loading

NOTE: THIS DEVICE IS EXPERIMENTAL HARDWARE AND IT OPERATES BY RUNNING A CURRENT THROUGH THE BRAIN OF THE USER. DO NOT USE THIS DEVICE UNTIL YOU READ CITATION 1 AND GO OVER THE PUBLISHED SAFETY LIMITS FOR TRANSCRANIAL ALTERNATING CURRENT STIMULATION! USE OF THIS DEVICE MAY RESULT IN PERMANENT NEUROLOGICAL DAMAGE, DISMEMBERMENT, IMMOLATION, DEATH, OR ANY COMBINATION THEREOF, IN ADDITION TO THE RISKS NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED HERE.

Edit: A simplified version of this hardware is now available.

These are instructions for building a computer-controlled tACS device. Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) is a form of neuronal stimulation that operates by running an alternating current through the human brain. This current can be any waveform from random noise (tRNS is the official research term if you want to be fancy about it) to a clean sine wave. There is some evidence that the brain's own oscillation pattern will synchronize with externally applied alternating current(1), and specific cortical oscillation patterns may be associated with specific thought processes(2). Since EEGs directly record cortical oscillation patterns, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that these recorded patterns could be superimposed on a second brain using tACS in order to affect mental processing, and perhaps even to induce mental synchrony. The hardware described here is being developed for an experiment we're assembling to begin preliminary testing of this hypothesis. Humans who want to play with this hardware but don't want to build it should sign up for participation.

This is a backbone technology for the formation of the collective of superhuman cyborgs necessary to save the world. The development of this technology and others like it seems practically inevitable at this point. It is preferable that technologies such as this one, that could so profoundly influence humanity, be developed and implemented in an open manner -- under the watchful guidance of the public at large -- rather than secretly, by military or intelligence agencies.

Citations

(1) Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), Walter Paulus et al., Frontiers in human neuroscience, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC369536...

(2) Spectral fingerprints of large-scale neuronal interactions, Markus Siegel at al., Nature reviews neuroscience, http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v13/n2/full/nrn3...

Step 1: System Overview

Since this device is to be attached to humans, safety is of utmost importance. For this reason, the electronics which are connected to the human are galvanically isolated from both the input power lines and the data input from the computer. In addition to electrical isolation, three redundant current limiting systems are used to ensure that the current through the human remains restricted to a safe level even in the event of multiple system failures.

As you can see from the block diagram above, the control signal for the device originates in a computer, which is connected to a USB to SPI converter. The converter sends an SPI signal to an isolated DAC, which converts the signal into an analog voltage. This analog voltage goes to a voltage to current converter, which supplies a regulated current to the human. The PSU powers all circuitry behind the isolation barrier. Let's look at each subsystem in more detail, from the human back.

Step 2: Voltage to Current Converter

The voltage to current converter has the dubious honor of being directly connected to the human. Extra care was taken in its design, as failure to appropriately limit the output current may cause undesired effects on the human (seizures, convulsions, immolation, death, et cetera). For this reason, most of the circuitry in the V to I converter is safety circuitry not strictly necessary for operation -- this additional circuitry slightly degrades normal performance by decreasing the voltage headroom available for output and increasing output equivalent series resistance.

A block diagram has been provided in the hopes of clarifying the following, the principle of operation of the voltage to current converter: When the variable current source is set to 1mA, it only takes 1/3 of the current supplied by the 3mA source and the resulting current through the human is +2mA (3mA-1mA), and when the variable current source is set to 5mA, it takes 5/3 of the current supplied by the 3mA source and the resulting current through the human is -2mA (3mA-5mA). Sweeping the variable current source from 1mA to 5mA proportionally sweeps the current through the human from +2mA to -2mA. The active limiters never become activated during normal operation, and the passive limiter drops no more than 14V unless a fault occurs.

The second image is the actual schematic of the voltage to current converter. The functional blocks have dashed lines around them. If this schematic doesn't make sense to you by itself, I've put more detailed descriptions of each functional block in the next step. Attentive readers will find that the "1 - 5mA" current source is actually capable of going all the way down to zero. The actual current output of the voltage to current converter circuit is bounded as follows: DAC out = 0V, current = +2.9mA; DAC out = 5V, current = -2.4mA; with a linear relationship between DAC output and current between those points. Software must be used to limit the values sent to the DAC so that the output remains bounded within the +/-2mA limits prescribed by the Gottingen protocols (which were originally written for tDCS, yes, I know). The reason the positive current output capacity has that extra mA will be explained in the next step.

