long and super-long range device-device and operator-device

Research Article ЖФНН

International Journal of Unconventional Science

number 1(1), pages 24-42, 2013c©Authors, 2013received: 27.11.12accepted: 19.02.13http://www.unconv-science.org/n1/kernbach/c©Association of Unconventional Science, 2013

Long and Super-Long Rangedevice-device andoperator-device Interactions

Serge Kernbach1, Vitaliy Zamsha2, Yuri Kravchenko3

Abstract—This work describes performed device-device and operator-device experiments at long andsuper-long distances of >1 km, >100 km and >10000km. Experimental setup uses two types of sensors,based on electric double layers and IGA-1 device,and two types of LED and laser generators. We an-alyzed the construction of the setup, establishing aconnection between receiver and emitter, and multipleeffects appeared. A common character of operator- anddevice- interactions is assumed. This approach can beconsidered as a novel communication system as wellas a system for operator training with an objectivefeedback from devices.

I. Introduction

This work concludes the series of experiments from[1], [2] and [3], which investigated interactions betweenLED/laser emitters and sensors on electric double layers(EDL) (Bobrov’s detector). These works demonstratedeffects that can point to a high-penetrating emission ofpresumably non-electromagnetic character generated byLED/laser emitting devices working in a specific poweringmode. In particular, it was shown that a signal fromthe LED generator can be detected by EDL sensors atdistances of 0.25–1650 meters in laboratory and field con-ditions. Moreover, we observed a reaction of EDL sensorson LED emission also indirectly through water illuminated0.5 – 72 hours before experiments. In total, results of about900 measurements have been described in those works.Mechanisms of interaction between LED/laser emission

and deeply polarized electrodes is not fully understoodat present. It is assumed that the diffuse Gouy-Chapmanlayer, e.g. [4], [5], is sensitive to factors polarizing waterdipoles. Corresponding electrokinetic phenomena are de-scribed by the Gouy-Chapman-Stern model [5], [4]. Spatialpolarization of water dipoles is investigated in a numberof works, e.g. [6], [7], [5]. Since the dipole polarizationchanges dielectric properties of the electrode-water system,the degree of polarization and thus the influencing factorscan be measured by a small current using two or fourelectrode conductometric schemes, e.g. [8], [9], [10], [11].

1Institute of Parallel and Distributed Systems, Uni-versity of Stuttgart, Universitatstr. 38, 70569 Stuttgart,[email protected]

[email protected] company ’Leit-2’, Karl Marx Street 69, Ufa,

450015, Russia, [email protected]

Both, the original works [12], [13] and their replica-tions/extensions [1], [2], [3] reported some effects thatpoint to a probable non-local impact on devices. Exper-iments at the distances of 10, 15, 20, 50 and 1650 metersdemonstrated that increasing the distance did not essen-tially worsen the signal-noise relation (taking into accountsome temporal dynamics of this system). Reducing by50% emitting power also did not significantly worsen thereceived signal. There were recorded experiments, when anemotional state of operator, being at a large distance awayfrom sensors, also changed the current through ’electrode-water’ system. Thus, both device-device and operator-device experiments indicated a possibility of non-localinteractions. Since the same equipment, approaches andtechniques are used in both cases, it is assumed thatpsychokinetic phenomena and a high-penetrating compo-nent of LED/laser emission might have similar mechanismsimpacting the EDL sensors.This work has two main goals. Firstly, it is intended

to demonstrate non-local effects at distances of > 1 km,> 100 km, > 10000 km of both types – device-device anddevice-operator. Two different types of sensors (EDL sen-sors and the IGA-1 device) and two different types ofgenerators (LED generators and a semiconductor laserwith twisted optical fiber) are used to demonstrate anindependency of this phenomenon from implementationdetails. It is also aimed to investigate how the interactionbetween devices and operators can strengthen or weakenthis influence.Secondly, there are many emitters at long ranges, which

are potentially capable of influencing the EDL sensors.These are, e.g. LED flat screen monitors, electro-magneticdevices, people in different emotional states and others.Since the EDL sensors demonstrate only a small number ofperturbations in a normal state, we assume some ’synchro-nization mechanism’, which selectively passes some signalsto sensors and blocks all others. A number of differentworks investigated the phenomenon of such a selectiveinfluence [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] – this also representsthe second goal of this work.Performing experiments, we took into account reports

of other research groups, e.g. [19], [20], [21], [22], whichpointed out a careful selection of operators. Several groupsof operators are contacted, two of them agreed to par-ticipate in the experiments. A long-term cooperation is

S. Kernbach, V. Zamsha, Y. Kravchenko. Long and Super-Long Range device-device and operator-device Interactions 25

established with one of these groups indicating that opera-tor capabilities can be improved by corresponding trainingwith an objective feedback from devices.From all performed experiments [1], [2] [3], this work

has intense controversial character since it touches on suchissues as non-local interactions, mind-mater phenomena,macroscopic entanglement effects and others. We presumea number of critical notes will develop towards this pa-per. Thus, we must clarify our own position concerningobserved phenomena – first of all, we carefully registerall changes in dynamics of EDL sensors, paying attentionthat these are not caused by environmental factors onthe receiver side: variation of temperature, EM fields,mechanical, or acoustic factors. All these environmentalfactors are measured by several corresponding sensors,which are also recorded in parallel to the data from sixor nine current sensors. In total we were recording 25data channels each second. Secondly, an incoming signal isregistered only when several EDL sensors demonstrated achange of current dynamics. Normal sensitivity of EDLsensors is about 40%-45% reaction, i.e. when 4 from 9sensors demonstrated a reaction (an EDL sensor can loseits sensitivity for a short time after a previous reaction).In this work we consider also an approach ’three bestsensors’ from [3] – when three EDL sensors demonstratedchanges in the expected time frame – this corresponds to50% 33% of all sensors and is statistically significant,see Sec. V. Each experiment is repeated at least 4 timeswith 36 measurements. All changes outside of the timeframe are ignored. Finally, we do not attempt to give anyexplanation to the observed phenomena – because of openand controversial discussion and also because of missingtheoretical background explaining these effects.This paper has the following structure: Sec. II shortly

describes the selected methodology, devices and the struc-ture of experiments. The device-device experiments aredescribed in Sec. III, operator-device experiments – inSec. IV. Finally, Sec. V summarizes this work.

II. Short description of devices and used

methodology

In this work we used two different sensors (EDL sensorsand the IGA-1 device) and two different generators (LEDand laser emitters). Most of the experiments have beenperformed with the EDL sensors and LED generators,their description can be found in [1] in more detail.

A. Sensors: EDL system

In short, EDL sensors are glass or metal containerswith several stainless steel and platinum electrodes in bi-distilled water, see Fig. 1. All containers are placed intoseveral brass boxes with thermal shields made from foamrubber and wool. In total there are 9 EDL sensors, threeof each type, which are combined into three setups, seeFig. 2. Digital part of all sensors is based on the PSoCship (programmable system on chip CY8C5588AXI-060),which receives data from 9 current sensors, 8 temperature

5 mm

40 mm

Vout

Vout

Vin

Vin

(a)

86mm

o= mm36

58mm

Vout

Vout

(b)

Figure 1. (a) Electrodes in the third setup; (b) Electrodes inthe fourth setup. Images are from [1].

Figure 2. Images of setup three, four and five.

sensors, 3 accelerometers and one EM-fields analyzer (ME3951A made by ’Gigaherz Solutions’, 5-400), and performdata pre-processing. The microcontroller is connected withPC via USB, all data is stored on HDD. All handlingprocedures are done remotely, an operator does not enterinto the room with sensors. All setups are carefully isolatedfrom EM-fields, variation of temperature and mechani-cal/acoustic impacts and are closed in the metal cup boardmade from 3mm steel. The laboratory with EDL sensors is

Electronicmodule

bi-distilled water

electrodes

isolation

Container with‘irradiated‘tap water

LED generator

USBUSBUSB

set-up 3 set-up 4 set-up 5

dd

metal box(1mm and3 mm brass)

metal cupboard(3mm steel)

metalcan

thermal shields

laptop

Figure 3. Structure of the setup, image from [1];

located in the basement of the building with thick concretewalls without windows and with a metal door.In all experiments nine EDL sensors record the current

data in parallel. Besides this, the system records tempera-ture in 8 different places with resolution< 0.01C, vibrationin three places and supply voltage in all setups. In total

26 International Journal of Unconventional Science, Issue 1, Number 1, 2013

25 data channels are recorded with sampling rate 1Hz,ADC resolution – 20 bits. All data are marked by thetime marker, the system records all data continually all thetime. For further analysis, we consider the recorded datatwo hours before the experiment, during the experiment,and two hours after.

