 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Jun 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | Heart Of Arizona Indian Country, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 662 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Hi all
I'd be interested to hear your ideas on this question; historically ITC devices that have brought great results for one researcher but often fail to work at the same level of success for anyone else - why do think this is?
Best wishes,
Rachel
That is a very good question.
Despite it's short lifespan of approx. 1 1/2 years, the Diode was mildly successful for most people who tried it at that point in time.
While the diode was not a stock item one could purchase; it's construction was easy enough for the average enthusiast to build.
Richard Sheargold wrote a booklet in 1973 that included a couple of diode schematics for readers to try.
Other devices like Theodore Rudolph's Goniometer and Franz Seidl's Psychophone were complex, proprietary and out of the reach of the average experimenter.
If given the option of microphone recording, diode recording or inter-frequency recording, I think most people would opt for microphone and inter-frequency because most folks had a radio in their homes and therefore the start-up costs would be minimal.
That being said...there is a possibility that some sort of synchronicity was in play.
The folks on the other side have been talking to us since the dawn of recording devices, I suppose it's possible that since Jürgenson and Raudive were basically the first to listen for them, the other side made more of a concerted effort to be heard.
Jumping forward, Frank Sumption's Radio Sweep invention ushered in a new path of ITC research. Steve Hultay's simple modification of certain portable radios placed radio sweep at a level where anyone could experiment with trans-dimensional communication.
The process worked so well that sophisticated radio sweep devices are available for purchase at reasonable costs and are in use today by thousands of people.
Regards,
Ron