dornford (amio2@gte.net) wrote: Some information regarding electrical conduction through the body. The body conducts electricity through electrochemical ion transport. This is different from conduction through a wire. In a wire, the amount of current that flows is proportional to the voltage accross the wire, and inversely proportional to the resistance of the wire ("Ohm's law"). In an electrochemical system, as the voltage between electrodes is increased, current at first scarecely flows at all, adn then, when a critical voltage is reached, the current rapidly increases until it reaches a plateau. It stays at this plateau, typically, until a new break point is reached, at whcich point the current once again increases rapidly. When current flows at one of these plateaus, chemical actions occur at the electrodes. For example, the first plateau reached will be one at which oxygen is reduced at one electrode and something is oxudized at the other. Later, CO2 will be reduced, and later still, salt will dissociate. Oxygen is reduced at about 650mV of potential. More potential is needed to make the other reactions work. In the body there are many potential conduction paths, though all of then a re electrochemical in nature. The lymph and the blood are essentially salt water, and they will need about a volt and a half to conduct significantly. The skin is oily and contains many membranes, and will mostly act as a resistor - it won't itself conduct well. The bones are mostly inorganic crystaline material with embedded ionic conductive material. However the nerves are apparently designed to be good conductors. We know that they support potential differences of about 100 mV before they conduct, much less than the rest of the body. One might assume that if they did not conduct better than the rest of the body, they could scarcely work at all! We can therefore expect that small currents within the body will tend to be conducted by the nerves primarily. The nerves themselves consist of long filaments attached to central bodies in the brain and spinal cord. They have many interconnections between each other, and these connections themselves behave rather like zener diodes - they conduct in spikes when the potential accross them exceeds a certain level. but not otherwise. Nerves seem to communicate by the timing of the electrical pulses between them, not the magnitude of the pulses. This means that the average potential between nerves is going to be affected by the communication between them. A continuous current flowing up one nerve and down another is going to generate a varying voltage as the nerves either connect or don't. In the case of the emeter, the cans are normally held by the hands in such a way that the maximum number of nerve endings are in contact with the cans. The hands have among the highest density of nerve endings in the body. The curent flow between the cans is going to predominantly pass through the nerves up to the brain and accross the brain interfaces, and back down to the other hand. In the case of one hand electrodes, the current will flow up one set of nerves and back down the adjacent set. Since there are millions of these nerves carrying the already small current, the voltage will be modulated by the average nerve connections in the brain. Hence the emeter will essentially measure the degree of nerve connection in the brain. It will respond to the electrical activity in the brain, in other words. It is fortunate that this is so, and no doubt was not at all foreseen by either LRH or any of the people who developed lie detectors or similar equipment. However it turns out to be an elegant way of monitoring brain activity, at least in the aggregate. All the rules of emeter operation - like instant reads, f/ns and so on, are empirical. LRH and others merely observed the correlations and codified them. This is not to negate their validity at all. Incidentally, neural research has shown that the brain can respond prior to receiving a stimulus, a phenomenon not presently allowed by physics. dornford