Step 3: Voltage to Current Converter Subunits

Current limiting for normal operation is governed by simple one-transistor current regulators of the structure shown in the first two circuits. A voltage reference and a resistor are used to set the current, which will be roughly equal to (Vref - 0.65V) / R, as long as Vsupply has enough voltage to force the appropriate current through the load. This equation (approximately) applies for both NPN and PNP implementations, and is a rule of thumb only; it ignores base bias current and a whole bunch of other variables, but it should be accurate to within 5% most of the time. This type of current limiter begins to act in a nonlinear fashion if you allow the transistor to get too close to cut-off. (That's why the extra mA is in the positive supply fixed current source, so the negative supply variable current source never gets too close to cut-off.) The one-transistor current regulator works by maintaining a constant voltage across the resistor, thereby guaranteeing a constant current through the resistor.

The first backup layer of current limiting is provided by three-transistor discrete current limiters. These circuits are neat because they don't drop much voltage when they're not limiting current (under 2V), and they don't need any connections besides one input and one output. This circuit can only limit current flowing one direction, but you can use two of them in parallel (with one reversed) to limit alternating current if you want to. You can omit the diode if your application doesn't have a risk of current reversal. (The tACS shouldn't ever need this diode in its limiters, but I left them in for extra protection.) This three-transistor discrete current limiter limits the current to (0.65V) / (Rsense). The same "rule of thumb only" warning applies to this equation as the one in the paragraph above. Rbias needs to be small enough to saturate the darlington pair during normal operation, but large enough to allow only an insignificant percentage of the desired current limit through (through Rbias itself, that is). Here's how the limiter works: normally the darlington pair is saturated by current through Rbias (current flows freely). When the voltage across Rsense is big enough to turn on the transistor that's not in the darlington pair, that transistor begins turning off the darlington pair by removing its base current, keeping the voltage across Rsense limited to ~0.65V and thus limiting the current through Rsense, and through the circuit as a whole, assuming Rbias is big enough that the current through it can be ignored.

The bottom circuit in the second image is a subsection of the voltage-to-current converter sub-module, which contains an advanced current regulator sub-sub-module whose schematic is pictured here. This sub-sub-module limits current through it to (voltage across regulator) / (3*R). It utilizes three fixed-conductance sub-sub-sub-modules which were produced from hydrogen using the proton-proton chain fusion reaction process.

Step 4: Isolated DAC

The isolated DAC only has two main pieces, an ISO7241 digital isolator and an MCP4911 DAC. Truly shocking to find a digital isolator and a DAC in our isolated DAC submodule, indeed. The operation of this submodule is straightforward: !CS is pulled low to tell the DAC to expect data. The data are clocked in through the SPI bus, and !CS is set high to tell the DAC to adjust the analog output to the new value. (The ISO7241 just acts like a logic buffer.) The analog value the DAC produces goes to the voltage to current converter.

The red LED serves to drop the 5V from the USB port to about 3.3V, which is the output signal level of our USB to SPI converter. The ISO7241 can run from 3.3V or 5V on either side, but the supply voltage needs to be the same as the input signal level. The isolated DAC also has a 0.1uF ceramic capacitor between each of the chips' positive supply inputs and ground, omitted from the schematic shown above.

Step 5: Isolated PSU

The isolated PSU's first important job is to electrically isolate the output circuitry from the power line. This is done by the transformer. The PSU produces +60V, +0V, and -60V from the 22VAC out of the transformer with a voltage quadrupler circuit (described in more detail in the next step). The +58.25V and -55V rails are derived from the +60V and -60V rails using linear regulators.

"But why are two of your rails just raw supplies with as much as 5% ripple? Doesn't that cause ripple on your output?" asks the imaginary reader. Well, imaginary reader, you'll be pleased to find that because of the current regulator structure of the voltage to current converter, ripple on the +60V and -60V rails doesn't show up in the output (at all, as far as I can measure with my oscilloscope). What really matters in this application is that the +58.25V rail is 1.75V below the +60V rail, and that the -55V rail is 5V above the -60V rail. Those voltage differences are what control the current regulators, and so they need to be precise!

