Michael Lee

Here's a few more results, to show you the range of what can happen.

Also, these are all my unique designs that are pretty much extensions of the 2020 paper to 3, 4, and 8 "nodes."

The 47 gates comes from the fact that the aggregate delay is around 20 ns, which is around the period of a 50 MHz clock cycle.

It also should be pointed out that randomness at 50 MHz may not be required for ITC. It may be sufficient that the systems are "chaotic" or that they switch back and forth randomly between nearly periodic states.

Here are results for two noise sources.

The first one has pretty solid randomness, but it is biased. https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/symmetry/symmetry-12-00506/article_deploy/symmetry-12-00506-v2.pdf

The second has much less bias, but some correlation bits at the highest frequencies. (https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijrc/2009/501672/)

Most of the noise sources I've coded up sound and look like white noise when you reach the audible range, so we are really honing on non-randomness at the 50 MHz sampling rate. The idea is that we need the higher sampling rate to get more information from spirit.

I will use this thread to share with everyone the raw output of my different random noise / bit sources from the FPGA. A lot of these designs are already in the scientific literature. Only a few are truly my own creations, built on the ideas of previous ones.

Each one has a rate of 50 Mbits per second, because this is the base clock speed of the device. The system clock can be sped up to about 200 MHz without overheating, but for now 50 MHz should be more than enough. Also, you can run many of the sources in parallel. For example, you could have 20 sources running on one 50 MHz FPGA to get a total of 1 Gbits per second.

As you'll see, none of my sources are perfectly random at 50 MHz. Although, if you set the bar lower to say 1 Mbit output, many should pass randomness tests.

I believe that one or more of these sources, and perhaps new variants yet undiscovered can hold an ITC signal. But that won't be the direct purpose of this thread.

One of the most basic things people look for in random bit streams is called "bias." This is usually measured as the number of 1's divided by the total number of bits. 0.5 or 50% is the desired theoretical value. But I think this is too overemphasized in the literature, because if the bias = 0.5 isn't met, people will revert to "whitening" techniques to make the bit stream look more random. 

Now if your goal is generate cryptographic keys to store your cryptocurrency, whitening may be fine. But if you're trying to "hear" spirits, etc, whitening might end ruining the weak signal we're trying to pick up.

Thus I want to introduce a new metric, I just thought up (special thanks to spirit team  , bias variance. If a bias is 0.75 for a particular noise source, that should be fine, as long as it doesn't keep changing over time. We can always subtract the mean, if we're doing things like summing up the bits over an interval (remember the 6,125,000 samples per group bit?)

Andres, right! I'm asking them to do some simple math. No language encoding necessary.

So, I would say my experiment to allow spirits to preserve byte parity failed. I still think it is a good test, and now is arguably an experiment I will return to as I think of different noise sources to program on the FPGA.

I agree it's possible that spirits have trouble synchronizing with our time systems. I also think it's possible they can't see the "1's" and "0's" going through my chip. It's also possible they just aren't interested in this particular experiment.

Another possible problem is the algorithm I'm using to extract the bits: finding the mean, and then assigning bits by being above or below that mean. Perhaps, a bit should only be assigned when it is several standard deviations away from the mean. Otherwise, it might be assumed that no signal was sent.

A positive outcome from this experiment is I feel like I now have a convenient objective metric to evaluate noise sources. When they produce 8-bits, they should be able to ensure "parity", aka an even number of 1s and 0s. It's a relatively simple agreement between experimenters Here and There. I'm not asking for a particular language or response, simply a consistency check.

Edit #1: I added an example of what the FPGA sounds like and looks like as a spectrogram when it's making the bits. There's a low tone for a 0, high tone for a 1, and silence for a rejected byte. It has nothing to do with ITC, but I had to make this so I could communicate the FPGA's group bits with my PC. It's surprisingly difficult to get an FPGA to talk to a PC. I have a much better idea (logic analyzer) if I need it in the future, but this was a fast hack.

example_sound.mp3

They can hear the tones being generated. High frequency for 1, low frequency for 0, and silence if the symbol doesn't pass the parity test.

I have it running, now. Unmonitored. But recording. They've been playing with my FPGA noise sources for months, and getting decent results with voice. So I imagine they know what's going on. Still, the limits of physics may prevent them from having sufficient control of the noise sources.

Ok. For viewers tuned in at home. Here's the first result: For all symbols collected, ~55% parity correct. 50% is expected by chance. 

So it's something, but it's also bad enough that I'm not even ready to read the symbols. Maybe I'll be impressed with 70%?

I have several noise sources to try. Maybe one of them will make the cut?

Stay tuned.

Edit 1: Some other noise sources I've tried are at 47% correct parity. 55% is the max I've seen so far. I think this variation could easily chalked up to the algorithm I'm using to extract the bits, specifically how quickly I'm updating the mean , which is the dividing line between whether to assign a 0 or 1. Therefore, I would like to see at least 60% or greater to know we're going somewhere.

