PARANORMAL ELECTRICAL EFFECTS

Note this paper was in preparation when it was discovered that the conduction of 40KHz signals from subject to sensor took place. As this implies that we are not dealing with slowly drifting clouds of ordinary charged atmospheric ions the paper was dropped and the analyses must be regarded as inappropriate. The paper is included here for historical interest and as reference, should it be possible to modify the theory to investigate the higher mobility carriers in the conduction path.

J.B. Hasted & D. Robertson

In a recent paper¹ a description was given of some experiments with metal-bending boy Stephen North in which bursts of electric charge were produced at metal electrodes exposed to his no-touch action. We now carry these investigations further, and direct our attention to the problem of how much of this charge is produced at or within the surface of the metal, and how much in the atmosphere surrounding it. Another metal-bender, Julie Knowles has also produced these bursts of charge in several sessions.

It will be recalled that we originally installed the amplifier (circuit in reference 1, figure 4) in order to serve as a touch detector in metal-bending strain gauge experiments. But bursts of charge were recorded when the subject’s hands were motionless and separated from the electrode by as much as twelve inches. The low input impedance of the amplifier (100 ) and magnitude of the signals (typically 5×10^-8A peak) indicate that triboelectric static is not the origin of the effect. Nevertheless we hastened to guard against this possibility, transferring the experimental sessions from a carpeted room to an electrically screened room with metal floor.

As a touch detector the amplifier, connected through 9V dry battery to the metal specimen, is more sensitive than the strain gauge mounted thereon. It is possible to detect a human touch, inadvertent or deliberate, as a signal on the low impedance amplifier, without any signal being recorded on the most sensitive (10mV FS) scale of the strain gauge equipment⁽²⁾. But it does not follow that every time a low impedance amplifier signal is recorded a human touch has taken place.

Nevertheless a proportion of events occur in which strain signals occur synchronous with electrical signals. We decided to investigate this synchronous signal phenomenon in a series of sessions in which two 10cm x 1cm x 1mm aluminium specimens A and B were mounted radially to the subject Stephen North, as in Figure 1a . There was no instrumental protection against touch in these sessions, since the instrumental protection is itself being investigated.

This is why radially mounted specimens were used; the hand is held close to the first specimen, and is thus some 15 inches from the second specimen.

A proportion of signals were observed on both specimens simultaneously; this is itself some indication of absence of touch. The signals recorded during these sessions have been analyzed and the results are presented in Table 1.

Thus the overall proportion S of strain-only signals in the sessions was 0.24, and the overall proportion E of electrical-only signals 0.44. The proportion ES of synchronous strain and electrical signals was 0.32; this significantly non-zero value presumably indicates some connection, psychological, physical, or both, between the electrical and the dynamic strain phenomena.

Although this is not apparent from Table 1, the distribution of the two phenomena during sessions and during the entire period of study is instructive. No instructions were given to the subject as to which type of phenomenon was preferred, or which he was to concentrate on attempting to produce. But inevitably he must have realized that the electrical phenomenon, because of its novelty, was of especial interest, and it is significant that the proportion S + ES decreases systematically in successive sessions W through B2 (0.81, 0.79, 0.66, 0.33, 0.38, 0.14), whilst the proportion E + ES, after a poor start in session W, remains very high in Y through B2. Session Q was held several months later, after other electrical experiments, in an attempt to restore to Stephen his metal-bending ability, diminished by lack of practice; he was asked deliberately to attempt dynamic strain signals and not to worry about the presence of electrical signals. The proportion of strain signals, S + ES was once again high, whilst the proportion of electrical signals E + ES = 0.52, was much lower than before. The role of practice in learning seems relevant.

During the early individual sessions and also in session R there was a tendency for the experiment to start with a number of isolated electrical signals; only after this initial period did dynamic strain signals arrive. At this time we regarded the electrical phenomenon as a kind of “failed metal-bending”.

The previously defined⁽³⁾ indecision parameters  for both electrical and dynamic strain signals have been included in Table 1. Their values indicate that after every few signals, on the average about five, but with wide variations in this number, there is a change of sign. The subject was unable to see clearly each direction of signal as it was chart-recorded, but he could both hear and see the motions of the pens above the paper.

ATMOSPHERIC IONIZATION SESSIONS

In the previous paper⁽¹⁾ we reported that the preliminary studies of electrical signals led us to the conclusion ‘we have found no evidence for atmospheric currents’. However, the definitive experiments to test for atmospheric charge carriers had not at that time been done; we now report an analysis of the signals obtained when an atmospheric electric field was deliberately maintained and systematically varied during the experiment.

If a burst of atmospheric ionization occurs, the positive and negative carriers can be separated by the application of such a field, within distances of the order of a Debye length⁴; beyond this distance the field does not penetrate, and the diffusion within the plasma is ambipolar. For certain plasma sizes and charge densities, therefore, negative charge bursts will be observed at the positively biassed member of a pair of electrodes, with positive charge bursts at the negatively biassed member.

If, on the other hand, charge is produced at or within the surface of the electrodes, then its sign will presumably be independent of atmospheric field.

In each of the sessions F – M two aluminium electrodes 10 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm were exposed radially to the subject, with the broad faces mounted vertically, mutually parallel, the distance between them, d, being unique to the session (Figure 1b ). Each electrode, mounted rigidly at a high resistance to earth, was connected through a battery to the input of an earthed low impedance amplifier. At regular  = 11 sec. intervals each battery was reversed by a relay, whose resistance path to earth, including that of the timing circuit which operates it, was high. Thus the potential of each electrode was alternatively 9V positive and 9V negative to the earthed electrically screened room in which the experiment took place. The reversal was recorded directly on the chart-recorder trace, since the leakage current through the battery to earth was deliberately allowed to be sufficiently large for this to happen. A square wave (with tails arising from capacitative effects) appears, as in Figure 2.

Of the  n= 1323 signals recorded in sessions F – M (Table 2), only q= 65, or 4.9%, were of sign inappropriate to the hypothesis of atmospheric ionization bursts. A sample of signals is displayed in Figure 2 and it will be seen that in this sample all are in the appropriate direction for interpretation as the collection of atmospheric negative ions at the positive electrode, and vice versa. In most cases, therefore, the primary event is presumably a burst of ionization of atmospheric gases; normally this would be followed by electron attachment and by ion interchange and clustering processes during the separation of charges and drift to the electrodes. Only in a very small proportion of the events does the ‘action’ include the metal electrode itself, producing signals of inappropriate sign.

Each pair of signals is unbalanced, in that it is unusual for the two members of the pair to be equal in magnitude; this does not imply that unequal quantities of positive and negative charge are formed in each burst; if the point of formation is closer to one electrode than to the other, then the unequal efficiencies of collection could be responsible for the difference. But in each session the mean -/+ ratio is within a standard deviation of unity, so that the hypothesis of ionization bursts is not obviously inconsistent with the data. The mobilities of ‘secondary’ clustered atmospheric ions are of the order K = 0.1 cm²/volt sec.⁽⁵⁾, so that they arrive at the electrode in less than a second.

Signal number 90 in Figure 2 changes sign when the electrode potential changes sign. This implies that that particular burst of ionization was of longer duration than the change-over time, which was 10 ms. In session G the number n_c of such signals we have observed in a total of N = 300 signals was 7. The most probable average length t of signal (unmeasurable accurately because of relatively slow 100 ms chart recorder response) is therefore of order

t = n_c  /_N = 0.23s.

The data of sessions F – M can be analysed in order to obtain an estimate of the distance from the electrode surface of the region of origin of the ionization burst. During the drift to the electrodes the ions spread out by radial diffusion, so that many will arrive much later in time, or even becomes lost by collection elsewhere or by recombination. Thus not all of the observed signal pulses will be synchronous to both electrodes; some will be observed at one electrode only, the corresponding signals at the other electrode being too small and diffuse in time for a measurable response to be obtained from the system. It is seen from Figure 2 that this is in fact the case, so that the proportion of synchronous signals can be regarded as a significant observable, expected to depend on interelectrode distance d and potential V. The dependence upon d can be derived from Table 2 and is represented graphically in Figures 3 & 4.

The diffusion of charged particles of number density n, drifting at velocity v_d under the action of electric field E in the direction z is governed by the equation

D²n+D_L ²n/z² -v_d n/z = 0

where D and D_L are respectively the axial and longitudinal diffusion coefficients.

The longitudinal diffusion is responsible for the broadening of the signals and will be neglected in our analysis of their peak values. It is then possible⁽⁶⁾ to work in the drifting frame of reference of the ions, considering the diffusion to take place radially in a plane of the moving frame. Under these conditions the number density n(r,t) of ions is given by

dn/dt = D/r n/r + D ²n/z² ……2.

A solution of this equation exists in which the shape of the ionization source is a radial Gaussian, which retains this form throughout the drift⁽⁶⁾:

n = n(0, t) exp {-r² /²(t)} ……3.

²(t) = 4Dt + ₀² ……4.

where ₀ is the initial (t = 0) Gaussian width.

The axial ( r = 0 ) ion density n(0, t) is then

n₀ = N/{4 Dt +  ₀²} ……5.

Where N = _0 ^ 2 nr.dr ……6.

In the limit of low reduced field (E/ , ratio of field strength to gas pressure), the drift velocity of either electrons or ions reduces to the Nernst-Einstein value

V_d = KE, E = V/d, D/K = kT/e ……7.

where K is the mobility, k the Boltzmann constant, e the electronic charge, d and V respectively the interelectrode distance and potential. At T = 300K. 4 k T/e = C  0.3 cm.

Suppose that the ionization burst occurs at a distance d’ from one electrode, and that the electrode width is sufficiently small for the collected ion signal to be approximately proportional to the axial density n₀. The ratio R of currents to the two electrodes is then

R = { ₀²+D d’/v}/{ ₀²+C (d-d’)/v} ……8.

When this ratio is less than a certain small value, say 0.05, a signal will appear in one channel only, being within the limits of noise on the other channel. On the assumption of constant d’, small compared with d, we see that the proportion P=s/n of synchronous signals is inversely dependent on d, provided that  ₀² is sufficiently small.

Although in the limit of large d, P should be inversely proportional to d, in the limit of small d, R will be constant and P should tend to unity. This is precisely the behaviour which has been found from the analysis of sessions F – M, summarized in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 3.

It also follows from equation 8 that in the limit of large d, P will be independent of V. We have undertaken two sessions in which sawtooth waveforms of period T = 22 sec. were applied, symmetrically to earth potential, to the electrodes. The phase t of each signal is then proportional to V.

Figure 4 shows a histogram of values of phase t (0 < t < T) of both synchronous and non-synchronous signals in the most productive session K1. The means and standard deviations of t (in units of 0.2 sec.) for both single electrode saw-tooth sessions are as follows:

it will be seen that the means ŧ are close to T/2 (=55 x 0.2 sec.), and well within the very large standard deviations. Against intuitive expectations, no dependence of P on V is found.

It should be possible to deduce something about the axial distribution of ionization bursts from the magnitude ratios of the signals I_L and I_R to the left and right electrodes, when paired in synchronism. The asymmetry A of each signal pair is:

A =  I_L – I_R  / I_L + I_R  ……9.

The mean value Ā throughout a session is calculated, and should show some sensitivity to the axial distribution. For example, if this is assumed to be uniform between the electrodes then we would expect

A = 2/d _0 ^d/2d’.dd’/(d- d’) = 0.386 ……10.

The data of Table 3 show that apart from session J2 this interpretation, a uniform distribution of axial positions, is not unrealistic. However, the assumption of d’ << d in the deduction of P(d) from equation 8, is rendered less valid by this approach.

The preliminary sessions from which the data of Table 2 were obtained were conducted merely with two strip electrodes mounted radially from the subject. This is unsatisfactory on two counts. The interelectrode field is non-uniform except on the interaxial plane, so that the ion transport is complicated, and several of the assumptions in our treatment are invalidated. Secondly, there is no protection against accidental or deliberate touching of the electrodes.

We therefore designed an electrode system similar to those used for the study of electron and ion diffusion by Townsend and his followers⁽⁷⁾, but double-ended (Figure 5 ). The target-shaped electrodes are connected to individual voltage control systems and amplifiers; from the proportions of the bursts of current collected at the electrodes more exact information can be obtained about the location and shape of the bursts of ionization. The rings are held at potentials suitable for the maintenance of a uniform electric field within the cylindrical diffusion chamber. The screening electrodes serve as additional protection of the collecting electrodes from touch; they cause minimal distortion of the field when they are held at the collecting electrode potentials. Since the collecting electrodes cannot be reached by the fingers of the subject, the protection against touch is complete.

Data have been collected for this electrode system, operating under steady field (V = ± 9V) conditions (session N, 33 events), and also under time-variable field conditions (T = 22 sec, ± 9V saw-tooth as before) (session P, 16 events). The proportion P of synchronous signals in session N was 0.21, which is consistent with Pd = const. (Figure 3). In a significant proportion of events, the current density of signals at outer electrodes exceeded that at inner electrodes, demonstrating that off-axis bursts of ionization occurred. The regression analysis of these in terms of diffusion is being undertaken⁽⁸⁾. But it already appears likely that the bursts of ionization may be more complicated than the simple planar radial Gaussian of equation 3.