This supply uses discrete linear regulators that are simple, but they have some kinks, like slowly drifting in output voltage a bit as the device warms up. I'll be replacing them with precision integrated regulators in V1.0, but I didn't feel like waiting four days for shipping while I was working on the beta version, so I made regulators from parts on hand.

Step 6: Isolated PSU Subunits

Let's start with the voltage quadrupler. It's the circuit in the first picture, the one with all the diodes and capacitors. Look at D1 and C1. Imagine that the AC supply is at this moment the correct polarity to charge C1 through D1. Now, C1 is fully charged. The polarity of the AC supply switches. Now, C2 charges through D2, to double the AC supply's peak voltage, because C2 isn't just being charged by the AC supply, it's being charged by the AC supply in series with the already-charged C1. So double the AC supply's voltage is now across C2. The same principle works on C3 and C4, so C4 gets charged to double the AC supply's voltage as well, and since they're in series, the circuit outputs 4 times the AC supply's voltage. You can use this circuit after an h-bridge driven by a square wave if you need a simple dc-dc converter, but remember: the output and the input can't share a ground connection! (In my case there is no ground connection on the input since it's just a transformer.) This description ignores forward voltage drop of the diodes. In reality each diode burns 0.7V or so off the total output voltage.

Now we will discuss voltage references. In the second picture, the first two schematics are basic diode voltage references. Diodes drop a roughly constant voltage (0.65V +/- 0.05V most of the time), so you can use them to regulate voltage. The left reference outputs about 2V above ground, the right one outputs about 2V below whatever the supply voltage is.

If you need to regulate voltage, there are a few simple circuits here to use. Probably the easiest is the zener diode based series-pass regulator, the one on the bottom left. It outputs whatever the zener diode's voltage is, minus 0.65V.

My favorite linear regulator ciruit is the discrete active voltage regulator, on the bottom right. R1 tends to turn Q1 on, so the output voltage rises until the base of Q3 is high enough to turn on the darlington pair (Q2 and Q3 that is) and these suck away the base bias of Q1. The summary: This circuit makes sure the voltage across R3 is about 1.2V all the time, and you can adjust the values of R2 and R3 to change the output voltage. R1 needs to provide enough base bias to keep normal operating current flowing, but otherwise should be as large as possible. Vout = ((R2 + R3) / R3) * 1.2V

As always the equations and voltages given above are rules of thumb only and ignore a bunch of minor variables in the interest of brevity.

Step 7: USB to SPI Converter

For the beta prototype's USB to SPI converter, a UM232H-B was used. This part has 16ms latency, which is unacceptably high for the final version of the tACS device, but it's the first one I could get the signal through for testing the rest of the system. I'm going to replace it. I've been looking for off-the-shelf solutions, and I've tried the MCP2210 (Don't ever use that part. It's not reliable for me and others have problems with it too.), and looked into using V-USB firmware (outdated: doesn't compile right with current version of LIBUSB). I will be redesigning the USB to SPI converter to use an FT232RL followed by an ATMEGA328. Then the software can talk to the device without needing special driver installation, too. The excessive latency of this part is why I'm not publishing the driver software I've written so far, because the driver software will be completely rewritten for the final version, since I'm changing the USB to SPI hardware the computer communicates through.

Step 8: From Beta to V1.0

What next? There are only two hardware adjustments I must make before I can consider this device V1.0 instead of a beta version. I need to get rid of the power supply regulator drift, and I need to greatly decrease the latency (or at least increase the output sample rate) of the USB to SPI conversion hardware.

Regulator drift. In a nutshell, I noticed that this device's output current drifts up about 100uA from when it's turned on to when it's warmed up. The output current is based on the voltage reference and +VCC supplied to the DAC, which drifts from 5.15V at turn-on to 5.01V once warmed up. This change accounts for the output current drift I observed, and I can eliminate it by replacing the simple discrete-transistor regulator circuitry that provides the -55V output of the PSU with a high-precision integrated regulator. The three-diode voltage reference in the power supply that provides the +58.25V rail also drifts -- from dropping 1.79V at turn-on to dropping 1.76V once warmed up. Since I'm putting precision regulators in the power supply I may as well add one there too.

USB to SPI conversion hardware latency. The latency isn't strictly the problem here, but I need the time between samples to be smaller. 1ms at most, ideally. I believe the best solution is to send the output data points in blocks from the computer to an intermediate microcontroller, which will send each data point to the DAC one at a time.

I will, of course, update this instructable once these changes are implemented and tested. If you're the curious type you can examine the alpha hardware iteration before this. I will be continuing to work on the telepathy machine hardware and experiment design, and if the experiment sounds interesting to you, you should sign up for it.

Step 9: TM01 V1.0 Hardware and Firmware Complete

But don't hold your breath for drivers!

The hardware is done and tested, and it works. 1ms between samples now. I've included the final EAGLE board files for the PSU and analog output section. I've also included a copy of the github repository (written by my ally Paul) that enables the AVR to convert the UART signal to SPI and maintain a buffer. There is no board file for the digital parts. The digital signal chain is as follows:

[Computer] > [FT232RL] > [ATMEGA328@12MHz] > [ISO7241] > [MCP4911]

This signal chain can be easily constructed from off-the-shelf development boards.

However, after getting to this point, I've now come up with a MUCH simpler and cheaper way to get the signal from the computer to the tACS device. I'll link to the instructable for that once I'm done writing it up.

<p>Dear <a href="https://www.instructables.com/member/quicksilv3rflash/" rel="nofollow">quicksilv3rflash,</a></p><p>Thank you for taking my point about safety and adding a disclaimer to the beginning of the instructable. I can be on the same side with you when your vision about the future is as clearly stated as it was in your last comment. Yes, we are facing with very serious problems in those areas you mentioned, and even more. My only concern is that why to see the possibly solution to them in the field of manipulating people's brain with electronic gadgets? To convince them by the old fashioned human to human means to find solution would be much nicer. I am not naiv at all. I know that the world turns around the money and of those minority who has the majority of it and rules with it for their own egoistic purposes. Maybe I am a bit conservative, or I might misunderstood the whole concept, but the first thing that came into my mind that for my grandchild I do not want to build an A. Huxley's 'Brave new World' or an Orwellian '1984' environment. Sorry, for simplifying to that level.</p><p>Again, I wish you the best and I apoligize for any inconvinience I caused, if any.</p><p> </p>
<p>There is no reason to apologize. This is a delayed response, because your last few questions are quite complicated to answer.</p><p>&quot;My only concern is that why to see the possibly solution to them in the field of manipulating people's brain with electronic gadgets? To convince them by the old fashioned human to human means to find solution would be much nicer.&quot;</p><p>I know that it's pretty ridiculous to be going through electrical engineering, programming, and neuroscience just to explain to people that they should take other humans' well-being into account. However, at least every century some brilliant philosopher (who can use language more eloquently than I could hope to) has tried to explain that we should be nice to each other; some of them even work on books to clarify how to do this, and somehow these books about how to treat each other nicely lead to more bloodshed than any other type of literary work. Many have spent their whole lives travelling to teach others the importance of respectful interaction; still, we find our world in its current state. Even if &quot;saving the world&quot; is a false, subjective premise that is ultimately meaningless, I'd like to try a method that hasn't failed so many times before.</p><p>Speed is the first reason I find these methods attractive. If a group of humans work on enhancing themselves, the enhancement should create a positive feedback loop -- enhanced humans can research new enhancements more rapidly, et cetera et cetera.</p><p>Lower corruption is another likely benefit. Any time power gets centralized it breeds corruption. However, coordination of human activities on a large scale is necessary for us to manage our future challenges, so we can't avoid having something in charge of helping us organize our collective activities. Creation of a meta-entity from humans will enable a form of government by an entity that can actually personally know, interact with, and account for the well-being of each person being governed by it. Corruption is only possible if you view those you're stealing from as &quot;other,&quot; it makes no sense to steal from &quot;self.&quot; Fusion of humans may enable them to view all others as &quot;self&quot; and thereby inhibit corruption. In any case only a small % of the population, 1 in 20 perhaps, would need to be assimilated for an organization structure like this to be formed, and assimilation could only be ethically done with informed consent.</p><p>Why is so much complicated control required? One of the reasons is because we need to replace our entire manufacturing infrastructure. Many problems around the world could be solved by supplying durable manufactured goods (examples include: solar panels, water filters, air filters, mosquito nets...), but our current manufacturing infrastructure is itself unethical. To make sure you're supplying &quot;clean&quot; resources (that is, made without paying to have anyone exploited or killed, and made without ecological damage) you have to control your entire manufacturing supply chain, from mining to final shipment. Given what our financial systems have been involved with, it's probably best to avoid using currency as much as possible.</p><p>My ethics are the last big reason I've chosen this path. I use a modified form of utilitarianism that assigns value to both happiness and truth (how much an entity knows about the universe), and I consider the ethical value of an entity to be proportional to the square of its mental complexity. Why the square? Consider the following: a human has about 17 times as many neurons in its cerebral cortex as a horse. Does this mean that the lives of 17 horses are of equal value to the life of a human? I would say personally that the human is worth more than that. For me the function is quadratic, so I'd suppose that a human would be worth closer to 289 horses. This function can be extrapolated; fusing two humans would create an entity with as much ethical value as four humans. Based on the ethical parameters I use, fusion of as many intelligent entities as possible (and the teaching and care of the resulting meta-entity) is the most ethically valuable objective I could pursue.</p><p>&quot;I am not naiv at all. I know that the world turns around the money and of those minority who has the majority of it and rules with it for their own egoistic purposes. Maybe I am a bit conservative, or I might misunderstood the whole concept, but the first thing that came into my mind that for my grandchild I do not want to build an A. Huxley's 'Brave new World' or an Orwellian '1984' environment. Sorry, for simplifying to that level.&quot;</p><p>Neither is particularly appealing to me, but I'd rather be in &quot;Brave New World&quot; than &quot;1984&quot;. You should know: I don't have a very clear idea of how to do things in the big picture, that's why I'm reaching out through the internet to find allies to help guide this project. I'm just a low-level entity working on communication links and basic neural network design.</p>
<p>Thank you for the very moving clarification. Because your drive with this movement is so powerful and some of the schematics so volatile, I think it's best you make a point to preface the reason why you are publicly sharing this information. It is quite inspirational... I consider myself a Transhumanist in so many ways but am really concerned with ethics regarding the misuse of some technologies involved. Just because your thinking on this seems very advanced does not mean the people downloading your instructions on neurotronoic devices (yes i just made that term up...) have the same intentions as you do. I do greatly appreciate you sharing your research and am just glad you posted this reply just hope you post it as a preface in the future. </p>
<p>Thank you for the very moving clarification. Because your drive with this movement is so powerful and some of the schematics so volatile, I think it's best you make a point to preface the reason why you are publicly sharing this information. It is quite inspirational... I consider myself a Transhumanist in so many ways but am really concerned with ethics regarding the misuse of some technologies involved. Just because your thinking on this seems very advanced does not mean the people downloading your instructions on neurotronoic devices (yes i just made that term up...) have the same intentions as you do. I do greatly appreciate you sharing your research and am just glad you posted this reply just hope you post it as a preface in the future. </p>
<p>Thank you for the very moving clarification. Because your drive with this movement is so powerful and some of the schematics so volatile, I think it's best you make a point to preface the reason why you are publicly sharing this information. It is quite inspirational... I consider myself a Transhumanist in so many ways but am really concerned with ethics regarding the misuse of some technologies involved. Just because your thinking on this seems very advanced does not mean the people downloading your instructions on neurotronoic devices (yes i just made that term up...) have the same intentions as you do. I do greatly appreciate you sharing your research and am just glad you posted this reply just hope you post it as a preface in the future. </p>
<p>Thank you for the very moving clarification. Because your drive with this movement is so powerful and some of the schematics so volatile, I think it's best you make a point to preface the reason why you are publicly sharing this information. It is quite inspirational... I consider myself a Transhumanist in so many ways but am really concerned with ethics regarding the misuse of some technologies involved. Just because your thinking on this seems very advanced does not mean the people downloading your instructions on neurotronoic devices (yes i just made that term up...) have the same intentions as you do. I do greatly appreciate you sharing your research and am just glad you posted this reply just hope you post it as a preface in the future. </p>
<p>Thank you for the very moving clarification. Because your drive with this movement is so powerful and some of the schematics so volatile, I think it's best you make a point to preface the reason why you are publicly sharing this information. It is quite inspirational... I consider myself a Transhumanist in so many ways but am really concerned with ethics regarding the misuse of some technologies involved. Just because your thinking on this seems very advanced does not mean the people downloading your instructions on neurotronoic devices (yes i just made that term up...) have the same intentions as you do. I do greatly appreciate you sharing your research and am just glad you posted this reply just hope you post it as a preface in the future. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.instructables.com/member/JasonS157" rel="nofollow">JasonS157</a><br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <a href="https://www.instructables.com/member/quicksilv3rflash" rel="nofollow">quicksilv3rflash</a><br> <br> <br> </p><p><br> 2 months ago<br> </p><p>Can you elaborate at all on what your collective would look like?<br><br>The<br> way you are describing it sounds largely like a Borg-esque melding of <br>minds into one single collective mind (or if you prefer, Gaia / Galaxia <br>from the Foundation series).<br><br>That being the case I find the <br>concept largely repugnant as I believe what makes humans great, <br>and creative lies in our individuality, and destroying that is a kind of <br>mind-death, and I think most others will share that point of view.<br>----------</p><p>Valentine, 02/13/16<br>In what ways would your collective be similar to a Gaia/Borg entity? In what ways would it differ?</p><p>I would be *very interested in knowing the answer to this question as well.</p><p>I think &quot;ALL&quot;-humans should be verrry interested in the answer this question.<br>I have informed - Jungian collective unconscious. Decide. Gaia, Borg, or other?</p>
<p>Can you elaborate at all on what your collective would look like?<br><br>The way you are describing it sounds largely like a Borg-esque melding of minds into one single collective mind (or if you prefer, Gaia / Galaxia from the Foundation series).<br><br>That being the case I find the concept largely repugnant as I believe what makes humans most powerful and creative lies in our individuality and destroying that is a kind of mind-death, and I think most others will share that point of view.<br><br>In what ways would your collective be similar to a Gaia/Borg entity? In what ways would it differ?</p>
<p>I, for one, welcome our new digitally-enhanced overlords.</p><p>TCS pulls so little power, is it really worth it to use a mains transformer to supply stim voltage? +/- 60V seems like mega overkill - I can drive 2 mA with 18 VDC no problem with wet electrodes. Just seems like a lot of extra complexity and potential fault points. <br>EDIT: I just noticed your other 'ible features 9V batteries, good move, but I still ask, why do you need so many? You can use 1 battery and DC/DC boost converter. <br><br>Also, check out the NRF24L01 wireless module (right now you can get a 10-pack of dubious origin for $10, amazon ID B00O9O868G). It's fairly popular so it probably has libraries written for it in most microcontroller environments. This would give you more movement and further isolation from potentially unregulated sources.</p>
Is this actually Saya Woolfalk?
<p>Dear <a href="https://www.instructables.com/member/quicksilv3rflash/" rel="nofollow">quicksilv3rflash,</a></p><p>Thank you for sharing your thoughts.<br></p>
<p>Dear <a href="https://www.instructables.com/member/quicksilv3rflash/" rel="nofollow">uicksilv3rflash,</a></p><p>Thank you for sharing your high ideas with the DIY community. I might miss your clear warning in the text you wrote in your instuctable (but not in the linked sites).</p>Belief in the negligeble potential risks is not a proof! <p>All the beginners in electronics can go (and will go one day) for a more difficult project to build and try. That is a way to develop they skills and knowledge. So, extreme caution should be taken in instructing them, to keep them safe in that process. </p><p>You said, that you wrote that 'propaganda' and I agree, yes, it is a propaganda in it's darkest meaning. If I would consider myself a scientist, I would not use that tool to call for the interest of people. (I've seen a smiley in your text, indicating for me that we are not on the same side.)</p><p>My opinion is just one amongst the others, even if they are not shared with us.</p><p>I wish you success in your R&amp;D, and no harm to anyone.<br></p>
