Bioelectromagnetics

[MRC_Hans]

To Hans: How can you be so sure that the device offers no protection from RF/MW so categorically unless you have performed an investigation of it under controlled conditions? It really is important to keep an open mind, Hans, until you have conducted a rigorous scientific test, and not simply rely on your intuition based on existing physics conventions.

Because the device has no way of interfering with electromagnetic radiation unless it is in the direct path of that radiation. Electromagnetic waves travel in straight lines and are not affected by anything not in its direct path (except gravity, but that is irrelevant here). So the little pendant you sell might reflect or absorb a UHF radiowave (because of its size) directly aimed at it, but that is very far from the properties you claim. At any rate it is much too small to have any significant effect on the RF/MW spectum, in its path ot not.

The Laws of physics seem to have changed radically in the last one hundred years, -m from classical physics to quantum physics- and even Thomas Young's ideas are less than two hundred years old. Any bets that these "Laws" will stay unchanged for the next two centuries?

Well, both of us will have difficulty collecting, but yes I will bet you that the parts of the laws of physics that say that EM waves travel in straight lines will not change in the next two centuries (or ever, for that matter).

Listen, Roger: If you think you have access to technology that transcends the basic laws of physics, you don't wanna waste your time selling gadgets on the internet, you'll go for world domination .... or at the very least the Nobel Prize .

Hans

 

[cogreslab]

Was it Arthur C Clarke who said that any time an eminent scientist says something is impossible it will shortly be found to be possible?

Light bends when it passes from one material to another doesn't it, by refraction? Or is the refractive index of my microscope objective merely illusory (small joke intended here)? And do not nearby magnetic fields bend light? Or are you arguing that it is their field which is in the direct path? And at submicroscopic levels (i.e. in a molecular environment) might not gravity have an important effect on a light path? I realise you will not belive my naivity, but I am not sure about light always travelling in straight lines! Might it not travel in helical "lines" in a single direction? If so the right diameter helix could pass around a small enough object.

Finally, please excuse my ignorance but does the light entering a black hole still go down it in straight lines?

 

[cogreslab]

Another brief thought, then I really must go for now: are there such things as partial woo woos, or are they all quantum woo woos? I mean, you really would reach for that animated gif thing if you were to read Plato's views on light; and you would designate him as of immediate woo woo status. (Fortunately he hasn't posted recently).

Does that mean that you therefore discard all his ideas in one excited state, and miss some of the other messages he has to give? That would be an example of a partial woo woo. Maybe you have a condition like "ooh woo" to denote this "partially woo woo" discernment?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Was it Arthur C Clarke who said that any time an eminent scientist says something is impossible it will shortly be found to be possible?

It would certainly be like him . .. Oh, and thanks for the compliment! ("emminent scientist", indeed).

Light bends when it passes from one material to another doesn't it, by refraction? Or is the refractive index of my microscope objective merely illusory?

Yes. And the lenses in your microscope are IN THE PATH OF THE LIGHT, are they not?

And do not nearby magnetic fields bend light?

No, they do not.

Or are you arguing that it is their field which in the direct path?

No, I do not.

And at submicroscopic levels (i.e. in a molecular environment) might not gravity have an important effect on a light path?

Things at the molecular level do not interfere dirctly with light. Atoms might absoeb and emit photons, however. Yes, as I did mention, gravity does deflect EM waves.

I realise you will not belive my naivity, but I am not sure about light always travelling in straight lines! Might it not travel in helical "lines" in a single direction? If so the right diameter helix could pass around a small enough object.

This is wild speculation. And irrelevant.

Finally, please excuse my ignorance but does the light entering a black hole still go down it in straight lines?

No, since the gravity of the black hole bends the light.

And what is the relevance of all this to your claim (on which you seem to attempt to make money) that a small ornate metal object can protect the bearer against a wide spectrum of EM waves??? How do you propose that the little pendant you are advertizing on your web (at around 17£) is able to interfere with radio waves? Do you care?

Hans

 

[EHocking]

To PJ and EHocking: If you consider giving a thirsty animal water to be an "experiment" then you have a weird sense of humour.

Putting two bowls out for an animal instead of one is hardly tormenting an animal. Is that you are proposing that I said?

Also, you have repeated stated that we don't answer questions whereas you do. In that case, could you please answer my question about the protocols *you* used to support your assertion that an animal will *always* prefer magenetised water to non-magnetised water.

