ITC Bridge Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
ITC Bridge > Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC) > Dedicated SPIRICOM Forum > What's your general opinion on: AM/FM, Frequency and tones?

ITC Bridge has evolved into our sister site iDigitalMedium.com Please join us there or look us up on Facebook. For those of you interested in LIVE streams, go to http://idigitalmedium.com/streams As of 3/13/18 we will not be registering new users. We thank you for a wonderful 10+ years! ~ Ron & Keith

 Moderated by: Keith Clark, fratka, ArizonaEvp
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
What's your general opinion on: AM/FM, Frequency and tones?  Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sep 11th, 2009 09:21 AM
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
TigerSoul
Member
 

Joined: Aug 24th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 34
Status: 
Offline
I've heard different assumptions about whatever the original spiricom used AM or FM. What is generally used by experimenters?

Also we have the thoughts on frequency. As I interpret it from the original experiments it was considered to be important to go as high as possible to come into contact with as "high beings" as possible. Personally I find this an odd idea, I don't think frequency is related in this sense. Must be a spinoff the assumption that the spirtual world vibrates with a very high frequency. What do you think? I have access to transmitters on both the original 10 meter band (29.xxxmhz) aswell as the "FM band" (88-108mhz)  and if I truly look around I'm sure I can find something for even higher frequencys.

Tones, I do have knowledge about the original tones now, has there been any experimentation of alternative tones, varying the original "recipe" etc?

As to my thoughts in general about the spiricom I believe the operator of the machine is much more important then the machine itself. Any customization is probably effeciant only on an individual level.

I've started experimenting by using the FM band for the moment, as of yet nothing has been yielded, but I've not spent a lot of time with it.

Oh by the way, is it just me that find the spiricom tone gombination abit disturbing somehow? ;)

Kristian

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sep 11th, 2009 09:52 AM
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
ArizonaEvp
Super Moderator


Joined: Jun 26th, 2009
Location: Heart Of Arizona Indian Country, Arizona USA
Posts: 662
Status: 
Offline
Hi Kristian,

I don't know if this will help you.....but the following is a link to the Spiricom Technical Manual.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/16711252/Spiricom-Tech-Manual


L8tr,
Ron

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sep 11th, 2009 10:53 AM
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
TigerSoul
Member
 

Joined: Aug 24th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 34
Status: 
Offline
Thanks, I have read parts of it that seemed interesting and relevant, it's available online in a more easy to read format, can't find the bookmark right now but I know it's out there!

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sep 13th, 2009 02:44 PM
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
joecioppi
Moderator


Joined: Sep 22nd, 2008
Location: Doylestown, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 130
Status: 
Offline
TigerSoul wrote: I've heard different assumptions about whatever the original spiricom used AM or FM. What is generally used by experimenters?

Also we have the thoughts on frequency. As I interpret it from the original experiments it was considered to be important to go as high as possible to come into contact with as "high beings" as possible. Personally I find this an odd idea, I don't think frequency is related in this sense. Must be a spinoff the assumption that the spirtual world vibrates with a very high frequency. What do you think? I have access to transmitters on both the original 10 meter band (29.xxxmhz) aswell as the "FM band" (88-108mhz)  and if I truly look around I'm sure I can find something for even higher frequencys.

Tones, I do have knowledge about the original tones now, has there been any experimentation of alternative tones, varying the original "recipe" etc?

As to my thoughts in general about the spiricom I believe the operator of the machine is much more important then the machine itself. Any customization is probably effeciant only on an individual level.

I've started experimenting by using the FM band for the moment, as of yet nothing has been yielded, but I've not spent a lot of time with it.

Oh by the way, is it just me that find the spiricom tone gombination abit disturbing somehow? ;)

Kristian

Hi Kris,

My spirit radio and voice synth circuits depend on random noise to supply intelligence to sort spirit messages from vocal sound sources. A radio combines the ability to pickup atmospheric noise and reproduce the audible content on a speaker or headphone. I suspect the 10 meter communication gear was more common when Spiricom came out and operated with AM principles.

I believe the spirit voices are in the radio noise. Combining multiple tone modulated Spiricom signals with noise enhances the voice components of the noise. For this reason I believe the modulated signal level has to be near the receiver's open channel noise level at the frequency of the modulated carrier.

Spiricom was an attempt to synthesize louder vocal sounds from weak noise sounds. Modern voice synthesizer chips do this under the control of computer control chips.

