Are OT3 and Dianetics the same?

[HelluvaHoax!]

….


There is, in factual accordance with Hubbard's OT III research, real evidence of parasitic entities that might well be characterized as "alien".

I personally found one such alien entity during my time in Scientology, the exorcism of which brought me profound relief.

At the very moment the alien was offloaded (coincident with my leaving Scientology) I joyfully shouted: "Good Bye Ron!"

[video=youtube;oekySiZ_qt0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oekySiZ_qt0[/video]​

 

[Caroline]

Here's some 1934 information about the physiology of the galvanic skin response.

A very extensive literature has developed from the attempt to understand the physiology of the galvanic skin response. Three main types of explanation have been advanced. The first holds that nervous impulses responsible for sweat secretion create concomitantly in the membranes of the sweat glands a condition of increased permeability to current passing through the galvanometer circuit. The second theory holds that the action currents of these glands parallel the changes in the galvanometer circuit. The third theory holds that as a result of increased sweating, electrical pathways are established which are more easily traversed by the current of the galvanometer circuit. The second theory has been disproved, along with other earlier notions which associated the galvanic skin response with some vasomotor determinant. Of the two remaining theories, the first has the most to support it. Extensive and carefully controlled work by Gildemeister[SUP]10[/SUP] and by Darrow[SUP]11[/SUP] indicates that the neural factor which makes for increased sweating also makes for decreased skin resistance; but there is no indication that one effect is the cause of the other, as the third theory supposes. In fact, Darrow has shown that the galvanic response appears simultaneously with the secretion of sweat and the alteration of skin temperature. Sweat secretion was photographed with micromotion pictures, showing exactly when the eruptions of the sweat glands occurred. Records of vasomotor change taken concomitantly showed no regular correspondence with the galvanic response. There is general agreement that the galvanic skin response is under the control of the sympathetic nervous system. For a long time the response was mentioned as an indicator of "emotion." Landis12 has made a most exhaustive study of this literature. Regarding the psychophysiological significance of the response, he says:

____________________
[SUP]10[/SUP] M. Gildemeister, "Der galvanische Hautreflex," Handbuch der nor. u. path. Physiol., 1928, 8: 775-784.
[SUP]11[/SUP] C. W. Darrow, "The Electrical, Circulatory, Secretory and Thermal Reflexes of the Skin," Proc. IX Int. Cong. Psychol., 1929, 9: 136-137.
[SUP]12[/SUP] C. Landis, "Psychology and the Psychogalvanic Reflex," Psychol. Rev., 1930, 37: 395-396. Cf. also Psychol. Bull., 1929, 26: 64-119; 1932, 29: 693-739.


The appearance of electrical changes of the skin can be taken as an indication of change in the balance of physiological functions of the skin brought about by nervous impulses following pathways in the sympathetic nervous system. In this sense the reflex is to be compared in psychological significance to changes in the basal metabolic rate of the body. The metabolic rate is the final product of both anabolic and catabolic changes. In the same way the reflex represents an end product resulting from changes of the cell-membranes of the sweat glands. . . . The appearance of this galvanic change has the same psychological significance that a change of blood pressure may be said to possess. It is well known that augmented stimulation (either physical or mental) brings about changes in blood pressure. It is also known that changes in blood pressure take place as the result of physiological changes within the body, which changes have no known psychological bearing, correlation, or significance. The same may be said of the psychogalvanic reflex. There is no conclusive evidence which would indicate that the psychogalvanic reflex is . . . an indicator of any single one of the traditional psychological categories.

Freeman, G.L. (1934) Introduction to Physiological Psychology. New York: Ronald Press

 

[Caroline]

Here's an interesting discussion of the relationship between emotion and the galvanic reflex. [Wikipedia: psychogalvanic reflex].

