Ready.
I have thought a preferrable mechanism, without their shortcomings. Thus, even with that evil "zeitgeist" trying to make me similar to someone else, this does not make the project I proposed, any copy of that news-borne laser project. Therefore, someone seeing the case from outside, sees that, I have been the successful rival.
But, there is a trouble, because, in hindsight, I know that, the question I thought on Apr.1,2009, "wow! why not?" was external -- "zeitgeist" yokes with other people's agendas. Copycat, stupid, satanical "masters," try to suck.
For independent thinking, not to allow zeitgeistly theft, I have the flight & fight strategy.
In 2009 (march to april), in the context of fighting against evolutionist titans, and specifically, to slam Ayala, I came to the issue of malaria, too. I had known a DIY circuit for inviting-mosquitoes (to kill the mosquitoes at home), that was trivial to make stand-alone to make some world-wide mosquito-killing hot-spots. Thus, the process was entirely natural, until that point. Just myself. But next, that thought of laser ("a la star wars"), was obviously a contamination (from news I had not seen). After noticing that, I re-differentiate myself, for keeping optimal flight-&-fight. (Not to mention that, that would mix the both sides, too. Gates Foundation is known to have Rockefeller as a mentor, and Ayala and Dobzhansky (his teacher) were from Rockefeller University in the past. That would not quite fit the strategy of obviating Ayala (& co.), the enemy-of-the-Creator.)
Now that I see the evil's yokes, laser is not the infatuation, compulsion that it was. Rather, I opt for mainly iSlaMos (slam all mosquitoes). But, now that I had solved all the necessary questions for a successful laser project (iSLaMos), there is no sense of neglecting that at a corner, because then zeitgeist would just take that, and copy to someone else. Therefore, I publish both projects.
In summary, the zeitgeist's stain of plagiarism, was not able to stuck on me, because I was able to transcend that, with success. But the zeitgeistly assault is obvious, from the list of timings. This provides a personal case study about that ugly thefts issue that I had known well. Throughout history (of science), cases have been known.
(( I list times as Istanbul's. Subtract 2, for UTC (GMT). -8 for US Central, -10 for US Pacific. ))
On Apr.4, 2009 09:37, I retrieved the wikipedia article on Francisco J. Ayala
Ayala's evolutionist missionary work, NAS anti-creationist booklet (with co-authors, SigmaXi types), is in its third edition. I bought the 1st (1984) in a turkish translation on Sept. 19, 1987, and that was probably the first (exclusive?) book that caused the word "scientist" to look in the category of hooligan (as physicists were supporting evolution, too). I got the 3rd (2008) on Feb. 24, 2009 (without starting to read, immediately).
On Apr. 4, 2009 15:01, I retrieved a New York Times interview with Francisco J. Ayala
That was oxymoronically titled "Scientists Who Believe In God." But, Ayala is following the Creator-slandering style of his tutor, Dobzhansky. Furthermore, when at the end of the interview, on question about still believing in God, he refuses to identify himself, because there have been people on both sides (thus polite to all, except Him). If not a sloppy quote, then that is contradicting the (sloppy, oxymoronic) title of the interview.
On Apr.5,2009 09:56, I googled "malaria"
Now, I might have forgotten the exact cause of the timing, but that was probably because, I had seen a quote from Ayala, about DDT resistance seen around the world, in unconnected settings. Ironically, although he is evolutionist, that paragraph was quotable by anti-evolutionists. Therefore, I might both re-quote that, and show that as a case of how creationists honestly quote evolutionists, because evolutionists lack reflection, in the first place. But google list was (presumably) without that article.
I kept looking through the found list, though. (And why was that search without the keyword "ayala," if I were looking specifically for his article? I have forgotten, by now.)
On Apr.5,2009 09:57, I retrieved CDC - Malaria
On Apr.5,2009 10:02, I retrieved Malaria - National Geographic Magazine
At home, I had the Newsweek Nov.30, 1992 issue, with "Malaria, A killer disease returns with a vengeance" the cover article. Now, this National Geographics 2007 article just iterates the no-progress status.