B. Sensors: IGA-1

IGA-1 is a highly sensitive device for sensing electro-magnetic field. It is developed for measuring the elec-tromagnetic component of geomagnetic Earth’s field inthe range of 5 ... 10 kHz, its sensitivity is from a fewto hundreds picovolt. As an output parameter the deviceuses the integral of the phase shift of analyzed frequency.The device is designed as a portable sensor with ana-log and digital indication. The power supply is AC 220volts 50Hz or from batteries, the power consumption isabout 5 watts. The main application areas of IGA-1 areenvironmental science, measurements for medical diagnos-tics, underground exploration of metallic and nonmetallicpipelines, voids, water veins and burials. It can be usedto detect the impact of anomalous terrestrial radiationon human, including electromagnetic one, in the so-calledgeopathogenic areas. IGA-1 is available in three versions:the in-door version, the version for operations in fieldconditions and the stationary version for test purposes.

Figure 4. Stationary version of IGA-1.

C. Sensors: experiments with inductive sensors

We also explored several inductive sensors. One of themis based on measuring electric properties of some materials,e.g. magnetic permeability of ferrites. This technology isdeveloped for the magnetic-ferrite sensors by V.T.Shkatov,e.g. [23]. Sensitivity of such sensors depends on magneticbiasing of oxide core. As demonstrated by experiments,the sensitivity can be improved when reducing a relativepermeability of ferrite material by 1/3. The induction coilwith such a core demonstrated a substantial improvementin term of sensing ’non-electromagnetic components’ ofEM fields.The sensor has been implemented by using two small

throttles with a common inductivity of 4mH and twodisk magnets of 20mm diameter. The ferrite material is

selected with a large magnetic permeability – about 5000+– 10000+. This sensor is shown in Fig. 5. The inductive coilwith the ferrite core is placed in middle of a plastic tube,disk magnets are installed on both sides. The commoninductivity of the sensor is about 2.8−3mH . The inductive

Figure 5. Inductive sensor.

coil is connected to the standard generator based on thetransistor BC547 with the generating frequency of 150 –200kHz. The frequency was controlled by the frequencymeter with the resolution of 1Hz. It should be notedthat the generator requires well controlled temperatureconditions.We also tested several other sensors – based on capac-

itors, ferroelectric materials or even liquid crystals. Allthese sensors utilize an approach with changing propertiesof materials, such as magnetic permeability or dielec-tric permittivity, under ’non-EM’ emission. Unfortunately,they have a low dynamical performance, because changesof corresponding material properties are very slow. Cur-rently, other sensors – based on a polarization of photonsand electrons – with improved performance are underdevelopment.

D. Generators: LED and semiconductor lasers

Laser and LED generators have a common structure,shown in Fig. 6(a). The difference between them lies inthe powering mode, e.g. semiconductor lasers are poweredby 3 volt, LED – up to 48 volt. In this work we used mostlyLED generators, see Fig. 6(b). For the LED generator weused 169 blue-light (470nm) LEDs LC503FBL1-15Q-A3with intensity of 11 cd and opening angle of 15 degree.All LEDs are placed on the area of 120 × 120mm2, seeFig. 6(b). Polyspectral generator has 4 emitting spectra,see Fig. 6(c). All generators have 8 switchable fields, whichcan be modulated independently from each other. LEDsoperate in a nonstandard mode of 48 volt with primaryand secondary modulation.

E. Generators: laser with twisted optical fiber

In the experiments we used also two modifications ofa laser generator with twisted optical fiber, see Fig. 7.The cylindrical generator (diameter 25cm, height – 12cm,wall thickness – 5mm, made from Plexiglas) has reeled by


Powersupply0-48V

8x independentN MOSFET segments

1-8

LDO 3V

UARTinterface to PC

microcontrollerATMega328

temperaturesensor

...

...

(a)

(b) (c)

Figure 6. (a) Structure and (b) images of the LED and laseremitters without polymer cover; (c) polyspectral LED emitter.

Figure 7. Cylindrical and conic laser generators with twistedoptical fiber.

optical fiber SM-28 of the diameter 0.9mm with 125 turnsin one layer and a total length of about 100 meters. Theconic generator has a similar structure. The optical fiber isconnected to a semiconductor laser of DFB type with thewavelength of 1310nm. The generator consumes an electricpower of about 30mW, the emitted optical power – 1mW.

F. ’Synchronization’ of emitter and receiver

As shown in [24], sensors and generators, working as oneemitter-receiver pair at small distances, are still capable oftransmitting signals even when increasing a distance be-tween them. However, such a ’synchronization’ of emitter-

Table IResults of device-device experiments, exposition – time when the generators are switched

on.

N dis-

tance,

km

expo-

sition,

min

synchro-

nization

mental

influ-

ence

total

expe-

riments

total

sensors

total

reaction

T2

no re-

action

comments

C232 1.65 60 no no 1 9 4 5 0 hours1

C236 1.65 60 no no 2 18 8 10 24 hours

C241 1.65 60 no no 4 36 12 24 144 hours

C254 1.65 60 no no 3 27 4 23 552 hours, negative

C234 1.65 30 yes2 no 3 27 7 20

C235 1.65 60 yes no 1 9 5 4

C237 b,c 1.65 60 yes no 2 18 4 14

C238 1.65 60 yes, 23 no 2 18 9 9

C255 360 60 yes, 2 no 2 18 8 10

C256 2068 60 yes, 2 no 1 9 4 5

C258 2068 60 yes, 2 no 2 18 2 16 negative

C258 2068 60 yes, 2 no 2 18 2 16 negative

C259 2068 60 yes, 2 no 1 9 4 5

C260 2068 60 yes, 2 no 1 9 6 3

05.09.12 3227 60 yes, 2 no 1 1 1 0 IGA-1

10.09.12 3227 60 yes, 2 no 2 2 0 2 IGA-1, negative



26.09.12 3227 60 yes, 2 no 1 1 1 0 IGA-1

27.09.12 3227 60 yes, 2 no 2 2 2 0 IGA-1

02.10.12 3227 60 yes, 2 no 1 1 1 0 IGA-1

C239 13798 60 yes, 2 no 2 18 10 8

C240 13798 60 yes, 2 no 2 18 10 8

C233 1.65 30 yes yes 1 9 14 8 negative

C235 a,b,d 1.65 60 yes yes 3 27 12 15

C237a 1.65 60 yes yes 1 9 4 5

C244 1.65 60 yes yes 1 9 5 4

1 After generators are transported into a new place.2 One-image-approach for synchronization.3 Two-images-approach for synchronization.4 Three other sensors demonstrated a reaction about ±30 minutes outside of experiment.


27.44

27.46

27.48

27.5

27.52

27.54

27.56

27.58

13:00 16:00 19:00 22:00 01:00 04:00 07:00 10:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time

exp. C232, temperat. sensor, setup 4

9.16

9.18

9.2

9.22

9.24

9.26

9.28

13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00

Time

b

exp. C232, setup 4, sensor 1

Curr

ent, µ

A

b


Cu

rre

nt,

µA

13.6

13.65

13.7

13.75

13.8

13.85

13.9

13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00

Time

b


Cu

rre

nt,

µA

11.15

11.2

11.25

11.3

11.35

11.4

11.45

11.5

13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00

Time

b


Cu

rre

nt,

µA

15.7

15.71

15.72

15.73

15.74

15.75

15.76

15.77

15.78

15.79

13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00

Time

Curr

ent, µ

A

16.05

16.06

16.07

16.08

16.09

16.1

16.11

16.12

16.13

16.14

16.15

16.16

22:00 23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00

Time

a


Curr

ent, µ

A

a6.77

6.775

6.78

6.785

6.79

6.795

6.8

6.805

6.81

22:00 23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00

Time


Curr

ent, µ

A


b6.8365

6.837

6.8375

6.838

6.8385

6.839

6.8395

6.84

6.8405

6.841

02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00

Time

Figure 8. Results of some measurements in experiments C232 and C236 at distance 1.65 km between generators and sensorswithin 24 hours after transporting generators into a new place.

receiver pair is worsening with time – e.g. in [24] we didnot register a signal transmission 552 hours after begin ofexperiment. In the literature, e.g. [16], [17], [18], authorsproposed to introduce some elements, which ’synchronize’emitters and receiver. Here an analogy with the well-known phenomenon of quantum entanglement [25] is as-sumed. The long-range, e.g. spin-spin, interactions are wellestablished research topic [26]. Moreover, multiple worksdiscuss this phenomenon also for macroscopic multi-bodysystems [27]. However, the macroscopic entanglement isstill in controversial discussion in scientific community.

To ’synchronize’ receiver and emitter and thus to createa kind of ’entanglement’ for signal transmission at longdistances, we utilize the twins phenomenon, which is welldescribed in the literature, e.g. [28], [29]. Not only humansbut also animals possess these properties, for instancethe famous Perov’s experiment with twins rabbits [14].The twins phenomenon supposes a macroscopic entangle-ment between elements of a pair, which enables a signaltransmission for long distances. Based on the experimentsfrom the vast literature, we will experimentally prove thefollowing assumption: a pair ’an object and its image’possesses some degree of macroscopic entanglement. Inparticular, we will test two approaches with one image and

with two images (Shkatov-Zamsha approach [30]) for ’syn-chronizing’ emitter-receiver pair for a signal transmissionat long distances.