Data Obtained with the Drift Tube

The two-ended Townsend-Huxley drift tube is constructed as shown in Figure 5. The target electrodes (designated bull, inner, outer) at either end are mounted on Perspex blocks, with the electrical connections made at the rear, as shown. Each set of target electrodes is surrounded by a metal screen, and the intervening space is screened by two guard rings, connected in a chain of resistors so that an approximately uniform potential is maintained within, with the screens maintained at the same potentials as the target electrodes. Each target electrode is connected through its individual battery or sawtooth waveform generator to its individual low impedance amplifier, the six outputs being individually chart-recorded; since the screens and guard rings are not connected to amplifiers but have low impedance to earth, touching them with the hand does not result in the recording of a normal signal. The drift tube is mounted on a rigid Perspex strip, not shown in the Figure, and this is held in a metal retort stand, standing on the metal floor of an electrically screened room within which the subject sits on a metal-framed chair.

In sessions with Stephen North the following numbers of signals were recorded:

The overall value of P for these sessions was thus 0.17, which is in good accord with the data of Figure 3. Sawtooth potential waveforms of ±5V, of period 22 sec., were used in all sessions except NNN, in which ±9V batteries were used.

The full diffusion analysis, however, will be complicated by the fact that the polarities of the signals, as between bull, inner, and outer target electrodes, were not always consistent. It is also considered that the ± 5V sawtooth potentials are too low to render insignificant the effects of contact potentials. The evidence of the drift tube sessions suggests not only that the ionization bursts are concentrated at more than one position simultaneously, but also that an appreciable proportion of the charge production occurs at the electrode surfaces; this is suggested by the fact that the proportion q/n of signals of anomalous sign was higher than it was in the metal strip electrode sessions.

A number of drift tube sessions have been conducted with practising healers, Matthew Manning and Georgina Regan. Very few spiked signals were observed, but an entirely new feature presented itself. Potentials varying smoothly with time in a Gaussian fashion over periods of about 30 seconds were obtained at times when the ‘healing action’ of the hands was deliberately concentrated. The potentials were as much as 100 times larger than typical spiked signals. The success rate at producing these effects was very high; up to the present nine examples have been recorded, out of eleven attempts, during two sessions. Success was not achieved when a ‘patient’ attempted action on the drift tube whilst the healer was attempting action on him or her. In two cases additional oscillations of about a two-second period were observed. Figure 6 displays two examples, but with the pulses from the background sawtooth waveform switching device superposed.

The possible significance of the easily recognizable difference between the action of metalbenders Stephen North and Julie Knowles and the action of healers Matthew Manning and Georgina Regan will not be lost on students of this subject.

The assistance of Pat Farrer and of Brian Warford is gratefully acknowledged in this research. Physicist Pat Farrer participated in the latter sessions and engineer Brian Warford constructed the drift tube.

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

TABLE 3

REFERENCES

1. J.B. Hasted and D.S. Robertson. J. Soc. Psych. Res., in press 1980.
2. J.B. Hasted. J.Soc. Psych. Res. 48, 365, 1976. 49, 583, 1977. 50, 9, 1979.
3. J.B. Hasted. Zeit. Parapsych. and Grenz. Psych. 20, 173, 1979.
4. The Collected Papers of Peter J.W, Debye, (1954). Interscience, New York, p. 226.
5. J.B. Hasted, The Physics of Atomic Collisions, Second Edition, p. 560. Butterworth, London, 1972.
6. Y. Kaneko, L.R. Megill and J.B. Hasted. J. Chem. Phys. 45, 3741, 1966.
7. J.S. Townsend, Proc. Roy. Soc. A81, 464, 1908.

L.G.H. Huxley, Phil. Mag. 30, 396, 1940.

1. F. Frescura, Birkbeck College, private communication, 1980.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

1.a Arrangement of two metal strip specimens in sessions W, Y, Z, A, B, Q.

1.b Arrangement of two metal strip specimens in sessions F – M.

2. Signals recorded in session G, demonstrating their polarities appropriate to the electrode bias.
3. Proportion of synchronous signals as a function of interelectrode distance.
4. Distribution of synchronous (S) and non-synchronous (NS) signals within phase of sawtooth potential.
5. Schematic drawing of drift tube, showing target electrodes and electrical connections to them, metal screens and guard rings.
6. Chart records of two ‘healing events’ obtained in session a with Matthew Manning. Both show strong effects when the sawtooth potentials are switched, as though a cloud of ionization was being distorted. The second (lowest trace only) shows superposed 2 oscillations.