The E-meter Scam

[SpecialFrog]

I think that the e-meter is in part responsible for creation of false memories of the past lives. I am not sure if it generates false memories of events that supposedly occurred in present life.

That seems implausible. What is more plausible is that it convinces people that things they imagine are actual memories of past lives because the meter validates them.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

What I meant was, to look at the before-during-and-after effect of adding a bit of salt. Compare before and after, you know. That's a crude version of the ideal experiment, since sweat would add the salt right where it's needed to help getting through the skin, but it would at least show something if the effects of adding a bit more salt were comparable to the effects you saw without salt, just by thinking different thoughts with your hands in the water.

Salt adds to the general conductivity of the water. The effect of the presence of salt in underwater sweat, if such existed, would be marginal in comparison to the quantity of salt added to the water. Sweat is 'salty' to taste but only in minute amounts. In comparison to a bucket of water the amount is very slight. In the presence of table salt, or other common sources, added in solution any additional salinity added through imagined perspiration would likely be safe to discount.

Frankly, I find the idea of an immersed section of the human skin emitting perspiration to be ridiculous prima facie. Perspiration is a natural technique for evaporative cooling. Immersed limbs don't typically overheat, thus why would there be the need for the emission of sweat. This as an explanation appears to be an obvious case of grasping at straws.

Much more likely would seem to be the prospect of osmotic transfer of body salts across the skin simply as a result of immersion in a differentiated medium. Not sure if that would even be possible for the specific molecules in question, but depending on the biology this may be a factor. This should be a slow process though.

Also important to keep in mind, the water immersion experiment differs from normal use in that the signals being mediated by the water are averaged over the entire surface of the submerged limb. This differs from normal usage where only that part of the hand which is in direct contact with the electrode transmits signals.

Since nerve endings vary in density throughout the skin of the hand the difference in sampling techniques should produce distinctively different, although similar patterns of reading. This seems to be consistent with Paul's observations.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Demented LRH]

That seems implausible. What is more plausible is that it convinces people that things they imagine are actual memories of past lives because the meter validates them.

You expressed my idea better than I did. My phrase was awkward, I admit it.

 

[Etrawl]

First off, I am NOT a believer in the E Meter although at one time I used 'em for, oh, 6 or 7 thousand hours .... nor am I a fan or believer in scn ( or any of its derivations ) although I did it for a few decades.

That said, you are trying to talk about something you obviously know absolutely nothing factual about.

Please, learn something about what you are trying to talk about.

PS - I'm done with scn style auditing, but, were I to take it up again ( I won't ) I do any of it without any kind of meter. Hint : check out communication.

I am sure that you know about the e-meter more than I do. But do you know why it was necessary to put markings on the e-meter dial? What do those markings represent? Are they helpful in any way?

 

[Etrawl]

According to Scientology doctrine, the resistance corresponds to the "mental mass and energy" of the subject's mind, which change when the subject thinks of particular mental images (engrams).[8] Scientologists believe that the device has such sensitivity that Hubbard could use it to determine whether or not fruits can experience pain, as in his 1968 assertion that tomatoes "scream when sliced."[
Wikipedia

This is just great -- the screaming tomatoes!

 

[Dulloldfart]

I am sure that you know about the e-meter more than I do. But do you know why it was necessary to put markings on the e-meter dial? What do those markings represent? Are they helpful in any way?

[STRIKE]http://www.sgmt.at/ClearbirdE2010/MeterCourse2004/index.htm[/STRIKE]
http://www.freezoneearth.org/clearbird/MeterCourse2004/index.htm]

RTFM.

Paul

 

[Demented LRH]

http://www.sgmt.at/ClearbirdE2010/MeterCourse2004/index.htm

RTFM.

Paul

Paul, for some reason my computer could not open that page. Anyway, I do not think that these markings are important.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Paul, for some reason my computer could not open that page. Anyway, I do not think that these markings are important.

It must have been a cached copy in my browser, as now I can't open it either. It was the top hit to "clearbird emeter course." I added a FreezoneEarth link to my post, that works at the moment.