Joe


Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sep 14th, 2009 01:32 AM
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
TigerSoul
Member
 

Joined: Aug 24th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 34
Status: 
Offline
Interesting, how do you accomplish this on a more practical level? Do you mix noise with the signals before sending them to the receiver or do you have multiple receivers, one with tones, one with noise? I'd love some more info as I think you have very valid points here!

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sep 14th, 2009 02:59 PM
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
joecioppi
Moderator


Joined: Sep 22nd, 2008
Location: Doylestown, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 130
Status: 
Offline
When radio is used, the noise comes from the atmosphere. Static and radio bursts from lightening, etc. The Spiricom transmitter is modulated by tones and is received with the atmospheric radio noise by the receiver. I am suggesting that the noise and the modulated signals have to be approximately the same strength to get the desired mixing in the receiver.

 Direct radio method uses the detected sounds from atmospheric noise and the operators ear  and mind to detect the voices imbedded in the noise. The computer sound processing programs like Audition can be used with recordings of this noise to filter voices to make them easwier to understand.

In the voice synthesizer unit the noise is generated by a semiconductor junction and converted to data used by a synthesizer chip to generate artificial voice. The random nature of the data contains the spirit messages and the noise source and data is not audible. The noise from open frequencies on a service band VHF receiver has also been used  with the synth voice chip.

Joe

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sep 14th, 2009 03:29 PM
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
TigerSoul
Member
 

Joined: Aug 24th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 34
Status: 
Offline
Ok let me see here, so in the original spiricom device (or the one you are referring to either way) the OUTPUT EFFECT of the TRANSMITTER was so low that the receiver would only receive the signal as a pretty faint one, thus including background radio static in the audio output. Would this be correct? This is something I never understood from reading the originals block diagrams! Would the same effect, in lack of low enough RF power, be achivable by setting the receiver slightly off in frequency? I could probably achieve it with my low power fm transmitter however.

Direct radio I'm aware of how it works

The voice synthesizer method AKA the paranormal puck, olivion etc, I'm also aware of, though I don't own any device unfortunately.

Kristian

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sep 14th, 2009 07:23 PM
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
Keith Clark
Administrator


Joined: Dec 31st, 2006
Location: Clearwater, Florida USA
Posts: 1637
Status: 
Offline
Hi Kristian,

I agree with your assessment of the importance of the experimenter far outweighing that of physical devices and methods.

That being said, I have heard of spirit influencing AM radio waves many more times than that of FM. I believe this to be because AM waves are more subject to the influence of the atmosphere and the ability of spirit to impinge on the radio using electromagnetic energy. They also travel farther distances.

Keith

 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sep 15th, 2009 01:45 AM
  PM Quote Reply
9th Post
TigerSoul
Member
 

Joined: Aug 24th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 34
Status: 
Offline
About AM vs FM. I'm a former radio amateur, and it's mostly the technical knowledge from this that makes me head toward AM. Some information to consider for you:

- Weak AM signals is much easier to hear than weak FM signals.
- FM is BUILT to keep interference out as interference was a problem for AM radio. Read this line more than once, how is the spirit affecting the radio? INTERFERENCE most likely.
- AM doesn't travel farther, but you are right in the sense that you can hear an AM station much farther away. If we also consider the AM vs FM band, then you are absolutely right as the AM band as far better reach.

I have am transmitters, but I'm still in trouble here as I have no transmitter that is very low powered and that's apparently something I need... hmm hmm hmm... I'm seeing shielding walls for my inner eye... yagi's aimed the other way, a loop nulling the signal out just enough? I'll have to think abit about this.

Joe: I'd still love to hear your comments about my last question!

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sep 15th, 2009 10:12 PM
  PM Quote Reply
10th Post
joecioppi
Moderator


Joined: Sep 22nd, 2008
Location: Doylestown, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 130
Status: 
Offline
Tiger,

I suggest that you terminate an AM transmitter with a load resistor...no antenna. Be sure the load resistor is resistive and able to dissipate the expected output. The signal strength should be high enough to compete with ambient noise. The modulated carrier is a single frequency among many random frequencies of noise. The receiver will need an antenna to receive the ambient noise and the xmitter carrier.

I believe the Spiricom theory was wrong  that the voices were on the modulated carrier...they were in the ambient noise. The modulated signal may be a little stronger than the noise level in order to enhance the voice frequencies present in the ambient signal. Moving the receiver from the transmitter would adjust the relative levels between input noise and input tone carrier.

Because the common factor in spirit communications is the presence of some form of random signal from VLF to VHF, I believe the radio is only there to pick up the natural noise. I have used the output of a transistor junction noise source to get spirit messages on a voice synth board.

