Tobiscope design (with instructions from the CIA)

[bd139]

. I know a pleasant woman and man who were raped by alligator like beings.

Did those charming people tell you what a reptiloid's genitalia look like? Shape/size, shaft/balls, anything unusual? Did the rapist alligators experience orgasm? Did the woman get pregnant with little alligators?

Like a duck but the other way round. Obviously so you don’t get any duck reptile hybrids.

[TimFox]

. I know a pleasant woman and man who were raped by alligator like beings.

Did those charming people tell you what a reptiloid's genitalia look like? Shape/size, shaft/balls, anything unusual? Did the rapist alligators experience orgasm? Did the woman get pregnant with little alligators?

50 years ago, on a US comedy TV show (ABC Comedy News), two abductees were interviewed about their experience.
The lady (played by Fannie Flagg) said that the alien smoked after sex.
The gentleman (played by Kenneth Mars) objected, saying that the aliens never used tobacco products of any kind.
The lady retorted, "Who said anything about tobacco?  He smoked!"

[Kim Christensen]

Many thanks for all your tips Kim and your excellent illustration. But I couldn't get RFI that can affect the circuit badly enough for 1mV signal to be clipped like that.

Then you probably don't have to worry about it. It's just a possibility to be aware of.

What particular circuit can you share where RFI like am station signal can drive 1mV to that kind of distortion?

Back in the day (70-80s), there used to be a local AM station tower on one of the mountains in my area. People who also lived on that mountain had all kinds of problems with RFI. ie: A standard garage door remote wouldn't work because the high level RF would swamp the crappy receiver in the motor unit.

Also why did you work inside Faraday Cage. What circuits (or source of RFI) did you do that can drive 1mV signal so badly?

I worked in a naval shipyard. There were welders, plasma cutters, etc in the area randomly emitting EMI. Then within our own electronics shop, others were testing high power transmitters, etc.
It would be quite annoying if you were trying to repair a radio with marginal sensitivity with random EMI in the area. Or try and diagnose sensitive test gear with the shields off.
But about 90% of the time, keeping the shielded room's door closed was about keeping the riffraff out. 
Then there were also the times we wanted to work on an emergency beacon. While we'd still notify the proper people that we were going to do so, to avoid possible disruptions to a real emergency, we'd take the beacon into our cage to work on it in case we accidentally set it off.

[Kim Christensen]

The only theory that makes sense is these are from dark matter universe,...

Not that I really want to get into this, but "dark matter" is just a term scientists use to make the math work.
ie: The rate of our universe's expansion cannot be explained by gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen... In other words we can't see all the matter in the universe to explain it. But this don't make it some weird force or anything.

[bd139]

It's aliens. It's always the aliens. Build a wall in space quick.

[SiliconWizard]

The rate of our universe's expansion has to do with dark energy, not dark matter.

Nah, it's all about dark fluid and basic fluid mechanics.

[babysitter]

Welcome to "Using EMI and random noise effects to improve your delusions"

(Am I a certified CIA psy-op attacker now?)

[AVGresponding]

(Am I a certified CIA psy-op attacker now?)

idk, can you kill goats by staring at them?

[Kim Christensen]

Debunk.... This line kind of sums it up:

It has long been known that the brain sends signals (e.g. between 20 and 100 Hz) to muscles, and that simultaneous measurements of the brain and muscles show coherent energy patterns, suggesting that there is one connected (bio-)field, rather than only local mechanisms.

Well, duh! Your brain sends signals via nerves to your muscles, so "coherent energy patterns" are a given. No need for "bio field" or the cha cha. No mystery here.
Plus their study sample size was too small and it wasn't a double blind test. The whole "spiritual" mumbo jumbo was unscientific to say the least.

So I couldn't afford it. It has this description (in Europe, they reversed the comma and dot) but what does 2.4576 Mhz mean? 2,4576 Mhz? What's that?

They mean 2.4576Mhz which is the ADC sample rate. They are over sampling 64x so:
2.4576Mhz / 64 = 38,000 samples per second per channel.

[bonyz]

Debunk.... This line kind of sums it up:

It has long been known that the brain sends signals (e.g. between 20 and 100 Hz) to muscles, and that simultaneous measurements of the brain and muscles show coherent energy patterns, suggesting that there is one connected (bio-)field, rather than only local mechanisms.

Well, duh! Your brain sends signals via nerves to your muscles, so "coherent energy patterns" are a given. No need for "bio field" or the cha cha. No mystery here.

