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

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Phew.....
You see the tin foil government choppers too?
I thought my conspiracy proof tinfoil hat was acting up.
Yeah to deal with the insidious flicker pulse rate conspiracy I covered my monitor in tin foil.
Makes surfing the web a bit more complicated but I get by.
Can never have too much tin foil you know

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: tanka418

Hey, im just quoting.
But it wouldn't hurt to read the whole thing before complaining about what I posted.
i dont see a contradiction though.
A CRT and a modern flat screen are both capable of emitting low intensity pulses

A low intensity pulse of what exactly?

Your statement shows that you know little of the working of such devices. The CRT draws it image by driving and controlling the "aim" of what is literally called an "electron gun". It does this with a highly controlled magnetic field...

The LCD is much more like a grid of color filters, each individually addressable and controllable. It does this by using the "color filter's" (pixel) physical location in relation to the other pixels. It does not use any sort of magnetic field, nor an electron gun...the filter operates on a very bright white backlight...frequently an array of LED's.

So, just how are these two devices similar enough to not create a "contradiction" somewhere?

a reply to: tanka418
Because they are both shooting photons at your face with intermittent pulses.
The frequency and modulation of which according to the patent achieve the desired effect.
Which according to the patent is ptosis.
Not even beginning to note the fact that this patent relies on a combined assault of audio electromagnetic and visual bombardment.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: tanka418
Because they are both shooting photons at your face with intermittent pulses.
The frequency and modulation of which according to the patent achieve the desired effect.
Which according to the patent is ptosis.
Not even beginning to note the fact that this patent relies on a combined assault of audio electromagnetic and visual bombardment.

Ahhh...I'll give you that in the case of the CRT. The phosphor coating inside the tube must be refreshed...thus it has a pulse rate equal to the refresh rate (60Hz)

The LCD image is a "steady state" image, and does not require refresh as the CRT does. That is not to say that the LCD doesn't get refreshed frequently (60Hz), but, there are no "pulsations" or periodic changes in the intensity of the image.

So...not so much "intermittent pluses" from the lcd.

Dashen please message me. Wanted to share some links but it's not working on my Dino-phone.

originally posted by: tanka418
OP...did you pay any attention to the date on that body of work?

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

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


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

Ah, the cathode ray tube, which had some very interesting properties and appications. It's not so much it became obsolete, as there were other, simpler, less detectable ways to achieve similiar results. Research into the cathode ray tube may prove quite interesting, along those lines.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: tanka418
Because they are both shooting photons at your face with intermittent pulses.
The frequency and modulation of which according to the patent achieve the desired effect.
Which according to the patent is ptosis.
Not even beginning to note the fact that this patent relies on a combined assault of audio electromagnetic and visual bombardment.

So...not so much "intermittent pluses" from the lcd.

alternating between light and dark also counts as intermittent pulses.

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: tanka418
Because they are both shooting photons at your face with intermittent pulses.
The frequency and modulation of which according to the patent achieve the desired effect.
Which according to the patent is ptosis.
Not even beginning to note the fact that this patent relies on a combined assault of audio electromagnetic and visual bombardment.

So...not so much "intermittent pluses" from the lcd.

alternating between light and dark also counts as intermittent pulses.

Yes, I know...so is rgb(#feffff) and rgb(#ffffff)...you did understand that right, that is a change of 1 in 16777216...a value far to small to be detected by the human eye...AND with the lcd...you can only have changes in the intensity of light emitted as there is no other energy radiated.

Your alternating between light and dark; in the lcd occurs at the rate of the actual change...as opposed to a fixed refresh rate.

I'm sorry but your response seems very much like what my 20yo kid might come off with...he tends to enjoy pushing the envelope of ridicules.

a reply to: tanka418

That is assuming that a negligible change like that will make a difference. But if you underlay a word in an almost imperceptible or.subliminally visible contrast and flash, flicker....
but dont take my word for it..
From the patent(yet again)

049] One-half Hertz sensory resonance experiments have been conducted with the subject positioned at least at normal viewing distance from a 15″ computer monitor that was driven by a computer program written in Visual Basic(R), version 6.0 (VB6). The program produces a pulsed image with uniform luminance and hue over the full screen, except for a few small control buttons and text boxes. In VB6, screen pixel colors are determined by integers R, G, and B, that range from 0 to 255, and set the contributions to the pixel color made by the basic colors red, green, and blue. For a CRT-type monitor, the pixel intensities for the primary colors may depend on the RGB values in a nonlinear manner that will be discussed. In the VB6 program the RGB values are modulated by small pulses ΔR, ΔG, ΔB, with a frequency that can be chosen by the subject or is swept in a predetermined manner. In the sensory resonance experiments mentioned above, the ratios ΔR/R, 66 G/G, and ΔB/B were always smaller than 0.02, so that the image pulses are quite weak. For certain frequencies near ½ Hz, the subject experienced physiological effects that are known to accompany the excitation of the ½ Hz sensory resonance as mentioned in the Background Section. Moreover, the measured field pulse amplitudes fall within the effective intensity window for the ½ Hz resonance, as explored in earlier experiments and discussed in the '874, '744, '922, and '304 patents. Other experiments have shown that the 2.4 Hz sensory resonance can be exited as well by screen emissions from monitors that display pulsed images.

[0050] These results confirm that, indeed, the nervous system of a subject can be manipulated through electromagnetic field pulses emitted by a nearby CRT or LCD monitor which displays images with pulsed intensity.

a reply to: tanka418
Wow. You got me feelin like a kid again. A 20 year old one

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: tanka418


[0050] These results confirm that, indeed, the nervous system of a subject can be manipulated through electromagnetic field pulses emitted by a nearby CRT or LCD monitor which displays images with pulsed intensity.

Except, what I've been trying to tell you...the LCD does not emit electromagnetic energy in the manner your or the author of your "patient" paper think.

The CRT may, but, the CRT does things in an entirely different manner...a fact you seem to want to overlook...

For instance...that "dot" on the CRT requires an active magnetic field to "sweep" the inner surface of the tube face, and on the order of 18kv...this will make for some interesting magnetic fields being generated.

The LCD requires neither, AND, the highest voltage in the LCD? About 12v...generally there is not enough power consumed by an LCD to create the kinds of magnetic fields you are trying to talk about...

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: tanka418
Wow. You got me feelin like a kid again. A 20 year old one

You should not be liking the analogy...that is the typical behavior when someone doesn't know the answer, and doesn't know where to find it.

The mocking, exaggeration of, and (inappropriate) pointing out of obvious data is a common trait that is a very definite "tell"...

a reply to: tanka418

Please take the time to actually read the patent.
The electro magnetic effect of a CRT is independent of the pulse rate of an image.
You do know that visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum?
I may not know much but at least I know how to read an article from beginning to end before making snarky comments

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: tanka418

Please take the time to actually read the patent.
The electro magnetic effect of a CRT is independent of the pulse rate of an image.
You do know that visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum?
I may not know much but at least I know how to read an article from beginning to end before making snarky comments

I'm sorry man, but when the abstract contains items that are not technically correct, reading more becomes difficult.

Also...the electromagnetic effects of a CRT monitor is highly dependent on the image...it is the image that generates much of that effect. The deflection yoke is a rather steady state as far as electromagnetic effects go. And, it is the electron gun that produces the image and virtually ALL of the dynamic electromagnetic fields.

And perhaps it is because I know "too much" (msee/mscs) that I have difficulty buying into things like this...

I don't believe I've made any "snarky" comments about the paper...though I do believe it is ill-informed, and rather obsolete...this sort of system will only work on a CRT, and not on an LCD, the world is using the LCD now, and the CRT is left with very few "specialty" applications.

a reply to: tanka418

I think you are missing the (oscillo)scope of this patent.
The idea is to combine an assault ranging from audio/visual electromagnetic and others.
I believe and I may be incorrect but the electromagnetic of this patent refers to invisible and visible light pulses mostly. The Effect of a CRTs electromagnetic field is kind of a moot point because everyone has wireless routers on all day anyway .
That's why it will work on any screen that emits lights.
Theoretically even on a projection screen.
Unless I am mistaken

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: tanka418

I think you are missing the (oscillo)scope of this patent.
The idea is to combine an assault ranging from audio/visual electromagnetic and others.
I believe and I may be incorrect but the electromagnetic of this patent refers to invisible and visible light pulses mostly. The Effect of a CRTs electromagnetic field is kind of a moot point because everyone has wireless routers on all day anyway .
That's why it will work on any screen that emits lights.
Theoretically even on a projection screen.
Unless I am mistaken

To reiterate...

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

-- from your OP.

So...who is missing the scope?

You seem to trying to make this into something much greater than it really is. This is referring to "pulsed images" and "pulsed electromagnetic fields". The language would seem to preclude the physiological affect of "pulsed light" (dude referred to "pulsed electromagnetic fields" as differentiated from "light").

ETA: I'm sorry, apparently I did miss a wee bit of the scope...

I over looked the verbiage; " human subject in response to stimulation of the skin with weak electromagnetic fields..."

So, we are actually talking about the weak electromagnetic fields generated specifically by the electron gun used ONLY in the CRT. This specific field can not be generated by the emission of light, though it frequently is associated. In the CRT the field generated by the electron moving through space to the anode of the CRT tube is accompanied by a burst flight when the electron strikes the phosphor, there are also x-rays generated, and some other stuff.

And, of course, this field is not generated by an LCD monitor.

a reply to: tanka418
So you admit the problem is you read the small snippet I link in the Op , didn't bother reading through the rest of the patent, ignored my posts explaining that the electromagnetic pulse of a CRT is moot because we have Wi-Fi routers doing an excellent job of that,aaaand ignore whole sections of patent text i linked explaining variations in RGB values and image pulses which do not have anything to do with electromagnetic pulses as you imagine them but rather within the visual and near visual spectrum range.
Please read.
reading is your friend.
Okay so will you read it now?
come on will you?
Please?

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: tanka418
So you admit the problem is you read the small snippet I link in the Op , didn't bother reading through the rest of the patent, ignored my posts explaining that the electromagnetic pulse of a CRT is moot because we have Wi-Fi routers doing an excellent job of that,aaaand ignore whole sections of patent text i linked explaining variations in RGB values and image pulses which do not have anything to do with electromagnetic pulses as you imagine them but rather within the visual and near visual spectrum range.
Please read.
reading is your friend.
Okay so will you read it now?
come on will you?
Please?

I'm not sure just how you managed to construe any of that from what've said.

You should note that what said I missed was in the first sentence of the paper. Further that the whole thing is about the affects of small/weak electromagnetic fields on the skin. I have confined my remarks to electromagnetic fields, while you have included everything from audio to light and not necessarily magnetic in any way, shape, or form.

BTW, I did read it...both you and dude are wrong. Actually only dude is wrong...you simply misunderstand.

a reply to: tanka418

are you sure hes wrong?
or maybe you just didt even bother reading it.........
from the patent.
(read it already)

DETAILED DESCRIPTION
Computer monitors and TV monitors emit electromagnetic fields. Part of the emission occurs at the low frequencies at which displayed images are changing. For instance, a rythmic pulsing of the intensity of an image causes electromagnetic field emission at the pulse frequency, with a strength proportional to the pulse amplitude. The field is briefly referred to as “screen emission”. In discussing this effect, any part or all what is displayed on the monitor screen is called an image. A monitor of the cathode ray tube (CRT) type has three electron beams, one for each of the basic colors red, green, and blue. The intensity of an image is here defined as

I=∫j dA,  (1)

where the integral extends over the image, and

j=jr+jg+jb,  (2)

jr, jg, and jb being the electric current densities in the red, green, and blue electron beams at the surface area dA of the image on the screen. The current densities are to be taken in the distributed electron beam model, where the discreteness of pixels and the raster motion of the beams are ignored, and the back of the monitor screen is thought to be irradiated by diffuse electron beams. The beam current densities are then functions of the coordinates x and y over the screen. The model is appropriate since we are interested in the electromagnetic field emision caused by image pulsing with the very low frequencies of sensory resonances, whereas the emissions with the much higher horizontal and vertical sweep frequencies are of no concern. For a CRT the intensity of an image is expressed in millamperes.

For a liquid crystal display (LCD), the current densities in the definition of image intensity are to be replaced by driving voltages, multiplied by the aperture ratio of the device. For an LCD, image intensities are thus expressed in volts.

It will be shown that for a CRT or LCD screen emissions are caused by fluctuations in image intensity. In composite video however, intensity as defined above is not a primary signal feature, but luminance Y is. For any pixel one has

Y=0.299R+0.587G+0.114B,  (3)

where R, G, and B are the intensities of the pixel respectively in red, green and blue, normalized such as to range from 0 to 1. The definition (3) was provided by the Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE), in order to account for brightness differences at different colors, as perceived by the human visual system. In composite video the hue of the pixel is determined by the chroma signal or chrominance, which has the components R-Y and B-Y It follows that pulsing pixel luminance while keeping the hue fixed is equivalent to pulsing the pixel intensity, up to an amplitude factor. This fact will be relied upon when modulating a video stream such as to overlay image intensity pulses.

It turns out that the screen emission has a multipole expansion wherein both monopole and dipole contributions are proportional to the rate of change of the intensity I of (1). The higher order multipole contributions are proportional to the rate of change of moments of the current density j over the image, but since these contributions fall off rapidly with distance, they are not of practical importance in the present context. Pulsing the intensity of an image may involve different pulse amplitudes, frequencies, or phases for different parts of the image. Any or all of these features may be under subject control.

The question arises whether the screen emission can be strong enough to excite sensory resonances in people located at normal viewing distances from the monitor. This turns out to be the case, as shown by sensory resonance experiments and independently by measuring the strength of the emitted electric field pulses and comparing the results with the effective intensity window as explored in earlier work.

a reply to: tanka418

is it really so hard to believe that pulsing combinations of color can cause hypnosis or other effect on the nervous system?