Re: shielding Notebook - Quantum Byte

Thanks Beau,

I really appreciate your analysis of this application of wire mesh. Knowing
it may have a good chance to help is enough to try it.

I am curious if you have looked at the Quantum Byte software, and how it
works. I have been quite critical if this software could really accomplish
anything since I thought software would only be limited to the logic gates
of a computer, which do only what they are programmed, and usually only
trigger other logic gates and hardward. But after reading your concept of
CPU frequencies getting into the equation, I start to wonder if the Byte
software is simply exercising the logic gates in computer in a more uniform
rythym (perhaps triggering some logic gates just to exercise CPU and not
accomplish any functional result) so the cpu is operating in a more uniform
pattern?

I am curious if any other people had positive results with Quantum Byte
software?

Best wishes,

Glenn


----Original Message Follows----
From: "Beau" <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [eSens] Re: shielding Notebook
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:11:27 -0000

Hi Charles,

I respectfully disagree with you concerning the equation. Please note
that I conditioned the equation's application by an a priori knowledge
of frequencies by saying "*If we can take* the computer's CPU clock
speed as its highest frequency component...". Of course, I do agree
that we can't know all the frequencies without measuring them first.
However, if we assume a maximum for the frequencies a body is emitting
we have concurrently placed a minimum on the emitted wavelengths.
Meshes with spacing smaller than this minimum wavelength begin to
appear as continuous surfaces without holes for transverse EM.

Also, I want to emphasize that I am not saying a mesh provides *total*
shielding of the transverse EM from a notebook computer. Everyone,
please pardon me if I inadvertently gave that impression by saying
near the end of my previous message "...should readily shield the
transverse emissions in the above example."

Let me be more complete. Given a mesh with spacing much smaller than
the minimum radiated wavelength, the level of shielding is dependent
on the characteristics of the mesh material -- its depth, its
permeability, its conductivity -- as well as the geometry and
frequency of the radiated field encountering it.

If we have an aluminum mesh enclosure fitting our spacing criteria
with wire thickness of 0.25 mm, a 1 GHz transverse EM plane wave
encountering it will be approximately attenuated to around
1/(2.718)^(100) its original amplitude after penetrating the mesh. A
100 MHz transverse EM plane wave will suffer attenuation to around
1/(2.718)^(33) its original amplitude. In near-field conditions, such
as a mesh around a notebook computer, the level of shielding is more
complex to calculate, but it will exist to some extent for these
frequencies for both the electric and magnetic field components.

Unfortunately, low-frequency transverse EM won't be hampered by this
mesh even though it 'looks' like a smooth surface to it. For a 100 Hz
transverse EM plane wave would require the mesh's depth to be 36x
thicker (around 8.5 mm) just to attenuate it down to 1/3 its original
amplitude.

Beau

--- In [hidden email], "Charles" <charles@c...> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this equeation does not work.
>
> You can't know what ferquencies are radiating from this thing.
>
> The damaging part are the magnetic fields emanating.
> And we know that they can be heavy.
> Especially above the keyboard, whereunder the hard disk and
motherboard are frequency
> > component then the aperture/mesh size below which shielding for
the
> > computer will begin is:
> >
> > (0.3 m)/(CPU speed in GHz) or
> > (300 m)/(CPU speed in MHz)
> >
> > Smaller aperture sizes than this work much better. For typical
square
> > mesh, divide by the square root of 2 to account for the diagonal
of
> > the mesh being its largest aperture width.
> >
> > For example, if we had a 1 GHz CPU, then square mesh below (30
> > cm)/(sqrt 2) ~ (21 cm) will begin to confine the transverse EM
> > radiation. A 1/4" square mesh has as its largest aperture width
> > (0.25") * (1.414) ~ (0.35") ~ (0.89 cm) which should readily
shield the wire
> > mesh
> > > works on microwaves it may work here too. I may even make a
whole
> > box
> > > around my notebook with notebook sitting in cage.
> > >
> > > If it does work, then I can find a finer quality mesh so I can
see help.

