From: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
Newsgroups: alt.dreams
Subject: Re: floatation tanks
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:07:12 GMT

In <1hnlecINNao2@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> oly@emerson.physics.ubc.ca writes:

> Hello everyone,
> 		Does anyone have any info regarding floatation tanks, things
> like construction, prefab units for sale, other peoples experiences etc.
> Basically any info at all.

Well, there was an article thread posted to this newsgroup a while back.
Perhaps these articles will help:


From: pbreton@cs.umb.edu (Peter Breton)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.consciousness,alt.dreams,
	    alt.drugs,alt.mindcontrol,alt.psychoactives
Subject: chrysalis by Peter Reich
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:49:36 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston, Dept of Math and CS

  Hi folks,

  In the new "Tools for Exploration" catalog (4460 Redwood Highway Suite
2, San Rafael CA 94903; says the catalog costs $5, but I think they'd send
one for free or a buck at worst.), on page 33 there's a book by one "Peter
Reich" (yes, I think it's THAT Peter Reich) called Chrysalis: Build Your
Own Float Tank. What's neat about it is that it lists suppliers and even
order forms. The cost of the tank (building, not maintenance) is about
$550 plus $200 for Epsom salts. The bad news is that the book (if it IS a
book, instead of just a bound pamphlet; the description really doesn't
say) costs $40! Anybody have it, seen it, heard of it? Hope it's not just
a rewrite of the appendices of "The Deep Self" (John C. Lilly).
  Also curious if anyone's built any orgone boxes, Hieronymous devices,
or anything else besides the typical light-and-sound fare. AND, what's
the dirt on the various PC mind machines? Is there hardware out there that
does this kind of thing already? Let's get a little discussion going...

  Peter

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: bwhite@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (William E. White )
Subject: Re: chrysalis by Peter Reich
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:34:55 GMT
Organization: O.U., Harvard on the Hocking, Berkeley in the Boondocks!

In article <1992Sep8.144936.6553@cs.umb.edu> pbreton@cs.umb.edu
	(Peter Breton) writes:

>  Also curious if anyone's built any orgone boxes, Hieronymous devices,
> or anything else besides the typical light-and-sound fare. AND, what's
> the dirt on the various PC mind machines? Is there hardware out there that
> does this kind of thing already? Let's get a little discussion going...

I haven't built one yet; keep intending to.  Most of the devices available
commercially charge you an overwhelming charge for a 555 timer and a
bunch of red LED's (oh yes, I forgot the sunglasses...).  Trouble is,
without a means of monitoring brainwave components, you have very little
way of knowing what's placebo and what's real.

If you're really interested there was an article (I think in an old BYTE
magazine, like 3 years ago) on how to build an EEG card for a PC; it even
included fast fourier transform software so you could watch individual
freq components.  I'd say your best bet would be to couple that with, say,
a special-purpose synth card (a la SoundBlaster for the brain), give three
channels (red,green,blue) per eye, plus two audio channels (left,right)
hooked into an FM synth or something, plus however many direct contact
stimulators you want (again, FM synth on those or equivalent).
Basically you end up with about a gazillion variables, but you can watch your
brain response in realtime.  Call it the BrainBlaster card?  Maybe this is
marketable ....

Anyway, three big safety rules:
    - don't play with this if you've any degree of epilepsy
    - avoid combinations of light and sound that have light flashing near
        alpha rhythm with sound giving alpha rhythm beat frequency (the
        British tried this, I believe, for a method of crowd control.  Had
        limited success.  Tends to induce severe seizures even in non-
	epileptics).
    - make sure you isolate any wires stuck to your skull from actual
        electrical connection with the brain.  Go through an optoisolator
	or something equivalent (IR remote, etc).  (Unless you're looking
	for that sort of effect).  The chance of anything going wrong is
	slim, but why risk it when you have wires stuck to your head
	with conductive jelly?

Never heard of Heironymous devices.  As for "orgone", the man who postulated
its existence was fairly well known for violent opposition to all facts
disproving it.  Evidently there's a good book about him; I think he also
might be mentioned in _In the Name of Science_.

--
|  Bill White   +1-614-594-3434     |  bwhite@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (normal)   |
|  `finger bwhite@view..' for more  |  bwhite@view.cs.ohiou.edu (alternate)   |
|  --> I'm a replicating .signature virus!  Copy me and join in the fun! <--  |

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: lassini@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Stefano Lassini)
Subject: Re: chrysalis by Peter Reich
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:58:58 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

The board to which bill refers to is probably the HAL-4, an eeg monitor with
up to 4 channels controlled by a 60C31 microcontroller. I have built one
with good results: by the way it transmits its data to the PC via RS232, so
any computer [in my case an Amiga] will do. Steve Ciarcia is the designer of
the board and it can be bought in kit form from Circuit Cellar, 4 Park St.,
suite 12 - Vernon, CT 06066

Have fun
Sam

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: tkirby@nyx.cs.du.edu (Thomas Kirby)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.consciousness,alt.dreams,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: chrysalis by Peter Reich
Date: 9 Sep 92 10:10:07 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

     Noticed Bill White "debunking" orgone.  His one objection is the
"violent opposition" Wilhelm Reich supposedly gave to any "facts"
"proving" that orgone "doesn't exist".

     Have you read the works of Wilhelm Reich, and the follow-up books?
Everything he has written is very lucid.  I have noticed that some of the
ideas debunkers are fond of misquoting were presented as speculation, and
WR made that very clear!  He made observations that were very easy to
understand, that is the descriptions were easy to understand.  Some of
these observations were impossible to explain by classical physical
theory.  He did repeat his experiments, and he did have other people
observe the same phenomena.  Others have later repeated his experiments,
and achieved similar results with the orgone accumulator, the bion
cultures, and the cloudbusting.

     Have you read Wilhelm Reich vs. the USA?  It is written a few years
after WR's death, and explains in great detail how the case the FDA made
against WR was entirely bogus.

--
    Gary S. Trujillo                            gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts              {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
Newsgroups: alt.dreams