Naw. There is a concept in neuroscience called Corticomuscular coherence. This is another pathway besides the usual action potential known by most, even high schooler. He has PH.D. in Psychology and others. He put the reference "12" referring to

REVIEW ARTICLE
Corticomuscular Coherence: A Review
Mima, Tatsuya; Hallett, Mark
Author Information
Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 16(6):p 501, November 1999.

"
Abstract
Summary

Corticomuscular coherence measured between electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography, or local field potentials and electromyography (EMG) should be helpful in understanding the cortical control of movement. EEG–EMG coherence and phase spectra depend on the types of EEG derivation and current source density function of EEG appears to be the most appropriate for computation of EEG–EMG coherence. A new model for the interpretation of the phase spectra (“constant phase shift plus constant time lag model”) shows that cortical surface negative potentials are phase-locked to EMG firing. There are functional differences of EEG–EMG coherence among the alpha, beta, and gamma bands suggesting differences in their possible generator mechanisms. Since corticomuscular coherence is a noninvasive measure of corticomotoneuronal function in a specific frequency range, clinical application of this method might be very fruitful in tremor research.""

I went to the publications and whole article costs $47 so didn't buy it. But more reference about it with full article in:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00100/full

.... "Corticomuscular coherence is a common and useful method to study the mechanism of cerebral cortex’s control of muscle activity. It reveals functional connection between the cortex and muscles during continuous muscle contractions. The origin of CMC is the communication in corticospinal pathways between primary motor cortex and muscles."

Plus their study sample size was too small and it wasn't a double blind test. The whole "spiritual" mumbo jumbo was unscientific to say the least.

I have over 50 neuroscience books and been trying to figure out how the brain is connected to this biofield. So it is still work in progress. Lions and tigers have incredible reflexes. So brain and nervous system are very superior and enough for unconscious processes. But somehow evolution has adapted (for lack of better description) dark matter into our body, which is extension of our brain. I'm still trying to figure out the exact mechanism of interactions.

About chakras. I'm so sure of it I'm willing to give one million dollars if it didn't exist. Lol.

So I couldn't afford it. It has this description (in Europe, they reversed the comma and dot) but what does 2.4576 Mhz mean? 2,4576 Mhz? What's that?

They mean 2.4576Mhz which is the ADC sample rate. They are over sampling 64x so:
2.4576Mhz / 64 = 38,000 samples per second per channel.

About "In addition, a powerful floating point Digital Signal Processor performs oversampling and real-time filtering of the biosignal data (between 0 Hz – 2.400 Hz). Therefore, a typical sampling frequency of 256 Hz yields an oversampling rate of 9.600."

So their bio-amplifier can do 0 to 2400 Hz?  Why does a typical sampling frequency of 256 Hz yields an oversampling rate of 9600 Hz?  And what is the oversampling for the 2400 Hz?

You described previously:

By limiting the bandwidth, you can improve the signal to noise ratio. So if you had modified that 40Hz lowpass to be a 25Khz lowpass filter it would have been better than just disabling it.

You said that "By limiting the bandwidth, you can improve the signal to noise ratio". Supposed my module has 0 to 5kHz bandwidth versus 0-700 kHz bandwidth, and say there are no RFI interferences but merely the internal noise. How could internal noise form from larger bandwidth distort the signal? I mean. If my signal to noise ratio is low due to very wide bandwidth.  I can still see 1mV signal in in spite of the noises, isn't it? How can the 1mV become invisible due to internet noises?? (note this is not same case as in your illustration drawing when there are external interferences).

[bd139]

https://journals.lww.com/anesthesia-analgesia/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2013&issue=06000&article=00025&type=Fulltext

"Since it has proved impossible to find consistent evidence after more than 3000 trials, it is time to give up. It seems very unlikely that the money that it would cost to do another 3000 trials would be well-spent."

aka this whole damn thing is bullshit.

[Kim Christensen]

White noise occurs evenly at all frequencies. So if you had 10mW of total noise energy between 0Hz and 10Khz, then you would only have 5mW of total noise energy between 0Hz and 5Khz.

[Kim Christensen]

You'd put a basic filter before the amplifier to minimize IMD (Because no amplifier is perfect) and the chance of overloading. Then a 2nd filter after it to filter out of band noise generated by the amplifier and provide further reduction of out of band signals that got through the 1st filter. (Because again, nothing is perfect)

[Kim Christensen]

Are you familiar with the Biomation Transient Recorder No. 802 mentioned above? How is it supposed to work?

No but it sounds like she used this to record the waveforms and then used it to play it back for display on the scope and spectrum analyzer. So any voltages and readings there could be meaningless.

