Microwave brain scrambler?
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 14 Mar 2010 19:39 On Mar 14, 6:35 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > > > Like you said about the McD hot coffee - the complaints add up and in > > this case it would be far less trivial. And when Mr FBI asks the store > > manager what happened, such is his loyalty to the corporation that said > > manager will happily go to prison for obstructing the investigation. > > > Anyway, the whole scheme of yours is just totally ludicrous from > > technical, legal and logistical points of view. A total non-starter. If > > you think otherwise, mortgage your house, build and test a device and > > try and sell it to MacBurger for zapping customers. See you living in a > > cardboard box... > > He would miscalculate the power levels, and fry what litte is left of > his brain. In fact he'd fry his scalp. the brain might get warmed up by thermal heat conduction through skull, but probably not enough to make any noticable difference, unless his "bigger amlifiers" could push out kilowatts. - Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Winston on 14 Mar 2010 19:53 On 3/14/2010 7:07 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: > On Mar 14, 9:18 am, Winston<Wins...(a)bigbrother.net> wrote: (...) >> You do understand that the victims will not complain because they >> will never see any evidence that the transmitter even exists, yes? >> What will they have to complain about? > > Falling over in a restaurant? I may not have mentioned this but the principal symptom will not include collapsing unless the target was off balance when zapped or knocked over while still unconscious. The entire episode will be over in 1-2 minutes. The customer will freeze in place and experience blindness, deafness and will not be responsive. Thought experiment: The last time you heard an unfamiliar sound (particularly a LOUD unfamiliar sound), you probably stopped what you were doing and remained very still, listening for further clues. At the moment you were distracted, you were all ears and eyes. You stopped hearing your tinnitus or feeling the ache that has been plaguing your lower back for the last couple days. Receipt of all non-life-threatening input got turned almost all the way down. This response gave our predecessors an evolutionary advantage because it focused their attention on avoiding whatever threat could be represented by the unfamiliar. It is an evolved response and virtually 'hardwired' into us. Replace that auditory stimulus with an *undifferentiated* stimulus 100,000 times "louder". By 'undifferentiated', I mean a set of stimuli that is neither sound, nor light nor taste nor touch nor smell nor fear nor hate nor love. Your brain will be suddenly overwhelmed. All your ability will be focused so intently on trying to understand this fundamentally new, incredibly pronounced *something* that you will not be able to see or hear or feel or taste or touch or smell *anything* until after the stimulus has been off for many seconds and the inputs to your brain once again start to make sense. This is the most confused you will ever be, by far, including the moment of your birth. This will be the most pronounced symptom. > The normal sober customer would find > that odd? Finding their wallet missing? Most targets will not be theft victims. All targets will find the experience exceedingly odd but will 'make up a story' on the spot to explain the symptom. Almost none will develop a reasonably accurate idea of what really happened. >> There will be no evidence. >> (I may have forgotten to make that point.) > > Other customers are likely to notice the behavioural changes that your > imaginary weapon would produce if it worked. Witness reports do count > as evidence. We are selfish by nature. The guy next to us has been quite still for the last 40 seconds, staring at the blank wall in front of him in a detached way. Is he daydreaming? Just thinking? Has he been zapped? Who knows and let's face it, who cares? >> Evidence.<-- The victims will never see it. > > But everybody else will see the victimn actig oddly. Another thought experiment. Set up a video camera focused on you so that it captures all your movements, all the sounds you make, all your facial expressions and movements for an hour or longer. At some point, you will very likely see your video image make a face or poke at his nose or gesture in a way that will seem utterly bizarre. What caused you to do that? Is this really 'normal behavior'? How can we tell if a particular behavior is normal for a total stranger when we personally exhibit behaviors that we cannot explain? >>> And when Mr FBI asks the store >>> manager what happened, such is his loyalty to the corporation that said >>> manager will happily go to prison for obstructing the investigation. >> >> Mr. FBI will never be involved. No crimes will be committed because >> no law enforcement agency will ever be equipped to detect the >> transmitter. > > A sufficently powerful electromagnetic field will stop mobile phones > from working (by saturating the input stage of the recever). Even FBI > officers carry