Despite our original skepticism – we underline thisfact – in this work we decided for such experimentsbeing motivated by other ’strange’ properties of the as-sumed non-electromagnetic component of LED and laseremission.

III. Overview of device-device experiments

In these experiments the generators and sensors are atdistance 1.65 km (Stuttgart-Stuttgart), 360 km (Stuttgart-Halle), 2068 km (Stuttgart-Moscow), 3227km (Stuttgart-Ufa) and 13798 km (Stuttgart-Pert, West Australia), alldistances are estimated based on google maps1. Threeseries of experiments are performed: (1) generators areswitched on/off without any ’synchronization’ with sen-sors, (2) generators are switched on/off with a ’syn-chronization’ with sensors, (3) generators and operatorswork together for impacting sensors. Results of theseexperiments are collected in Table I.

1Distance Measurement Tool at maps.google.com.

C235

t1

C236

a b c d a b27.36

27.38

27.4

27.42

27.44

27.46

27.48

06:00 15:00 00:00

Te

mp

era

ture

, C

Time

exp. C235, C236, temperat. sensor, setup 4

(a)

Curr

ent, µ

A

11.2

11.22

11.24

11.26

11.28

11.3

11.32

11.34

11.36

11.38

11.4

11.42

06:00 15:00 00:00

Time

C235 C236

a b c d a b

exp. C235, C236, setup 4, sensor 3

(b)

Curr

ent, µ

A

11.2

11.22

11.24

11.26

11.28

11.3

11.32

11.34

11.36

11.38

11.4

11.42

06:00 15:00 00:00

Time

C235

t1

C236

a

a b c d a b

exp. C235, C236, setup 4, sensor 3

(c)

Figure 9. Experiments C235-C236 at distance 1.65 km between generators and sensors within 24 hours after transportation.Signal modulation (4-hour period) is well visible.


27.54

27.55

27.56

27.57

27.58

27.59

27.6

27.61

27.62

27.63

27.64

27.65

21:00 00:00 03:00 06:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time


(a)

19.485

19.49

19.495

19.5

19.505

19.51

19.515

19.52

19.525

19.53

21:00 00:00 03:00 06:00

Cu

rre

nt,

µA

Time


(b)

12.62

12.625

12.63

12.635

12.64

12.645

12.65

12.655

12.66

12.665

12.67

21:00 00:00 03:00 06:00

Cu

rre

nt,

µA

Time


(c)

11.13

11.14

11.15

11.16

11.17

11.18

11.19

11.2

11.21

11.22

21:00 00:00 03:00 06:00

Cu

rre

nt,

µA

Time


(d)

Figure 10. Experiment C254 at distance 1.65 km between generators and sensors 23 days after transportation.

A. Distance of 1.65 km

For performing these experiments, the generators weretransported on the distance 1.65 km away from sensorsand placed in the basement of a building. Horizontal andvertical orientation to sensors was done by using a compassand map. Accuracy of orientation was assumed to be about±25◦.

Device-device interaction without ’synchroniza-

tion’. Four experiments were performed: immediatelyafter transport of the generators, 24 hours after, 144hours after, and 552 hours after. In total 90 measurementsare performed. In the experiment C232 generators weretransported to a new position after they worked withsensors for about six months at short distances. In C232two measurements (a) and (b) are performed, howeverthe measurement (a) was excluded from considerationbecause of variation of temperature at that moment. Theexperiment C236 was performed 24 hours later. Severaldiagrams from current sensors are shown in Fig. 8. Wedid not find any substantial differences in sensor data atdistances 10, 20, 50 (see [2]) or 1650 meters within 24hours after transporting generators. Periodical modulationof the signal by the generators with period 4 hours is shown

in Fig. 9. In total, about 40%-45% sensors demonstratedthe reaction. In the experiment C241 (144 hours later) weobserved much weaker response – only 12 from 36 sensors,i.e. 33%. In the experiment C254 (552 hours later) only4 sensors from 36 demonstrated a reaction, i.e. 15%, seeFig. 10. Corresponding the selected methodology, resultsof the experiment C254 are statistically not significant, i.e.it is negative.

Device-device interactions with ’synchroniza-

tion’. In experiments C234, C235 and C237b,c the ’syn-chronization’ is achieved with using one image taken fromsensors by a digital camera and printed on a photo paper.Exposition time in C234 was approximately 30 minutes,however, it seems this time was too short and no changes indynamics of current were registered. In C235 and C237b,cthe exposition time was increased up to 60 minutes. InC238 two images were used, one - in front of sensors, thesecond one – in front of generators. Sensors indicated astronger reaction on two images.

Device-device interactions with an operator. Wealso performed 4 experiments with 36 measurements, whengenerators and an operator from the group ’chaosWatcher’,see Sec. IV-A, simultaneously interacted with sensors. In

Curr

ent, µ

A

11.15

11.2

11.25

11.3

11.35

11.4

11.45

11.5

18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 00:00

Time


Curr

ent, µ

A

14.08

14.09

14.1

14.11

14.12

14.13

14.14

14.15

14.16

13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00

Time

c


Curr

ent, µ

A


c6.74

6.745

6.75

6.755

6.76

6.765

6.77

6.775

13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00

Time

Figure 11. Experiments C233 and C235c with synchronization by using one digital image.

Curr

ent, µ

A

15.8

15.9

16

16.1

16.2

16.3

16.4

16.5

16.6

17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Time

d


1.8034

1.8036

1.8038

1.804

1.8042

1.8044

1.8046

1.8048

1.805

18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00

Data

fro

mA

DC

, V

Time

exp. C235, accelerometer, setup 3

d d


29.965

29.97

29.975

29.98

29.985

29.99

17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time

Figure 12. Experiment C235d with operator, (a) data from current sensors, (b) data from accelerometer, (c) data fromtemperature sensor.


30.14

30.16

30.18

30.2

30.22

30.24

30.26

30.28

30.3

30.32

21:00 00:00 03:00 06:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time

t1

a b


Curr

ent, µ

A

11.1

11.15

11.2

11.25

11.3

11.35

11.4

21:00 00:00 03:00

Time

t1

a b


Curr

ent, µ

A

13.65

13.7

13.75

13.8

13.85

13.9

13.95

14

14.05

14.1

14.15

14.2

21:00 00:00 03:00

Time

t1

a b

exp. C255, setup4, sensor 2

Curr

ent, µ

A

19.38

19.4

19.42

19.44

19.46

19.48

19.5

19.52

19.54

19.56

21:00 00:00 03:00 06:00

Time

t1

a b


Curr

ent, µ

A

t1

a b


9.1

9.15

9.2

9.25

9.3

9.35

9.4

21:00 00:00 03:00 06:00

Time

4.75

4.8

4.85

4.9

4.95

5

5.05

5.1

21:00 00:00 03:00 06:00

Voltage, V

10E

-1

Time

a b

exp. C255, setup3, voltage sensor 2

Figure 13. Experiment C255 at distance 360 km between Stuttgart and Halle.

C233 an operator concentrated on sensors, however weobserved a reaction outside of the time windows of thisexperiment – this result was ignored according to ourmethodology. In C235a,b,c the exposition time by the LEDgenerator was about 60 minutes and by operator — about30-40 minutes. We registered 44% reaction of sensors.C235d was similar to the previous experiments, howeverhere sensors demonstrated a strong change of current, seeFig. 12.

Such a strong reaction is similar to a mechanical impacton sensors, which changes a spatial structure of dipolesin the diffuse layer. However, the accelerometers did notregister any impacts, other sensors also did not recordstrong changes. It must be noted that from 60 minutesof experiment, an operator started a mental concentration20 minutes later and finished 15 earlier, a large growthof current happened exactly at this time. We refer thisresult to psychokinetic impacts, similar dynamics was alsoregistered in experiments with only operators.

B. Distance 360 km

This experiment was performed on 3.09.12 in Halle,Germany, the distance between sensor and generatorswas 360 km, we used the two-images approach for ’syn-chronization’. Since only one night was available for thisexperiment, the generators was turned on at 22.00 inthe mode: one hour – on, three hours – pause. Thisrelative early start time correlated with a daily variation oftemperature – the measurement at 6.00-7.00 was discardeddue to this reason. Generally 8 from 18 sensors recordedan impact in this experiment.

C. Distance 2068 km

These experiments were performed 14-18 September2012 between Moscow and Stuttgart, the distance betweensensor and generators was 2068 km, all settings are similarto the previous experiments. Due to time shift of 2 hours,several measurements were correlated with evening andmorning variations of temperature and thus were ignored.

29.72

29.73

29.74

29.75

29.76

29.77

29.78

29.79

29.8

29.81

00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

Te

mp

era

ture

, C

Time


6.7

6.8

6.9

7

7.1

7.2

7.3

00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

Cu

rre

nt,

µA

Time


9.02

9.025

9.03

9.035

9.04

9.045

9.05

9.055

9.06

9.065

00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

Cu

rre

nt,

µA

Time


19.4

19.41

19.42

19.43

19.44

19.45

19.46

19.47

00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

Cu

rre

nt,

µA

Time


7.02

7.04

7.06

7.08

7.1

7.12

7.14

7.16

7.18

00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

Cu

rre

nt,

µA

Time


6.2

6.3

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

6.8

6.9

7

7.1

7.2

7.3

00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time


12.18

12.2

12.22

12.24

12.26

12.28

12.3

12.32

12.34

12.36

12.38

00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time


Curr

ent, µ

A


7.446

7.4465

7.447

7.4475

7.448

7.4485

7.449

7.4495

7.45

7.4505

00:00 02:00

Time

Figure 14. Experiments C256, C259 at distance 2068 km between Stuttgart and Moscow.


27.32

27.34

27.36

27.38

27.4

27.42

27.44

27.46

27.48

27.5

27.52

00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time

exp. C260, temperat. sensor 1, setup 5

Curr

ent, µ

A


10.85

10.9

10.95

11

11.05

11.1

11.15

11.2

11.25

02:00 04:00 06:00

Time

Curr

ent, µ

A

exp. C260, setup 5, sensor26.3

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

6.8

6.9

7

7.1

7.2

7.3

02:00 04:00 06:00

Time

7.442

7.443

7.444

7.445

7.446

7.447

7.448

00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time


13.8

13.9

14

14.1

14.2

14.3

14.4

14.5

14.6

14.7

00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time


Curr

ent, µ

A


10.6

10.65

10.7

10.75

10.8

10.85

10.9

10.95

11

11.05

02:00 04:00 06:00

Time

Curr

ent, µ

A


12.3

12.35

12.4

12.45

12.5

12.55

12.6

12.65

12.7

02:00 04:00 06:00

Time

30.25

30.3

30.35

30.4

30.45

30.5

00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time


Figure 15. Experiment C260 at the distance 2068 km between Stuttgart and Moscow.

In total there was only one measurement per night. It mustbe noted that 16 of September was a new moon.The first experiment C256 on 14 September demon-

strated an usual response of about 45%, see Fig. 14. Alsothe final experiments C259 and C260 on 18 and 19 Septem-ber were successful, see Fig. 14. However, intermediateexperiments C257, C258 on 15 and 16 September did notindicate any changes of current. Since conditions of allexperiments C256-C260 are absolutely the same, we donot have any plausible explanation why some experimentsare successful and others not. Some authors proposed apossible impact of astronomic events, e.g. a new moon,on long range interactions – similarly to an impact of sunon long range radio communication. Since all propertiesof ’non-EM emission’ are still not explored, we do notcurrently consider this possibility.

D. Distance 3227 km

These experiments are performed between Stuttgart andUfa. The receiver was in Ufa (IGA-1), the emitter was inStuttgart (two LED generators), see Fig. 17. The approachwith two images was used for synchronization. Three seriesexperiments are performed: a) control measurements; b)experiments before 14.09.12; c) experiments after 20.09.12.In experiments b) two blue light LED generators areused, in experiments c) additionally a polyspectral LEDgenerator was switched on. In all these experiments LED

generators had a power supply 48 Volt from a battery.Overview of all experiments is done in Table I. Controlmeasurements have been performed several times, e.g. on19.01.12, 18.06.12, 04.09.12 in DC mode and on 12.09.12in AC mode, see Fig. 16.

Figure 17. Two LED generators, the printed b/w image ofstationary IGA-1 is visible.

Generally, the IGA-1 device is characterized by a flatdiagram of output voltage when there is no influence. Inthe first two hours of operation the device was distortedby environmental impacts, thus the LED generators wereswitched on three hours later than IGA-1, in total only 1-2experiments per night were performed.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 16. Control measurements done by IGA-1: (a) 18.06.12; (b) 12.09.12; (c) the experiment on 2.10.12.


(a) (b) (c)

Figure 18. Experiments on: (a) 05.09.12, (b) 26.09.12, (c) 27.09.12 at distance 3227 km between Stuttgart and Ufa, eachgraduation corresponds to 32 minutes.

The first session was on 5.09.12. Generators were turnedon at 14.11 and 18.11 of Stuttgart’s time. Since the firstmeasurement was within the forbidden two-hour zone, itwas ignored. However, the second measurement indicatedsome irregularity of the output voltage, which appeared al-most simultaneously with turning on the LED generators,see Fig.18.Three following experiments on 10.09.12, 11.09.12 and

13.09.12 (additional control measurements were performedon 12.09.12) did not reveal any visible changes of outputvoltage. The next series of experiments was performedon 26.09.12, 27.09.12 and 2.10.12. Here we also observedseveral variations of the signal during the LED generatorswere turned on. However these signals are not unambigu-ous in term of their origin and statistic significance. Thuswe stopped further experiments. Despite the receivingdevice needs further improvements, these experiments areof interest because they demonstrated a possibility ofreceiving a distant impact also by non-EDL sensors, i.e.independently from a hardware implementation.

E. Distance 13798 km

Super long range interactions are performed betweenPerth, West Australia and Stuttgart, Germany, the dis-tance between receiver and emitter is about 13798 km.Researchers in Australia used two generators: the cylin-drical one was turned on at 1.00-2.00 and the conicone – at 5.00-6.00 of CET on 16 and 17 August 2012.Here also an approach with two digital b/w images wasapplied, moreover the images were printed anew for eachexperiment.In total four independent experiments with 36 measure-

ments were performed: C239a, C239b – on 16 August 2012,and C240a, C240b – on 17 August 2012.Data from temperature sensor, supply voltage of the

PSoC chip and from the accelerometer for all experimentsare shown in Fig. 19. It is well visible that no temperature,mechanical or electric influences impacted the EDL sensorsduring these experiments. The most intensively respondedsensors in experiments C239 and C240 are shown inFig. 20.We observe very evident changes of trend during the

influence. The three best responses of current sensors fromC239a,b and C240a,b are shown in Fig.21 for furtheranalysis. In total 20 sensors are responded from 36 sensors,

i.e. the result is within > 50% of reaction. Based on theseresults we judged positively the attempt of receiving a1mW signal from Australia by sensors in Germany.

We registered an anomalous behavior of some temper-ature and current sensors. They demonstrated activitysurges for 70 minutes after the experiment C239a withduration of exactly one hour (the impact time of generatorsis also one hour), see Fig. 22. Usually such irregularities arerelated to environmental changes and ignored. However,such a small variation – 0.003◦C – cannot be explainedby local changes because university and laboratories areclosed at night time. Several researchers pointed out a pos-sibility of receiving echo-signals for long range interactions.Moreover, a sensitivity of the semiconductor and resistancetemperature sensors to non-electromagnetic influences is

exp. C239, temperat. sensor 3, setup 5

27.46

27.47

27.48

27.49

27.5

27.51

27.52

27.53

27.54

22:00 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time

a b

exp. C239, power supply, setup 3

a b2.976

2.9765

2.977

2.9775

2.978

22:00 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

Voltage

Time


a b1.802

1.8025

1.803

1.8035

1.804

1.8045

1.805

1.8055

1.806

22:00 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

AD

C D

ata

, V

Time


27.44

27.445

27.45

27.455

27.46

27.465

27.47

27.475

22:00 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

Te

mp

era

ture

, C

Time

a b

exp. C240, power supply, setup 3

a b2.976

2.9765

2.977

2.9775

2.978

22:00 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

Voltage, V

Time


a b1.802

1.8025

1.803

1.8035

1.804

1.8045

1.805

1.8055

1.806

22:00 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

AD

C D

ata

, V

Time

Figure 19. Data from temperature sensor, supply voltage andaccelerometer during experiments C239 and C240.



a b0.367

0.368

0.369

0.37

0.371

0.372

0.373

0.374

22:00 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

Voltage, V

Time

(a)


a b16.7

16.71

16.72

16.73

16.74

16.75

16.76

16.77

16.78

16.79

22:00 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time

(b)

11.26

11.27

11.28

11.29

11.3

11.31

11.32

22:00 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00

Cu

rre

nt,

µA

Time

a b


(c)

Figure 20. Data from most intensively responded sensors in experiments C239 and C240 at the distance of 13798 km: (a) datafrom the four-electrode voltage sensor S1 from the third setup; (b) data from current sensor S1 from the third setup; (c) datafrom the third current sensor from the fourth setup.