On Apr.5,2009 10:06, I retrieved F.J.Ayala Wins National Medal of Science
Ironically, both of the fields that Ayala brags having work in, are known as unsuccessful, massively. Especially, malaria, but so far as I know, chagas, too.
I came to fight mosquitoes, while fighting against evolutionists -- especially, in the context of obviating evolutionists, too. I had not otherwise thought malaria, a lot, if at all. The link might seem odd at first, but when I see somebody slandering the Creator, and when his field is entirely unsuccessful, that might be because the Creator is not allowing the field that honors that man, to have success. (Furthermore, NAS booklet written by Ayala, lists medicine in the category of evolutionist prowess. That sort of evolutionist titans, try to mess with people's faiths, with lies. I understand, if Allah opposes that by allocating a portion of the (passing away) quota, to malaria.)
Actually, ironically, that ayet I had quoted when slamming Dobzhansky, is fitting Ayala, together. Upon noticing that, I got a hint of stand-off. (In July 2009, I noticed that the Ph.D. time of Ayala, was the turn of eradication successes to massive failure. That is fitting the stand-off theory, too.)
I thought of providing a path of relief that totally nullifies Ayala and his company. No genetics, at all. Only a DIY circuit, for killing mosquitoes. Inshaellah (hopefully), Allah will favor this.
I had known this mosquito-trapping circuit. Now, I thought to go world-wide.
On Apr.5,2009 10:36 posting What percent of malaria grounds are sunny (or, windy)?
In the question post, I'm referring to how I had thought interpreting Hajj(22):73, without citing. ("The genetic/medical alternative seems troubled. The geneticists seem helpless, almost just how the malaria-struck people have been. (Or, more so? People develop through immunity, except those who die young. But genetics is facing acquired response, such as against DDT.)") The key term is "acquired response" (or, immunity). Geneticists (Ayala, the talib/student of Dobzhansky) only confess the loss, because mosquitoes had got immunity after facing DDT.
The electronic circuit I know, for inviting mosquitoes was in print in May 1984, in a pop-science magazine ("Bilim Dergisi", May 1984, p.56, in turkish). Presumably, none of that know-how was new. That magazine was publishing mostly foreign material.
The electronic circuit was with 4 transistors, 5 capacitors, and 9 resistors, to have two multivibrators, one stepping the other through a few species' frequencies (1-15 KHz, by varying the voltage), then airing that loudly through a crystal microphone. There was a short text under that circuit, explaining how that frequency generator circuit was relating to mosquitoes. By now, that short text, is probably more valuable than the circuit itself, because most of us would code that circuit with a microprocessor.
On Apr.5,2009 12:35, I retrieved Mosquito Not Impressed - Repellant No Good
On Apr.5,2009 12:42, I retrieved ftc.gov Lentek International-08_28_02
FTC had a complaint against a (supposedly) mosquito-repelling gadget, the manufacturer of which was suggesting that "create sounds that mimic male mosquitoes and dragonflies." But, that was contradicting the logic of the circuit I knew. That is, female mosquitoes would come to the male-mosquito sound, not run away.
On Apr.5,2009 13:34, I sent a corrective e-mail to "CDC.gov Malaria"
FTC had no e-mail in that news -- and CDC Malaria would probably care more.
I told CDC, what I had known from that old article. Thus, suggesting that the problem was that manufacturer's wrong understanding the behavior of the female mosquitoes. That gadget was attracting, not repelling. (But, afterward, I thought and noticed that they might have had other ignorances, too. They had to tune the circuit, right.)
Perhaps, their circuit was not with appropriate frequencies for attracting, either. If they had no testing in USA (perhaps a Chinese company), the mosquitoes in USA were presumably not caring that. From the old circuit's article, I knew the need to contain various species, too.
A further point to think, is that the "dragonflies" in the list, is thought to repel, truly. (I got that extra information, on June 29, from internet. Test yourself.) Thus, the female mosquitoes were left in approach-avoidance conflict, probably. That is, if mosquitoes of USA find dragonflies terrible. Otherwise, that is again in the species-specific tuning category. Find something they abhor.
On Apr.8,2009 07:36 posting the update to the question What percent of malaria ...? to mention the case of that FTC opposition, and how I thought that case was understood wrong.
On Apr.14,2009 13:58 - 14:00, I retrieved HowStuffWorks "How Mosquitoes Work"
Mosquitoes have both warmth (infrared) & movement sensors -- both fitting for our electromagnetic trap. But chemicals would not fit well for operating till-doomsday -- unless the circuit would make its chemical itself (such as first concentrating from air).
Malaria is not the single trouble. Mosquitoes have their portfolio of lethal illnesses.
On Apr.16,2009 13:02 - 13:04, I retrieved HowStuffWorks "How Bug Zappers Work"
A problem with (high-voltage) bug-zappers, seems to be the "ultraviolet" that invites non-mosquito, mostly harmless bug species. Replacing that with infrared, might work to attract mosquitoes. The problem of blasting the insects, thus microbes, to around, remains, though. The following two links were from that article, too. Same issue.
On Apr.16,2009 13:05, I retrieved Bug Zappers are Harmful, Not Helpful
On Apr.16,2009 13:06, I retrieved Electrocution Releases Bacteria & Viruses
On Apr.16,2009 23:00 - 23:02, I retrieved HowStuffWorks "How Mosquito Magnets Work"
The good thing about this, is having active mechanism for attracting mosquitoes. It does not have the risk of blinding people, either. But, that attractant is chemical. Therefore, would not fit stand-alone work, in some remote spot. If infrared (& movement) might attract mosquitoes sufficiently, the system is equivalent to the other options (swatting or shooting). Vacuuming the mosquitoes is not hard, but if not to waste electricity, crushing the mosquitoes after vacuuming, might optimize.
No opinion how effective that would be, without carbondioxide or various scents.
The HowStuffWorks "cow" example is probably not politically-correct, if you would truly apply that. (Seriously, that system might see strong resistance in India, and mosquitoes would keep thriving there.) But, attaching the vacuum system to the backs of some other animals (how researchers stick labels to animals), might work. As long as that animal is living, that is the natural source of mosquito-attracting chemicals.
The point is, the system I propose (without sheep, or rabbits, nor need for chemicals), has something to correspond to all aspects of the mosquito-magnet system. The circuit for attracting, and the wall for swatting (and generating the electricity from the Sun, that is guaranteed to exist, until doomsday). In contrast, the laser system in the news, was/is without attracting, having to wait until some mosquito would be visible.
On May5,2009 11:58, posting What wattage of laser sufficient to kill mosquitoes?
There is nothing wrong with the safety or technique. The system I propose, is probably almost perfect (except that is some elephant would crush the trap, the laser might shoot in the open, and blind people or animals.) The single point that was left to question, was the wattage of the laser necessary to kill the mosquitoes, immediately.
On May22,2009 07:01, posting what wattage of laser necessary to kill mosquitoes (immediately)?
The same question, now at instructables (because the question was left unresolved).
On May24,2009 14:06, responding to the people's responses at instructables.
The points they were raising, were within what I had thought. Interestingly, none told me that there was another laser-project that was in the news. Perhaps, they thought I knew that, trying to make the same, by myself -- or, they noticed that, this is different.
On May28,2009 06:25, responding to a person's response (suggesting a torch), at instructables.
The torch suggestion, next turns out to relate to mosquitoes' vulnerability to candles. That is approximate for guessing what wattage of laser, I would need. Thus, again, I would need experimenting with wattage/intensities, after building the trap -- if I would not find out that some zeitgeist was yoking me with other "star wars" fighters.
On June9,2009 20:55, commenting to a malaria-related news @ PhysOrg
In the comment, I point to the question I had written to instructables. Because I have been postponing looking back whether people told me something (until after I'll publish the full project specs, through islamos.net, for updating that link to point to islamos.net), I have not seen whether people might have told me that, other people work with lasers, too. But again, having the workable laser-system, I would be right to point to what I publish, rather than to that other system.
On June 29,2009 18:49, I retrieved Turn your frequency generator into a Powerful Mosquito Repeller!