Radecki in 1911 and Abramowski in 1913 were the first to question the assumption that the galvanic reflex is associated only with emotion. These investigators believed that the mental processes known as volition were more commonly associated with the reflex than was emotion. This notion has been followed up in the work of Aveling and his associates. They hold that the reflex is the correlate of conation and shows itself in affective experience only when the conative process is present. Other psychological investigators have held that the reflex follows every sensory stimulation, that it comes only in periods of stress, that it always accompanies the appearance of unconscious processes in behavior, that it is correlated with the complex oretic process, that it occurs in only purely ideational processes, etc., etc. Indeed, a survey of the literature shows that psychologists have identified this electrical reaction with almost every conceivable mental process and with only the most questionable of evidence to back their claims.

[...]

It has been demonstrated by Gildemeister ( 1922-23) that the apparent change in resistance of the body is in reality a change in either the amount or the rate of polarization. He has also demonstrated that the apparent electrical output of the body is to be explained in terms of polarization. Since polarization is the important factor in the response, he has carried out very elaborate studies on the nature, rate, and factors affecting polarization in the skin and in the living tissue. His results show that the alterations of polarization, usually called the psychogalvanic reflex, are dependent in the living organism upon the integrity of the autonomic nerve supply, and that the rate and duration of the reflex are a function of the sympathetic nervous control. Careful physiological investigations have shown that these electrical responses of the skin are general autonomic responses which are associated with the pupillary reflex, various vasomotor changes, changes in the cardiac rate, contraction of pilo-motor musculature, respiratory variations, increased muscular tension, etc. Darrow has shown in a series of critical experiments that there is a one-to-one relationship between this electrical response and variation in skin temperature. There is good reason to believe that the response is part of the temperature regulation of the skin and that its appearance is to be correlated with variations in skin temperature.

Most of the psychological studies have followed the uncritical conclusion of Veraguth and Binswanger, who assumed that these electrical responses were associated with some psychological category, usually emotion. It is, of course, possible to set up an experiment in which the situation is designed to bring out emotion, volition, conation, etc., and to measure these electrical responses during these situations. It is then usually concluded that the responses are associated with the mental function or functions usually assigned as appropriate to that situation. In a similar way, one could probably demonstrate that the salivary reflex is a measure of intelligence, or that the number of closures of the palpebral fissure is a measure of ideation.

Recently, several critical psychological investigations have been conducted from the introspective standpoint, trying to determine the conscious content associated with the appearance of these electrical variations. The most satisfactory is that of Abel, who shows that sudden checks in comprehension are most usually reported at the time of the appearance of the response, although there is considerable variation in the conscious content at these particular instants.

In so far as the expression of emotion is organized and integrated through midbrain centers, these electrical responses may be regarded as one of the expressions of emotion. It is equally clear that every bodily activity or mental function other than emotion, which is integrated in these same midbrain areas, may and probably does give rise to these responses. The use of these phenomena in psychological work should be interpreted in the light of the functional activity of the autonomic nervous system. If emotion is to be inseparably linked and totally identified with autonomic responses, then only would one be correct in saying that these electrical changes are specific to emotion. Undoubtedly, the electrical changes are valid measures of changes in balance in the autonomic nervous system and may so be used. Other psychological work which presupposes that the emotion and these responses are inseparably connected has found no real experimental verification.

Murchison, C. (1934) A Handbook of General Experimental Psychology. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.

 

[Udarnik]

Here's an interesting discussion of the relationship between emotion and the galvanic reflex. [Wikipedia: psychogalvanic reflex].

Caroline, I'm tired and I'm busy, so I'll try not to be my normal, sarcastic self.

But I will be blunt.

You are arguing science.

You are using studies that were published in 1934. That is nearly 80 years out of date. I am not impressed. I'm exasperated. Because it's not the first time I've seen papers that old dredged up, and every single time so far, it has been in the service of unadulterated pseudoscience.

I'm going to give your argument the benefit of the doubt, though, and dig through the literature. I've already come up with several periods of activity in the literature. Science goes through fads like anything else, although sometimes those fads are the result of a technology that makes it posible to answer previously unresolved questions. There was the initial burst of activity in the 20s and 30s, then quiet until another burst in the late 50s to early 60s, then there is a recent burst of activity. I view the old literature as nothing more than a curiosity, the 60s literature with mild interest and significant skepticism, and the modern literature with some greater interest.