this sort of equipment. Yup. Mobile equipment is very fault tolerant and will continue normal operation a very long time before our target regains full use of his body. >> Even if you grabbed Eliot Ness by the collar, lifted >> a drop ceiling panel and smacked a yardstick on the rim of the >> parabolic antenna: >> 1) He is not going to "officially" know what he's looking at. > > But he will appreciate that it is both unexpected and odd. Lots of unexpected, odd things are totally legal. Including the transmitter and the way it is used. It is a 25 pound package of "unremarkable" and a few cubic feet of "none of your business". >> 2) If he does eventually understand what he is looking at, he can >> reasonably point out that there is no law against that gear >> in that place and that there is no evidence that it was used >> illegitimately. > > You'd be surprised how many laws there are, and how creative the > police can be in interpeting them when they feel that they are being > played for a sucker. Until some LEO is targeted by the transmitter (or his kid or his significant other) there will be no reason for him to step out of his tracks to investigate. He has many better things to do. Afterwards however, he will be asking some very important questions, phrased in an attention-getting way. >> 3) He may reasonably point out the lack of case law defining >> microwave attack as 'assault'. > > If I directed enough microwave energy at you to heat your skin and > encourage cataract formation in the lens of your eyes,I don't think > you'd have much trouble getting me prosecuted for assault - the law > doesn't talk about weapons as such, but effects. Englsih law > distinguishes betweeen assault, which cases the victim to feel > threatened, and grievous bodily harm, where the victimn is > demonstrably damaged. Cataracts are evidence. Your interactions prior to and during the attack are evidence. I may not have mentioned this but normal use of the transmitter will not create any evidence. None, outside the sheepish admissions of someone who really thinks he experienced his first stroke. Or some such. >> 4) If pressed he will point out that the restaurant owner has every >> right to defend himself against armed robbers. > > But not to spray the rest of his customers with microwaves or shot-gun > pellets or whatever other collatoral damage. It will be defined as a 'harmless weapon'. By definition no harm will be possible, so what standing do the victims have? Wait, I know this one. >> This will not be just an 'uphill battle' for honest targets. > > More a downhill slide. > >> It will be impossible for them because no one will ever understand >> that the transmitter is in place and being used immorally. > > And stopping mobile phomes from working over a wide area? Each pulse will be, say 50 to 100 milliseconds wide. Cell phones will recover very quickly, easily and transparently. >>> Anyway, the whole scheme of yours is just totally ludicrous from >>> technical, legal and logistical points of view. >> >> How so? Technically, a slightly larger antenna, higher >> carrier frequency and a good sized amplifier are the changes >> needed to my original outline. Dare I mention that multiple >> transmitters could provide excellent coverage? > > Only if you want to fry the victim's scalp, which is all That would require a fat duty cycle. This will be a pulse device with a very narrow duty cycle. (~0.5% or so). >> Legally, there is no prohibition against burning someone with >> a microwave beam (for example). >> It is not considered assault and perhaps never will be. > > Dream on. > >> For grins just now, I Googled >> ("case law" "microwave burn" assault) >> Got zero hits. That string is so unusual that it didn't even >> show up in any 'word salad' harvesting site. > > It is a feasible form of assault, just hopelessly expensive for the > effect created. > >> Logistically, a facilities installer working for cash on the side >> could get a packaged system up and running within a couple hours >> after arrival. > > If a "packaged system" could ever create the effect you have dreamed > up. We will never know. That is the good news and the bad news. >>> A total non-starter. If >>> you think otherwise, mortgage your house, build and test a device and >>> try and sell it to MacBurger for zapping customers. See you living in a >>> cardboard box... >> >> I would never do that because the transmitter will represent the darkest >> side of human thought. >> >> But mostly I feel that 'sunlight is the best disinfectant'. > > It doesn't seem to have disinfected you into silence. If I can conceive of this, that means other, more capable folks have conceived of it, as well. I don't know about you but I'd very much rather *not* get zapped by one of these things, should they ever be built. Thanks for your perspective. --Winston