The markings are important to those who think the meter is useful. Not important to those who don't. It is hard to use a meter "correctly" without those markings.

Paul

 

[Student of Trinity]

Salt adds to the general conductivity of the water. The effect of the presence of salt in underwater sweat, if such existed, would be marginal in comparison to the quantity of salt added to the water. Sweat is 'salty' to taste but only in minute amounts. In comparison to a bucket of water the amount is very slight. In the presence of table salt, or other common sources, added in solution any additional salinity added through imagined perspiration would likely be safe to discount.

Frankly, I find the idea of an immersed section of the human skin emitting perspiration to be ridiculous prima facie. Perspiration is a natural technique for evaporative cooling. Immersed limbs don't typically overheat, thus why would there be the need for the emission of sweat. This as an explanation appears to be an obvious case of grasping at straws.

Much more likely would seem to be the prospect of osmotic transfer of body salts across the skin simply as a result of immersion in a differentiated medium. Not sure if that would even be possible for the specific molecules in question, but depending on the biology this may be a factor. This should be a slow process though.

Also important to keep in mind, the water immersion experiment differs from normal use in that the signals being mediated by the water are averaged over the entire surface of the submerged limb. This differs from normal usage where only that part of the hand which is in direct contact with the electrode transmits signals.

Since nerve endings vary in density throughout the skin of the hand the difference in sampling techniques should produce distinctively different, although similar patterns of reading. This seems to be consistent with Paul's observations.

People sweat, at least slightly, as an emotional reaction. No doubt the evolution of this response had something to do with cooling, but your hands still sweat when you're nervous even if you're cold. Your adrenal response won't know if your hands are immersed in water.

Sweat is quite salty. There's just not much salt there, because there's not much sweat there. But it's concentrated right on the skin, so it can make a big difference to the resistance of the whole circuit, because that will lower the resistance of the biggest resistor in the series, the skin.

No matter what is going on with sweat on skin, as far as I am concerned the e-meter is an electrical device that is measuring resistance, and the resistance that it measures is physiological. If it's not sweat on the hands, it's vasodilation or muscle tension or something else. The notion that 'engrams' have any kind of direct contribution to electrical resistance is simply absurd as far as I'm concerned; for me, it is not in play at all, regardless of what goes on with salt and skin.

For me it's also just as obvious that physiological changes can reflect mental states. The physiological changes in my fingers that make them type this post are, after all, reflecting my thoughts. The human body itself is a device that responds to mental states in a far more sophisticated way than any ohmmeter, having been fine-tuned to do so over millions of years of evolution. So the possibility that ohmmeters have some useful role in talking therapies is not at stake in these experiments, either. They may in principle be quite useful even if literally all they do is measure sweat, because sweat can respond to mental states.

The question of exactly what e-meters do measure, physiologically, may nonetheless have implications for exactly how e-meters may be useful. If they mainly measure skin sweat, then the psychophysiology of sweating will say a lot about what mental states e-meters can detect. If they are more sensitive to vasodilation, then that may imply a different range of emotional sensitivity.

It's quite ridiculous that Scientologists have not already, long before now, done extremely thorough studies of this stuff. Apparently it takes an ex-Scientologist like Paul to actually look into the questions. What he's done so far is great, but what I'm saying is, it's just a start. Experimental science is hard, and what makes it hard is that you unfortunately score no points at all for merely doing measurements. You only get points for doing good measurements, that control all relevant variables. That means pinning down all sorts of fussy little things. That's not grasping at straws. That's science.

 

[Demented LRH]

I know a lot about electromechanical measuring devices because I used to sell them to the manufacturing companies (this was my summer job during the high school years). In order to make a successful sale, I head to learn how the ammeters, ohmmeters, oscilloscopes, etc, function.

I am sure that the e-meters produce the "floating needle" effect because they were incorrectly designed ON PURPOSE.

The e-meter itself is a slightly modified ammeter.

The ammeters measure DC only. The measurement is direct if the source produces direct current. In case of an AC source the diode electric circuits are used to convert AC into DC, so it could be measured by the ammeter.

Can a correctly designed ammeter make its needle float the way e-meter does?