I'm curious as to why you are only citing the oldest stuff. The least reliable stuff.

Science constantly advances. In my field, I consider anything published before 1998 to be hopelessly out of date, unless proven otherwise. In 1934, the understanding that genes code for proteins was still 7 years in the future, the Salk polio vaccine was 18 years away, the same year DNA was positively identified as the genetic material. The discovery of the double helix was 19 years away. The first genome, that of a small bacteriophage, was decoded 43 years after those articles, and the human genome was decoded 69 years after those articles were written. The way they attempt to engage biology is so outdated as to almost be in a foreign language to today's researchers. They were published when people still took Freud seriously.

Those articles use all kinds of poor clinical practice, poor experimental practice, and outdated concepts. Based on the first two factors alone they would never be published today.

From what I've seen so far, the literature is quite clear that GSR is unreliable, and for this reason is not admissable in court. Why does our security apparatus use it? Two reasons, some people believe in it and it scares them straight (this is also why an e-meter works in auditing, when it works). The second is, well, have you seen the movie The Men Who Stare at Goats? Soldiers and security personnel are not immune from gullibility and stupidity. That movie is based on real incidents. Hell, go read anything by Maj. Gen. Stubblebine if you think people with paranoid disorders can't rise in the military. There are a couple of other threads on here dealing with the remote viewing projects that were so misguided they used Scientologists as test subjects. The fact that they continue to use a technology that is at best is problematic is proof of nothing.

And uncover, you're citing Volney Mathison as an expert? Seriously? The pseudoscientist and chiropractor (but I repeat myself)? The wonderful genius of the human condition who couldn't see Hubbard's betrayal coming a mile away? (I've been reading Challange, Cowboy, and other first hand accounts of Hubbard, and that fucker never changed his MO. If a person could not see that in dealing first hand with him, I really don't have the time to deal with that person's musings on the human condition, because that person is not a good observer of it.) And most of all, the author of The Secret Power of the Crystal Pendulum? Really, that's the best you can come up with?

More later. The lit review is going to take some time, and I'm going to talk to a friend at the FDA who specializes in medical devices, and knows a hell of a lot more about neurology than I do.

 

[Caroline]

Caroline, I'm tired and I'm busy, so I'll try not to be my normal, sarcastic self.

But I will be blunt.

You are arguing science.

You are using studies that were published in 1934. That is nearly 80 years out of date. I am not impressed. I'm exasperated. Because it's not the first time I've seen papers that old dredged up, and every single time so far, it has been in the service of unadulterated pseudoscience.

I'm going to give your argument the benefit of the doubt, though, and dig through the literature. I've already come up with several periods of activity in the literature. Science goes through fads like anything else, although sometimes those fads are the result of a technology that makes it posible to answer previously unresolved questions. There was the initial burst of activity in the 20s and 30s, then quiet until another burst in the late 50s to early 60s, then there is a recent burst of activity. I view the old literature as nothing more than a curiosity, the 60s literature with mild interest and significant skepticism, and the modern literature with some greater interest.

I'm curious as to why you are only citing the oldest stuff. The least reliable stuff.

Science constantly advances. In my field, I consider anything published before 1998 to be hopelessly out of date, unless proven otherwise. In 1934, the understanding that genes code for proteins was still 7 years in the future, the Salk polio vaccine was 18 years away, the same year DNA was positively identified as the genetic material. The discovery of the double helix was 19 years away. The first genome, that of a small bacteriophage, was decoded 43 years after those articles, and the human genome was decoded 69 years after those articles were written. The way they attempt to engage biology is so outdated as to almost be in a foreign language to today's researchers. They were published when people still took Freud seriously.

Those articles use all kinds of poor clinical practice, poor experimental practice, and outdated concepts. Based on the first two factors alone they would never be published today.