> I am curious if any other people had positive results with Quantum Byte
> software?

I certainly noticed it when I first used it, and I do recall it increasing
my tolerance for EMF. However, I haven't used it lately, as I moved
onto other things.

By the way, there's another EMF software out there called "Computer Clear":

http://computerclear.com

I also noticed this doing something, but I was never convinced that what
it was doing was good for me.

Also, under the category "old habits die hard", I purchased one of those
Personal Rejuvenators that was mentioned last week, and it arrived an
hour ago. I must say that it is emitting some pretty strong energy --
whether or not it helps with EMF or I can stand it for extended periods
of time is another question! I'll let you know...

Glancing at the instructions and the claims about what this thing will
do, I'd reserve this one for only the most open-minded people out there...
a skeptic would have a great time mocking these claims!

Marc

>I am curious if any other people had positive results with Quantum Byte
software?

Hi,

I didn't notice a lot from it with respect to my sensitivity to my LCD. But then again I could be sensitive to a lot of other aspects of it. (See the article posted not so long ago.)

Turning the brightness down didn't help a lot. What does help a bit is changing the desktop theme. I changed background color in black and foreground (text) in light grey. (And menus are red, selections dark blue.) This gives me some relief, but I should limit my exposure time still.
Websites don't respond to the theme. I would be pleased if someone could tell me if websites can be adapted like this.

I've put the Aulterra neutralizer on my LCD. Though I could sense some force from it. I'm not under the impression that it brings much relieve.

Niels

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Glenn,

I have tried this software and it seemed to create a similar but less
intense response than the Quantum Home unit. If you had asked me
years ago whether I believed software could do this I probably would
have said no, but I've experienced too many 'unexplainables' at this
point to shut out possibilities. I must admit that I still had doubts
about the software, though. :)

I've been scratching my head a lot over how the Quantum units and
software may work, so I did some poking around. The hint I followed
was the claim that they improved the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).
I've come across an article in a physics journal, Physics Letters A,
that may point to what's being done:

http://ee.tamu.edu/~noise/research_files/PLA_periodic.pdf.

The article discusses what is called 'stochastic resonance' and how
the SNR of a stochastic resonator can be greatly improved by just
adding simply tailored Gaussian noise, aka white noise, to the system.
Lots of stuff pops up on search engines on this topic. So, maybe the
Quantum units insert tailored electrical white noise onto one's
wiring, and maybe the Quantum software has the computer cycle through
a data set that is the digitized equivalent of white noise?

Still scratching...

Beau

--- In [hidden email], "Glenn Coleman" <glennhcoleman@h...>
wrote:

> maybe the Quantum software has the computer cycle through
> a data set that is the digitized equivalent of white noise?

Note also that I've looked at the Windows NT task monitor,
and the Quantum Byte never seems to use any CPU time,
even after being on for 8 hours...

But yes, I've also observed that the software has the
same effect as the Quantum hardware products, just less
strong. The Quantum Companion is also less strong -- to me,
it seems less strong than the software (but much more
portable). The power strip is a good middle ground between
these weaker products and the stronger Home/Pro units.
People who have adverse reactions from the Home unit
at the lowest setting might do better with the power
strips.

Also, note that multiple Quantum power strips have
an additive effect. Two power strips in a house
affects the whole house more than one, and three
is more powerful still. They don't really advertise
this fact, but both me and my cats have noticed it. :-)

Marc

--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@u...> wrote:
>
> Note also that I've looked at the Windows NT task monitor,
> and the Quantum Byte never seems to use any CPU time,
> even after being on for 8 hours...
>

Thanks for that info, Marc. This puts things in a new light. So the
program is not doing anything but sitting in memory...hmmm. Then its
effect, if one really exists, can only be attributed to the program's
presence in memory...unless the continual RAM refresh cycle somehow
pulses/activates the program's pattern as the RAM's microcondensers
leak charge and are then refreshed to full charge? I'm really
stretching for an answer here... If not, then wouldn't the presence
of the program on the hard drive give the same effect...? Charles
mentioned CDs that carry an effect just from the data on them, but I
didn't feel anything when my system was off, or on without the program
loaded...

