cogreslab said:
To Pragmatist: I still havent found enough free time today, but let me put this point in brief, pending a more complete response: I have no quarrel with the idea that a changing electric field induces a magnetic field, and vice versa, but this is not incompatible with the kettle lead situation, because the ELF electric field strength is dependent on the mains voltage and so the electric field around the plugged in lead is steady, and unless the voltage changes the electric field strength is not likely to change either. Only if the electric field changes would one see a transient magnetic field and then only until the new electric field strength (as a result of some different voltage) establishes itself. That is why I and the World Health Organisatioin (inter alia) are right on this matter, and you are wrong.
No, you BELIEVE I'm wrong which is not exactly the same thing...
Before I address this, let me make clear that I do not believe the WHO is "wrong" about anything (that's a conditional statement subject to me actually seeing their full data in context, please can you give me a link?). What you have quoted from them so far is perfectly correct. But it's also incomplete. Which is the whole problem. You are assuming that what they said is complete and therefore authoritative on the subject - it isn't. I therefore maintain that (on the basis of what you shown) that they are not authoritative.
With regard to the above. You are wrong. I'm 100% sure that you are wrong. The reason why you are wrong is this:
In a kettle lead you have (at least) two separate conductors. At least one of them is "live" and the other "neutral" or "earthed" (or at least at a different potential to the other). The live cable has a voltage on it which varies continuously, moment to moment, because it is AC voltage which by definition varies continuously moment to moment. It's nominally a sine wave. At some point in time the voltage DIFFERENCE between the live and neutral wires is zero. Moments later it is NOT zero. It continues to change until it reaches a value which is the peak voltage of the mains. After that it drops, goes through zero, reaches a negative peak value and eventually returns to zero. It completes one of these cycles in 1/60th of a second for 60Hz mains.
At any given time there is an electric field BETWEEN the two wires because they are at different voltages. And the magnitude of that field varies as the voltage between them varies as above.
Therefore, there is a changing electric field. Which results in a changing magnetic field. If the line of electric force runs from wire to wire, the magnetic field is in the plane in which the wires lie (unlike the field generated by a current). The magnetic field has a minimum value at the exact geometric centre of a line drawn normal to, and between the wires. This field increases in value (linearly) as one goes outward toward a line projected down from the edge of one wire to the other. The field reaches maximum at the edge. As one extends beyond the edge of the wire outward, there is a change in the field strength. The field now drops off reciprocally (i.e. at a rate of 1/r), as one extends outwards.
The entire field is weak and outside the outer jacket of the wire it is probably negligible. Therefore you are unlikely to detect it with a meter, unless you have a particularly sensitive meter. Certainly much less than 1 milligauss at a rough estimate based on 110 volt mains.
Although this field is negligible within an actual kettle lead there IS a field nonetheless and therefore your specific assertion to the effect that there is no magnetic field in a kettle lead is wrong.
In more practical terms, an actual kettle lead would not create a significant field that is likely to affect anything much outside it. But if you generalise the case to a house for example which has unbalanced wiring (I've seen a few), where the return path for any given wire run does not follow the exact feed path, then the resultant field can be significant and should not be ignored.
If you want to test this yourself you will need to separate the live and neutral wires of the kettle lead and place the field probe between them, you're not likely to measure anything OUTSIDE an intact lead. This does not alter the fact that the field exists, contrary to what you have claimed. Better still, set up two large metal plates (the larger the better), and place them as close together as possible,leaving enough room to insert your field probe between them without touching them. And then connect one plate to live and one to neutral. There is no real current flowing in this circuit, there is no direct current path. But the plates will act as a capacitor and there will be a displacement current which should be measurable. Measure the field strength at the EDGE of the two plates. With a million pound laboratory this shouldn't be too difficult to arrange.
cogreslab said:
This topic is important to me because it is my basic contention that the electric field (rather than the magnetic, to which biota are transparent) is the bio-effecting parameter. And it is my further contention that the establishment agencies are well aware of this but have avoided researching the effects of the electric component.
If you think my understanding of the matter is wrong, please let me know. Meanwhile I will use an analogue and a digital EMF field measuring instrument tomorrow to give us both some data to look at, using my kitchen kettle lead as the source.
Thanks for the useful history of the J. C-M equations, btw. I heard a rumour about a fifth equation which was abandoned deliberately (the so-called Hertzian Conspiracy) but I really don't know enough about it to give this any credence. Perhaps you have more information on that?
With regard to the history etc., you are welcome. On the matter about whether the bio effect is due to electric or magnetic field, consider this: it's impossible to separate the two if you are talking about a time varying field. The field is ALWAYS without exception, electromagnetic. The idea that there are separate fields which can be treated in isolation is a fiction. However, as far as it goes, the electric component is nearly always the "active" force in most physical processes as far as I am aware. The magnetic component is to my mind much less important. Now whilst this supports your contention, it opens a much deeper issue. All the experiments which have been performed and which are based solely on a measured magnetic component, have failed to account for the electric field and therefore in each case it's only reasonable to assume that there was an E field present which was not measured. And therefore the results are effectively meaningless. But the converse is also true as well. Experiments in which the E field was measured and the magnetic field not, are also suspect as well. In total it throws doubts on the credibility of nearly ALL bioelectromagnetics experiments! The best one can conclude is that there was a bioeffect from SOME aspect of an EM field, and nothing quantitative can be considered reliable. That's just my personal opinion, but it is based on a reasonable factual basis.
I haven't heard the story about a fifth equation, but there are so many stories of mysterious additional equations that I've stopped paying attention. They are usually originated by people who have never bothered to check the original sources. I have Maxwell's original works on the subject and they are the only authoritative source as far as I am concerned. In Maxwell's, "A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field", he sets out TWENTY EM equations, all of which are relevant, but which can be reasonably condensed into the four famous ones without losing the essential meaning. The other equations often appear in different forms in the literature as general electrical equations and most people are never aware that they are actually due to Maxwell.
cogreslab said:
Also what do you think of the Aharanov-Bohm paper? I ask this because the corpus callosal fibres' layout in the brain would be a good representation of the experimental set up required to produce this effect, and I always have respect for Nature's intelligence.
Oh, this is a REAL can of worms! I haven't got time now to treat this properly and I'll have to address it separately tomorrow. Firstly, I recommend you read the original paper by Aharonov and Bohm. It's many pages of wavefunction equations that I doubt will mean anything to you (I say that not in any deprecating sense, because I've never met ANYBODY who could understand them properly). But the main thing is to look at the conclusions at the end. There are TWO mutually exclusive conclusions. One is that there is action at a distance, the other, which contradicts the first is that the magnetic vector potential (which is considered a fictional mathematical quantity) is actually real. A and B also note that the latter conclusion is more credible EXCEPT that it is NOT invariant under a gauge transform. A gauge transform is basically a kind of mathematical reality check in QM and the A and B theory FAILS that check. So they basically end up saying that their own theory is not credible!
Now just about every woo woo has seized on this theory without the slightest understanding and used it to promote pure pseudoscientific garbage (I'm not talking about you here, it's just a general observation). I frequently see claims that such and such is supported by A and B because it involves action at a distance AND magnetic vector potentials. Well this is rubbish - they are mutually exclusive by definition! If you invoke one, you eliminate the other.
I can say with complete safety that there is no way that ANY possible brain structure could meaningfully approach the necessary conditions of the A/B experiment. I'll explain why later. Quite aside from all the above, I personally have a serious problem with QM as a whole. I'm going to be really controversial here and say that in my own personal opinion ALL of QM theory is seriously flawed. But this is a massive topic too complex to address properly here.