Cu

rre

nt,

µA

a


6.825

6.83

6.835

6.84

6.845

6.85

6.855

6.86

6.865

6.87

23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00

Time

Curr

ent, µ

A

a


13.82

13.83

13.84

13.85

13.86

13.87

13.88

13.89

22:00 23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00

Time

Curr

ent, µ

A

b


13.8

13.81

13.82

13.83

13.84

13.85

13.86

13.87

03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00

Time

Curr

ent, µ

A

b


6.875

6.88

6.885

6.89

6.895

6.9

03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00

Time

Cu

rre

nt,

µA


11.521

11.522

11.523

11.524

11.525

11.526

11.527

11.528

11.529

11.53

11.531

23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00

Time

a

Cu

rre

nt,

µA


6.875

6.88

6.885

6.89

6.895

6.9

23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00

Time

a

Curr

ent, µ

A


6.8735

6.874

6.8745

6.875

6.8755

6.876

6.8765

6.877

6.8775

04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00

Time

b

Curr

ent, µ

A


9.085

9.09

9.095

9.1

9.105

9.11

9.115

9.12

03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00

Time

b

Figure 21. Responses of several sensors for experiments C239 and C240.

also well-known. Thus, we note this irregularity withoutany further conclusion.

IV. Overview of the operator-device experiments

Experiments with operators are performed at distances< 10 meters (two separate rooms), 1.65 km (Stuttgart-Stuttgart) and 2105 km (Stuttgart-Donetsk). Two groupof operators are in Stuttgart and in Donetsk. Resultsobtained at short distance are finally discarded because anoperator could impact EDL sensors by weak emission ofhuman body [31]. Results of all experiments are collectedin Table II.

As mentioned by operators, the sensors responded on aspecific mental concentration as well as on the ’energetic’state of the operators. Important is not only an intensitybut also a duration of concentration. Operators expressedthey feel a kinesthetic contact with sensors. Moreover, itwas discovered that a person’s emotional state plays a role:the more intensive the emotional level, the more intensivethe reaction of sensors. Several operators pointed out anecessity of excited emotional state, a relaxed state doesnot affect sensors. Also a simple mental concentration onsensors does not impact the dynamics of current.


30.004

30.006

30.008

30.01

30.012

30.014

30.016

30.018

30.02

01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time

t1

one hour

t2

a b

Curr

ent, µ

A


t1

t2

a b9.075

9.08

9.085

9.09

9.095

9.1

9.105

01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00

Time

Cu

rre

nt,

µA


t1

t2

a b13.855

13.86

13.865

13.87

13.875

13.88

13.885

13.89

13.895

01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00

Time

Curr

ent, µ

A


t1

t2a b6.845

6.85

6.855

6.86

6.865

6.87

01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00

Time

Figure 22. Activity surges for some temperature and current sensors 70 minutes after C239a with duration of one hour.


Some operators described they feel a clear kinesthetic ef-fect when ’virtually touching’ sensors. They also describedeffects when ’an energetic hand was detached from a phys-ical hand’. This caused some ’burning pain’ on the skin.Some operators also mentioned that a physical or mentalexhaustion impacted negatively their capability to interactwith sensors. The level of concentration was important.For instance, observing the plotted curves provided anonline feedback, however decreased the concentration.Operators proposed to analyze data from sensors after theexperiment.

A. Distance 0.2-1 and 3-10 meters

Preparing the works [1], [2] and [3], several preliminarymind-matter experiments were performed in order to es-timate the level of sensitivity of EDL sensors. In the fistkind of such experiments, sensors registered unintentionalemotional impact from different neighbor persons. In thesecond kind of those experiments, operators from thegroup ’chaosWatcher’2 intentionally influenced the sen-

2chaos [email protected]

sors to develop a specific training approach with onlinefeedback from devices.These experiments demonstrated a potential possibility

to impact mentally the devices on short distances of about0.2-1 and 3-10 meters. An operator was in vicinity ofsensors or in a nearby room and obtained a feedback ingraphical form on a notebook computer. Overview of theperformed experiments is shown in Table II.However we doubted these results. There is a number of

factors that can impact sensors on such short distances,e.g. a weak emission of human body [31]. Operatorsagreed to stop short-distance experiments and to transportsensors on the distance of 1650 meters in another building.We do not consider results on 0.2-1 and 3-10 meters asreliable and do not show current curves. The overview inTable II reflects only the fact of performing these shortrange experiments.

B. Distance 1.65 km

These experiments extended further the previous at-tempts. Operators from the group ’chaosWatcher’ visited

Table IIResults of operator-device experiments.

N dis-

tance

dura-

tion,

min

synchro-

nization

mental

influ-

ence

total

experi-

ments

total

sensors

total

reac-

tion

T2

no re-

action

notes

B11 0.5-1m 15 no yes 1 1 1 0

B17b 0.5-1m 25 no yes 1 1 1 0

B72, B73 0.5-1m 35 no yes 1 6 4 2

B80, B81 0.5-1m 30 no yes 1 6 2 4

B98 0.5-1m 40 no yes 1 6 2 4

B99, B100 0.5-1m 30 no yes 1 6 3 3

B17a 3-5m 25 no yes 1 3 1 2

B22 3-5m 30 no yes 1 3 3 0

B32 3-5m 30 no yes 1 3 1 3

B39 3-5m 40 no yes 1 3 3 0

B41a,b 3-5m 40 no yes 1 6 2 4

B70, B71 3-5m 40 no yes 1 6 3 3

B74, B75 3-5m 45 no yes 1 6 2 4

B76, B77 3-5m 60 no yes 1 6 3 3

B78, B79 3-5m 60 no yes 1 6 2 4

B82, B83 10m 45 no yes 1 6 0 6

B101, B102 10m 40 no yes 1 6 3 3

B191 1.65km 65 no yes 1 3 2 1

B208 1.65km 40 no yes 1 9 6 3 20.07.12

B209 1.65km 10 no yes 1 6 2 4 21.07.12

B222 1.65 40 no yes 1 9 4 5

C245 2105km 100 no yes 1 9 6 3 21.08.12

C246 2105km 40 no yes 1 9 4 5 22.08.12

— — — — — — — — — 23.08.121

C248 2105km 50 no yes 1 9 6 3 24.08.12

— — — — — — — — — 25.08.122

C251 2105km 30 yes yes 1 9 3 6 26.08.12

1 Experiment was not performed due to several subjective reasons.2 Control attempt (no experiment) from Donetsk’ team.


the laboratory with installed sensors, and had a clear ideaof position and working principle of EDL sensors. Oper-ators from this group described their approach as ’mindprojection’ that is related to achieving a deep meditativetrance state. Duration of the experiments was about 30-40 minutes, preparation of an operator took about 15-20minutes. Thus, a common duration of an experiment wassimilar to device-device experiments. In some attempts,operators used a digital image of sensors to ’synchronize’with them. These experiments are performed in summerand autumn 2012.An overview of these experiments is provided in Table II.

Usually, the experiment was performed evening around23.00 or morning around 6.00. Since operators are quitebusy, the decision to undertake an attempt was takenon the same day and all other experiments with sensorsare postponed. Since operators were developing their owntechnique of training psychokinetic capabilities, not allexperiments were successful. After discussion in the groupit was decided that only several successful attempts will bedescribed here, but in turn operators will prepare a moredetailed work on this topic. From our side we estimate thenumber of successful to not successful experiments as oneto three in about a hundred of experiments.The experiment B191 was performed by the operator ’1’

from 21.45 (preparation) to 22.50 (end of experiment). Atthis moment only the setup five was operational, all othersare in the maintenance. Thus only data from two sensorsare shown in Fig. 23. In this experiment we obtainedan essential psychokinetic reaction that caused a largevariation of current.The experiment B208 was performed by the operator ’1’

in the morning hours, from 7.00 (preparation) to 7.20-7.45(the first attempt) and 7.45-8.00 (the second attempt).Reaction of six sensors is well visible, see some sensorresponses in Fig. 23. It must be noted that at the morning,some variation of temperature occurred. This increasedsensitivity of sensors and we observed two reactions T1,which are typical for short distances.The experiment B209 was performed by the operator

’2’ at night hours, about 2.00 with duration of 10 minutes.As stated by this operator, he ’felt a desire to impact thesensors’, therefore this session was so short. Current dataare shown in Fig. 24, temperature sensors did not recordany variation of temperature at that time. The experimentB222 was performed by the operator ’1’ in the morningat 6.00 with duration about 40 minutes. This time wasselected before morning’s variation of temperature, in total4 sensors from 9 recorded an impact, see the three bestresponses in Fig. 24.