From: Bill Sloman on 14 Mar 2010 19:56 On Mar 14, 8:13 pm, Winston <Wins...(a)bigbrother.net> wrote: > On 3/14/2010 6:41 AM,Bill Slomanwrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 8:01 pm, Winston<Wins...(a)bigbrother.net> wrote: > >> On 3/12/2010 11:49 PM,Bill Slomanwrote: > > >>> On Mar 12, 9:21 pm, Winston<Wins...(a)bigbrother.net> wrote: > > >> (...) > > >>>> How could that be? Who is the 'nailer'? > > >>> Disgruntled employee - not every manager has an attractive and > >>> sympathetic personality. > > >> Are disgruntled employees particularly powerful in your area > >> of the world? Do they have the power to investigate, arrest, > >> prosecute and jail offenders? In my area of the world, > >> government resources are given to managers in order to steal > >> from disgruntled employees. It is a different environment. > > > One that presumably doesn't contain active trade unions, for a start. > > Yes, they all died decades ago for all intents and purposes. > > >> Let me ask an entirely different question: > > >> Who is the 'nailer'? > > >> I can help here because there is no 'nailer'. > > > You are out of your mind. The "nailer" is the disgrunteled employee > > who uses your mythical electro-magneitc weapon to "nail" the manager > > Without access to the control panel in the manager's > office, how is the employee to do that? Since when has the manager's office been accessible only to the manager? > Zapping someone with this weapon will not be illegal or immoral based > on our current beliefs. Under your daft interpretation of current beliefs. Disabling someone by whatever means is assault, and both illegal and immoral. > Breaking and entering is both, if the > employee is not acting on behalf of a well placed corporate sponsor. > In that case he has carte blanche to do whatever he can get > away with. "Breaking an entering" a managers office? No manager that I've ever worked for kept his office locked. > >> Superman is a myth, Bill. > > > Not a myth, but a comic-book hero, and totally irrelevant here. > > Good. We agree that innocent customers will have no one to represent > their interests. Hardly. > >>>>> After you discover that the robber is actually a friend of the cashier > >>>>> and joking around and you lay him on the ground, make plans to sell > >>>>> off the business to pay legal costs and to spend a nice amount of time > >>>>> in jail. > > >>>> Are you seriously suggesting that a lawyer or judge would voluntarily > >>>> snuff out their career by prosecuting a case against their owners? > > >>> Prosecutors just love high profile cases. > > >> Sure, against the powerless. It's "votes in the bag" to pop a guy growing > >> pot for cancer victims. It is an honorable prosecution as well, yes? > > > That may be your idea of a high profile case. People with a better > > grip on reality would differ. > > High profile cases are not brought by powerless individuals unless > they can provide proof to a much more powerful entity that *it's* > nose is being pushed into the dirt. You do go in for vapid generalisations. > Until an FBI agent gets zapped, no one will care. What's so special about FBI agents. You've been watching too much TV. > After an FBI agent gets zapped, there will be hell to pay. :) > > >> Against powerful law breakers? Surely you jest. > > > The Clinton administration went after Microsoft. > > Joe Shmoe, hapless sandwich shop customer does not have quite the legal > weight behind him that the Clinton DoJ had. Can we agree on that? And your idiot restaurant manager isn't Microsoft. > >>>>> Put a revolver under the register if you have such a problem with > >>>>> robbery. > > >>>> But this is *so* much more elegant! > > >>> Or would be, if it could work. > > >> It works just fine. > > > For which implausible claim you advance what evidence? > > The science conducted by Dr. Adey outlined in the article > I have been citing for the last few days. About an unexplained mechanism that produced audible clicks, which you chose to interpret as an effect of transcranial electrical stimulation, not that Dr. Adey's system would have produced any such currents in the brain at any effective frequency. > >>>> Not only can the manager disable robbers, he can > >>>> use the system on honest employees and customers as well. > > >>> Or could, if it could work. > > >> It works great. > > > If we use your over-fertile imagination as a test-bed. > > I invite you to look at Dr. Adey's findings and try with > the best of your ability to believe that the effects he > demonstrated would leave brain cells completely unaffected. Like everybody else who seems to have looked at that lame paper, I'm prefectly happy that the effect he demonstrated had nothing to do with the direct stimulation of brain cells by the exciting field. I suspect that his subjects heard perfectly real audio clicks produced by some defect in his experimental set-up. > >>>> The entertainment is endless because it is completely > >>>> undetectable. > > >>> A big dish antenna aobe a false ceiling, and the RF transmitter to > >>> drive it? > > >> I guess I didn't mention this but: > > >> "Of course it would be small and easy to hide. Pick a frequency that > >> beams well using a<12" diameter parabola yet still easily penetrates > >> through a couple inches of cranium to deposit 1 mW/ cm2 in the brain > >> over a distance of say 20 feet. > >> Pretty cheap and easy with suspended ceilings being as ubiquitous as > >> they are. " > > >>> A bit harder