Joe

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sep 16th, 2009 02:36 AM
  PM Quote Reply
11th Post
TigerSoul
Member
 

Joined: Aug 24th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 34
Status: 
Offline
Very interesting and I think you are on to a good idea here, I just hadn't thought about it myself yet. Maybe I could even use a "dummy load" as antenna which basically is a cooled resistor in a can, might not leak enough RF though but as the least I can output is 0.5w my guess is that it will still leak enough. This is probably the biggest challange to get the levels just right. A shame FM isn't as appropriate because those pesky small FM transmitters that never get clear enough would be fantastic to use here as they are so low in their RF output.

I'll look more into this to hunt down a balance between these elements, or perhaps rather described: get the RF output just right.

Kristian

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sep 22nd, 2009 07:25 PM
  PM Quote Reply
12th Post
pipesmokingman
Member
 

Joined: Sep 19th, 2009
Location: Plymouth, United Kingdom
Posts: 29
Status: 
Offline
the original manual makes one very good point , that i believe needs to be read and re read by all interested in this work , and that is ( and this is my personal interpretation here ) , that communication with spirit is NOT something that can be achieved solely using known technology ,vis anything RF wise

to explain my thinking on this :

1. when the original research was conducted , the RF technology was to say the least some what crude by today's standards

2. as time has passed the levels and frequencies used today have increased exponentially , more signals , more power , higher frequencies ( eg 2.4 GHz is now far more common for wifi etc , in fact ALL frequencies have exponentially increased the capability to "mask " any effects caused by spirit ) - use the analogy of trying to listen for a weak am signal 50 years ago and doing the same today - GIVEN the massive increase in power levels of all sorts of electronic devices - the "background" radiation levels of ALL these things has added to the electronic "fog" now surrounding our planet AND spreading ever outwards into space /time

3. i think those interested in this need to seriously study the subject of quantum physics and the implications there of . it was quoted in an ancient Indian text over 3500 years ago that all things in the universe and each individual is interconnected ( the "matrix" is nothing new folks ) consider this :

" there is an endless net of threads throughout the universe . the horizontal threads are in space ,and the vertical threads are in time .at every crossing of the treads ,there is an individual , and every individual is a crystal bead . the great light of an absolute being illuminates and penetrates every crystal bead . and every Chrystal bead reflects not only the light from every other crystal in the net , but also every other reflection in the universe " (from - the rig Veda )

so can "death" as we know it affect this net ?? - or are we ALL still part of the net with those who have passed over "resonating at a differing "frequency" and more importantly "MODE" ??

AND HERE IN LIES THE "CRUX" OF MY RAMBLE - we are "stymied " in our research efforts by this reliance on "known" technology - the OP asked about am /FM - these are just man made modes of transmission - ways of modulating a carrier wave to convey information - today we have many "modes" single side band ,( SSB) , spread spectrum , time division multiplex etc etc , BUT they are all based on RF /the electromagnetic modes we know now = there may well be OTHER modes of transmission possibly the "aether " type of thing ?? which are out there but as yet undiscovered /ignored as fantasy by the great god of "science " - well as also stated in the manual ,a couple of "bicycle mechanics " dared to question "perceived scientific wisdom " and proved a whole lot of so called "experts" ( of the time ) WRONG !!

SOOOOOOO don't stymied your thinking - too much - look at things like the higher frequencies - look at the common elements in the universe such as hydrogen ( which resonates at some 1420 MHz ) - look at plasmas and gasses and most particularly look at LIGHT which I personally believe will give us the answers we seek - please do read the manual - it gives many clues as to all this - but a bit like that film the da vinci code - you have to do some "lateral" thinking to see whats really there

as to HOW to put all this in to practice has caused me many hours of thought - which is why i am up at 3.20 am ( GMT +1 ) typing this now - and i still don't have any answers - but we plod on ........................

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sep 22nd, 2009 07:33 PM
  PM Quote Reply
13th Post
pipesmokingman
Member
 

Joined: Sep 19th, 2009
Location: Plymouth, United Kingdom
Posts: 29
Status: 
Offline
oh and i nearly forgot :blushing: - those tones ?? - i have replicated them as described - and frankly could not stand to listen to them for very long at all - they seem to act on the brain somehow and "do ones head in " so i would be wary of listening to them for too long ( my birds hate them and go mad if i play them too - does this tell us something ?? )

as always a personal opinion .lol )

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sep 23rd, 2009 02:10 AM
  PM Quote Reply
14th Post
TigerSoul
Member
 

Joined: Aug 24th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 34
Status: 
Offline
I'm glad somebody else mentioned the unpleasant part of these tones. I wasn't alone then thinking these are just dreadful to listen to? It's a mud in my head, a few minutes then I'm fried and have to take a break ;)

You have very interesting theories here which I think is valid. Most importantly I don't think any technologically based method of spirit communication solely depends on just that, technology. Rather the human link is always the most important part and our ability to do "whatever it is we do" to channel this information into technology.

