Bioelectromagnetics

[Pragmatist]

[

Not being acquainted with many garbage collectors or strip club bouncer s (we live a sheltered life in Pontypool) I perhaps came to the mistaken conclusion that such folk may not understand the niceties of bioelectromagnetics. I did not intend to be haughty about it.

Fair enough, although it appears your conclusion wasn't based on much evidence, especially since the entire class of such persons was implicated. On the other hand, some might argue that the strip club bouncers and garbage collectors do have some supporting evidence in favour of a proposition that some alleged bioelectromagnetics experts clearly do not understand the niceties of electromagnetics. Gems such as "capacitors store current" and kettle leads not having a magnetic field when not drawing current and "loops of energy flux" being prima facie examples amongst others.

Since Garbage Man has questioned the possibility that 60Hz line sources might radiate and thereby put vicinals (oops sorry, nearby people) into the far field of its emissions, I will come back with a more understandable version later. Meanwhile, it would elevate the quality of this thread if we could stick to science, since I am already fully conversant with the invective abilities of some members, having had many examples during this dialogue.

I did not do anything of the sort. I questioned your assertion that 60Hz line sources did NOT radiate, a different thing entirely.....

Nor did I ever make the assertion that nearby people would be placed into the far field of its emissions. I see distinct signs of a straw man argument here, hardly the most credible or honorable of debating tactics in my opinion.

As for sticking to science I agree absolutely. Let's do that. Let's leave aside manufactured arguments against third parties like Moulder and get down to what evidence you have to back up your specific claims, as opposed to demonstrating how misguided some other irrelevant third party is. Moulder may be a total idiot for all I know, but that doesn't prove that you are right.

I have no problem at all with accepting that there is evidence supporting the conclusion that external EM fields might cause harm to organisms. I was of that opinion long before encountering this thread. But that does not excuse pseudoscience on your part or justify in any way the specific claims made for the products you sell.

Garbage Man, to help me prepare my case, where have you ever found this powerline the length of the US-Canadian border?

I would suggest that one might start by looking along the US-Canadian border......?

More to the point, I made no claim that such a thing existed. I distinctly recall saying: "If such a loop were located along the US/Canadian border for example". The key words therein being "if", "located" and "for example". Perhaps you'd care to point out where I asserted that:

a) It actually existed
b) It had to be the LENGTH of the US-Canadian border?

To address the point in more detail. A fairly typical small house may well have up to 150 metres of electric wiring in it. In support of that I cite my own experience in having wired up numerous small houses and having typically used quantities of that order. In a typical conurbation, there may well be tens of thousands or even millions of houses distributed over a wide area. And of course there are also overhead feed lines, distribution stations, industrial complexes etc. ALL of which are connected to the same grid and therefore represent an effective single network. Therefore I believe that it's more than feasible that taking all possible circuits on the same net into account that the distance between the two (electrically) furthest points on said network may well be of the order of 1250 Km which represents a 1/4 wave condition at 60Hz (roughly) which would then make said network an excellent EM radiating antenna for that frequency. And that even if said condition is NOT met, that the total length in question is nonetheless a substantial fraction of a wavelength that WILL radiate significantly at 60Hz, albeit at lower efficiency than a 1/4 wave section (or 1/2 wave etc).

Given that it's also completely factual and undeniable that there are large conurbations on most continents that are separated by a total distance that exceeds the Fresnel zone for said wavelength, it naturally follows that the far field radiation of one such net will almost certainly reach and therefore affect the inhabitants of some more remote location.

However, all of this is irrelevant. I addressed your specific assertion to the effect that EM radiation was "not likely at extremely low frequencies, only at radio frequencies".

So let's stick to the science and not get sidetracked into what Moulder or anyone else may or may not have said, or what he may have meant, or what the wider significance there might be to such an effect. I'm not interested in Moulder, or what you believe the effect on humans might possibly be, I'm calling you on specific "scientific" assertions you have made.

You made the above assertion. You have offered no evidence in support of it. Please do so. Or alternatively, admit that it is merely your personal belief/prejudice and not an established fact. Thank you.

And while we're at it, please would you address the other questions I asked about alleged "energy flux" and the nature of light.

If you're going to question other people's grasp of science, then be prepared to have your own questioned. Fair? Or not?

 

[cogreslab]

To Bill Hoyt: 1. No my staement does not confuse the signal with the content of a radiofreqency emission.
2.

