4.1. Tabular display of measured values of skin conductivity
4.1.1. Measurement values of skin conductance in the main group (μSiemens)
The values of skin conductance simultaneously represent the current stress potential of the examinee. In addition to the biological influence of external fields with a harmful effect, emotional states or stressful situations associated with everyday life can be reflected in this biological signal of bio-feedback. In the case of extreme deviations of feedback signal values from the framework of control measurements, it is necessary to ask the respondents if there are any other reasons for this. Basically, under the action of stress, the effect of the sweat glands increases and with this the value of skin conductivity increases.
The average value of the skin conductivity of the subjects was relatively low in both groups of subjects. Subjects of both groups reacted with a small increase in the potential for stress during their exposure to electromagnetic radiation. The skin conductivity curve is in a neutral position only in a small number of subjects and is characterized by spontaneous fluctuations, which may indicate an increased sensitivity regarding the biological effects of electrosmog..
4.1.1. Measurement values of skin conductance in the main group (μSiemens)
The values of skin conductance simultaneously represent the current stress potential of the examinee. In addition to the biological influence of external fields with a harmful effect, emotional states or stressful situations associated with everyday life can be reflected in this biological signal of bio-feedback. In the case of extreme deviations of feedback signal values from the framework of control measurements, it is necessary to ask the respondents if there are any other reasons for this. Basically, under the action of stress, the effect of the sweat glands increases and with this the value of skin conductivity increases.
The average value of the skin conductivity of the subjects was relatively low in both groups of subjects. Subjects of both groups reacted with a small increase in the potential for stress during their exposure to electromagnetic radiation. The skin conductivity curve is in a neutral position only in a small number of subjects and is characterized by spontaneous fluctuations, which may indicate an increased sensitivity regarding the biological effects of electrosmog..
| Control Cycle 1 - Skin Conduction - Main Group | ||||||
| Respondents | Min. | Max. | Mean | Standard Deviation | ||
| Respondent1 | 1.00 | 1.46 | 1.16 | 0.12 | ||
| Respondent2 | 0.60 | 1.13 | 0.75 | 0.16 | ||
| Respondent3 | 0.62 | 0.76 | 0.68 | 0.04 | ||
| Respondent 6 | 1.45 | 1.64 | 1.53 | 0.04 | ||
| Respondent7 | 0.99 | 1.21 | 1.08 | 0.06 | ||
| Respondent 10 | 3.27 | 4.41 | 3.85 | 0.24 | ||
| Respondent 11 | 0.71 | 0.92 | 0.78 | 0.06 | ||
| Respondent 14 | 1.11 | 1.54 | 1.32 | 0.12 | ||
| Respondent 15 | 0.73 | 0.91 | 0.81 | 0.05 | ||
| Respondent 18 | 0.72 | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.01 | ||
| Respondent 19 | 0.92 | 2.06 | 1.27 | 0.34 | ||
| Mean | 1.10 | 1.53 | 1.27 | 0.11 | ||
| Control Cycle 2 - Skin Conduction - Main Group | ||||||
| Respondents | Min. | Max. | Mean | Standard Deviation | ||
| Respondent1 | 0.81 | 1.09 | 0.91 | 0.08 | ||
| Respondent2 | 0.39 | 0.46 | 0.41 | 0.02 | ||
| Respondent3 | 0.36 | 0.39 | 0.37 | 0.01 | ||
| Respondent 6 | 0.95 | 1.02 | 0.98 | 0.02 | ||
| Respondent7 | 0.74 | 0.79 | 0.77 | 0.02 | ||
| Respondent 10 | 2.24 | 2.60 | 2.31 | 0.08 | ||
| Respondent 11 | 0.58 | 0.73 | 0.60 | 0.04 | ||
| Respondent 14 | 0.83 | 1.11 | 0.98 | 0.08 | ||
| Respondent 15 | 0.72 | 1.30 | 0.96 | 0.14 | ||
| Respondent 18 | 0.59 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.00 | ||
| Respondent 19 | 0.68 | 0.80 | 0.74 | 0.03 | ||
| Mean | 0.81 | 0.99 | 0.88 | 0.05 | ||
| Control Cycle 3 - Skin Conduction - Main Group | |||||
| Respondents | Min. | Max. | Mean | Standard Deviation | |
| Respondent1 | 1.00 | 1.32 | 1.12 | 0.09 | |
| Respondent2 | 0.55 | 0.70 | 0.61 | 0.03 | |
| Respondent3 | 0.71 | 1.02 | 0.83 | 0.07 | |
| Respondent 6 | 0.97 | 1.11 | 1.04 | 0.03 | |
| Respondent7 | 0.53 | 0.55 | 0.54 | 0.01 | |
| Respondent 10 | 2.68 | 3.74 | 3.11 | 0.29 | |
| Respondent 11 | 0.62 | 0.65 | 0.62 | 0.01 | |
| Respondent 14 | 1.37 | 1.72 | 1.48 | 0.07 | |
| Respondent 15 | 0.69 | 0.76 | 0.71 | 0.02 | |
| Respondent 18 | 0.79 | 0.82 | 0.80 | 0.01 | |
| Respondent 19 | 0.83 | 0.87 | 1.85 | 0.01 | |
| Mean | 0.98 | 1.21 | 1.06 | 0.06 | |
| Control Cycle 4 - Skin Conduction - Main Group | |||||
| Respondents | Min. | Max. | Mean | Standard Deviation | |
| Respondent1 | 0.80 | 0.89 | 0.84 | 0.03 | |
| Respondent2 | 0.57 | 1.69 | 1.04 | 0.37 | |
| Respondent3 | 0.85 | 1.39 | 1.10 | 0.20 | |
| Respondent 6 | 1.07 | 1.31 | 1.22 | 0.06 | |
| Respondent7 | 0.45 | 0.48 | 0.47 | 0.01 | |
| Respondent 10 | 0.83 | 1.62 | 1.04 | 0.18 | |
| Respondent 11 | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.42 | 0.00 | |
| Respondent 14 | 1.07 | 1.33 | 1.19 | 0.06 | |
| Respondent 15 | 0.54 | 0.59 | 0.55 | 0.01 | |
| Respondent 18 | 0.51 | 0.52 | 0.52 | 0.00 | |
| Respondent 19 | 0.69 | 0.75 | 0.72 | 0.02 | |
| Mean | 0.71 | 1.00 | 0.83 | 0.09 | |
| Summary - Skin Conductance - Main Group | ||||
| Respondents | Min. | Max. | Mean | Standard Deviation |
| Control cycle 1 | 1.10 | 1.53 | 1.27 | 0.11 |
| Control cycle 2 | 0.81 | 0.99 | 0.88 | 0.05 |
| Control cycle 3 | 0.98 | 1.21 | 1.06 | 0.06 |
| Control cycle 4 | 0.71 | 1.00 | 0.83 | 0.09 |
| Mean | 0.90 | 1.18 | 1.01 | 0.08 |
The development of the mean value of skin permeability in all subjects in the main group after activating the QHRS biopyramid in the second measurement cycle significantly decreased (about 30%).
In the control cycle, the mean stress potential of subjects in the main group increased slightly, due to the results of one single subject. By the end of the test, with the help of the harmonizing effect of the QHRS biopyramid, a stress reduction of about 35% was achieved in all subjects. In the majority of respondents, already in the neutral measurement, a stable movement of the curved line describing skin conductivity was recorded.
The graphic representation of the development of the bio-feedback signal during the research was added to the tables of measurement values.
In accordance with previous experiences in IGEF research, younger men and women can reduce harmful external influences more quickly through spatial harmonization of a positive change in the body's rhythmic processes.