The radio contamination is another interesting thought though it should be fixable with a good faraday cage. At least hopefully. Your ideas with light is also interesting, though I have too little equipment here to make any true experiments with this.

Thanks for your input, was interesting to read, and hey, I settled for 1:30am same timezone ;)

Kristian

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sep 23rd, 2009 03:16 AM
  PM Quote Reply
15th Post
pipesmokingman
Member
 

Joined: Sep 19th, 2009
Location: Plymouth, United Kingdom
Posts: 29
Status: 
Offline
thanks for your reply - well we have in the UK a device that is put up in problem areas and plays a tone that apparently only younger people can hear , the idea being that they get fed up with it and move away from the area ( a sort of anti social control thingy )- that also apparently works , bit like those dog scare rs that use ultrasonics or whatever

one idea i have been playing with is to get something like a large plastic drum ( water butt ?? ) and insulate it with sound deadening material , building in speaker and mike ports so that what you in effect have is a "small room " insulated from external sources ( maybe in side a Faraday cage ?? ) - then one could blast whatever tones you liked in there and not affect the operator ( well too much anyways or the neighbours .lol )

another thought is to build a wind tunnel affair - with possibly some sort of resonator that could produce a more "natural tone " ( or tones ) controlled by variable speed fans again speculative but worth a try ??

at the moment i am pondering some sort of flame transducer arrangement using a solar panel and a fresnel lens - but the interface to the electronics is not my forte - so any suggestions folks ?? ( there must be some electronics experts out there somewhere ) , i can build stuff on veroboard - but its the designing that's the problem ( no surface mount PLEASE ,as the old eyesight cant handle the small components ( drop a chip capacitor and its lost for ever till the hoover finds it .LOL )

any ways lots of ideas - and now i have a room spare can set up and hopefully DO some experimentation , as this has been holding me back due to other factors for some years

REGARDS

Brett ( aka : pipesmokingman )

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sep 23rd, 2009 05:36 AM
  PM Quote Reply
16th Post
TigerSoul
Member
 

Joined: Aug 24th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 34
Status: 
Offline
Good idea there with the plastic container to create a room for that unpleasant noise. You could effectively use a whole normal room too if you wish, though the neighbor issue is still a problem there. I don't think you'd have to play the tones very loud however so a separate room would probably work fine.

About the scare device in UK. I find it quite tasteless really, also, I, still being in the age 29, can hear those mosquito ring tones teens have, so I'd be affected to. OUCH!

There are alot of ideas to try. The problem seems to be that no technique or idea to date really improve things much apart from some subjective improvements tied to the operator.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sep 23rd, 2009 06:31 AM
  PM Quote Reply
17th Post
Keith Clark
Administrator


Joined: Dec 31st, 2006
Location: Clearwater, Florida USA
Posts: 1637
Status: 
Offline
Hi Pipe,

I agree with your post a few back....a very astute observation of you.

Light IS going to be as common perhaps as sound is in ITC now. What is the difference between the success of both? Sound has already been understood enough (to some extent) and our equipment put to use to work with sound towards communication with spirit. And even then, sound is only one of thousands of applications......

I think you're perfectly right, we haven't even finished seeing the tip of the iceberg...

Keith

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sep 23rd, 2009 07:29 AM
  PM Quote Reply
18th Post
pipesmokingman
Member
 

Joined: Sep 19th, 2009
Location: Plymouth, United Kingdom
Posts: 29
Status: 
Offline
hi Keith

well with all my posts a personal take - not saying i am right - but the more different things we try.............

one of the problems of course is that ,certainly with the sound applications we are close but just lack that final breakthrough in terms of clarity - of course one of the things that may put people off this interest which I believe is now one of the FEW viable research areas ,not ruined by the wannabe ghost hunters , and motive merchants , is the need to actually do and build stuff , rather than just turn up at a supposedly haunted location for an evening of ( as a scottish friend in the field puts it ) "s**t and giggles "

also ( speaking as a disabled person) - it is great to be able to do some REAL research work , without the need to stand around in drafty buildings all night , ( the arthritis precludes this now ) and fortunately ,my place is somewhat active , so good chance i recon ,having caught other stuff ( visible) here