 

[cogreslab]

Pragmatist. Are you challenging these statements:

Gems such as "capacitors store current" and kettle leads not having a magnetic field when not drawing current and "loops of energy flux" being prima facie examples amongst others.

On the first would you accept a better definmition that capacitors store charge derived from the current arriving at the capacitor? Do you accept this revised definition?

On the second, I say again that there is no magnetic field in the kettle cable unless the kettle is drawing current from the mains to which it is attached, whereas the electric field is there whether the kettle is switched on or not. Do you dispute this?

On the third, I say again that the electromagnetic energy leaves the radio antenna having formed a closed loop of flux, the character of these successive closed loops form the signal that is received by the receiving antenna. Do you dispute this?

What other "gems" are you referring to?

 

[cogreslab]

Pragmatist, I did not introduce Moulder into this thread some other post did, and challenged me to respond to it. That is what I intend to do over a period of time, but it need not interrupt the flow of our or other's dialogue, since I will merely add the responses to Moulder's questions as I deal with them over the next few weeks/months. Of, course, I expect that my commentary on Moulder's three Q and A sites will attract critical comment and welcome it, for the sake of improved definition and a better constructed argument.

 

[cogreslab]

Right. Here is my original comment on Mouder's Question 4:

"In general, electromagnetic sources produce both radiant energy (radiation) and non-radiant fields. Radiation travels away from its source, and continues to exist even if the source is turned off. In contrast, some electric and magnetic fields exist near an electromagnetic source that are not projected into space, and that cease to exist when the energy source is turned off".

I don’t think Moulder really means to say that a radio signal continues to exist after the power is collapsed, otherwise your radio programme would also continue after the transmitter stopped transmissions.

To achieve radiation the electromagnetic energy energy must form closed loops of flux which propagate away from the emitter at near light speeds (light is also electromagnetic energy). This is not likely at the extremely low frequencies, only at radio frequencies, and Moulder does not bring out this point. He does however make the important concession that the electric and magnetic components are unrelated because exposees are in the near field of the 5000,000 metres long wave seen at 60 Hz. He should therefore have little difficulty in accepting my point that, because of this, any studies of ELF magnetic fields can say nothing about ELF electric fields. A quick search on Google or PubMed will show you that the number of studies of the ELF electric component is only a fraction of the magnetic field studies, evidence of how little has been done in characterising biological effects of the electric component.

This is my point: the utilities have been ignoring, avoiding and denigrating research into the electric component research because they know full well that is where the trouble lies. Even Ben Greenebaum’s work at Wisconsin (Moulder’s own alma mater) reported that ELF electric fields lengthened the cell cycle in physarum, and disrupted ATP synthesis and respiration, exactly what I have myself claimed.


__________________

The problem arises with the word signal. I take this to mean the signal at the antenna, whereas BillHoyt is referring to the signal in space after it has been propagated. I still maintain the Moulder's wording is loose here.

No one has addressed the main point of my comment, namely that his description confirms my statement in previous posts that all those utility funded magnetic field studies can say nothing about the possible bioeffects of the electric component.

 

[BillHoyt]

Now, please! Stop indicting me with value judgements of your own manufacture as a tactic to hijack the main issues and let's get on with the science.

I remind you that you brought raised the question of authority, sir. You also criticized Moulder. I have been calling for answers for some time, as I did with your morally outrageous "challenge." You keep deflecting. Just as you did with the "authority" distraction.

To Bill Hoyt: 1. No my staement does not confuse the signal with the content of a radiofreqency emission.
2.

Please stop with the games, sir. I asked for complete answers to all of my questions all at once. I made a preemptive call on this technique, having seen you engage in it repeatedly. You stretch out non-answers over pages and pages, with post after post of distraction. Yes, you succeed in putting your audience to sleep, but I assure you that you are perfectly capable of putting them to sleep simply by giving your silly and unscientific answers. Your only answer here being a clear case in point.

Here is what you said, sir, again:

otherwise your radio programme would also continue after the transmitter stopped transmissions.

The signal, sir, continues to self-propagate. The program, the content, ceases.

Now, sir, answer the other questions, all at once, sir.

 

[JPK]

Mr. Coghill,

Just a quick question about your products. Is there something special about the magnets you sell, or would any magnet give the same results as you website indicates? No need for a long answer on this in this thread just post a link to where I can read about your claim.

JPK

 

[cogreslab]

To BillHoyt. Sorry for the temporary interruption in my answer to all 5 of your questions. I will be back very shortly to deal with questions 2-5.

How about meanwhile answering a few of mine, which you have never done?

 

[BillHoyt]

To BillHoyt. Sorry for the temporary interruption in my answer to all 5 of your questions. I will be back very shortly to deal with questions 2-5.

How about meanwhile answering a few of mine, which you have never done?

23:00 HOURS

Hey, rog, I'm going to keep a clock running for you. Soapy Sam first pointed out your error over 24 hours ago. I first turned it into a question for you. I offered you a chance to correct your claim about 23:00 hours ago.

23:00 HOURS

 

[Pragmatist]

Pragmatist. Are you challenging these statements:

Gems such as "capacitors store current" and kettle leads not having a magnetic field when not drawing current and "loops of energy flux" being prima facie examples amongst others.

On the first would you accept a better definmition that capacitors store charge derived from the current arriving at the capacitor? Do you accept this revised definition?

Thank you. Yes, I will accept that, but as a more appropriate description, not a definition. Are you prepared to admit that your initial description was technically incorrect and misleading?

On the second, I say again that there is no magnetic field in the kettle cable unless the kettle is drawing current from the mains to which it is attached, whereas the electric field is there whether the kettle is switched on or not. Do you dispute this?

Yes, I dispute that. And the reason I dispute it is because I ran into this funny little Scottish guy by the name of Maxwell, who had a huge straggly beard and a demon with him - obviously a woo woo of sorts - but he had some interesting claims to make.

He claimed that he had formulated four universal laws of electromagnetics. He also claimed that his fourth law demonstrated that any changing electric field automatically has a magnetic field associated with it (some say CAUSES, but I personally prefer to say "associated with", it doesn't change the fundamental meaning and avoids a contentious philosophical issue of causality). He also claimed the converse to be true, that any changing magnetic field had an electric field associated with it. He also claimed that these effects were independent in nature (although not necessarily magnitude) of the medium in which they took place.

Taking his word for the matter, I assert that if a kettle lead is connected to a source of electric potential which is oscillating at 60Hz, then the wires in that lead will also have an oscillating electric potential in/on/around them. And since the potential is oscillating, 60 times per second by definition it is changing. And if it's changing then it MUST have a magnetic field associated with it by definition. It is not possible that the wires can have a changing electric potential in them without there being an associated, changing magnetic field around them. Said field is independent of any actual current that flows through said wire.

Of course it's Maxwell's theory not mine. Care to prove him wrong?

On the third, I say again that the electromagnetic energy leaves the radio antenna having formed a closed loop of flux, the character of these successive closed loops form the signal that is received by the receiving antenna. Do you dispute this?

Yes, I dispute this on the grounds that it's meaningless. You refer to a flux. A flux of what? A flux is a flow of something, it's distinct from a force or a potential. As for energy, energy as far as I know is an abstract concept designed to facilitate calculation of quantities. It is defined as the capacity to do work. Do you claim there is a "flow" of the capacity to do work? And if so, how can an abstract "capacity to do something" flow anywhere? I accept however that there is a convention in referring to "flow" of energy that although rigorously absurd is nonetheless widely accepted, so....

Let's avoid that by assuming however that a potential of sorts represents "energy" and is interchangeable with it. What potentials are there in an EM wave? The only potential with real physical existence is charge or voltage potential. And this begs the question, does this potential flow anywhere, and in particular does it flow (if such is possible) in a closed loop?

I would argue that potential cannot "flow" anywhere, and that therefore there is no "flux of energy". The potential is preserved within the wave, it may oscillate, but it doesn't "flow" within the context of the wave itself, although the net result is that it is apparently "transferred" from A to B as a result.

In any event, even if you decide not to be rigorous about the terms, and even if you accept the idea of "energy flux", it does not flow in closed loops. If the potential/energy exists at some arbitrary point A in space and arrives at some secondary arbitrary point B some time later, then the energy/potential is transferred from A to B. The energy is NOT transferred from B to A, and as such how can there be a "closed loop"? How can a loop be closed if the content never returns to the point of origin?

If the spacial path of the energy vector is tracked as the wave progresses, then one might expect to see a straight line or possibly a spiral, neither of which is a "closed loop".

If you take a mathematical description of the event, then for a closed loop Div(E) where E represents an EM energy vector would have to be zero. Which would make the EM wave source (and sink) free. Do you claim that an EM wave never has a source?

What other "gems" are you referring to?

Most have already been dealt with elsewhere, most notably by MRC_Hans, who has competently handled them. I'm not necessarily looking to reopen them, merely to state that they appear to me to be examples that lead me to the opinion that you don't know much about electromagnetics - an area in which (correct me if I'm wrong) you claim to be an "expert". No offence intended, just a statement of fact.

a) Your comments about electron spin and amplification on the other thread.

b) "The conductivity of physiological saline is almost lossless inside the body."

My comment to that is that it depends entirely on frequency and that such a blanket statement is seriously misleading, although I will accept that you may have intended it in the more limited context of a 60Hz signal.

c) "Capacitance depends on the volume of the dielectric."

d) "This capacitance can stay around in the body for some time"

Finally, you faulted Moulder's statement about fields, but it seemed another straw man argument inasmuch as Moulder's statement was perfectly clear (and correct in my opinion). He said that there are local fields that do not constitute radiation. When the generating source is switched off those field collapse and cease to exist. He also said that there are radiated fields (which anyone should realise exist independently of their generator after they have launched from the antenna) which continue to exist independently after the generating source has been switched off. All the picky semantics about how you interpreted what he said or what constitutes a signal (which Moulder never even referred to) does not alter in the slightest what he DID say and which was clearly understood, it seems, by the rest of us.

I hope that answers your questions adequately.

 

[Pragmatist]

Pragmatist, I did not introduce Moulder into this thread some other post did, and challenged me to respond to it. That is what I intend to do over a period of time, but it need not interrupt the flow of our or other's dialogue, since I will merely add the responses to Moulder's questions as I deal with them over the next few weeks/months. Of, course, I expect that my commentary on Moulder's three Q and A sites will attract critical comment and welcome it, for the sake of improved definition and a better constructed argument.

OK, I have no problem with that. I only referred to Moulder in the context of claims you had made relating to things he said. If we can leave him out of the issue otherwise, that's fine with me. Thank you.

 

[gmanontario]

Pragmatist:


Are you the garbageman from the "Dilbert" comic strip?

 

[Cleopatra]

This was what I posted a couple of pages earlier:

You said:
AS Cleopatra says, we only claim they assist in keeping the feet warm, and I have briefly set out a plausible biological explanation of why this might occur. Not being an expert in feet, I am not wholly familiar with that literature, so am quite prepared to stand corrected (attempt at a small joke here).

And I replied:

You might not be an expert in feet sir and you might talk about biological explanations that might occur but you sell your insoles without any hesitation...

All around winter I am involved in outdoor activities so, I use thermal insoles I purchase by my pharmasict for 3 Euros.

Could you explain me please why I have to choose your insoles to the thermal insoles I can find even in a supermarket? What makes your product exceptional and how can I test your claim? I hope that you will not ask me to test them. It's May in Athens and I don't know if you have ever sailed in the Mediterannean during spring time...

No I do not sail in winter I just swim in Sounio, I go hiking and I walk in the woods. I know what makes the simple thermal insoles to work I was asking how yours work.

Also, what did the PhoneDone people said and what about your site. I haven't seen anywhere mentioning that you have not tested your products in vivo unless I am missing something.

Oh and one more thing. What about Prof. Henshaw. Frankly I don't care so much about the insoles but I am terribly interested in the accusation that was related with Dr.Henshaw. This one was one of your most serious accusations/claims.

 

[Pragmatist]

Pragmatist:


Are you the garbageman from the "Dilbert" comic strip?

Cogito sum ergo sum....

Actually, it's the competitive job market these days, even a garbage man needs a PhD in Quantum Physics as a prerequisite.

 

[cogreslab]

Radiation from an aerial

Whenever a current flows in a conductor the conductor is surrounded by a magnetic field, the direction of which is determined by the direction of current flow. If the current changes the magnetic field will change also. Now, a varying magnetic field always produces an electric field that exists only while the magnetic field continues to change. When the magnetic field is constant the electric field disappears. The direction of the electric field depends on whether the magnetic field is growing or collapsing and can be determined by the application of Lenz’s Law. Similarly a changing electric field always produces a magnetic field; this means that a conductor carrying an alternating current is surrounded by continually changing magnetic and electric fields that are dependent on each other.

When no current flows in a wire connected to the mains there is a net zero voltage, but the electric field is still present, since the electrons are moving back and forth to the same position, but since there is no net movement in any direction there is no magnetic field.

If a sinusoidal current is flowmg in a conductor the electric field and magnetic fields will also attempt to vary sinusoidally. When the current reverses direction the magnetic field must first collapse into the conductor and then build up in the opposite direction. A finite time is required for a magnetic field and its associated electric field to collapse, however, and at frequencies above about 15kHz not all the energy contained in the field has returned to the conductor before the current has started to increase in the opposite direction and created new electric and magnetic fields.

The energy left outside the conductor cannot then return to it and instead is propagated away from the conductor at the velocity of light in closed loops of electric and magnetic flux . The electric loops are at right angles to the magnetic loops of flux. The amount of energy radiated from the conductor increases with increase in frequency, since more energy is then unable to return to the conductor. It is this energy which can couple with organic life.

The electromagnetic wave is a representation of the maxima and minima of the electric and magnetic fields which are mutually at right angles to the direction of propagation, as well as being at right angles to each other.

This is my understanding of how a radio wave is propagated.

Now turning to BillHoyt’s and Pragmatists points, first I do not claim to be an expert in electromagnetics which entirely relates to physical energies without any biological component. I am a biologist by training and my field of endeavour is bioelectromagnetics, which studies the impact of these physical energies on organic life. Secondly it being Saturday I had other things to do than sit at a PC all day, hence the delay of about eight hours since I began dealing with Bouncer Bill’s questions.

[In the intervening time he has not answered any of mine to him, please note. I am getting used to thjis silence and the masquerading behind nicknames and clearly fictitious job descriptions. I doubt whether Cleopatra has ever seen a crocodile except in a zoo. Nor that you have ever bounced a night club member, nor that Pragmatist has ever emptied a dustbin for a living. So I am having to deal with a group of anonymous and continuously rude people here, whereas by contrast I am completely honest about my identity, and try to offer a modicum of politeness for the most part!].

BillHoyt’s questions

2. The closed loops of flux would continue to radiate outwards at the speed of light, of course, but the collapsed field at the antenna would instantaneously mean that no further loops were created. In my view this is in accordance with my statement that Moulder did not answer the question very well (I didn’t say he answered it wrongly, but it could be better explained, e.g. as in my description above)

3. I have no quarrel with that given my point above
4. I have no quarrel with that given my point in answer to question 2, but I say again the radio programme (note the word programme) would stop because there are no new signals. This was not clear in Moulder’s explanation., but it was clear in my description above.
5. The question about Morse code is merely another example of what I was saying. The closed loops of flux may continue to travel into space (with decreasing energy content) but if there are no new loops of flux there will be no new code.

Now, will you answer my question: what qualifications do you have in physics? Or biology for that matter? And have you ever published a peer reviewed paper? And what is your affiliation?

Please stop giving us this rubbish about being a bouncer.

 

[cogreslab]

To Pragmatist: Why are you so keen for me not to answer Moulder's Q and A websites? He is putting out a biased view about bioelectromagnetics for military/commercial reasons, and I am going to correct it. Could you now tell us what are your affiliations, because I simply don't believe you are a garbage collector.

 

[cogreslab]

To Cleopatra: What a wonderful experience it must be to swim off Cape Sounion, with the magnificent temple of Poseidon on the cliff top as a backdrop. Poseidon, shaker of the Earth, was the Greek god of all waves, even of electromagnetic waves! As you know, he featured seriously in the Atlantis story.

 

[cogreslab]

To Cleopatra: Still no answers from Denis except of course his train conversation. Nor from the Phonedome people. I willm keep on trying, but I hope you recognise that it is not in my gift to force them to do anything.

 

[Timble]

Flux is an abstract, how can you have a closed loop of an abstract?

I assume we're talking electromagnetic radiation

And you never did answer the questions about which fluids the 0.9% salinity was referring to.

 

[cogreslab]

To JPK: No there is nothing special about our magnets except the way we configure them Other manufaturers use different configurations and we sell theirs too if we find they are effective. Some distributors are offering magnets with field strengths too low to be biologically effective, however (<300G). We use a magnetometer to test all products before we sell them. Incidentally though the neodymium magnet producers claim that these do not lose magnetism with heat, in practice we have found they do, and we had to take special insulating precautions with our fuel economisers which were getting hot through proximity to the car engines.