From what I've seen so far, the literature is quite clear that GSR is unreliable, and for this reason is not admissable in court. Why does our security apparatus use it? Two reasons, some people believe in it and it scares them straight (this is also why an e-meter works in auditing, when it works). The second is, well, have you seen the movie The Men Who Stare at Goats? Soldiers and security personnel are not immune from gullibility and stupidity. That movie is based on real incidents. Hell, go read anything by Maj. Gen. Stubblebine if you think people with paranoid disorders can't rise in the military. There are a couple of other threads on here dealing with the remote viewing projects that were so misguided they used Scientologists as test subjects. The fact that they continue to use a technology that is at best is problematic is proof of nothing.

And uncover, you're citing Volney Mathison as an expert? Seriously? The pseudoscientist and chiropractor (but I repeat myself)? The wonderful genius of the human condition who couldn't see Hubbard's betrayal coming a mile away? (I've been reading Challange, Cowboy, and other first hand accounts of Hubbard, and that fucker never changed his MO. If a person could not see that in dealing first hand with him, I really don't have the time to deal with that person's musings on the human condition, because that person is not a good observer of it.) And most of all, the author of The Secret Power of the Crystal Pendulum? Really, that's the best you can come up with?

More later. The lit review is going to take some time, and I'm going to talk to a friend at the FDA who specializes in medical devices, and knows a hell of a lot more about neurology than I do.

The references weren't directed at you, and I'm not asking you to do anything. Scientologists often don't know the history of GSR, because as far as they're concerned Hubbard (and Mathison to some extent) were the originators. I didn't know this stuff on the inside, and it is enlightening. That's the point of the old references.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

The meter only directly measures simple physical properties of your body. It can't be directly measuring thought itself, because if thought itself could directly affect physical objects like electric currents, then Las Vegas would go bust, and it doesn't. Physical properties of your body, however, are obviously somehow correlated with thoughts. The motion of my fingers on the keyboard is a physical phenomenon, but you're reading the thoughts that made my fingers move. So there's no reason why the e-meter can't also be reading thoughts and emotions, indirectly: it doesn't measure them INSTEAD of measuring skin resistance; it measures them BY measuring skin resistance.

Compared to skin resistance or whatever, the movements a person's face and hands and eyes make, and the sounds they make with their mouths and vocal chords, are normally a much richer source of information about their thoughts and feelings. But it may be that sometimes the little bit of information that the e-meter will tell will be something that you wouldn't pick up just by watching and listening. So in principle there might well be a place in talking therapy for a thing like an e-meter.

Nothing I've ever heard about an e-meter is any challenge to my materialist understanding about the mind and brain. It's a crude electrical device. That doesn't mean that pinch tests don't work — I'm sure they do — and it doesn't mean that e-meters are crap for auditing. What they can do is inherently limited, but up to that point, I'm sure they do what they do. There's nothing scientifically surprising about them. There's no reason to hope for too much from them.

The big problem is the speed with which the reactions of the meter happen. It is physically impossible for changes in resistance due to sweat or moisture changes to come anywhere near the speed of the needle's reactions. The meter is magnifying very minute changes in resistance instantly. You say a word or phrase or question to a person and if (according to Hubbard) it has charge, there is an instant reaction. It may be big or small, it may go up, down or into a pattern of some sort, such as a tic tic, or a smooth flow (f/n) Some how, the mind (or brain) is influencing the smooth flow of electricity.

I have seen this many thousands of times, in auditing others, and my self. What the exact mechanism is - who knows? There are inconsistencies in Hubbard's theories, such as he claims it reads just below a person's awareness, yet it can read just as well on something that one is aware of (the dating drill or withholds for example) Perhaps it is reacting to changes in the spirits electrical field (aura?) which are altering the resistance in the body to the current, much like the picture on a tv screen can be distorted by a magnet. I forget the electrical term for that reaction. Whatever it is, it is exceedingly quick.