the main issue of course ( not taking this too far off topic ) is that people should NOT be dissuaded by the pesudoskeptics - that happy band of naysayers to whom EVP /ITC is like everything else paranormal - just bunk ,to be derided and attacked - they are the ones who as "armchair critics " NEVER do any research ,and content themselves with just setting their minds against everything that does not fit their mindset /opinions

and whilst even I am sceptical about some facets of /techniques ( for purely practical reasons ) , I don't deride any ones work ,as the sum of the parts may eventually grant us the whole , and THEN see all the experts and naysayers climb on the band waggon , claiming they believed us all the time .lol

anyways getting back on track , the tones , well i did have them playing for an hour once and they gave me such a headache , i resolved not to use them again !! - there is something in them that burrows right into the brain - most unpleasant !! HOWEVER we must not dismiss them completely as perhaps , they have hit on something that may help those of us NOT gifted with much psychic ability ( psychic as a house brick me :lol: )

which brings me on to another grey area as regarding the SC works , they did i note seem to have better success when they had someone with ability around ( psychic ability that is ) - and this could be another area that may need to be looked at - as if we could find a technique that the average Joe on the street could replicate - then we would have a break through

keep up the good works folks

PSM

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sep 23rd, 2009 09:39 AM
  PM Quote Reply
19th Post
TigerSoul
Member
 

Joined: Aug 24th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 34
Status: 
Offline
I can not tell the future here, but my take on this is that we will never find or build _THE_ device. We can make some custom devices that fits us better personally but I doubt we'll ever build something that will make a major difference collectively. There'll never be a "spirit walkie-talkie" per say. That is my belief, grounded on my observations and research. Still, I haven't by any means given up on the idea of making something that works better or at least helps us understand this on a higher level.

After all, what hasn't been built yet we know very little of and can only be speculated about. So I am not being negative in any way to developing and building devices, not at all. My conclusions are rather those made from what has been done SO far. At the end of the day I think the person, the human, is the most vital part of any device and perhaps also the limit.

Light as a source is an interesting possibility!

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sep 23rd, 2009 12:57 PM
  PM Quote Reply
20th Post
joecioppi
Moderator


Joined: Sep 22nd, 2008
Location: Doylestown, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 130
Status: 
Offline
Dear Friends,

Listening to raw noise sources is very tiring. A friend was listening to noise on a VHF radio at  around 175 Mhz. She could hear voices that conversed with her but the accompanying noise nearly drove her mad. This is typical of a direct radio method. She asked me to build a listening device that could relieve her of the distracting noise. Since I've had favorable results with random scanning of FM broadcast vocals, I reasoned that random activation of a speech synthesis device would result in voices without audible random noise. In fact I was able to use the "Talker Board" kit from Bill Chappell to produce synthetic speech from the noise on her VHF radio. She has received messages by this device without the tiring noise.

I'm currently experimenting with more natural sounding speech chips and methods to sort messages from random noise.

Joe

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sep 23rd, 2009 01:22 PM
  PM Quote Reply
21st Post
TigerSoul
Member
 

Joined: Aug 24th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 34
Status: 
Offline
Interesting, how did you interpret the radio noise and turn into speech synthesis data? How did this conversion work? This is something I've thought about too.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sep 23rd, 2009 02:09 PM
  PM Quote Reply
22nd Post
joecioppi
Moderator


Joined: Sep 22nd, 2008
Location: Doylestown, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 130
Status: 
Offline
TigerSoul wrote: Interesting, how did you interpret the radio noise and turn into speech synthesis data? How did this conversion work? This is something I've thought about too.
The talker board has a A/D that converts an average sample of the incoming noise to a data byte that activates a "speakjet" synthesizer chip

Joe

Last edited on Sep 23rd, 2009 02:24 PM by joecioppi

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sep 24th, 2009 01:14 AM
  PM Quote Reply
23rd Post
TigerSoul
Member
 

Joined: Aug 24th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 34
Status: 
Offline
So simply put you monitor the analog noise and calculate an average value in time periods and use this calculated byte value to trigger the speakjet chip? How long where these periods of average calculation, and what was the result of the speakjet output, a constant babble or bursts, and was this the result of your choice or changes in the noise.

Sorry for all the questions, I've considered doing something like this myself that is very similar, although done inside a computer instead of in a chip.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

You have chosen to ignore tomsmith2010. click Here to view this post

Current time is 06:35 PM  
ITC Bridge > Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC) > Dedicated SPIRICOM Forum > What's your general opinion on: AM/FM, Frequency and tones? Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.5214 seconds (72% database + 28% PHP). 23 queries executed.