C. Distance 2105 km

These experiments are similar to ones described in theprevious section, however with another group of operatorsand other techniques. The goals were: (a) to obtain anobjective confirmation from devices for subjective feelingsduring meditations and trances; (b) to develop a training

11.4

11.6

11.8

12

12.2

12.4

12.6

12.8

13

18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time

exp B191, setup 5 sensor 3

(a) B191

exp B191, setup 5 sensor 2

14.9

14.95

15

15.05

15.1

15.15

15.2

15.25

15.3

18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time

(b) B191

25.64

25.66

25.68

25.7

25.72

25.74

25.76

25.78

25.8

03:00 05:00 07:00 09:00 11:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time

exp. B208, temper. sensor 1, setup 5

(c) B208 (d) B208

6.6

6.65

6.7

6.75

6.8

6.85

03:00 05:00 07:00 09:00 11:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time

exp. B208, setup 5, sensor 2

(e) B208

18.7

18.72

18.74

18.76

18.78

18.8

18.82

18.84

18.86

18.88

18.9

03:00 05:00 07:00 09:00 11:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time


(f) B208

Figure 23. Experiments B191 and B208.

approach for those psychokinetic techniques. The distancebetween Stuttgart and Donetsk is approximately 2105 km.The ’MSU’ 3 group practices a ’lucid dreaming approach’for impacting the sensors. Since this group had moremembers than ’chaosWatcher’, it was of interest to exploreappearing collective phenomena. One week from 21 to 26of August 2012 was reserved for these experiments.

Since nobody from this group was in Stuttgart, images oflaboratory and sensors are sent to Donetsk. During video-conference the developers demonstrated the laboratory,the building and answered all questions. The methodologyof these experiments assumed that all members of the’MSU’ group perform the influence without informing thegroup in Stuttgart. After the session, the time was told toStuttgart for generating diagrams, which were then sentto Donetsk. Analysis was performed on both sites. For theexperiment on 24 and 25 August the time of attempts wasnot transmitted to Stuttgart. The Stuttgart’s group shouldrecognize the time and the attempt (yes or no) basedon the data from sensors. The analysis procedure fromthe previous experiments [2], [1] was applied: duration ofan attempt – 30-60 minutes, time between attempts –about 120 minutes. Only changes of current during theexperiments (±15 minutes) were considered. Three bestresponses are plotted.

[email protected]


28.18

28.2

28.22

28.24

28.26

28.28

28.3

01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time


(a)

9.23

9.24

9.25

9.26

9.27

9.28

9.29

9.3

01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time


(b)

14.1

14.15

14.2

14.25

14.3

14.35

14.4

14.45

14.5

01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time


(c)

10.95

11

11.05

11.1

11.15

11.2

11.25

11.3

11.35

01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time


(d)

Figure 25. The experiment C245, data from (a) temperature sensor, (b-d) current sensors.

During the first experiment C245 one operator noteda subjective feeling of a successful influence during 2.10-3.50 (and up to 4.00). Sensors demonstrated an essentialchanges of current around 1.50-3.00, see Fig. 25. Besidethese changes, we noted several other variations also later.Moreover, the reaction of sensors was to some extentspread in time in contrast to the case of device-device in-teractions with almost simultaneous reaction of all sensors.It seems this can be explained by some desynchronizationbetween operators. In total, 6 from 9 sensors demonstrateda reaction in that experiment.

To avoid spreading of sensor data, it was agreed for thesecond experiment C246 that all operators will start theinfluence at the same time. At least one operator reporteda feeling of a successful attempt at 2.33 (±20 minutes).Sensors demonstrated an essential variation of current atthat time, see Fig.26. It is unclear whether this was anindividual and collective result. In total, 4 current and 2voltage sensors responded.

The planned experiment on 23 of August was notperformed. It is unclear whether a tiredness in the groupor a working LED generator was the reason for this. Forthe next experiments the strategy was changed. Basedon the recorded data by sensors, the Stuttgart’s groupshould express an assumption about performed experimentand the group form Donetsk should confirm or reject it.For the experiment on 24 of August two assumptionswere expressed: 1.00-2.00 with 6 current changes or 3.00-4.00 with 5 current changes. The second assumption wascorrect. Results of this experiment C248 are shown inFig.27, in total 6 from 9 sensors changes their behaviorat that time.

For the experiment on 25 of August an assumptionhas been expressed about the time 1.30-2.00. It was not

correct, because this day was planned by Donetsk groupas a control experiment (i.e. no influence). It is unclearwhat is reason for multiple responses of current sensorsaround 1.00-2.00 on 24 and 25 of August.

For the last experiment on 26.08.12 it was decided toundertake a common experiment with two groups of oper-ators and with some synchronization between them, e.g. bya symbol that modulates an emission of LED generator, seeFig. 29. Both groups tuned up for the symbol by using the’scrying’ approach. Besides influencing the sensors, bothgroups intended to identify the presence of each other andto estimate the number of participating persons. Sensorsdemonstrated only a weak reaction on this experiment– from 9 sensors only 3 can be identified as responded.Despite weakness of the response, we still counted thisexperiment as successful. Both group identified each otherand correctly estimated the number of male/female opera-tors. Overview of all performed experiment is shown TableII.

Summarizing the experiments from Stuttgart’ side,C245, C246 and C248 can be evaluated as positive. Timeexpressed by Donetsk’ group coincide with the response ofsensors. Moreover, approximately 50% of sensors demon-strated an essential change in dynamics of current/voltage.It seems also that by using statistic approaches it ispossible to estimate correctly the time of influence withouthaving information about such an influence. However, itneeds to note that some environmental noise as well aslarge confidence interval can lead to an absolutely wrongestimation. The experiment C251 with a common influenceis weaker than a single impact from one of those groups. Itseems also that ESP as well as psychokinetic capabilitiescan be improved by using LED generators and sensors.

28.62

28.64

28.66

28.68

28.7

28.72

28.74

28.76

28.78

28.8

01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time


(a)

7.249

7.25

7.251

7.252

7.253

7.254

7.255

7.256

7.257

7.258

7.259

7.26

01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time


(b)

6.95

7

7.05

7.1

7.15

7.2

7.25

7.3

01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time


(c)

7.65

7.66

7.67

7.68

7.69

7.7

7.71

7.72

7.73

7.74

7.75

7.76

01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00

Voltage, V

Time

exp. C246, setup 3, V-sensor 3

(d)



31.24

31.26

31.28

31.3

31.32

31.34

31.36

31.38

31.4

02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time


(a)

7.439

7.4395

7.44

7.4405

7.441

7.4415

7.442

7.4425

02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time


(b)

9.35

9.355

9.36

9.365

9.37

9.375

9.38

9.385

02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time


(c)

18.58

18.6

18.62

18.64

18.66

18.68

18.7

18.72

18.74

18.76

18.78

18.8

02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time


(d)


From anomalous data, it needs to point to the strongsynchronized noise from unknown source – this effectwas not encountered previously. It is unclear whether itrepresents a side effect of the preformed experiments orthere are environmental reasons for it.

V. Analysis of results and conclusion

For the analysis we represent the output of EDL sensoras ’1’ when time of its reaction coincided with the time ofinfluence (during one hour), and ’0’ when not. Two controlgroups are formed: A1 – all values equal zero and A2 – onevalue is equal to one and others are equal to zero. Thus,we consider the case of ideal sensors in A1 and a randomprocess in A2, which can ’correctly guess’ the influencetime. Similarly, two groups of results are formed: B1 –three from nine sensor values (6 from 18) are correct andB2 – five from nine (10 from 18) are correct. We performthe Mann-Whitney U test for the following cases: A1-B1,A1-B2, A2-B1, A2-B2, see Table III.

Table IIIResults of the Mann-Whitney U test for groups A

and B.

9 sensors 18 sensors

U-test (z) significance U-test (z) significance

A1-B1 -1.743 0.081 -2.646 0.008

A1-B2 -2.405 0.016 -3.669 0.000

A2-B1 -0.981 0.326 -2.076 0.038

A2-B2 -1.772 0.076 -3.211 0.001

The goal is to estimate when the difference betweengroups A and B will be statistically significant. Based onmeasurements in [1], [2], [3], we use in these experimentsthe case A2-B1 (6 from 18) with α = 0.038 and inseveral cases A1-B1 (3 from 9) with α = 0.081, which are

statistically significant regarding corresponding randomprocesses.To demonstrate a statistical significance we select two

typical experiments: EXP1 – C239-C240 (13798 km)for the device-device and EXP2 – C245-C246-C248-C251(2105 km) for the operator-device experiments. In each ofthese experiments 4 attempts with 9 sensors have beenperformed. As mentioned, EDL sensors can lose theirsensitivity – this is related to relaxation processes in theGouy-Chapman layer – therefore it needs to make someassumptions about a temporal operability of sensors. InTable IV we show results of the xi-square test for EXP1,EXP2 regarding null hypothesis of a random character ofthese results.

