The Global Consciousness Project

When voltage drops to these Zener Diode RNG's, output of 0,1's changes... it's just a fact. I can't be bothered to go through it all again... There are links to some relevant papers on Skeptiko... designing RNG's to produce a useful evenly distributed random output is a whole field in itself...

I'm quite familiar with zener diodes. I have used them many times in numerous designs in my engineering career. 

However, the graphs you show have no relationship to voltage drops or noise, or even overall AC line power condition in any way. Further, an instantaneous noise spike would have a minuscule impact (if any) on randomness especially if there is a level of digital processing of the basic analog-based input to the digital part of the system. Keep in mind, a voltage spike itself is quite random in its nature such as amplitude and wave shape, and even in regularity, unless it is part of a pattern of noise created by some other system. I would hope that some effort was taken to address that sort of thing. e.g. placing the RNG beside a large industrial motor would be a bad idea for example. 

In addition, the global conc. project involves disparate world-wide systems that are run on totally isolated power grids. It is the correlation of many RNGs that are most indicative of an "event", and you have said nothing to give an indication of some worldwide effect. 

So given the fact that you can't show evidence of a correlation of non-randomness to power condition, and are unable to explain even theoretically how a local power condition would significantly skew random numbers worldwide, I can only assume your argument is essentially hypothetical, similar to the sound argument you have been espousing regarding the double slit experiments. 

I'm finding the argument involves mostly arm waving and not much substance.

If you have specific data, I'd be interested in seeing it. Not really interested in seeing a history of more arm waving from a different forum, as that accomplishes nothing but obfuscation really.

Lacking some data, or that more thorough explanation, sorry, but for me, as an electrical and Computer Sci engineer, you are quite unconvincing on this point.

When voltage drops to these Zener Diode RNG's, output of 0,1's changes... it's just a fact. I can't be bothered to go through it all again... There are links to some relevant papers on Skeptiko... designing RNG's to produce a useful evenly distributed random output is a whole field in itself...

 clip- you'll see bias appearing in the ratio of 1,0's, severe in some devices with just a 1-2% voltage drop.

Max- 
I'm trying to work with you here...

Can you substantiate the above statement? 

It seems strange to me because first of all the RNG circuit should contain a "zero crossing detector", which is pretty much insensitive to the amplitude of the incoming AC waveform. Even a HUGE amplitude deviation from nominal will have no impact. 1-2% is nothing.

Do you have a circuit diagram? 

What you are saying about a 1-2% voltage variation causing a significant change in the actual random number seems HIGHLY unlikely. 

Also I am aware of no power grid anywhere in the world that runs to such tight tolerances. I don't believe for a minute that researchers of this caliber have designed a circuit that is guaranteed to fail in such a predictable and obvious way on every power grid on the planet. 

I smell a rat in the woodpile. And I'm willing to find it, if you want to work with me.

Ive done all this on Skeptiko, around April this year, I'm
Not doing it again... I posted a couple of papers, one where they were testing an RNG, and I posted plenty of stuff further back. People make a hobby out of finding the weaknesses in RNG's and those two  RNG's from GCP are like ancient... one at least was designed/produced for PSI research. You do your own research, I did mine, and realised GCP was junk science.

This discussion is not on Skeptiko. If you don't want to do it again, don't respond here with "I've looked at this and decided it is all junk science." Don't expect people to take you word for it. And if you are going to participate then at least attempt to address some of the criticisms of your assessment. Such as the global correlation across different power grids - I still don't see how you have explained that other than with a hand wave. You did the same thing in the other thread where you insisted that Radin (again) and Gabriel had not allowed for the effects of sound (speakers - no, ok then headphones - no, ok then meditator chanting - no again). 

One last point and it is not coming from any expertise in the field, just an observation of someone who used to dabble in electronics. All the equipment power supplies I've ever seen have been designed to smooth out any fluctuations resulting from an uneven grid supply. I've sat with an oscilloscope and tested variable AC inputs and watched the DC come out rock steady. Perhaps I'm missing something but wouldn't the same be true for RNGs? OK, for catastrophic power dips (there's usually a threshold) then the DC will fail, but "normal" fluctuations in AC shouldn't matter.

"Fluctuating power supplies" is one of the oldest suggestions that have been made, but I've never seen it explained how that could produce the observed results. What's needed is an explanation of how there can be a correlation of the outputs of two random number generators in different parts of the world on a second-by-second basis.

The above is what Chris asked way back on page 2 of this discussion. Your reply:

I'm not familiar with that experiment so I really can't comment.

Yet you claim to have researched and "realised GCP was junk science".

Yes - I'm afraid that saying that the raw output of the RNGs may be biased in some circumstances doesn't explain the results at all, for the reasons I've already explained.

The raw output is processed using an XOR mask to eliminate the bias. As a result, the processed output has the correct mean, though the variance may be altered (normally, it will decrease). There is no mechanism there to cause the output of two different RNGs to be correlated.

And even if there were, it would need to be explained why the effect is observed only for the chosen events, and not in the database as a whole.

I don't say it's impossible that some subtle statistical artefact is responsible for what's observed. But it would have to be something subtle, not something obvious. The people who have studied these results for so long are not fools.

I'm disinterested. That these devices are affected by temperature and voltage drop is well known... that  power supply voltages vary is well known, heck who hasn't seen a brownout as visual proof of a voltage drop. If you can't see that there is a correlation between power demand/activity and voltage drops, I'm not going to try and convince you. Or, that theres so much post processing which occurs on these RNG devices to try and get a nice even output, it just makes the whole GCP idea a waste of time. What ever they think they are measuring, they ain't. Heck do they even real time measure the input voltages to these devices in the GCP, to ensure voltage stays perfectly stable?

In terms of the electronics, you sound like a person who may have a little knowledge (as most do), and might be making comments that go beyond that limited understanding. If I'm mis-characterizing, please, set me straight. For example- can I ask what your qualifications are relative to these types of electronic/computer systems? 

In terms of getting a "nice output",, keep in mind: the idea is to get a random number. And we have the ability to quantify the amount of randomness we have a achieved. Whether the process requires heavy digital processing or not is immaterial. The only goal is randomness.

Clip- If you can't see that there is a correlation between power demand/activity and voltage drops,,,

I never said that there is no correlation between demand and voltage drops. 

I said that:
1- The data Max provided contains NO information about power quality, only load.
2- I would like to see the poor power quality data that Max is inferring (don't think I asked for it specifically)
3- I asked for data showing changes in actual system randomness correlated to power quality
4- I stated that with zero crossing detection, moderate voltage drops are usually not an issue.
5- And finally, I asked for an explanation of how grid A's theoretical poor power quality, translates to grid B's randomness deviation.

So far Max's posts contain no technical answers to these questions. The only thing I see is exasperation that I or others won't just acquiesce to your breathless pseudo-technical, semi-sensical explanation.

I am not looking for an argument here, but neither will I run from one. I am just trying to separate fact from fiction here.

Ive done all this on Skeptiko, around April this year, I'm
Not doing it again... I posted a couple of papers, one where they were testing an RNG, and I posted plenty of stuff further back. People make a hobby out of finding the weaknesses in RNG's and those two  RNG's from GCP are like ancient... one at least was designed/produced for PSI research. You do your own research, I did mine, and realised GCP was junk science.

This isn't Skeptiko. If you want to post the info here, I promise I will look at it objectively. I hope I proved already with my PM related post that I can be objective.

If you are unwilling to substantiate what you are saying here on this forum, expect push-back from at least me. 

Bottom line- I don't buy what you are selling. 

Again- what did you say your relevant qualifications were?

One last point and it is not coming from any expertise in the field, just an observation of someone who used to dabble in electronics. All the equipment power supplies I've ever seen have been designed to smooth out any fluctuations resulting from an uneven grid supply. I've sat with an oscilloscope and tested variable AC inputs and watched the DC come out rock steady. Perhaps I'm missing something but wouldn't the same be true for RNGs? OK, for catastrophic power dips (there's usually a threshold) then the DC will fail, but "normal" fluctuations in AC shouldn't matter.

You may not consider yourself "an expert" but what you are saying is spot on, and very relevant to the topic.