Impedance at right ST36, GB34 and a NAP

This experiment was designed to test whether a continuous signal was stimulating the acupoint being measured and thus producing a significant feature that had been measured at right ST36 in previous experiments. Therefore an intermittent signal was used, which remained on for around 28ms, and was then switched off for 4s, then the cycle repeated for the 3 minutes of the experiment.

The resultant impedance readings at ST36 did not show any significant feature, which implies that the previously seen feature may have been the result of using a continuous signal. However, in a further experiment on 27 March, which used the same 4s intermittent signal, the characteristic right-ST36 feature was produced, which then suggested that, in fact, using a continuous signal was not stimulating the ST36 acupoint and producing misleading results. Therefore, in all future experiments, a continuous signal has been favoured, since this is able to provide at least 1,000 samples per second, and hence more detailed results.

However, this experiment has been posted here, since it did produce an unusual feature in the right GB34 readings, which had a falling trend of significant size (around 1,900Ω in 3 minutes), with the traces moving in similar motion. This is contrary to most other GB34 readings taken in these experiments, and is analysed elsewhere.

本实验旨在验证连续信号是否会刺激被测穴位，并由此产生此前实验中在右侧ST36（足三里）处观测到的显著特征。为此本实验采用间歇式信号：信号持续时长约28毫秒，随后关闭4秒，循环往复直至总时长3分钟的实验结束。

本次实验中，右侧ST36（足三里）处的最终阻抗读数未显现任何显著特征，这暗示此前观测到的特征或许源于连续信号的使用。但在3月27日的后续实验中，采用相同的4秒间歇式信号时，却成功得到了右侧ST36（足三里）的特征性信号，这一结果实则表明：连续信号并未刺激ST36（足三里）穴位，反而会产生误导性结果。因此后续所有实验均优先采用连续信号，因其每秒至少可采集1000个样本，能够提供更为精细的实验结果。

不过本实验仍被发布于此，因其在右侧GB34（阳陵泉）的读数中产生了一项异常特征：该读数呈现出显著的下降趋势（3分钟内降幅约1900Ω），且各曲线轨迹变化趋势一致。这与本次实验中获取的绝大多数GB34（阳陵泉）读数结果相悖，相关分析将在其他文档中展开。