Bioelectromagnetics
- Thread starter Beleth
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bioelectromagnetics
To Timble: I have a diagram from a radio engineering text book (DC Green , Radio and Line transmission B, Pitman,1971) which may help you understand the idea of a closed flux, and will scan it and try to include it in a subsequent post.
I missed noticing your question about the 0.9 percent salt solution. Ask me again?
I missed noticing your question about the 0.9 percent salt solution. Ask me again?
1. My being a crocodile breeder is a joke of the forum.
2. What difference would it make if you discovered that in real life Hoyt is an elder female british bird-watcher like Miss Marple or a female stripper in Vegas or a Nobel award laureated physicist?
3. Nobody asked you to reveal your identity Mr. Coghill.
4. I could have given a false identity to you lab when I ordered the CD but I didn't do it.
5.I live in Sounio and Poseidon has very little to do with Atlantis. So as your logo with its temple.
6. Now you are talking about the PhoneDome people... It took me three weeks( ?) but at last you admit that there is some interest involved. So, this site is not just one reference out of the thousands that one can find in Google as you claimed. At last!
2. What difference would it make if you discovered that in real life Hoyt is an elder female british bird-watcher like Miss Marple or a female stripper in Vegas or a Nobel award laureated physicist?
3. Nobody asked you to reveal your identity Mr. Coghill.
4. I could have given a false identity to you lab when I ordered the CD but I didn't do it.
5.I live in Sounio and Poseidon has very little to do with Atlantis. So as your logo with its temple.
6. Now you are talking about the PhoneDome people... It took me three weeks( ?) but at last you admit that there is some interest involved. So, this site is not just one reference out of the thousands that one can find in Google as you claimed. At last!
Shame on you Cleopatra! Poseidon founded Atlantis for his sons, according to Plato's account in the Timaeus/Critias. It was Poseidon, moreover , who destroyed the city with one of his mega tsunamis. This kind of tsunami couild happen again at any moment, if parts of a certain Atlantic island slide into the sea, as is widely being predicted to happen very soon, and if the global warming which is melting the polar ice caps increases the weight of Atlantic water pressing on the faultline off the Portuguese coast. You had better pay some apologetic reverence to Poseidon when you next go for a swim off Sounion!
I am interested in the real reasons why these two have joined this forum, and a part of that is to learn where they are coming from.
As for the point you are making about our logo, I don't understand it. Nor do I understand what you mean about Phonedome. I thought we had established they misquoted my study without my knowledge or consent, and that I am tyrying to make them correct the misstatement. Are you still blaming me for other people's iniquities?
I am interested in the real reasons why these two have joined this forum, and a part of that is to learn where they are coming from.
As for the point you are making about our logo, I don't understand it. Nor do I understand what you mean about Phonedome. I thought we had established they misquoted my study without my knowledge or consent, and that I am tyrying to make them correct the misstatement. Are you still blaming me for other people's iniquities?
Cleopatra. As you know, I am the reincarnation of Odysseus, and I will now use my influence to persuade Poseidon to join this thread. The two I was referring to were BillHoyt and latecomer Pragmatist. I was interested in what brought Prag to this site, since Bouncer Bill is obviously part of the Randi furniture..
To Cleopatra: Congrats to Ukraine in the Eurovision song contest! Istanbul looks a better place than I expected! I shall be going there to an WHO EMF hazards conference shortly (early June|), and may drop off to pay homage to Poseidon on my way home. That lunch looks more possible than I had thought!
To BillHoyt|:
Ah, so you can, by your direct questioning and silly attempts to challenge my academic status, invade my privacy, but you won't come clean yourself! You question my academic degrees and then say that such degrees are not relevant to the scientific facts! You are being illogical here. This tactic is not impressing many readers, Bouncer Bill.
Your smokescreening gobbledegook science is so much rubbish that it needs bouncing out of this club. I have not seen a single scientific reference from any of your emotively charged posts todate, only repeatedly pedantic attempts to divert the main thrust of my points about Moulder's biased statements. I suspect that you have a connection with the establishment that you are not prepared to admit. Now prove me wrong! Cite at least one single supporting reference for your weird ideas on radio transmission.
Ah, so you can, by your direct questioning and silly attempts to challenge my academic status, invade my privacy, but you won't come clean yourself! You question my academic degrees and then say that such degrees are not relevant to the scientific facts! You are being illogical here. This tactic is not impressing many readers, Bouncer Bill.
Your smokescreening gobbledegook science is so much rubbish that it needs bouncing out of this club. I have not seen a single scientific reference from any of your emotively charged posts todate, only repeatedly pedantic attempts to divert the main thrust of my points about Moulder's biased statements. I suspect that you have a connection with the establishment that you are not prepared to admit. Now prove me wrong! Cite at least one single supporting reference for your weird ideas on radio transmission.
So glad you're foolish enough to ask.cogreslab said:
Radio, TV forms of electromagnetic radiation
EMR self-propagating waves
For this next one I suggest a close read, as it ties together radio waves and light. They are, sir, the same. When I aim a laser beam into space and turn it off, the light doesn't collapse, but continues to travel throughout space. It is not a field, sir. Radio is light, sir, and light radio. Neither light waves nor radio waves collapse after the sources stop transmitting.
Radio and Light the same
Prester John
Anti-homeopathy Illuminati member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Messages
- 1,185
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/children_turkey_june2004/en/index.html
If anyone else wants to go to the WHO EMF conference you'd better hurry to get your registration in.
Theres quite a lot in the site concerning the subject at hand.
For those who want a summary, the WHO position is:
taken from :http://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/en/
If anyone else wants to go to the WHO EMF conference you'd better hurry to get your registration in.
Theres quite a lot in the site concerning the subject at hand.
For those who want a summary, the WHO position is:
taken from :http://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/en/
Pragmatist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,529
cogreslab said:
I don't know why you don't believe it, I'm wading in it right now! QED.
And didn't anyone ever tell you not to offend the Garbage Man? That's the last time your bin is getting emptied!
On a more serious note. I have no "affiliations" whatsoever, except to the wife and kids and various cats. And I couldn't care less if you want to discuss Moulder with anyone, nor am I stopping you. All I said, perfectly clearly, is that *I* don't want to discuss Moulder with you because I have zero interest in some third party scapegoat/diversion, and because it's not Moulder here making silly claims.
Speaking of misrepresented titles, I seriously expect that some on here will think you are more deserving of the title of "Garbage Man" than I am! But in any event, I think it's now clear to all that you aren't a "bioelectromagnetics expert". At least not the "electromagnetics" part. I'll leave it to the biologists to decide whether there's any credibility to the "bio" bit. I must admit I find it hard to understand how one can be a "bioelectromagnetics expert" without any real knowledge of electromagnetics!
I believe this is just another diversionary tactic, but out of common courtesy I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and in the highly improbable event that you seriously believe what you say, I'll explain something.
YOU came on here pretending to have expertise in "bioelectromagnetics". I didn't, Bill didn't, and Cleopatra didn't. YOU made a series of claims regarding scientific matters and invited comment on them. You got it. The fact that you didn't like the answers is not my fault. I have never claimed expertise in anything other than Garbage Collection. So why on earth would you be so bothered at discussing science with a Garbage Man? You've already expressed your rather distasteful elitism. And yes I insulted you for that because you deserved it, you insulted a whole class of people (not just Bill) with your shameful remarks, and you didn't even have the grace or courtesy to apologise. What did you expect? Apart from that I have been perfectly polite and have gone to a lot of trouble to answer your questions and express myself clearly.
It makes no difference what I do. I'm not an important person. I make no fancy claims. I'm just interested in pure science and rational discussion.
I'll address your "explanation" of EM radiation separately when I can calm down and stop laughing!
To Pragmatist: Yet another set of fine value judgements about my level of expertise! You may not have read throughout this thread the large number of scientific peer reviewed references I have cited to support, in the manner of scientific custom. my arguments. You come up with some questionable and irrelevant pedantry in one small part of the electromagnetic spectrum and hope to use that to dismiss completely the quite demonstrated extensive knowledge I have of this literature, my million dollar laboratory staffed with graduates in physics and chemistry which has produced a number of peer reviewed and published studies, the fact that I am a referee for several peer reviewed journals in this field, and that I have several degrees from reputable Universities (Cambridge, the University of Wales) also pertinent to this issue. Get real, Pragmatist!
cogreslab said:
Which parts didn't you understand? Radio is EMR. Light is EMR. Cut off the source, and the light photons continue to travel, sir. Cut off the source, and the radio photons continue to travel, sir. Once the space field is created, it self-propagates. Do you not understand the word "self-propagate?"
I have to go now. Tanya's getting into trouble on the floor. I keep telling her not to do that thing with her whatzit when I'm not nearby. Some guys just lose control when they see that...
To Prester |John:
That position is obsolete and inaccurate, since there are several reviews (e.g. IARC) which consider weak EMF to be carcinogenic below the present guidelines.
and btw, from the same site:
"Electric fields are created by differences in voltage: the higher the voltage, the stronger will be the resultant field. Magnetic fields are created when electric current flows: the greater the current, the stronger the magnetic field. An electric field will exist even when there is no current flowing. If current does flow, the strength of the magnetic field will vary with power consumption but the electric field strength will be constant.
(Extract from Electromagnetic fields published by the WHO Regional Office for Europe in 1999 (Local authorities, health and environment briefing pamphlet series; 32)".
magnetic fields are created when the current flows I rather think that WHO have the same opinion as i do here, Pragmatist. Maybe you should stick to garbage?
That position is obsolete and inaccurate, since there are several reviews (e.g. IARC) which consider weak EMF to be carcinogenic below the present guidelines.
and btw, from the same site:
"Electric fields are created by differences in voltage: the higher the voltage, the stronger will be the resultant field. Magnetic fields are created when electric current flows: the greater the current, the stronger the magnetic field. An electric field will exist even when there is no current flowing. If current does flow, the strength of the magnetic field will vary with power consumption but the electric field strength will be constant.
(Extract from Electromagnetic fields published by the WHO Regional Office for Europe in 1999 (Local authorities, health and environment briefing pamphlet series; 32)".
magnetic fields are created when the current flows I rather think that WHO have the same opinion as i do here, Pragmatist. Maybe you should stick to garbage?
Also this definition of electric and magnetic fields on the WHO website:
Electric fields
Electric fields arise from voltage.
Their strength is measured in Volts per metre (V/m)
An electric field can be present even when a device is switched off.
Field strength decreases with distance from the source.
Most building materials shield electric fields to some extent.
Magnetic fields
Magnetic fields arise from current flows.
Their strength is measured in amperes per meter (A/m). Commonly, EMF investigators use a related measure, flux density (in microtesla (µT) or millitesla (mT) instead.
Magnetic fields exist as soon as a device is switched on and current flows.
Field strength decreases with distance from the source.
Magnetic fields are not attenuated by most materials.
This is the correct view, and does not as it happens conflict with James Clerk Maxwell's fourth equation (Curl E = - dB/dt) since it is the curl which makes the equation balance not the simple E field.
Electric fields
Electric fields arise from voltage.
Their strength is measured in Volts per metre (V/m)
An electric field can be present even when a device is switched off.
Field strength decreases with distance from the source.
Most building materials shield electric fields to some extent.
Magnetic fields
Magnetic fields arise from current flows.
Their strength is measured in amperes per meter (A/m). Commonly, EMF investigators use a related measure, flux density (in microtesla (µT) or millitesla (mT) instead.
Magnetic fields exist as soon as a device is switched on and current flows.
Field strength decreases with distance from the source.
Magnetic fields are not attenuated by most materials.
This is the correct view, and does not as it happens conflict with James Clerk Maxwell's fourth equation (Curl E = - dB/dt) since it is the curl which makes the equation balance not the simple E field.
Not exactly, you can have a magnetic field with non moving charges.cogreslab said:
You just have to move yourself instead.
And in this case, you will see a magnetic field, and who have speed = 0, in the same frame of reference of the charges, will have only a eletric field.
Pragmatist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,529
cogreslab said:
Firstly, my apologies for cutting all of your explanation but this is a long posting and I didn't want to make it even longer.
Secondly, your understanding is wrong. I will explain as briefly as I can below. Please excuse any lack of rigour in my definitions I'm trying to convey a major concept in an easily understandable way for laypeople and bioelectromagnetics experts.
Thirdly, you, yourself have quoted the very principle I quoted to you in my earlier posting: a changing electric field always produces a magnetic field.
Now the confusion arises when you ask HOW the electric field changes. The electric field is generated by the forces between charges, it is by definition a field of FORCE. So in order to change the electric field, the forces between the charges have to change, and in practice, in matter, this involves the redistribution of electrons which carry the charge in matter. A movement of electrons constitutes an electric current. So from that, in matter we see that in practice a magnetic field is normally produced as a result of the movement of electrons. In other words an electric current gives rise to a magnetic field.
This would appear to be the whole story, but it isn't. James Clerk Maxwell noticed that the laws of electricity as defined by people like Ampere and Lenz etc., failed to account for one unusual condition. And that was that AC current appears to pass through a capacitor. But in a capacitor, the conducting elements are separated by something called a dielectric which is an electrical insulator. So electrons can't move between the conductors, and if electrons can't move, current can't flow. So he asked how it was possible for AC current to pass the insulating part of a capacitor. In the end he decided that it wasn't necessary for electrons to physically pass through the insulator. All that was required was that the FORCE FIELD of the electrons on one side had an influence on the electrons of the other side. And the force field was free to pass through the insulator.
In order to correct the equations of Ampere etc., which gave the wrong answer for AC in capacitors he had to add a new term to their equations. This new term had to be of the nature of a current (to be compatible with the existing equations), yet it didn't involve physical electrons. So he defined this to be a kind of "artificial" current which arose purely as a consequence of fields. He called this the displacement current. The reason he called it that was because he showed that the electric forces caused the displacement of charged particles within the dielectric itself. They would move together or further apart, but they were bound to atoms and molecules and not free to actually flow as a physical current. So what was happening was that a chain of forces was transmitted from the electrons on one plate of the capacitor to the other via the displacement (and consequent force fields) of charged bodies within the dielectric. Despite the name "current" no actual current was involved, it was a pure transfer of forces.
It was at this point he realised that changes in the electric force field itself gave rise to a changing magnetic field, just as it would do in the case of a real physical current of electrons. And sure enough a capacitor which was connected to an AC source would exhibit a rotating magnetic field between the plates even though only the electric force field was changing and there was no net physical transfer of electrons between the plates. He then generalised this situation into the fourth of his electromagnetic equations. The equation says in simple terms that a magnetic field arises as the consequence of a flow of electrons (a real current) OR a changing electric field. In fact, the equation simply shows the sum of two different terms, one due to real current, and the other due to the imaginary "displacement current" which was just a convenient way of mathematically handling the electric field.
It was this latter realisation that gave him the key to electromagnetic radiation. He realised that a pure force field in empty space WITHOUT electrons could give rise to a magnetic field and vice versa. The only remaining conceptual problem was that the pure field based "displacement current" required a displacement of charges in matter. So this begged the question of what charges could be displaced in empty space?
He solved that by proposing that space consisted of a matrix of balanced charges which was called the luminiferous aether. This solved the problem of EM radiation.
In essence he proposed that an electric field, created by any means inside matter, could cause the displacement of a quantity of aether OUTSIDE that matter. Since the aether consisted of charges, the displacement of those charges resulted in a free electric field within the aether. And since he had already proved that a changing electric field led to a changing magnetic field, it was obvious that as the aether was undergoing displacement, that during this displacement a magnetic field would be present. There are no free electrons in pure aether, aether is something much more fundamental. So although there were displacements of aether there were no physical currents of electrons involved.
So the EM wave was simple, it was just a transverse wave in the aether. One only had to imagine aether as being rather like a kind of "electric fluid" and one could easily visualise a disturbance in one place, being propagated as a wave throughout, just like waves in water. The only significant difference was that the continuous wave motion of the electric field resulted in a continuous associated magnetic field. But the energy was carried in the forces of the displacement of aether. The aether was considered an elastic medium and so the energy alternated between potential energy of aetherial displacement and kinetic energy of the elastic movement of the aether as it elastically restored itself to its non displaced position.
This model worked and allowed Maxwell to derive two fundamental properties that proved its validity, the speed of light and the impedance of free space.
Many years later, when Einstein came along with the theory of relativity, he decided to remove the model of the aether. He relied on the experiments of Michaelson and Morley as a proof that the aether didn't exist because they apparently couldn't detect it. Although it was generally accepted that the Michaelson Morley experiment had proved the non existence of the aether, Michaelson himself and many other notable scientists of the time, particularly Dayton Miller felt that Einstein had made a mistake. It's not widely known that the Michaelson Morley experiment did show a small positive result for the existence of the aether. Miller's experiments showed a much larger positive result. But since the non existence of the aether was the cornerstone of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Einstein persistently rejected their findings and succeeded in forcing the scientific community to accept his interpretation. Most people think that's the end of the matter and that the non existence of the aether is cut and dried, and yet there are still many legitimate and credible scientific arguments about it even today. So the bottom line is that "officially" there is no aether, but many still believe in it.
What was never satisfactorily resolved was the conceptual difficulties the removal of the aether caused to Maxwell's model. Maxwell's equations still work out correctly whether one believes in the aether or not because they are not defined in terms of the medium itself, but rather as pure mathematic vectors. But in terms of getting a physical "picture" of what is going on with the EM wave, it has just resulted in a lot of confusion.
There is a natural tendency for people to view "something" as carrying the EM wave. Yet current theory says there is nothing and that it's a case of pure disembodied forces and vectors. It is this fundamental misunderstanding of electromagnetics that leads people to propose "fluxes" and the like in order to account for the propagation of the wave. But the strict interpretation of the modern theory is that an electric field in an antenna extends beyond the antenna into free space. Since that electric vector is changing, there is an associated changing magnetic vector (in a different plane at right angles to the plane of the electric vector). The electric vector is a force vector and denoted by the letter "E". The corresponding magnetic vector is also a force vector and is denoted by the letter "H". In Maxwell's original aether model, he showed that the two fields in combination created a third vector which was another force in the direction of travel, it was this force that "pushed" the wave along. It is this force that causes these free space vectors to "launch" off an antenna and the result is a pair of disembodied oscillating vectors travelling through free space at the speed of light.
In the modern theory, there is no physical explanation of how these force vectors arise or how they are physically propagated. There are only mathematical descriptions in vector mechanics.
This is why there is endless confusion amongst amateurs in things like antenna theory and EM propagation. Everyone seeks to build a physical model based on material currents and fluxes etc., to give themselves a "picture", but if there is no aether then there are no currents or fluxes. You can't have a current or a flux of nothing. Similarly there are halfway explanations that attempt to supplant the physical currents and fluxes with "energy" currents and fluxes. These are even worse and demonstrate a greater misunderstanding of fundamental physical principles. Worst of all, there are extremely lame explanations circulating to the effect that energy is transferred back and forth between out of phase electric and magnetic "fields". These explanations are totally wrong because in an EM wave the electric and magnetic force fields are always simultaneous and in phase in free space.
I hope this helps to clear the matter up. All this discussion of "loops of flux" etc., is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of electromagnetics.
To address Mr Coghill's specific misconceptions: there is no magical cut off frequency of 15 Khz at which EM radiation starts. And energy is just a measure of potential, it is not some kind of "fluid" which forms "loops of flux" which somehow magically roll off into space. All such explanations are pure pseudoscience.
And finally, in case the point is STILL not understood: a kettle lead has between its wires an oscillating electric field. As a result of force (field) coupling between the electrons in the wires, there is automatically a "displacement current" and hence there is automatically a magnetic field rotating in a plane normal to the lines of potential (force). This is quite independent of any real physical current flowing in the wires at the time and the magnetic field vectors due to displacement current are in a totally different plane to the magnetic field vectors due to physical electron current. The same applies in all cases where there is a changing field regardless of whether a physical current is flowing or not, and regardless of whether one is talking about wires, capacitor plates or whatever.