Also  Hunt claimed to adjust her oscilloscope to "low 0-30 millivoltages with a sweep speed of from 5 to 50 milliseconds per centimeter based on the frequencies of the waveform.

Again it doesn't make much sense... Going by that (5 ms per square) then the highest frequency I see on the scope is around 400Hz, yet the spectrum analyzer says 800Hz.

I haven't used a large oscilloscope before, only small one like a multimeter or the F-Nirst DSO-TC3. It doesn't have centimeter scale. What is the sweep speed of from 5 to 50 milliseconds per centimeter in Hunt description?

Scopes have a grid. So a 10cm wide screen would have 1cm squares. Perhaps this is what she meant.

Also please refer to the spectrum analyzer result at right of bottom image above. Can any old Spectrum Analyzer display it like that (in the right)? Or is it a drawing? If it came from the analyzer itself. Why is there a 100kHz at top?

I think the color legend at the bottom were edited in. Otherwise it looks like a screen photo. I think that 100Khz is really 1.00Khz, so it has a span of 0-1000Hz.

And most important. Based on the amplitudes of the waveforms (again at the right.. noting that the left is photograph from her oscilloscope using the Transient recorder). Can one figure out what milliVoltage is the original? Like if you use spectrum analyzer on a waveform, does it maintain the amplitude values of the original waveform?

Since it was recorded by the Biomation Transient Recorder and then played back for analysis, it's anyone's guess what the levels actually were.

[Kim Christensen]

What do you mean the higher frequency you see on the scope is around 400Hz?
Did you mean 400Hz in  your scope? Also the spectrum analyzer doesn't say 800Hz. Where did you get the 800Hz?

Not my scope. 400Hz on the scope screenshot and info you posted. 5ms per cm (division) as the fastest sweep. I saw what looked like a period of 1/2 a division (2.5ms) which equals 400Hz ( 1/2.5ms )
If the sweep was even slower, then the frequency on the scope would be much lower... But on the spectrum posted we see a bump just below 800Hz... (So maybe more like 875Hz or something. Hard to tell from the photo) It's just a guess and is the best I can do with the info provided. I mean, she gives a broad range for sweep speed (5 to 50ms per cm) but never says what the speed was for the screenshot.

How did you compute 3.162mV from -50db?
In the above spectrum analyzer value. It's -41dbV. What formula did you convert it to millivolt?

I just used a calculator website like this one to get the RMS value. You might prefer 2x peak value if you're comparing it to a waveform on a scope.

Also what does 10dB/30Hz mean in the screen above?

I think it means "power spectral density" ie: There's a certain bandwidth that the spectrum analyzer displays as a single bump even though it could actually be multiple "bumps".

[Kim Christensen]

Did you mean by "bump" just below 800hz as the higher amplitude signal of the fourier transform like in the following?

I meant on the spectrum analyzer image. See the "Red-Green" image below.

In the image above I found at the net. Do you think a Fourier transform frequency can have amplitude greater than the original (the first waveform transformed or is it wrong)?

It shouldn't if things are done right.

In the spectrum. -41 dbV corresponds to 8.912mV.
Does it mean the Hunt spectrum analyzer display from top to bottom is 8.912mV? If so, then the highest Fourier frequency amplitude near 800 Hz (your bump) is about 5mV?

Traditionally that number refers to the top line (reference level) on a spectrum analyzer but it's probably the bottom line because of the "greater than" symbol in "> -41dBV". Then each vertical division would be either a 10db or 2db step. (But it could be anything)  But the vertical scale could also be linear and not log. No way to tell without Hunt telling you somewhere in the docs.

It doesn't make sense. Why can't a Fourier breakdown correspond to the amplitude of the highest frequency like in the illustration above?  Because if can correspond, then the waveform is 5mV.

It could tell us if we knew how much it was amplified before entering a calibrated spectrum analyzer and we knew the settings on the instrument. But we don't know that.

She mentioned her oscilloscopes were set 0 to 30mV. But the original bio-signal is around 1 to 10mV for EMG.

First pls don't miss the last message where I asked you for 4 times already if you can tell the original waveform amplitude even approximately by the spectrum analyzer amplitudes, so kindly reply in my last message.

See "Cant say" image below. There's no way to know, because we don't know what the "Biomation Transient Recorder" did to the signal before it reached the scope and spectrum analyzer:

[Kim Christensen]

Hunt was very poor in electronics and physics. One giveaway was she said she used speed of 5 ms which is equal to  200Hz only. So how could it display the 1000 Hz? If Hunt was poor in electronics. She could have fabricated the waveforms afterwards or beforehand.

I think she played back the waveforms at a slower speed when she displayed them on the scope. This would explain the slower sweep speed. (You can still see a higher frequency signal on the scope; it would just appear as a solid bar.)

Read this again carefully. Especially the very last sentence:

[Kim Christensen]

In his vertical labels like "Power normalized values" or "power Zstand". Do you have idea what he meant and what amplitudes it is describing.

Nope. I believe it has been deliberately obfuscated.

[Kim Christensen]

Hunt was very poor in electronics and physics. One giveaway was she said she used speed of 5 ms which is equal to  200Hz only. So how could it display the 1000 Hz? If Hunt was poor in electronics. She could have fabricated the waveforms afterwards or beforehand.

This is confusing. I mean. If you slow it down and still see the higher frequency signal on the scope (of Hunt as you described above), and it appears as solid bar. But Hunt waveform was not solid bar. Please elaborate what you mean. With my small oscilloscope. I couldn't vary the source speed so can't visualize what you are saying.

Ok... I wrote that poorly. If the sweep speed on the scope is too slow for the frequency, you'd still see that it exists, but it would appear as a solid bar. Normally when you see that, you'd increase the scope's sweep speed so you can see the waveform. But that's not what Hunt did. She kept the scope sweep the same and slowed the playback of the waveform (Lowering the playback frequency) using the Biomation Transient Recorder so she could get a good picture. A least that's how I read it:
"To store the waveform and expand and project it on an oscilloscope"

Where is the EMG sensor above? She used EMG sensor to detect the skin frequencies and not just Transient Recorder.

The sensor is on the human body at the left. Transient Recorder records the output of the sensor. Then the data is played back later and analyzed with the scope and SA.

[EE54]

The only thread that can top this is that guy who made a voltage standard which he claims outperform commercial ones using instructions given ti him by God.

[coppercone2]

how u know its not like 'the mist'

i don't wanna help u measure shit ne more b4 u open some spider hole. dis starts as some kinda goat farm and it ends up with red devils trying to take ur land

[bd139]

That does it. I'm moving to Mars away from these crazy people.

[coppercone2]

u dun wanna go to that red devil planet

one day ur gonna be digging in ur corn plot and ur gonna find this cube and its gonna be like that movie with the magical xenomorphs

[EE54]

https://www.pranichealing.com.au/pages/the-chakras
 .............................
..............................
What has this got to do with the Tobiscope?

I'm wondering that myself. How about you just stick to that instead of replying with an entire short story about a bunch of unrelated people.
Like a story a bout how Tom from Canada can "allegedly" move spec of sands with his mind is interesting but not really related to the subject at hand.

[EE54]

Except for the probe material, it just sounds like you could use a regular multimeter.
First half of the document describes measuring skin resistance between two points.
Second half seems to be using different metal probes to measure small voltages generated by skin PH reacting with the metals.

The conclusions sound like dodgy pseudo science. Typical for the era.

Everything starts with a first step. This doesn't belong to pseudoscience of the 1950s but is still relevant now. That's the point of posting background (but I'll erase them anyway soon).

Let's go back to the main topic of Tobiscope at hand and end it with the topic.

You mentioned you can use multimeter for the Tobiscope. In the following which I got 20  year ago and locally made in the Philippines.



When I put the probe in my skin, I couldn't get any ohm reading. It's infinity or no contact. What does your multimeter show? What really is the resistance between skin points? The multimeter lowest setting is 400 Ohms and it should be able to measure say 5 ohms.

https://www.digitimer.com/product/human-neurophysiology/amplifier-accessories/d175-electrode-impedance-meter/



Also how does a multimeter in the ohm measurement compare to skin impedance meter? Aren't they the same?
The above costs $350 from UK. If I'll just get a multimeter for both Tobiscope and Skin Impedance meter function. What is the most accurate multimeter in the world that can measures up to 0.00000001% accurate resistance?

First, try setting your multimeter to a higher range (400k or 4M), when I try measuring my skin resistance with a multimeter, it measures in the range of several thousands ohms or more.
Second, I don't know how those skin impedance meter work so I refrain from commenting on that.
Thirdly, you want to measures resistance with 0.00000001% accuracy. That's 0.0001 ppm uncertainty.
Freaking primary labs using Quantum Resistance Standard, the most accurate resistance standard currently available, can only achiever like 0.06 ppm uncertainty.
https://xdevs.com/article/si2019/#qhrohm
Why on Earth would you need that ridiculous level of accuracy?