to hide that a hand-gun, and ripping it out and > >>> dumping it off the bridge would be a little more obvious, and leave > >>> more obvious traces, > > >> Why would removal be necessary? > >> The transmitter isn't illegal. > >> It isn't even considered immoral or even 'in poor taste'. > > > Stick somebody elses head in a microwave and disable the door safety > > interlock, and you will find out that your action is considered both > > immoral and in poor taste. > > Of course. I would too. > I am governed by a finely tuned sense of 'right and wrong'. Pity that you haven't quite such a well-developed system for separating sesne from nonsense. > Also the law, because I am a powerless Joe Shmoe. :) > > Our zappers will be folks that have no moral compass and no > compunction against breaking laws at will. > For them, there is no moral violation and no law to be broken. True, but only because your zapper won't do what you think it will. > >> It is a weapon used against the powerless, so why wouldn't law enforcement > >> and the courts be fully supportive of it if they were "officially" aware? > > >>> clown. > > >> You believe that I speak in jest? I do not. > > > The humour resides in your belief that you are describing a > > practicable system. > > We will never know, one way or the other. You may never know. > >>>> The old guy on table #4. Just as he lifts his coffee cup, zap > >>>> him and he pours hot coffee all over his shirt! He gets up, > >>>> and attempts to get to the bathroom, zap him again so he hits > >>>> his head on the counter and soils himself at the same time. > > >>>> I don't think you grasp the hilarious possibilities here. > > >>>> There isn't any evidence it was ever used, other than the recollection > >>>> of the victim. Who is going to believe him (or her for that matter)? > > >>> Except the paper trail covers the papyments for the expensive > >>> installation, and the memories and records of the sub-contractors who > >>> did the work. > > >> Let's say I specialize in installation and servicing of these tools. > >> I know what they are for and I realize that in an enlightened > >> society use of the tools would be considered assault and attempted > >> murder; the users and I would be jailed for a long, long time. > > >> So my first move is to keep my activities far 'off the books'. > >> It's a cash deal only. My livelihood is dependent upon my discretion. > >> Ask any drug supplier to the rich and famous (unless you are also > >> convinced that they can never exist.) > > > Drug dealers sell drugs that are grown and imported illegally. Your > > business couldn't support an "off the books" electronic inustry. > > Sure it would. I Googled ("plant maintenance" company) just now. > 874,000 hits. Any one of them would be more than happy to read > the simple installation instructions and make the transmitter > fully operational, in compliance with all codes. > > >> Why would I dump into my own breakfast by squealing? > > > Your financial records - notably payments for electronic hardware - > > would give the game away. > > You do understand that there is no law against installation or > operation of the transmitter, yes? There will be nothing to > investigate. Because it won't work. > >>> You don't understand much. > > >> Yes, it is a problem which I am solving, fact by fact. :) > > > Imaginary fact by invented misconception. > > I still have my opinion, too. :) Pity about that. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Winston on 14 Mar 2010 20:00 On 3/14/2010 11:58 AM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > On 14/03/2010 18:32, Winston wrote: >> On 3/14/2010 9:35 AM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: >>> On 14/03/2010 08:44, Winston wrote: >> >> (...) >> >>>> Adey demonstrated that modulated non-ionizing radiation can >>>> replace legitimate interneural brain communication with >>>> 'garbage input', likely to tax and confuse the unfortunate >>>> owner of said brain. That is a key takeaway. >>> >>> Except it doesn't work in "real life" in any acute form. >> >> That depends on how you define the term 'acute'. >> >> The symptoms *will* occur instantly, for all intents. > > No. > Hours to days. Quoting Dr. Adey: "In animals and man EEG records tracings from deep brain structures normally exhibit spontaneous rhythm patterns. These appear as bursts of waves in different brain structures that last for two to three seconds. Animals can be trained to make these bursts by reward or punishment. For example, if one presents a flash of light, the animal must make that response within two seconds or be "punished." In this punishment the eyes are involuntarily deviated to the opposite side by stimulation of the brain itself. This is unpleasant but not painful." Doesn't sound like hours or days to me, Dirk. Thanks for your thoughts --Winston
From: Winston on 14 Mar 2010 20:01
On 3/14/2010 11:59 AM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > On 14/03/2010 18:47, Winston wrote: (...) >> It must be very efficiently worded. >> I saw only titles and page numbers in that document. > > Then you will have to buy the book when its available. Heh! --Winston |