Parity serves two purposes: reject symbols that have a bit error and measure the quality of the ITC signal. It's not meant to match any standards.

Yes, it is possible to have parallel bit streams. The sky is the limit. However, for now I'll be happy with telegraph speeds from the 1800s.

I'm currently trying digital ITC. I move around quickly from idea to idea like a road runner. ("meet meet!")

The general idea is to receive 8 bits per second, with one parity bit. My field programmable gate array (FPGA) noise source yields 50 million random bits per second. 

Lets call the slow bits "group bits." 8 group bits per second. 8 group bits per "symbol". I decide on each group bit by summing 6,250,000 random bits. If its above the moving average, I assign a '1' , otherwise I assign a "0".

Parity means that the number of 1s per second/symbol should be even. If it isnt, then that's a bad symbol. Goal would be to have no bad symbols.

Symbols can be translated by 7-bit ASCII character set. Or we could reduce to a 5-bit letters only set.

Either way, the first, very simple question is how good can spirits maintain parity? Random chance says there would be 50% symbols rejected.

Wagner: Very nice. There seems to be at least three phases. One is the "sssss." Another sounds like a periodic tone around 100 Hz. The last is a transitional type sound.  The last two work together to produce vowels and short consonants.

Is the apparatus completely stationary? If so, that's interesting that it changes sounds like that.

A physical analog of what you're describing is a line of dominos. The first domino is only a little bit stable, but when it falls by a light touch, it starts a cascade of motion / energy release.

As we observe paranormal activity in our ITC devices and software, the grand question is how is this happening?

Spirit photons from the vacuum energy zero point field

Zero-point energy In quantum mechanics, the vacuum is not actually empty. It is filled with particle-antiparticle pairs that perpetually go in and out of existence. The lifetime, t, of these pairs is governed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: dE*dt > h_bar/2.

Despite my careless description of a physical concept, it should be noted, no one really knows the density of virtual particle pairs in the vacuum. If the density were infinite, the universe would collapse under the weight of gravity. If it were finite and not too small, could we someday tap into it to get free energy?

In any case, when we use a device to tap into this field, we are not going to get a whole lot out, unless the device is receptive to a large bandwidth of energies (from radio to light).

What would a vacuum photon look like? Likely, a very very short pulse of energy, maybe a femtosecond or picosecond. I like to call these hypothetical pulses "spiritons," but the reality is that observed random pulses of energy could be just that, random, and not caused by the communication intentions of a spirit / interdimensional entity.

Spirit selection of wavefunctions

Quantum selection A hot topic in the quantum science community, recently, is the idea of quantum selection (also Google "quantum eraser") - that is, the effect of the researcher on the outcome of quantum-level experiments. It's driving some researchers mad, but in our case, we ask a similar but crazier question: "what if spirits can select / collapse quantum states?" If so, the best devices would be ones where many quantum states are prepared and metastable (barely stable) until a spirit decides which way they will go. Presumably, we want to continuously and quickly prepare non-equlibrium, metastable states for spirits to collapse at a desired rate of information (i.e., bits per second). Imagine a system that we could create preparing a metastable state 10 million times a second: a spirit could either leave the state alone, or select "up" or "down." This would allow information transfer of 10 megabits / second. Not bad? Of course, we would need to make sure that nothing else collapses our states like thermal, electrical energy, or our own thoughts (?!?). No problem: we could shield the system from all known fields (e.g., magnetic) and put it in a near-zero Kelvin liquid helium-cooled freezer.

In reality, until our research becomes "mainstream," liquid helium-cooled experiments are not likely. Indeed, I had a vision once of seeing an advanced ITC video device that seemed to have it's own internal sub-freezing (< 0 Celsius) cooling system. It had the brand name, Moen, I imagine in reverence to the famous afterlife pioneer, Bruce Moen. However, for now, we are limited to room temperature or at best liquid nitrogen-cooled (77 K) systems.

With the remaining thermal energy, how can we detect the presumably weak signal from spirit?

One idea is microscopic isolation - also out of the range of our non-mainstream research labs. Researchers think that nitrogen atom "vacancies" in diamond, if sufficiently spaced apart, could act as isolated qubits. These qubits, if put into a metastable state, could be allowed to collapse into an "up" or "down" state and then read with a sensitive detector. Perhaps the spirits can manipulate these miniature "abacuses" for us to read their messages?

One "hot" area of research is the use of lasers to obtain quantum noise. The idea is that beamsplitters have a 50/50 chance of sending a photon one direction or another. With a suitable setup, one can count the photons going in each direction as a function of time.

The noise present in many electronic devices, for now, offers our best chance at sampling quantum effects. Yes, the noise will be dominated by thermal motions, but if enough spirit signal can be collected, we may be able to infer the rest using tools like machine learning.

One idea, is to have many noise sources in an array. The concept is that if each noise source has independent, non-correlated fluctuations, when we sum up the signals, the spirit (quantum) signal might become more pronounced. The theory says that signal-to-noise ratio could increase by as much as the square root of N, where N is the number of detectors.

The reality is that this improvement in arrays hasn't been realized in my experiments. Perhaps, the noise in each device isn't uncorrelated like we hope? Or maybe, the spirit signal is not equally imprinted on all of the devices at once?

The take home message is that given our current affordable device options, spirit influence is a tiny portion of the overall noise (entropy). Incidentally, a spirit once suggested to me in an astral projection, the proportion is 1 in 500! Any method we can dream up of to improve the ratio of spirit-to-noise will lead to improved ITC.

Andres,

Great work! From time to time, I hear "myself" There, too. Pretty crazy! Could be fragment, previous / future personality, etc.

If you think about it, though, they need someone like yourself on the other side explaining to everyone what you're doing .

I've been contemplating using a piezo aquarium water bubbler. We must be all subscribed to the same spirit newsletter.

Jeff, 

 Nice link, too!

 It looks like the electrochemical cell between two metals, copper and aluminum produces an audible voltage fluctuation that includes dynamic tones. 

 Why is it all the oldest electronics concepts produce the best ITC?  

-michael

Audible electrolysis? This is very nice. I've always wanted to "listen to bubbles", but didn't have the right setup.

- If so, the addition of sodium chloride or any ionic salt would increase conductivity and bubbling. Don't want to run NaCl-water all day as it could produce noxious gases  

- Also, pure water is not conductive. The slightest impurities provide conductance.

- The shape of the electrodes would effect bubble (possibly noise) production: for example surface area is important.

- Sound reminds me of my 1/f avalanched LED's, but your spectrum is not 1/f below 700 Hz. How strange and cool that water would have a non-simple spectrum.

Great discussion! Stefan Bion, according to Keith, is no longer active in ITC, as he now follows the path of his religion. I had no idea that he worked on the electronic side, as I only know him from his exemplary software program, EVPMaker.

Direct to video? Sounds so 90s! I believe FPGA-based GPU has been accomplished. I've also seen a YT video where they build a VGA adapter with some logic chips on breadboards, so I imagine it would be a similar process.

Good work!

Plot size -> Pixel Size

The image seems to shift when the plotting is complete?!? Im using Google Chrome.

BTW, FPGA's can send through USB 2.0, so someday we will reach 480 megabits/second. Full HD video? 

Sean,

 Welcome! I see you have an impressive list of publications. Hopefully, this forum will spur some new collaborations in this important, but sparsely studied field.

-michael

Jeff, I should point out that spirits don't have to share their voice directly - they are also capable of activating phonemes or even converting their voice into frequency space. What they are limited to, however, it appears to me, is spikes of energy, at least with the hardware we have given them.

The general method is to figure out how a spirit voice is corrupted when we hear it directly from our noise-generating devices and then train a machine learning model to reverse the effect. Specifically, I have found at least three corruption processes:

(1) the spirit signal is often heavily buried in noise (i.e. additive noise).

2) the spirit signal is "quantized" or in other words it sounds like it's (e.g.) 2 to 4-bit audio vs. clean 16-bit audio.

3) the signal is "sparse" or missing a lot in time - instead of hearing a smooth waveform, we are randomly getting 10-20% of the time samples, instead of all 100% of the samples.

So, what you do, is you train a machine learning to convert clean English speech corrupted by these three processes (or others) back into uncorrupted clean speech. Then apply this trained model on your favorite noise ITC signal.

It's been a struggle because I think these 3 processes together (and others we don't know about) are just too destructive on the original audio that spirits are trying to convey. In other words, we lose too much information to restore back to intelligible speech. We are always on the lookout for more spirit-sensitive hardware.

Here's some "greatest hits" from the last year :

youre_getting_good_voice_now.wavtotally_fine_with_us.wavsuch_a_great_signal.wavthis_is_so_exciting.wavisnt_portal_so_fun.wavstop_mixing_it_directly.wav

Jeff, 

Although a little off topic from the original question, I agree with your understanding that spirits utilize the sounds available to them. This can actually be stated mathematically as convolution: roughly speaking they can slightly change the volume of the individual frequency components of environmental sound. 

I recently experimented with two microphones and several projected sounds (testing one at a time) from a speaker. Then using microphone cancellation and machine learning to disentangle the original voice.

I like to think of the played sound as having two functions: 1) provide a fixed sound field that we can accurately and mathematically (digitally) remove from the recording. 2) energy for spirits to manipulate, like your thoughts suggest and my convolution theory.

I agree with you that locality may not be all that necessary for spirits. Ill tell you though, it would help with isolating out the sound pollution in my household.

One technology that the commercial space has been exploring is microphone arrays for smart devices like the Amazon Echo. The idea is that multiple microphones better cancel out environmental noise and reverberation leading to a clearer voice for speech recognition.

What would be the benefit for ITC? Localized spirit voices? Improved signal-to-noise? It's not easy to make a microphone array, so the argument for pursuing this would have to be compelling.

BTW, I have played with two microphone setups. This is easy to do and does help with sound cancellation if there is a localized audio source.