If you have not performed this experiment, you have no basis to claim this 100% success rate with this product and btw,

"And as for subjectivity why not try it on your pet, who will not be influenced by any placebo effect, but will genuinely prefer the magnetised water in my predictive belief."

a "predictive belief" is neither proof nor science.

So to answer my question - what protocol did you use to assess the accuracy of your product statement
"Given the choice your pet will always choose to drink magnetic water, they can tell the difference"
<http://www.galonja.co.uk/galonja_sh...g_u_nam=&g_tim=&pid=92&v_det=1&full=1&c_id=39>

How subjective is it if that animal drinks from one of two bowls, only one of which is on top of a magnetic pad? You can bring a horse to water etc...

So you are saying that you have never tested your assertion that "your pet will always choose to drink magnetic water"?
There are a number of ways in which a controlled experiment could be performed without inconveniencing or distressing the animal subject. We're only talking about putting two bowls out for the animal instead of one and tallying which bowl is used in preference.

So how about it? On what study do you base your assertions for this product on?

Do'nt insult us all with these pedantries!

Who's this *us* and what pedantry is there here? Do you call requesting scientific rigour or asking for non-anecdotal evidence that backs your assertions pedantry?!

As a trained biologist I would expect you to be well aware of experimental procedures. If we are to test your assertion in the least biased manner, we should be attempting to test the wine/water or pet statements using the same protocols that you used to come to your conclusions about these products.

Reproducible results are the cornerstone of scientific theory and experimental process are they not?

I would have thought that it is in your interests for Tez to be using *your* protocols to support your assertions, rather than inventing protocols of his own. It would be all too easy after the fact to declare that "But that was not the way we determined our results". I am not at this juncture saying that you *would* take this route, merely pointing out that it is more in your interest for us to attempt to recreate your results using your procedures.]

 

[BillHoyt]

Roger,

Did you attend Cambridge prior to 1272? You don't seem to be in this Cambridge alumni database, though that covers alumns from as far back as 1272. I guess your magnetic gizmos are doing you well, aren't they? But I am surprised to see one so fond of waving Cambridge about to be absent from this database.

Also, for one so fond of using the internet to make morally outrageous challenges, you seem to be missing from Cambridge's alumni e-mail directory.

When can we expect you to correct these errors, roger? There is a simple online registry system for the second one, and an email address to write the former Queens college president who runs the first one. This should be rather easy to correct, no?

 

[BillHoyt]

Roger's current sig line, copied for the record

RW Coghill MA (Cantab.) C Biol. MI Biol. MA (Environ Mgt)

Can anybody else here with some time on their hands try to confirm or refute roger's claimed degrees? My Kreskin's Krystal Ball^TM is saying more dissembling is coming.

 

[cogreslab]

Briefly:

I had a favourite rough collie dog called Lizzie. She died at the ripe old age of 14. Some years before then I took two bowls of the same colour and material and poured tap water into both, Under one I placed a magnet but not the other, The distance between the bowls was sufficient to avoid any magnetic field effect on the magnetless waterbowl.

So far as I was able to control for it the two locations were identical in terms of light intensity, wind strength, etc. Nevertheless Lizzie would always finish the magnet-exposed water first. So I then switched the bowl positions. Within a day Lizzie also switched to the other bowl to drink from it. Then I took rain water into one bowl and magnet-free tap water into the other. She preferred the rain water, from which I inferred that she was actually making a choice about the water. On hot days she would be less prone to this distinction, and would drink from the second bowl as well after the first.

Several other people have reported this effect. In the peer reviewed literature there is also a study of children with ascariasis where the megnetically treated water cleared the infestation more effectively than piperazines (title: Wu. 1989l. no seriously!)

Of course i don't consider this amusement of publishable standard, since a number of animals would be necessary etc., but I don't consider it an animal experiment either, since I had a duty of care to my faithful and much loved dog to keep her in water bioavailablity. As I said, any customer of ours can try these woo woo devices out on a 30 day money back guarantee if they wish. There is no need to speculate. And if the Chinese study is right the magnetically treated water may do the pet good in terms of keeping its worms down. But since I did not do any fecal inspections on Lizzie's woo woos I am not making that claim.

REF: WU J.
Further observations on the therapeutic effect of magnets and magnetised water against ascariasis in children
J. Tradit. Chinese med v9 i2 p111 p112 1989

 

[MRC_Hans]

Another brief thought, then I really must go for now: are there such things as partial woo woos, or are they all quantum woo woos? I mean, you really would reach for that animated gif thing if you were to read Plato's views on light; and you would designate him as of immediate woo woo status. (Fortunately he hasn't posted recently).

Does that mean that you therefore discard all his ideas in one excited state, and miss some of the other messages he has to give? That would be an example of a partial woo woo. Maybe you have a condition like "ooh woo" to denote this "partially woo woo" discernment?

My dear Roger, I will evaluate each of your claims seperately, like with Plato. One difference between you and Plato is, however, that he did not have at his disposal the knowledge and methology with with he could evluate his theories, whereas you have.

Your selling and promoting devices that cannot possible work makes you a woo woo in my book. This does not mean that I automatically assume that anything you say is wrong, but of course it influences my view of your overall credibility. Likewise, your willingness to, without any evidence, to accuse me of being a paid servant of your electricity board naturally has an influence on how probable I take it to be whenever you accuse other people of the same.

You know, credibility is hard to build, easy to destroy.

Hans

 

[BillHoyt]

Briefly:...

Avoidance post #1.

 

[MRC_Hans]

A few short comments on your water "experiment":

1) Is that the basis for your advertisment claim that "pets will always choose the magnetized water"? Can you see where this puts your scientifical credibility?

2) Given that your observation was correct, how do you come to the conclusion that the dog did choose from a conditon of the water and that this condition was caused by the magnet?

- How do you know that the dog could not somehow sense the magnets?

- How do you know that it was not some other property about that bowl that she pereferred?

- How do you rule out that she was taking clues from you (remember "kluge Hans")?

Can you see why we find your scientific methods wanting?

Hans

 

[cogreslab]

Oh Dear, Bouncer Bill's back with more rubbish! Your alumni database doesn't extend beyond 1900, airhead.

If you want to check out my credentials why don't you just look on the IoB website for south wales. Also check with Emmmanuel College Porter's lodge, or the registrar at Caerleon which is part of Univ of Wales. Or better still just naff off.

 

[cogreslab]

I clearly said my test was an amusement not a scientific experiment: you were asking about my particular protocol, I thought. Your conclusions are rather uncharitable don't you think. Why not take the advice of some better scientists than us and simply "Do the experiment" instead of continually speculating. I find it significant that the peer reviewed paper I quoted was totally ignored by you, and smacks of a biased mind, Prag old boy.

 

[EHocking]

Briefly:
...I took two bowls of the same colour and material and poured tap water into both, Under one I placed a magnet but not the other, The distance between the bowls was sufficient to avoid any magnetic field effect on the magnetless waterbowl.

What is the minimum separation required to avoid magnetic field effect and how was this determined?

So far as I was able to control for it the two locations were identical in terms of light intensity, wind strength, etc. Nevertheless Lizzie would always finish the magnet-exposed water first.

So the "magnetised" bowl was finished *first*. This is not your claim. Your claim is that, "Given the choice your pet will always choose to drink magnetic water, they can tell the difference. "
*Finishing* the water first is not the same as "always choos[ing] to drink magnetic water"

So I then switched the bowl positions. Within a day Lizzie also switched to the other bowl to drink from it. Then I took rain water into one bowl and magnet-free tap water into the other. She preferred the rain water, from which I inferred that she was actually making a choice about the water.

Did you then test rainwater in *both* bowls using the same "protocol" as above? If not, this is not a control nor can you claim that there is a choice being made"

On hot days she would be less prone to this distinction, and would drink from the second bowl as well after the first.

Therefore your claim that "Given the choice your pet will always choose to drink magnetic water, they can tell the difference. " is disproven - by your own "experimental" evidence.

I use quotes around "experimental" since this is purely anecdotal and scientifically, if you'll pardon the pun, does not hold water.

The claim is that "your pet will always choose to drink magnetic water". The only way to support this claim is to tally the visits by the animal to each bowl. As the claim is always, a single slurp from the "non-magnitised" water immediately disproves your assertion.

By your own "evidence" the animal does not always choose" magnetised water and to claim that it is so is incorrect.

Several other people have reported this effect.

I asked for scientific evidence, not anecdotal evidence. The above example and your "several people" claim does not constitute the scientific data or procedures that I actually asked you about.

... Of course i don't consider this amusement of publishable standard, since a number of animals would be necessary etc., but I don't consider it an animal experiment either, since I had a duty of care to my faithful and much loved dog to keep her in water bioavailablity. As I said, any customer of ours can try these woo woo devices out on a 30 day money back guarantee if they wish.

I guess this is one way of getting around the Trades Description act, but I would suggest that you reword your advertising in light of this quick explanation from the DTI website.

<http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/adprice.htm>
"The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 makes it an offence for a trader to apply, by any means, false or misleading statements, or to knowingly or recklessly make such statements about services.

The Act carries criminal penalties and is enforced by local authorities' Trading Standards Officers."

There is no need to speculate.

Indeed, this is why I asked you for experimental data to back your advertised claim... and you have not been able to provide that. It is *you* that is speculating as evidenced by your previous reply to me "And as for subjectivity why not try it on your pet, who will ... genuinely prefer the magnetised water in my predictive belief."

Pure speculation on your part - not mine.

And if the Chinese study...

... had anything to do with my question, as you admit later ( "I am not making that claim.") I might have bothered reading it.

 

[BillHoyt]

Oh Dear, Bouncer Bill's back with more rubbish! Your alumni database doesn't extend beyond 1900, airhead.

If you want to check out my credentials why don't you just look on the IoB website for south wales. Also check with Emmmanuel College Porter's lodge, or the registrar at Caerleon which is part of Univ of Wales. Or better still just naff off.

I know the ancestry db goes only to 1900, sir, which is why I included the Cantab database. You don't appear there either. Now you direct us to Wales. I will follow up on that, but what about Cambridge?

 

[cogreslab]

Moulder’s question 5 reads:



5) Do power lines produce electromagnetic radiation?

His answer reads as follows:
"To be an effective radiation source an antenna must have a length comparable to its wavelength. Power-frequency sources are clearly too short compared to their wavelength (5,000 km) to be effective radiation sources. Calculations show that the typical maximum power radiated by a power line would be less than 0.0001 microwatts/cm^2, compared to the 0.2 microwatts/cm^2 that a full moon delivers to the Earth's surface on a clear night. The issue of whether power lines could produced ionizing radiation is covered in Q21B.
This is not to say that there is no loss of power during transmission. There are sources of loss in transmission lines that have nothing to do with "radiation" (in the sense as it is used in electromagnetic theory). Much of the loss of energy is a result of resistive heating; this is in sharp contrast to radiofrequency and microwave antennas, which "lose" energy to space by radiation. Likewise, there are many ways of transmitting energy that do not involve radiation; electric circuits do it all the time".

Moulder appears to be saying here that ELF power lines do not radiate, and though there has been some dispute about this I am inclined to agree with him. This is not to say that their effects cannot have action at a distance, however.

 

[cogreslab]

To EHocking: Are you mad? Measuring the level of water left in each bowl is a useful surrogate for standing there all day to count the visits by the animal. I would hate to have you design a scientific protocol! Unless of course you fancy spending the time seeing how many times dogs drink from bowls: on the other hand maybe you have nothing better to do.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I clearly said my test was an amusement not a scientific experiment: you were asking about my particular protocol, I thought. Your conclusions are rather uncharitable don't you think. Why not take the advice of some better scientists than us and simply "Do the experiment" instead of continually speculating. I find it significant that the peer reviewed paper I quoted was totally ignored by you, and smacks of a biased mind, Prag old boy.

You are advertisig for sale a device that claims to do something hitherto unknown by science. You are claiming that it does this with 100% efficiency. When asked about the evidence base for that claim, you tell an anecdote about your old dog. If that was for amusement only, fine, but then pray tell us what is your evidence for the claim in your advertising?

"Do the experiment yourself".. I have a strong sense of deja vu, I can tell you. However: No sir, you make a claim, therefore the onus of proof is on you. So, is the only evidence for your claim the "amusing" experiment you made with your old dog, or do you have some more solid evidence for the claim you present to the world about your product?

The peer reviewed paper you quoted has nothing to do with pet's preference for magnetic water.

Hans

 

[Pragmatist]

I clearly said my test was an amusement not a scientific experiment: you were asking about my particular protocol, I thought. Your conclusions are rather uncharitable don't you think. Why not take the advice of some better scientists than us and simply "Do the experiment" instead of continually speculating. I find it significant that the peer reviewed paper I quoted was totally ignored by you, and smacks of a biased mind, Prag old boy.

Huh? You talking to me....?

And if so, what about? I haven't a clue what you're referring to!

 

[Pragmatist]

To EHocking: Are you mad? Measuring the level of water left in each bowl is a useful surrogate for standing there all day to count the visits by the animal. I would hate to have you design a scientific protocol! Unless of course you fancy spending the time seeing how many times dogs drink from bowls: on the other hand maybe you have nothing better to do.

To EHocking: Be gentle with him, he hasn't heard of video cameras!