Yes it can, but only when it is turned on or off, this happens due to the transitory currents.

During a normal operation the ammeter needle moves only in response to the changes in the magnitude of electric current. But it does not move in a sweeping motion the way e-meter needle does, it just moves to a new marking and stays there until the next current change.

If the ammeter needle were moving in a sweeping fashion, it would be impossible to determine magnitude of electric current at a given moment.

But let's say that the ammeter scale is plotted in such way that the maximum current it can show is 20 amperes, while actual current is 30 amperes. Then the needle will hit the right side of the casing, which would throw it back to the left side, and so on-- this is how the "floating needle" effect is produced.

Whoever designed the e-meter was using incorrect design on purpose.

 

[NoName]

The e-meter has been known to be correct. For example, LRH said rock slams indicate evil purpose or intention. According to David Mayo, LRH had many rock slams.

 

[Veda]

The e-meter has been known to be correct. For example, LRH said rock slams indicate evil purpose or intention. According to David Mayo, LRH had many rock slams.

That was Otto Roos.

 

[NoName]

That was Otto Roos.

I read so much anti-LRH stuff from the Old Guard all at once that I have a really hard time keeping it straight. No wonder I couldn't find dox. Thanks!

 

[Dulloldfart]

Then the needle will hit the right side of the casing, which would throw it back to the left side, and so on-- this is how the "floating needle" effect is produced.

I'm speechless.

Paul

 

[Veda]

I know a lot about electromechanical measuring devices

-snip-

Then the needle will hit the right side of the casing, which would throw it back to the left side, and so on-- this is how the "floating needle" effect is produced.

-snip-

Yes, the e-meter can be fooled easily, all thieves know that. Just keep your hands relaxed no matter what you say, and the needle will be floating.

Oy vey

 

[AussieCase]

I've found a reference to a galvanometer and emotions in the British Medical Journal Sept. 28, 1907. The authors actually discuss controlling for skin surface area and pressure unlike Hubbard's (and Matheson's ?) device, and note the a similar device was studied briefly in France in 1888, and in Russia in 1890.

The cans do not control in change in surface area and pressure. I am not suggesting these two explain all so-called meter phenomena just that they are not appropriately controlled for.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

I am sure that you know about the e-meter more than I do. But do you know why it was necessary to put markings on the e-meter dial? What do those markings represent? Are they helpful in any way?

Which markings ?

Nevermind, somebody else answered this, uh, question.

Folks it is obvious the cult holds the e meter in reverence while we detractors don't.

The meter really doesn't matter. It just doesn't.

There are harmful, damaging, life threatening things about scientology in beliefs & practices - that does matter.

But, yes, a whole set of volumes could be written about meter.

So ? What matters ?

 

[Terril park]

But let's say that the ammeter scale is plotted in such way that the maximum current it can show is 20 amperes, while actual current is 30 amperes. Then the needle will hit the right side of the casing, which would throw it back to the left side, and so on-- this is how the "floating needle" effect is produced.

Whoever designed the e-meter was using incorrect design on purpose.

You were getting a "rock slam" not an F/N. Its clearly a perfectly fine design as it was getting reads from the rocks in your head.

 

[Demented LRH]

You were getting a "rock slam" not an F/N. Its clearly a perfectly fine design as it was getting reads from the rocks in your head.

There is no such thing as F/N, if you believe in this stuff then you are fooling yourself. Read a description of the e-meter and see that it is nothing more than a disfunctional ammeter.

 

[Demented LRH]

I've found a reference to a galvanometer and emotions in the British Medical Journal Sept. 28, 1907. The authors actually discuss controlling for skin surface area and pressure unlike Hubbard's (and Matheson's ?) device, and note the a similar device was studied briefly in France in 1888, and in Russia in 1890.

The cans do not control in change in surface area and pressure. I am not suggesting these two explain all so-called meter phenomena just that they are not appropriately controlled for.

According to the scientist interviewed by Rock Center, changes in e-meter readings are caused by changes in the pressure produced by PC's hands. I totally agree with his assessment- the cans are the rheostats whose electric resistances change due to the pressure.