Even with my experience of the software, I'm leaning towards *placebo
effect* now since my subconscious expectation definitely could have
been conditioned by my experience with the Quantum Home unit. I hope
the inventor responds to my correspondence or invitation to dialog
with us here.

Beau

>Also, note that multiple Quantum power strips have
>an additive effect. Two power strips in a house
>affects the whole house more than one, and three
>is more powerful still. They don't really advertise
>this fact, but both me and my cats have noticed it. :-)

Hi Marc,

Do you mean the strips have a synergistic effect? In the way that two strips affect the whole house more than two single strips would do?

Niels

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Do you mean the strips have a synergistic effect? In the way
> that two strips affect the whole house more than two single
> strips would do?

I just meant that 2 strips in the house is stronger than 1
strip in the house. This may seem like common sense, but
according to the advertising, the strips only affect a small
area, like around your computer. It's been my experience
however that the strips affect the whole house.

Marc

--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@u...> wrote:

> Note also that I've looked at the Windows NT task monitor,
> and the Quantum Byte never seems to use any CPU time,
> even after being on for 8 hours...

To explain the lack of CPU usage, I wonder if the Quantum Byte program
is just placing a special set of patterns in memory, more patterns for
'higher' settings. And maybe the patterns are only unpackaged from
the program's data set and arranged for effect when the software is
run?

This seems to be close to the way the Computer Clear software you
mentioned operates. Computer Clear claims to place "over 34,000
different homoeopathic type remedies into you to harmonise
imbalances". It is known that effective homeopathic remedies can be
made with something called a Rae Potency Generator. A polar medium,
usually water or alcohol, is exposed to a geometric pattern
corresponding to a remedy's energy signature and a magnetic field at
the same time; the polar medium is then imprinted with the homeopathic
remedy's energy signature. This imprint will fade unless the remedy
is further succussed like in classical homeopathic remedy preparation.

Perhaps the Computer Clear software (and by extension the Quantum Byte
software) places patterns like these 'Rae' patterns into the
computer's memory. Then the magnetic emissions from the computer
serve as the requisite magnetic field to provide imprinting into our
bodies own water? Their effects would then fade quickly over time as
with non-succussed Rae-prepared remedies after the computer was turned
off.

One thing specifically about Computer Clear's stated approach --
exposure to over 34,000 different energy signatures sounds like
overload. From a classical homeopathy perspective (one
remedy/variable at a time) this is very unsafe, and even from a
non-classical homeopathic perspective that uses mixtures of remedies,
the remedies are chosen for specific and related effects. Wouldn't
34,000 at once tend to confuse and scramble a person's system? (Does
someone know if this many frequencies are safely used at once with
things like Rife generators?)

Beau

> To explain the lack of CPU usage, I wonder if the Quantum Byte program
> is just placing a special set of patterns in memory, more patterns for
> 'higher' settings. And maybe the patterns are only unpackaged from
> the program's data set and arranged for effect when the software is
> run?

I suppose that before we draw any conclusions, we should check to
see what the CPU/memory usage of the current version of the Quantum
Byte software is -- that is, if anyone is currently using it! My
tests were done with the original version of the software, which
was released in 1994, and I did these tests a long time ago...

But I don't think there's a placebo effect going on -- on more
than one occasion, I was mistaken about whether or not the software
was installed and running on a certain computer, and later
when I started paying attention, my reactions were consistent
with the reality of whether or not it was running.

Marc

"Wouldn't 34,000 at once tend to confuse and scramble a person's system?"

And you would have to wonder whether a digital representation of a
natural waveform is a good thing in the first place as there will always
be harmonics involved (at the sample playback frequency)..

Cheers
Pete

Beau wrote: