Purpose of the RPK Experiment

Original post: 13 July 2009.
(Updated 17 July 2018: see PS below)
The blog posts below are a running account of an experiment that began on August 14, 1965. It has taken this long to get it this simple and for technology to be available.

The present design is a descendant of the 1980s "PK Party" (spoon bending) developed by Jack Houck. Its purpose is to experience and explain the phenomenon of remote psychokinesis and to understand its uncertainties.

We are attempting to produce an NCR (non-consensus reality) event in a CR (consensus reality) frame of reference in order to learn how to apply what physicist/psychologist Arnold Mindell calls The Edge between Physics and Psychology in his seminal work Quantum Mind, published in 2000. We believe that this process will lead us to a more mature understanding of our physical and psychological capabilities, which will in turn help us develop deeper social responsibility for our planet in terms of raising our individual and collective awareness. We believe that this will help transform societal attitudes from ideological needs to subdue, dominate or control each other or other beings of all kinds (animate and inanimate). We believe that this can happen only by partnering and supporting each other in raising our mutual awareness in creative ways.


PS. Rebecca Hardcastle Wright has given this experiment a clearer current explanation of purpose. In her Exoconscious Proposal: The Common Ground of Consciousness Science and Psychic Intelligence she writes "Today, extraterrestrial experiencers join growing numbers of vocal psychic experiencers: near death experiencers (NDE), out of body travelers (OBE), mediums, psychics and healers. Together these groups are urging, if not pushing, consciousness science to build a body of experiments and theories regarding consciousness as a non-local field. This growing psychic research has not gone unnoticed by classical scientists. Many of them are beginning to acknowledge consciousness as a fundamental field of reality... Exoconscious experiencers have living confirmation of the Extraterrestrial Presence. These experiencers have the potential to birth a social movement confirming the extraterrestrial presence. They have the power to propel the UFO/ET information mainstream in ways not possible with classical science."

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Protocol for RPK Experiment, Phase 2. Draft 2

Posted: 17 July 2018
Updated: 22 Jul 18

RPK Phase 2 Protocol, Draft2

This protocol is offered to talented potential influencers who have volunteered to participate in this on-going experiment. Results will be posted here. The protocol will include the following steps:

Step 1.0. DEVICE set up. Eugene Kovalenko's original RPK Phase 1 device will be reproduced and updated by Caroline Cory's team. The device will be at a TBD location, which will include GPS coordinates. We will post photographs of the core system, the general outline of the room housing the system and the general terrain external to the building housing the system.
Step 1.1. Device CORE consists of two highly sensitive motion-activated surveillance cameras, set at right angles to view the two hanging TARGET OBJECTS, which cameras are linked to a monitor and digital recorder. The two objects are contained inside a transparent cylindrical JAR within a light-tight, air-tight box. An LED light source is positioned atop the JAR lid so that lighting remains constant and independent of cameras (situated external to the JAR) when the system is activated.
Step 1.2. A third video camera is strategically located outside the core (such as attached to the room's ceiling) and electronically linked to the core cameras so that any possible, extraneous external influence will be detected and recorded. Images from all three cameras appear on the MONITOR in a split screen, which is external to the core.

Step 2. ROUND ONE (a series of runs). Five initial candidate INFLUENCERS, A, B, C, D & E, will be pre-scheduled to participate in the first round Phase 2 series of runs. Influencers will be given one 48-hr window of time in which to influence the target. These 48-hr time windows will be followed by at least a 24-hr null period, which will remain unscheduled from any deliberate activity. Specified time windows for specific influencer activity will be protected from any other potential influencer, so that s/he may apply personal methods, while keeping a careful LOG of personal attempts. Each influencer is expected to keep a detailed log, which is to contain a record of each influencer's personal style of preparation and activity. Logs are encouraged to include a record of mood, personal techniques, attitude, etc. Personal thoughts, feelings, intentions, frustrations, etc. are all welcome information. Also expected is a description of the external conditions, including weather, temperature, comfort level, any background noise, distractions, etc. during a given run.

Step 3. The PREFERRED EFFECT ON THE TARGET is that only one of the two identical hanging objects is influenced by an easily identified motion, while leaving the other object unaffected (motionless). A pendulum-like motion is IDEAL for the chosen target object. HOWEVER, we do not want to overprescribe what each influencer chooses to do! For example, if an influencer wishes to influence both objects, then each object must evidence a clearly differentiated motion relative to the other object. If both objects move alike, this is NOT interesting. If only one object moves without affecting the other, this is the most interesting! Crashing objects into each other would also be interesting! Let this be a fun, creative exercise!

Step 4. Initiating a RUN.
Step 5. REPORTING a run
Each run consists of an active and a passive component. The active component consists of the influencer's attempts to affect the target during his/her respective pre-scheduled window of opportunity. The passive component consists of the target system electronically recording any physical effect on the target during the run.

Step 6. ANALYZING DATA. Technical monitors of the Phase 2 system will report any activity to a central coordinator, who will compare influencer log data for a given run. Positive or negative correlations between log entries and camera records of movement will be communicated to the specific influencer and the assigned referees.

Step 7. REFEREES. Selecting credible members of the scientific community

Step 8. Gathering FIRST ROUND Data.

DOUBLE BLIND CONSIDERATIONS. To achieve a double-blind procedure, the influencer would initiate the effort at a time unknown to anyone else. This time would be recorded and sent to a third party at agreed upon times, perhaps at the first of the month. The records of the target response would be sent to the same third party at the same time.  The third party would compare the attempt with the response and determine whether a relationship existed.  The third party needs to be independent of this study with no relationship to any of the participants.

COST considerations

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

Feedback from potential RPK "Influencers".

Posted: 4 July 2018
RPK Icon

On June 15, 2018, I sent a draft protocol proposal to several experienced people who expressed interest in advancing Phase 2. Caroline Cory's team will build the new prototype, based on my original device (now located at the University of Utah special collections library). When that phase 2 system is built, located and ready, we should be ready with a new protocol and schedule.

I received immediate feedback from three potential influencers, all of whom are located far from each other: Kyra, in Southern California, was first. (It was Kyra who, on July 12, 2015, made the first successful strike, albeit in a surprisingly unexpected way! [See earlier RPK blog post.] Next was Niko, in Albania. Obviously experienced and skilled, who offered supplemental video footage of some of his own documentary work and who made me aware of a potential hazard that we need to be alerted for. Third was Anita in South Africa, already well advanced personally, but eager to participate in a scientific approach. 

I will report the highlights of our communication as we proceed, along with my own responses for the record, as was done in phase one.

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

Posted: 1 July 2018
Updated: 3 Jul 18

My protocol idea for RPK Phase 2 has changed since my last post on May 20. This is a consequence of several subsequent conversations and text messages from potential Phase 2 influencers, which now number about 7. Boy! Do I have a lot to learn!!

My most recent conversation was with Dennis, Caroline Cory's primary technical team member. I experienced many goose bump rushes as we talked. It felt like I was talking to a cosmic brother, even though I'm now feeling a bit like a Neanderthal. Nevertheless, I feel motivated and encouraged to continue the direction of this Phase 2 initiative.

As a professionally trained materials scientist, my personal focus continues to be on the "concept of mass", as modern physics refers to it. That is because I have been curious about matter, per se. What is it? Is it a thing? Does it have consciousness? "No!", I say. "Mass" in physics terms is an IDEA--a concept--not an object. As mentioned earlier, Caroline's focus is on the "nature of consciousness". In talking to Dennis about this distinction, it became apparent that these two different viewpoints are converging as we proceed with Phase 2.

To be continued with a new variation of the protocol, which will reflect my recent communications with the current group of potential influencers.