Table IVResults of xi-square tests for EXP1 and EXP2.

not op-

erable

EXP1 EXP2

sensors xi-square significance xi-square significance

1 2.000 0.157 1.125 0.289

2 5.143 0.023 3.571 0.059

3 10.667 0.001 8.167 0.04

We can reject the null hypothesis with the level ofsignificance α ≤ 0.03 and α ≤ 0.06 for EXP1, EXP2correspondingly, if to assume that two from nine sensorscan lose their sensitivity.Overview of all results is shown in Table V. About

69% device-device experiments were successful and 31%– not successful, 13 operator-device experiments weresuccessful and one not. Four (C233, C254) device-deviceexperiments were expectedly-not-successful, i.e. only in21% we did not succeed in a signal transmission. Reasonsare, a new technology with IGA-1, which needs further

30.85

30.855

30.86

30.865

30.87

30.875

30.88

30.885

30.89

30.895

18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time


(a)

11.403

11.404

11.405

11.406

11.407

11.408

11.409

11.41

11.411

11.412

11.413

18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time


(b)

5.134

5.136

5.138

5.14

5.142

5.144

5.146

5.148

5.15

5.152

5.154

5.156

18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Voltage, V

Time

exp. C251, setup 3, V-sensor 2

(c)

7.015

7.02

7.025

7.03

7.035

7.04

7.045

7.05

18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time


(d)



25.96

25.98

26

26.02

26.04

26.06

26.08

26.1

00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00

Te

mp

era

ture

, C

Time

exp. B209, temperat. sensor 1, setup 5

(a) B209

12.955

12.96

12.965

12.97

12.975

12.98

12.985

12.99

12.995

00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00

Cu

rre

nt,

µA

Time


(b) B209

10.1

10.15

10.2

10.25

10.3

10.35

00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00

Cu

rre

nt,

µA

Time


(c) B209

04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00

exp. B222, temp. sensor, setup 4

28.06

28.08

28.1

28.12

28.14

28.16

28.18

28.2

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time

(d) B222

10.7

10.75

10.8

10.85

10.9

10.95

11

11.05

11.1

11.15

04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00

Curr

ent, µ

A

Time


(e) B222

04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00

Curr

ent, µ

A


6.92

6.94

6.96

6.98

7

7.02

7.04

7.06

7.08

7.1

7.12

Time

(f) B222

04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00

Cu

rre

nt,

µA


7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

Time

(g) B222

Figure 24. Experiments B209 and B222.

Figure 29. Symbol of a red triangle on the LED generator usedfor a ’synchronization’ between operators in the experimentC251.

Table VOverview of all results.

type total

expe-

riments

total

sensors

total

successful

experi-

ments

total not

successful

experi-

ments

device-device 42 289 29 13

device-device-operator

(LED-gen.)

6 54 5 1

operator-device, gr. CW — — 4 —

operator-device, gr.

MSU

4 36 4 0

development, as well as a possible impact of astronomicevents, whose influence on long range interactions is stillnot fully explored.We note the following main results:

• analyzing results of all performed experiments, wecannot reject the hypothesis about non-local interac-tions. Taking into account statistical significance anda clear correlation between turning on/off generatorsand a reaction of sensors we also reject the nullhypothesis about a random character of results.

• both device-device and operator-device interactionsused the same sensors. It can point to a com-mon mechanisms underlying these two types ofinteractions.

• used EDL sensors, comparing with known capacitor,inductive and other sensors [16], [30] possess a greatsensitivity. Despite a relatively complex maintenanceand a need of temperature, EM and mechanicalshields, they enabled performing many successfulexperiments. Using a more advance microelectronicsolutions, it is possible to develop a compact device formobile and stationary applications even in hazardous,e.g. underwater, environments.

• the macroscopic entanglement created a number ofopen questions. The used approach with images seemsto work, despite our original skepticism. With digitalb/w or color printed images in device-device exper-iments the connection was established and workedin almost all undertaken attempts. Apparently, aninvolvement into a joint process can also create amacroscopic entanglement. Long time jointly workingdevices, after splitting, can support a communicationchannel up to three weeks. Without these approaches,we did not succeed in creating a communicationchannel at long distances.

• increasing intensity of interactions, e.g. simultaneousimpact of several devices or operators, we did notalways observe more intensive reaction of sensors.However in [2] we observed the effect when frequencydesynchronizing between two generators leaded tobetter response of sensors.

Several comments must be noted. Firstly, in order to rec-ognize the remote impact, it requires knowing of a tempo-ral confidence interval for the impact. From three attemptsto recognize the impact without a priori information, only

S. Kernba h, V. Zamsha, Y. Krav henko. Long and Super-Long Range devi e-devi e and operator-devi e Intera tions 39

one attempt was successful. The reason was a correlatednoise from unknown source, which caused simultaneousreaction of several sensors. In [3] we expressed the idea thatgenerators are not a single source of a possible non-EMfield.Secondly, it is argued that an operator or a developer

represents the origin of interactions in device-device exper-iments. Considering Fig. 9, we observe a modulation of asignal during 24 hours with the period of 4 hours. Despitewe cannot discard an operator as an origin of interaction,such a regular modulation points to a device as an origin ofimpact. However, in several experiments we observed moreintensive reaction of sensors when device and operatorjointly impacted the sensors. It seems that such a jointoperation is possible and corresponding approaches needto be developed.Thirdly, the used sensor system is relatively slow, for

a reliable recognition of signal from noise a modulationwith the period of four hours was used. Since the sensorsreacted mostly on turning on/off generators, the dynamicperformance of sensors can be essentially improved. Evenin the current configuration we see two main applicationsof this technology: for training different psychokineticcapabilities and as a device for super-long-range emer-gency communication in ground, underwater or spaceenvironments. For instance, the generators used in theexperiments Stuttgart-Perth had only 1mW of opticalpower.

A. Research challenges

In the last part of this work we point to principalquestions, which remained unanswered.

1. Can the principle of superposition be applied to theconsidered phenomena?

This question appears when using several generators,when considering impact of astronomic events on non-localinteractions, when modulating emission of generators bydifferent information matrices. A part of experimental datapoints to inapplicability of superposition – for instance,from many serially applied information matrices, only thelast one is important [13], increasing or decreasing opticalemission from the generator does not remarkably change areaction of sensors [3], increasing the impact time also doesnot change the reaction of sensors. However, we encountersome experiments, primarily astronomic ones, where thecommon effect is defined by a relation of all ’generators’to each other.

2. Do these phenomena possess physical (in particularwaves) or information origin?

Analyzing fundamental works, e.g. [32], [33], we observethat similar effects are created by different sources ofemission – by spinning of bodies, by magnetic fields,by quantum phenomena in semiconductors, by geometricshapes and others. Experimental data point to these phe-nomena on the one hand as physical interactions [34], buton the other hand as purely information interactions [1].Do they have the same origin?

3. Is this one effect or a combination of several effects?

This work is based on four different effects: generation ofa ’high-penetrating’ emission, possibility to modulate thisemission, effect of macroscopic entanglement and, finally,interaction between mind and matter (between operatorsand devices). Do these effects appear in a consequence ofone fundamental interaction, or as a sum of many, e.g.quantum, effects in macroscopic systems?

4. What is the nature of ’entanglement mechanism’, whichconnect remote macroscopic objects?

This question is related to the mechanism underly-ing macroscopic entanglement. What are its properties?Which objects can be used for entanglement? Are thereother ’macroscopic analogies’ of quantum phenomena formacroscopic multi-body systems?

Concluding the whole series of works [1], [2] and [3],it seems that further development of ’non-EM technolo-gies’ with EDL sensors has a large potential, especiallybecause of sensitivity of these sensors. New software andhardware solutions should improve this approach andenable new medical, biological and hybrid experiments.This represents future works.

Referen es

[1℄ Serge Kernba h. Repli ation attempt: Measuring water

ondu tivity with polarized ele trodes. Journal of S ienti�

Exploration, 27(1):69�105, 2013.

[2℄ Serge Kernba h. On high-penetrating LEDs emission on short

and middle ranges. In Pro . of the Int. Conf. Torsion �elds and

Information Intera tions, pages 98�114. Mos ow, 2012.

[3℄ Ñ. Êåðíáàõ. Èññëåäîâàíèå Ïðîíèêàþùåé Ñïîñîáíîñòè Ñâå-

òîäèîäíîãî è Ëàçåðíîãî Èçëó÷åíèÿ, ÷.1, ÷.2. Íàíî- è

ìèêðîñèñòåìíàÿ òåõíèêà, 6,7, 2013.

[4℄ J. Lyklema. Fundamentals of Interfa e and Colloid S ien e.

A ademi Press, 2005.

[5℄ M. L. Belaya, M. V. Feigel'man, and V. G. Levadnyii. Stru tural

for es as a result of nonlo al water polarizability. Langmuir,

3(5):648�654, 1987.

[6℄ H. Stens hke. Polarization of water in the metal/ele trolyte

interfa e. Journal of Ele troanalyti al Chemistry and

Interfa ial Ele tro hemistry, 196(2):261 � 274, 1985.

[7℄ David W. R. Gruen and Stjepan Mar elja. Spatially varying

polarization in water. a model for the ele tri double layer and

the hydration for e. J. Chem. So ., Faraday Trans. 2, 79:225�

242, 1983.

[8℄ F. Spillner. Vier-elektroden-konduktometris he analyse (4-ek-

analyse). Chemie Ingenieur Te hnik, 29(1):24�27, 1957.

[9℄ D. Kirkham and G.S. Taylor. Some tests of a four-ele trode

probe for soil moisture measurement. Soil S i. So . Am. Pro .,

14:42 �46, 1949.

[10℄ Keith L. Bristow, Gerard J. Kluitenberg, Chris J. Goding,

and Terry S. Fitzgerald. A small multi-needle probe for

measuring soil thermal properties, water ontent and ele tri al

ondu tivity. Computers and Ele troni s in Agri ulture,

31(3):265 � 280, 2001.

[11℄ Orion ondu tivity theory, orion produ ts - the te hni al

edge. Te hni al report, http://www.thermo. om/

eThermo/CMA/PDFs/ Arti les/arti lesFile_11377.pdf.

[12℄ À.Â. Áîáðîâ. Âçàèìîäåéñòâèå ñïèíîâûõ ïîëåé ìàòåðèàëü-

íûõ îáúåêòîâ (À.V. Bobrov, Intera tion between spin �elds of

material obje ts). In Ìàòåðèàëû ìåæäóíàðîäíîé íàó÷íîé

êîí�åðåíöèè. Õîñòà, Ñî÷è, 25-29 àâãóñòà, pages 76�86,

2009.

[13℄ À.Â. Áîáðîâ. Ìîäåëüíîå Èññëåäîâàíèå Ïîëåâîé Êîíöåï-

öèè Ìåõàíèçìà Ñîçíàíèÿ (À.V. Bobrov, Investigating a �eld

on ept of ons iousness). Îðåë, Îðåë�ÒÓ, 2006.

40 International Journal of Un onventional S ien e, Issue 1, Number 1, 2013

[14℄ Â.Ï. Ïåðîâ. Ïîñòàíîâêà èññëåäîâàíèé íàëè÷èÿ ñâÿçè ìåæ-

äó ñåíñîðíî-ðàçîáùåííûìè áèîîáúåêòàìè. Â ñá.: Êðàñíî-

ãîðñêàÿ Í.Â. (ðåä.). Ýëåêòðîìàãíèòíûå ïîëÿ â áèîñ�åðå,

(ò.1):362, 1984.

[15℄ Ë.Ë. Âàñèëüåâ. Ýêñïåðèìåíòàëüíûå èññëåäîâàíèÿ ìûñëåí-

íîãî âíóøåíèÿ. Ë�Ó, 1962.

[16℄ Â.Â. Çàìøà and Â.Ò. Øêàòîâ. Î âîçìîæíîì ñïîñîáå ñâåðõ-

äàëüíåé ïåðåäà÷è àâàðèéíîãî ñèãíàëà â ýêñòðåìàëüíûõ è

÷ðåçâû÷àéíûõ ñèòóàöèÿõ. Cáîðíèê Ó�ÀÒÓ Áåçîïàñíîñòü

2012, page 128, 2012.

[17℄ Ñ.Í. Ìàñëîáðîä. Ý��åêò äàëüíåé ñâÿçè ìåæäó ïðîðàñòà-

þùèìè ñåìåíàìè, âîçíèêàþùèé ïðè èõ êîíòàêòå â ïåðèîä

íàáóõàíèÿ (S. Maslobrod, E�e t of a long range intera tion

appeared between germinating seeds. Ýëåêòðîííàÿ îáðàáîòêà

ìàòåðèàëîâ (Ele troni pro essing of materials), 48(6):99�113,

2012.

[18℄ S.N. Maslobrod. The distant e�e t of water on seeds

outside a losed reservoir. Surfa e Engineering and Applied

Ele tro hemistry, 47(4):378�383, 2011.

[19℄ R. Janhn, B. Dunne, G. Bradish, Y. Dobyns, A. Lettieri,

R. Nelson, J. Mis ho, E. Boller, H. Boes h, D. Vaitl,

J. Houtkooper, and B. Walter. Mind/ma hine intera tion

onsortium: Portreg repli ation experiments. Journal of

S ienti� Exploration, (14(4)):499�555, 2000.

[20℄ �.Í. Äóëüíåâ and À.Ï. Èïàòîâ. Èññëåäîâàíèÿ ÿâëå-

íèé ýíåðãîèí�îðìàöèîííîãî îáìåíà: ýêñïåðèìåíòàëüíûå

ðåçóëüòàòû. �ÈÒÌÎ, Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 1998.

[21℄ E.C. May. Review of the department of defense's star gate

program: A ommentary. The Journal of Parapsy hology,

(60):3�23, 1996.

[22℄ H.E. Putho�. Cia-initiated remote viewing at stanford resear h

institute. Journal of S ienti� Exploration, (10(1)):63�76.,

1996.

[23℄ Â.Ò. Øêàòîâ. Äåòåêòèðîâàíèå òîðñèîí-

íûõ ïîëåé. Èíòåðíåò-ïóáëèêàöèÿ, Òîìñê,

www.trinitas.ru/rus/do /0231/004a/02311037.htm, 2010.

[24℄ Ñ. Êåðíáàõ. Èññëåäîâàíèå Ïðîíèêàþùåé Ñïîñîáíîñòè

Ñâåòîäèîäíîãî è Ëàçåðíîãî Èçëó÷åíèÿ, ÷.2. Íàíî- è

ìèêðîñèñòåìíàÿ òåõíèêà, 7:28�38, 2013.

[25℄ H. Zbinden, J. Brendel, N. Gisin, and W. Tittel. Experimental

test of nonlo al quantum orrelation in relativisti

on�gurations. Phys. Rev. A, 63:022111, Jan 2001.

[26℄ Larry Hunter, Joel Gordon, Stephen Pe k, Daniel Ang, and

Jung-Fu Lin. Using the earth as a polarized ele tron sour e

to sear h for long-range spin-spin intera tions. S ien e,

339(6122):928�932, 2013.

[27℄ Vlatko Vedral. Quantifying entanglement in ma ros opi

systems. Nature, 453(7198):1004�1007, 2008.

[28℄ S.J. Bla kmore and F. Chamberlain. ESP and thought

on ordan e in twins: A method of omparison. Journal of the

So iety for Psy hi al Resear h, (59):89�96, 1993.

[29℄ Diane Henna y Powell. The ESP Enigma: The S ienti� Case

for Psy hi Phenomena. Walker & Company, 2008.

[30℄ Â.Ò. Øêàòîâ and Â.Ï. Çàìøà. Ýêñïåðèìåíòû ïî ìåæ-

êîíòèíåíòàëüíîé òîíêîïîëåâîé ñâÿçè (ÒÏÑ) è óïðàâëåíèþ

ìåæäó ãîðîäàìè Ïåðò (Àâñòðàëèÿ) è Òîìñê (�îññèÿ). Òîð-

ñèîííûå ïîëÿ è èí�îðìàöèîííûå âçàèìîäåéñòâèÿ - 2012,

ìàòåðèàëû êîí�åðåíöèè, page 115, 2012.

[31℄ Masaki Kobayashi, Daisuke Kiku hi, and Hitoshi Okamura.

Imaging of ultraweak spontaneous photon emission from human

body displaying diurnal rhythm. PLoS ONE, 4(7):e6256, 07

2009.

[32℄ À.Å.Àêèìîâ. Ýâðèñòè÷åñêîå îáñóæäåíèå ïðîáëåìû ïîèñ-

êà íîâûõ äàëüíîäåéñòâèé. EGS-êîíöåïöèè. M., Ïðåïðèíò

/ Ìåæîòðàñë. íàó÷.-òåõí. öåíòð âåí÷óð. íåòðàäèö.

òåõíîëîãèé; N 7À, page 63, 1991.

[33℄ �.È. Øèïîâ. Òåîðèÿ �èçè÷åñêîãî âàêóóìà. Ìîñêâà, ÍÒ-

öåíòð, 1993.

[34℄ Ñàìîõâàëîâ Â.Í. Ýêñïåðèìåíòàëüíûå äîêàçàòåëüñòâà ñó-

ùåñòâîâàíèÿ ìàññîäèíàìè÷åñêèõ ïîëåé è ñèë. Ôóíäà-

ìåíòàëüíûå ïðîáëåìû åñòåñòâîçíàíèÿ è òåõíèêè. Òðóäû

Ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî íàó÷íîãî Êîíãðåññà, 33:488�497, 2008.

long and super-long range device-device and operator-device

Documents