<p>Dear hegefer;</p><p>I am aware that belief in the negligible potential risks is not a proof; I meant to offer the part of that quote that pointed out &quot;the absence of serious adverse effects reported in the literature&quot; as the proof.</p><p>I did not realize that the use of an emoticon would lead you to perceive me as being on a different side, I apologize for any offense caused. I wish to convince you that even if we are not in the same faction we are on the same side. I'd like to see a future where all humans have adequate access to potable water and sufficient food, and where people don't kill each other without consent. We have enough resources to supply everyone with food and water right now, if we (in the USA for example) spent even a tiny fraction of the effort we spend designing, assembling, and deploying flying death robots (drones and missiles).</p><p>I am an engineer, not a pure scientist, so I'm more comfortable using every (ethical) tool at my disposal to collect enough humans to start getting vital resources to those who lack them.</p><p>Your point about safety is well-taken. I'm adding a disclaimer to the beginning of the instructable. Thank you for your time.</p>
<p>In my previous comment I should say, that: <em>&quot;...influencing the human brain with electric impulses - by any </em><strong>DIY</strong> <em>means - </em>...&quot; etc. I apologize, but please take into consideration, that English is not my native language. THX</p>
<p>&quot;The vast majority of researchers working with TCS [Transcranial Current Stimulation: tDCS, tACS, tRNS] believe that the potential <br>risks are negligible and that effective guidelines have been long established <br>and are clearly specified (see [2], [7-10]), making TCS essentially safe. This <br>fact is reflected in the absence of serious adverse effects reported in the <br>literature.&quot;</p><p><a href="http://www.psy.ed.ac.uk/psy_research/documents/TMS_TCS/TMS_TCS_Edinburgh_ethics_guidelines_2014.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.psy.ed.ac.uk/psy_research/documents/TMS...</a></p><p>I warned about danger in the tDCS instructable I wrote, because the hardware is more easily constructed by amateurs. I did not feel it necessary in this case because this is a much more complex project, and so those building it can be expected to be much more experienced, and capable of assessing the risks involved. This device complies to the required guidelines for tACS, and current limiting is guaranteed by two extra layers of backup limiters.</p><p>All technologies start as DIY. I see no reason to contribute to our entrenched and monopolistic academic institutions by claiming that a certificate from a particular authority is required in order to perform meaningful research. Self-experimentation is valid. Dr. Barry J. Marshall, for example, only succeeded in convincing others that H. Pylori was the causative agent of peptic ulcers after he &quot;drank a vial of H. pylori <br>bacteria and promptly developed a severe case of stomach <br>inflammation&quot;.</p><p>http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/textonlyarchive/95-09-29/6.txt</p>
<p>I hope, this is just a scientificly formulated joke, not a useful gadget. Reed that sentence and think seriously: <em>&quot;This is a backbone technology for the <a href="http://www.neuroplustech.com/propaganda.htm" rel="nofollow">formation of the collective of superhuman cyborgs necessary to save the world</a>.&quot;</em> Now read that link and think again: do we really need mentally influenced cyborgs, or who are the enemy to save the world against? By the way the aforementioned link should not be taken as a reliable one, because of it does not indicate the original source of that information. Threatening people with &quot;communists plans&quot; was the habit of the 50's-60's in the so called western part of the world. That time has gone! I would suggest to wake up, people! Live in the recent and make our future bright, not the zombi-darkness.</p>
<p>I wrote that propaganda. I am the original source :) It's not meant as a threat, but a framework for the overall plan that I'm working on with my allies.</p>
<p>I forget the mention the most important thing: The author should warn about the danger of playing with these kind of gadgets. Even if I am not a psychiatrist, but it is widelly known that influencing the human brain with electric impulses - by any means - might be dangerous, harmful and might even cause unrecoverable mental consequences. Think of that and for god's shake, please, be seriously responsible for yourself and for the others, too!</p>
<p>This is really interesting. I'm excited to see where this goes. </p>

About This Instructable

4,043views

15favorites

More by quicksilv3rflash:Transcranial Electrical Stimulator, Arduino Compatible LIFETIMER Construct a Synthetic Neural Network 
Add instructable to: