Trying to make analogue sound to lcd?

[subplay]

Hello all,

I have been looking through a few projects, and there is a device called a ovilus 3 and the paranormal people seem to use it.

Now what it does is the unit sweeps the the signal channels of analogue radio wave constantly, a bit like a scanner, and now and again it will pick up apparently ghost words from the white noise..

So this units scanning, some asks a question example where are you, in the white noise the unit picks up the word corner, and the device shows the word corner and says it in the standard computer tone..

Has anyone got a clue to how they have done this, or push me in the right direction. Im trying to keep up with there technology, and really its not that high spec.. So god knows.. Oh the dictionary is a 2000 word dictionary built into..

thankyou

 

[(*steve*)]

Ovilus 3: a device designed to separate gullible people and their money.

 

[BobK]

My guess is they randomly output a recorded word.

Bob

 

[subplay]

You honestly think they could be random? Would that be legal? I know it possibly does sod all, and people are gullible but do you think something like that could be done for instance, if I was to talk in a mic, could that analogue sound be converted into digital wording?

 

[davenn]

if I was to talk in a mic, could that analogue sound be converted into digital wording?

of course havent you heard of voice recognition software and equip ?

Dave

 

[BobK]

You honestly think they could be random? Would that be legal? I know it possibly does sod all, and people are gullible but do you think something like that could be done for instance, if I was to talk in a mic, could that analogue sound be converted into digital wording?

Yes, I do, because there are no spirit voices to tap. What else could they do?

Bob

 

[CDRIVE]

You honestly think they could be random? Would that be legal?

That's funny!!

 

[Raven Luni]

YES it is random. The human brain thinks it hears words because thats what its wired to do. If I coudl be bothered, I could probably remember enough from the cognitive psychology module at uni to give you a decent explanation, but I cant be bothered, and thats enough I think anyway

 

[Lyker]

If EVP experiments interested the likes of Edison then who here is qualified to dismiss the subject out of hand? I have been a design engineer since 1987 I’m also a qualified pilot, I consider myself technically competent in electronics, quite level headed and in no way gullible. However I too have recently become interested in the subject of EVP.
I often think it’s just as well that the Wright brothers paid no attention to the vast numbers of “experts” who at the very time the brothers were building the kitty-hawk were telling the world why heavier than air flight would never be achieved!
EVP research is not too dissimilar from SETI research.
The human mind may be wired to think it hears words but the spectrum analysers and oscilloscopes are unbiased, and, no they don’t hear words but certainly allow study of signals.
I agree however that the Ovilus is just a novelty device.

 

[CDRIVE]

I read this ...

You honestly think they could be random? Would that be legal?

and posted this...

That's funny!!

Then I saw an advertisement on the boob tube selling a battery powered LED lantern modeled as an old time kerosene lamp. The best part of this commercial was when the announcer proclaimed that this lantern will provide light for 100,000 hours! Yes, I know that they are probably quoting the LEDs life span as per the data sheet. How many morons do you think will interpret this as 100,000 hours of operation before the batteries die? This advertising is as deceptive as it gets but like the Dark Ages and Renaissance this is the age of the Stupids!

Chris

 

[BobK]

EVP is nonsense.

Take any EVP clip you can find off the web, and listen to it without knowing beforehand what it is going to say. You will not hear what it allegedly say. Take any other clip and read what it is supposed to say. You will hear it. 'Nuff said.

Bob

 

[Crogdor]

If EVP experiments interested the likes of Edison then who here is qualified to dismiss the subject out of hand? I have been a design engineer since 1987 I’m also a qualified pilot, I consider myself technically competent in electronics, quite level headed and in no way gullible. However I too have recently become interested in the subject of EVP.
I often think it’s just as well that the Wright brothers paid no attention to the vast numbers of “experts” who at the very time the brothers were building the kitty-hawk were telling the world why heavier than air flight would never be achieved!
EVP research is not too dissimilar from SETI research.
The human mind may be wired to think it hears words but the spectrum analysers and oscilloscopes are unbiased, and, no they don’t hear words but certainly allow study of signals.
I agree however that the Ovilus is just a novelty device.

Pseudo-sciences like EVP, homeopathy, astrology, etc., aren't being dismissed out of hand, they're being dismissed because the evidence isn't there, even though people have looked for it. It's great that Edison looked into it - it wasn't obviously bogus at that time. But now we're here over 80 years after Edison lived, and people have done the research. Lots of it. There is no good evidence backing a paranormal explanation for EVP, and plenty of evidence for natural explanations. The simplest answer is often correct (Occam's Razor).

The Wright brothers story must be misquoted. Birds are clearly heavier than air, and so I can't see how a vast number of 'experts' would have used that as rationale against the possibility of humans inventing an aircraft. The spirit of this anecdote, of course, is that 'experts can be wrong'. And that's true, they can be (germ theory, for example), but it's not a reason to go out and believe everything we hear.

I think that while EVP and SETI research are similar in some ways, they are, at their core, very different. Yes, both are looking for the unknown, but one is based on natural claims supported by scientific research and the other is not. We know that radio waves can be used to communicate over long distances. We know this because we've done it, so it makes sense for SETI to look around and see if anyone else has done it, too. EVP is based largely on paranormal claims, which themselves are unfounded, and additionally ignores known natural explanations like the fact that humans are wonderful at finding patterns where no patterns exist (apophena).

 

[Lyker]

Crogdor,
The heavier than air quote was obviously referring to human flight, not birds. It was based upon a paper published by Dr Simon Newcomb in 1903 and serves as an example of how a persons mind is unable to except something beyond its comprehension. His paper proved that he knew far less about flight than two humble bicycle repair men.

Bob K,
“EVP is nonsense” How do you know? I have no opinion either way at the moment but I will not close my mind to the possibility.

 

[poor mystic]

You honestly think they could be random? Would that be legal? I know it possibly does sod all, and people are gullible but do you think something like that could be done for instance, if I was to talk in a mic, could that analogue sound be converted into digital wording?

My old phone had "speech to text conversion". If such a phone is taken into a noisy environment, with the right kind of noise, it will sometimes seem to pick up a word. It's random. Such words are not messages from another dimension.
There are lots of these pseudo-technologies. Radionics is another example, and it also has a few believers.

Ever once in a while something far-out turns out to be true. In 19th century England, very few people believed that there could be snow on Mt Kilimanjaro, because Mt K is in the tropics. Possibly more people believed in the "Indian Rope Trick". How can I decide what to believe and what to discard? I cannot investigate everything!

I often make my decisions on what to accept as a candidate for truth based on my perception of the existing believers. If they're nearly all poorly educated (grammar, spelling, et cetera) and spend a lot of time saying that because they can't be proven wrong there might be truth in their claims, I dismiss their claims.

There are lots of real, wonderful things in the world. I could say more but this is an electronics forum, and here we try to stick to measurable facts, on which our technology is built. But notice this: electronics WORKS!

 

[Crogdor]

Crogdor,
The heavier than air quote was obviously referring to human flight, not birds. It was based upon a paper published by Dr Simon Newcomb in 1903 and serves as an example of how a persons mind is unable to except something beyond its comprehension. His paper proved that he knew far less about flight than two humble bicycle repair men.

I understand the quote referred to human flight. My point was that if an expert says 'heavier than air flight cannot be achieved', then they're ignoring the logical conclusion that given the physically possibility of heavier-than-air flight in birds, then it is at least conceivable that humans can invent something to do it.

And if birds aren't a good example, then perhaps the fact that John Stringfellow had already created an unmanned heavier than air (steam-powered) aircraft 60 years earlier is a better one - again is shows that it's at least conceivable for a manned human flight.

I guess my point is that if one is going to mention how the 'vast number of experts' were wrong, they might consider who they're referring to as an expert. In this case it would appear that the vast number of experts was primarily one Dr. Simon Newcomb, and he may not have had the imagination of a scientist.

This flight anecdote started as a way to point out that experts are wrong (thereby giving more credence to the possibility of things like EVP), but ended up pointing out that, even more than that, people like to put a spin on history to suit their own agendas.

 

[KrisBlueNZ]

Pseudo-sciences like EVP, homeopathy, astrology, etc., aren't being dismissed out of hand, they're being dismissed because the evidence isn't there, even though people have looked for it.
...

Good arguments, and well expressed.

It's certainly true that the people on this forum have not done a lot of investigation into so-called EVP, but other people have, and when they have strictly applied the scientific method to the claims, they have concluded that there is no credible evidence to support them. Those who DO make such claims have a vested interest in having you believe them - whether it's selling you some device, or marketing their ghost-hunting "documentary", or even just the enjoyment of fooling people.

Anyone who could provide genuine evidence of ANY supernatural phenomenon can collect the USD 1M James Randi Educational Foundation prize without much difficulty. Some have tried; none have succeeded. Speculation about "spiritual realms" is completely unsupported by properly conducted research. The human mind is by nature far too credulous; the scientific method must be applied RIGOROUSLY, to minimise observer effects such as confirmation bias, pattern recognition and so on.

It may seem that I'm being narrow-minded by rejecting these claims almost as soon as they are made, but there are many tell-tale signs that a claim is either unproven, or a deliberate fake; investigating the details of each claim is simply not worthwhile.

Edit: This is all not to say that the "spirit realm" is IMPOSSIBLE. It is simply unsupported by any past or present evidence, and claims for its existence can be convincingly explained, so I see no reason to spend any time or effort on the subject.

 

[(*steve*)]

This flight anecdote started as a way to point out that experts are wrong (thereby giving more credence to the possibility of things like EVP), but ended up pointing out that, even more than that, people like to put a spin on history to suit their own agendas.

It is a really bad example. And let me tell you why.

Ask a scientist if their theories are true and they will NOT answer "Yes". They will tell you that they are the currently best explanation of the observed facts supported by experimental evidence.

Ask them what would make them change their mind and most would say something like "A single experiment which showed that some of the experimental evidence was wrong". (Although in practice this means a single experiment that is carried out by multiple people with repeatable results).

As for some belief that man might not be able to fly in heavier than air craft, perhaps people did hold that view. As scientists, they should have immediately changed their mind once manned heavier than air flight was demonstrated (it being reasonably possible to determine it was not a trick).

Contrast this with other "fields" where phenomena are believed and expounded, even where a simple and often demonstrable explanation of their fallacy exists.

Sadly, we live in a world where (all too often) people do not understand what evidence is and how to discriminate between it and anecdotes. Compounding this are people who (and one must often wonder if the adjective "dishonestly" can be applied) continue to espouse a belief using arguments long debunked to lure people into sometimes dangerous fantasies.

For a particular subset of these type of arguments I reserve my sig.

 

[KrisBlueNZ]

EXCELLENT explanation Steve.

I think it's very unfortunate that these ideas of supernatural realms and paranormal phenomena are so appealing to so many of us. It just doesn't seem to be part of human nature to be skeptical and rational; it's more comforting to believe that Great Aunt Jemima is really here in spirit, telling us that she's in a better place now.

Even in highly educated European countries, a significant proportion of the population still believe in the supernatural, and I don't think that irrational and unsupported beliefs will EVER be completely eradicated anywhere :-(

I think education in science, skepticism, and the scientific method is the best way to help everyone understand the fragility of our own command of reality. We really do have so many huge cognitive deficiencies; it's a real challenge for anyone to really grasp how poor our natural "common sense" judgement can be on these subjects.

Anyone interested in improving their cognitive accuracy should look up the experts - James Randi and Michael Shermer come to mind. Shermer has written several excellent books that try to explain why people believe propositions that have no valid evidence for them.

 

[davenn]

We really shouldnt get into spiritual/God etc debates on a forum it never ends well
BUT LOL....

Even in highly educated European countries, a significant proportion of the population still believe in the supernatural, and I don't think that irrational and unsupported beliefs will EVER be completely eradicated anywhere :-(

I have to take it from that statement, Kris, that you are not a Christian

Dave

 

[KrisBlueNZ]

Very true Dave. Most of us are certain enough of our position that arguments only serve to compromise friendship and respect.

Actually, I wasn't specifically referring to religion as an irrational and unsupported belief; I was discussing the supernatural and paranormal. This thread started off with the subject of EVP, i.e. ghosts. But you're right. I include gods among the supernatural and paranormal phenomena that are not supported by any evidence, and are easily explained as cognitive failures and wishful thinking. Like many, I was raised with religion - actually, my full name is Kristian - but I never believed. I hope, however, that any of my electronics point friends with different opinions will draw a distinction between my beliefs on that subject and my value as a contributor to this site and a friend to all other contributors.