Yes, it is a fairly simple device, though being a very sensitive meter, it shows exceedingly small reactions very well. A lot has gone into the development of the needle, so it lacks mass, and friction so it can show the reads (reactions) precisely. You can take a regular volt meter and it is about as sensitive as a stone, yet it will show gross changes in resistance when a person holds the leads. I know cause I have done it.

Perhaps there are some videos on you tube of a meter being used that you can watch to get an idea of the speed and sensitivity it demonstrates. That is where the rubber meets the road, and theories about how it functions live or die.

Mimsey

 

[programmer_guy]

The big problem is the speed with which the reactions of the meter happen. It is physically impossible for changes in resistance due to sweat or moisture changes to come anywhere near the speed of the needle's reactions. The meter is magnifying very minute changes in resistance instantly. You say a word or phrase or question to a person and if (according to Hubbard) it has charge, there is an instant reaction. It may be big or small, it may go up, down or into a pattern of some sort, such as a tic tic, or a smooth flow (f/n) Some how, the mind (or brain) is influencing the smooth flow of electricity.

I have seen this many thousands of times, in auditing others, and my self. What the exact mechanism is - who knows? There are inconsistencies in Hubbard's theories, such as he claims it reads just below a person's awareness, yet it can read just as well on something that one is aware of (the dating drill or withholds for example) Perhaps it is reacting to changes in the spirits electrical field (aura?) which are altering the resistance in the body to the current, much like the picture on a tv screen can be distorted by a magnet. I forget the electrical term for that reaction. Whatever it is, it is exceedingly quick.

Yes, it is a fairly simple device, though being a very sensitive meter, it shows exceedingly small reactions very well. A lot has gone into the development of the needle, so it lacks mass, and friction so it can show the reads (reactions) precisely. You can take a regular volt meter and it is about as sensitive as a stone, yet it will show gross changes in resistance when a person holds the leads. I know cause I have done it.

Perhaps there are some videos on you tube of a meter being used that you can watch to get an idea of the speed and sensitivity it demonstrates. That is where the rubber meets the road, and theories about how it functions live or die.

Mimsey

Yes, you have a point there.
My questions would be related to "just because the meter 'reads' does that really validate the true existence of an engram or BT"?
This is simply a measurable physical reaction (sweat related or not).

As the clear cog goes "I am mocking it up." How many contemporary Cleopatras do we have anyway?
And there we can go down into the Alice-in-Wonderland rabbit hole of delusion eventually.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Perhaps there are some videos on you tube of a meter being used that you can watch to get an idea of the speed and sensitivity it demonstrates. That is where the rubber meets the road, and theories about how it functions live or die.

You would think that there would be dozens, hundreds of Scn session videos online, considering how easy it is to take a video and upload it to YouTube or Vimeo. Well, there aren't, or if there are they are not well promoted. I have maybe a dozen metering videos online, all at my ESMB DOF channel.

This one shows a short Reach & Withdraw session, done on a mental topic not a physical space or object. It's a genuine session, nothing faked at all. I'm using the Core module of PaulsRobot2, not the current PaulsRobot3, so the page looks different to the current one. There is a shield between me and the right side of the monitor during the session so that I can't see the meter dial, as one reacts to what the needle is doing and I don't want the added interference. The big number in the middle of the dial (4.1, 4.3 etc) shows the "tone arm reading."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyx4xclegfg

Paul

 

[Caroline]

For all those itsy bitsy BTs ....

 

[Caroline]

More about the Quantum E-Meter and how the Scientologists "secure their eternity" with it:

 

[Caroline]

Does the electrical current put out by the E-Meter contribute in any significant way to the generation of the psychological condition or conditions HH and you observe or deduce in Scientologists? You say you are trying to get to the underlying biological mechanism, and the meter current and its fields in the body are biological.

Scientologists at OT 3 and above rack up hundreds and even thousands of hours on the device, but even before then Scientologists have usually had hundreds of hours on it. Does the current reinforce, or hardwire in, the thoughts, the gain, the alignment with the meter, Scientology, Hubbard, etc.?

Here's a diagram of the E-Meter current that Scientologists expose themselves to for thousands of hours. Is it harmful?

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Here's a diagram of the E-Meter current that Scientologists expose themselves to for thousands of hours. Is it harmful?

Ever wonder what the flow looks like with solo cans? Since you are holding both cans in one hand the current is not flowing (at least I don't think so) from one side of the body to the other, therefor, how do you explain how it reads? I'll put my money on the idea the body sits in an electrical or electro magnetic field and putting the solo electrodes into the field, the meter reacts, much like putting a thermometer into a roast. It doesn't matter where you attach them, as long as you have good conductivity, you'll get reads.

Mimsey

 

[Udarnik]

Ever wonder what the flow looks like with solo cans? Since you are holding both cans in one hand the current is not flowing (at least I don't think so) from one side of the body to the other, therefor, how do you explain how it reads? I'll put my money on the idea the body sits in an electrical or electro magnetic field and putting the solo electrodes into the field, the meter reacts, much like putting a thermometer into a roast. It doesn't matter where you attach them, as long as you have good conductivity, you'll get reads.

Mimsey

Do the cans touch each other in solo auditing?

 

[Dulloldfart]

Ever wonder what the flow looks like with solo cans? Since you are holding both cans in one hand the current is not flowing (at least I don't think so) from one side of the body to the other, therefor, how do you explain how it reads? I'll put my money on the idea the body sits in an electrical or electro magnetic field and putting the solo electrodes into the field, the meter reacts, much like putting a thermometer into a roast. It doesn't matter where you attach them, as long as you have good conductivity, you'll get reads.

Mimsey

The TA is exactly the same if you hold a solo can in each hand, or both cans in one hand, assuming the same amount of skin is on the cans. I never really got a clear understanding of why. If you have the cans (not touching each other!) within the body's electromagnetic field but not touching the skin, if only one millimeter apart, it is as if the leads are disconnected completely with TA 6.5 (open circuit).

Do the cans touch each other in solo auditing?

No, the cans don't touch in solo auditing: they might be 1/8 inch apart maybe, as long as they are not touching. You want to maximise the amount of skin on the cans as it gives better reads, so you want the cans as close together as possible without touching. If using cans, anyway — fingertip electrodes on say the first and third fingers of one hand work well.

Video showing fingertip electrodes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LefL0AuJbCI

Paul

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Paul - is there much difference between reads gotten on the finger tip leads and the solo can reads? Obviously there is a great difference in the skin contact area between the two.

Mimsey

 

[Dulloldfart]

Paul - is there much difference between reads gotten on the finger tip leads and the solo can reads? Obviously there is a great difference in the skin contact area between the two.

Mimsey

Not noticeably. Ralph Hilton would have more a more accurate comparison. But they are fine for auditing, certainly more convenient than solo cans (except when trying to do a can squeeze ).

Paul

 

[Caroline]

Ever wonder what the flow looks like with solo cans? Since you are holding both cans in one hand the current is not flowing (at least I don't think so) from one side of the body to the other, therefor, how do you explain how it reads? I'll put my money on the idea the body sits in an electrical or electro magnetic field and putting the solo electrodes into the field, the meter reacts, much like putting a thermometer into a roast. It doesn't matter where you attach them, as long as you have good conductivity, you'll get reads.

Mimsey

Here's a diagram of an electrical field, and a claim of discovery:

Understanding the E-Meter doesn't discuss the solo setup. It does include a number of diagrams or cartoons showing the current, entering the right hand and leaving the left. HCOB 14 July 1970 Solo Cans includes a diagram of these electrodes. (I'll include the diagrams from two editions of this HCOB to show the slightly different insulators.)

I have worked out more ideal Solo electrodes for the E-Meter—”cans”. The basic trouble with a single-hand electrode is that it gives a falsely higher TA which can be very alarming.

The Tone Arm range on the Meter should be between 2.0 and 3.0 for a floating needle to be valid. This is when two regulation electrodes (steel soup cans) are employed. When you use only one electrode, holding it in the left hand if you are right-handed, the TA can read as high as 4.0 when it is actually 3.0. Also a TA at 1.7 can read as 2.5 ! Single-hand electrodes are almost as old as the modern meter. An aluminum tea ball with an insulator between the screw threads served in the earliest models, an electrode leading to each half.

Two stainless steel pipe sections about an inch in diameter, separated in the middle by a rubber ring, with an electrode to each end was a single-hand electrode version which came down to modern times.

There were no further developments of any lasting value on this problem of single-hand electrodes until a few months ago.

The problem in Solo Auditing is of course that if you held electrodes in both hands you couldn’t write or work the meter at the same time. BUT a single-hand electrode gives the wrong TA even if it does give the right needle reads (which it does). To get the right TA then one must unplug the single-hand electrode and plug in the two-hand electrode. In this operation the TA can change and the wires get tangled. This commotion is of course distracting.

What I worked out was a two-can electrode that became a single-hand electrode at once.

You take 2 small juice or vegetable steel cans with their tops neatly removed. They must be the paper label, not the painted kind of course.

The size required is 2 1/8 inches diameter at the rim (that is about 54 millimeters). The length is 3 3/4 inches (which is about 95 millimeters).

You then take a piece of soft sponge or foam rubber about 3/8 inches thick (about 10 mm). You cut a circular piece of sponge rubber about 2 3/8 inches (about 60 mm). It is just slightly larger than the can diameter.

You glue this sponge or foam rubber circle to the closed end of one can but not to the other.

Snap the electrode wires into the open ends of the cans. You now have to all requirements a two-can electrode setup, with the difference that one can’s base has a rubber pad on it. Holding these one in each hand gives you the 2-can more correct TA read. By putting the closed base of one can against the rubber pad on the other can, taking them in one hand (two fingers on each can as you hold them) you have a single-hand electrode.

In an instant you can take them in two hands and get the correct TA (adjusting the Tone Arm with a knuckle or finger tip). Taking them back in one hand and resetting the TA you again have your single-hand read.

[...]

SHORTING

The whole trick in preparing two separate cans to be held as a single-hand is to make sure that when you put the bottoms together they don’t short. They can cause a “rock slam” or a sudden fall if the metal of the cans touch. Thus the glued-on rubber pad must be a bit bigger than the can diameter and thick enough so it doesn’t press through.

[...]

Hubbard, L. (1970, 14 July) Solo Cans. Technical Bulletins (1991 ed., Vol IX, pp. 140-3) Los Angeles: Bridge Publications

 

[Udarnik]

Paul - is there much difference between reads gotten on the finger tip leads and the solo can reads? Obviously there is a great difference in the skin contact area between the two.

Mimsey

What matters most is the amount of electrode covered. A small electrode needs only a small amount of skin. Even if I bought into all of this, using cans is just plain fucking stupid, and shows what a electronics ignorami both Mathison and Hubbard were. Since so much of the can is uncovered, it makes for more potential noise in the signal.

MIT Media has produced a similar, but more sensitive device (the E-Meter is damped so that signals greater than 10 Hz are not detecable) with a palm electrode.

 

[AnonKat]

This thread needs an OT 8

[video=youtube;oqVKmgrMsMo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqVKmgrMsMo[/video]

 

[Dulloldfart]

What matters most is the amount of electrode covered. A small electrode needs only a small amount of skin. Even if I bought into all of this, using cans is just plain fucking stupid, and shows what a electronics ignorami both Mathison and Hubbard were. Since so much of the can is uncovered, it makes for more potential noise in the signal.

Wow. And just think, in all those thousands of hours of using the meter with big cans we never realized how much signal noise those cans were producing!

-----

Someone who knows how to use one should let you hold the cans of a proper e-meter for a minute or two, Udarnik.

Paul