that microwaves incident
upon almost any object even one as simple as an ordinary light bulb
can produce a re-modulation that can be received and used for spying.
This technology is old and supposedly highly developed during the cold
war. Now just imagine that technology extended to the reception of
thoughts! Does the sudden appearance of disinformation specialists
now make some sense?

[quote]So the principle that manipulation of the
electromagnetic field can be used to influence brain function directly
(i.e. WITHOUT the use of any TV or radio receiver equipment) has been
established. (Leastways, no-one that I know of has said, "That>s not
possible!")
[/quote]
Which is an interesting confirmation given all the rumors that direct
stimulation of an auditory perception (voices in the head simulating
"tinfoil helmet" mental illness) has been perfected by the U.S.
Government. And kind of device [Malech] does represent a considerable
"breakthrough" given the general insensitivity of the human body to EM
fields of various kinds.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Physics - Electromagnetic Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 128, 129, 130 Next
Page 129 of 130