That tells about dragonflies (45Hz to 67Hz) as a repellent. Not relating to the zeitgeist issue, nor anything I thought. But happens to relate to the gadget thought to be worthless, by FTC. (To sum, that dragonflies frequency might work. But that was probably because, that company was mixing that with an attracting circuit. Therefore, try this (df) circuit for repelling mosquitoes, if you wish.)
On June29,2009 06:46, I (zilqarneyn) wrote the tweet "for advertising to (kill) mosquitoes, keep ratings to air the male-frequencies popular there. Storing, or operating only when e-harvestable."
On June29, 2009 18:48, I retrieved Study: Mosquitoes beat out love song before mating
This news was from Jan. 8, 2009, although I came to that on June 29. That work might have value for providing information about a few frequency-relating behaviors, for tuning the software in the microprocessor, to attract mosquitoes. Furthermore, that article/news was the point of first noticing the "star wars" news (in the "related stories" list, that PhysOrg was listing next to that, on June29). The zeitgeist's theft was obvious.
On June29,2009 19:27, I retrieved Scientists Build Anti-Mosquito Laser (March 16, 2009)
This cites Wall Street Journal's (March 14) news, but I first saw this PhysOrg news.
On June30,2009 06:34, I googled with keywords mosquito & laser
On June30,2009 06:39, I retrieved the same news Mosquito laser gun offers new hope on malaria (March 15, 2009)
On June30,2009 06:43, I retrieved the same news Star Wars scientists use laser gun to kill mosquitoes in fight against malaria
On June 30, I retrieved Halfbakery: Midge Laser (mainly that is january 2006, onward)
A group of DIY people turn out to have thought that, in 2006. The last comment there, was in 2009 (March), to report the news that, somebody is actually crafting the thing.
On June 30, I retrieved Anti-Bugs Laser Guns for "Kosher" Food Supervisors
That is a laser-fans forum, about the practicality (or not) of the strategy to kill bugs with laser.
Mainly, in april 2009, two comments in may 2009. In this case, the news they comment on, is of April 7. There, their zeitgeist might have been by imitation, if the people in that news (Israeli council for kosher) thought that after the March 14 news (or, having previous information about that). Otherwise, the (thief) "zeitgeist" might have been motivating/yoking some victims there, too. (And if they will shoot manually, that resembles the cowboy comics style, shooting flies with gun.)
On June30,2009 11:16, I (zilqarneyn) tweeting "The system I thought to kill all mosquitoes, might turn to swatting (from laser). After in the trap, first close the door fast. Next, crush."
Relief against that unnecessary laser ("star wars") infatuation, on my behalf. Getting into thinking laser, was truly unnecessary. Curse be to that "zeitgeist" which was busy yoking & sucking some of us. In summary, I was successful in combining laser into a system, when that was the question. (Probably lots of victims, become victims because "zeitgeist" wants to suck our thinking ability, in the first place.) For swatting, I thought a weight that would fall. Next, take that up [with a pulley/etc].
On June30,2009 14:11, I retrieved Rocket Scientists Shoot Down Mosquitoes With Lasers
The March 14 news of Wall Street Journal, at WSJ.com.
On June30,2009 14:20, I retrieved Laser Mosquito Zapper? « Bug Girl’s Blog
A forum (March 17-20, 2009) about that laser news. With responses from that corporation ("Intellectual Ventures, LLC") that crafts that laser system in the news, too. In summary, their system is not what I would like. I prefer the laser system I thought (iSLaMos), rather than theirs.
They have no opinion about attracting the mosquitoes into a trap, and presumably, they'll shoot in the open. Their system is bulky, expensive, too. (No mention of electricity-generation, either.)
On July1,2009 09:09, I (zilqarneyn) tweeting "For swatting the mosquitoes (within the trap), the middle wall/net might slam opposite wall, with generated magnetism. Next time, slam back."
That was probably June 30, 23:09, U.S. Pacific time. Furthermore, I might have thought that on June 30 (Istanbul time, too), then writing into a tweet, in the morning.
Generating AC magnetism through AC electricity, is introductory material for kids.