Login

Join for Free!
116867 members


Electromagnetic fields generated by the human body

Human Anatomy, Physiology, and Medicine. Anything human!

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby AstraSequi » Fri May 25, 2012 12:45 am

So long as you know how to run a controlled experiment, propose and eliminate potential problems, etc, you can do quite a lot without a lab.

Or why don't you design the methodology for a hypothetical experiment, and then post it here?


Speaking of which, I notice I never replied to you in the other thread - sorry about that. A few things:

First, charge is conserved. There no such thing as "generating" negative (or positive) charge - you can only collect it from somewhere, or send it somewhere. Any chemical reaction that creates negative ions will create an equal amount of positive ions.

Second: any charge, positive or negative, whether carried by ions or electrons, will cause a static shock. You will need to distinguish between these cases if you want to say that a static shock has a particular cause.

Third: unless there is actual movement of chemicals, the movement will only ever be of electrons - which is movement of charge, but not movement of ions. Ions are not a force - an ion is a chemical molecule that does not have an equal number of electrons and protons. If you say that ions are transferred, that is equivalent to saying that there is a particular chemical that is being transferred. Your skin is a very effective barrier for most chemicals, and especially for charged ones.

Fourth: I would want to know about the ioniser you say you used - namely, what precisely it is doing. A conventional water ioniser will have two containers, one of which becomes acidic and the other of which becomes basic (because of conservation of charge). If it claims to be "generating" ions, it is claiming to violate a basic principle of physics. Furthermore, you should be able to test its functioning using (for example) pH paper. If the water remains neutral, the machine is doing nothing.

Fifth: Suppose you want to test an ioniser using pH paper. What will you use for positive and negative controls to make sure you can trust the results of the experiment? :)
AstraSequi
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:14 am

Re:

Postby JoshuaFlynn » Fri May 25, 2012 10:34 pm

AstraSequi wrote:So long as you know how to run a controlled experiment, propose and eliminate potential problems, etc, you can do quite a lot without a lab.

Or why don't you design the methodology for a hypothetical experiment, and then post it here?


Speaking of which, I notice I never replied to you in the other thread - sorry about that. A few things:

First, charge is conserved. There no such thing as "generating" negative (or positive) charge - you can only collect it from somewhere, or send it somewhere. Any chemical reaction that creates negative ions will create an equal amount of positive ions.

Second: any charge, positive or negative, whether carried by ions or electrons, will cause a static shock. You will need to distinguish between these cases if you want to say that a static shock has a particular cause.

Third: unless there is actual movement of chemicals, the movement will only ever be of electrons - which is movement of charge, but not movement of ions. Ions are not a force - an ion is a chemical molecule that does not have an equal number of electrons and protons. If you say that ions are transferred, that is equivalent to saying that there is a particular chemical that is being transferred. Your skin is a very effective barrier for most chemicals, and especially for charged ones.

Fourth: I would want to know about the ioniser you say you used - namely, what precisely it is doing. A conventional water ioniser will have two containers, one of which becomes acidic and the other of which becomes basic (because of conservation of charge). If it claims to be "generating" ions, it is claiming to violate a basic principle of physics. Furthermore, you should be able to test its functioning using (for example) pH paper. If the water remains neutral, the machine is doing nothing.

Fifth: Suppose you want to test an ioniser using pH paper. What will you use for positive and negative controls to make sure you can trust the results of the experiment? :)


Electrics, biology and chemistry is not my forte, as you've sussed.

I wouldn't be able to design a methological experiment just yet, but I would need a crucial element I can't produce - volunteers who experience the phenomena occurring, notably on a regular enough basis. I would then spend time trying to deduce a pattern, then I would be able to devise an experiment to test the theory. I've heard plenty of people, and for all intents, I am willing to believe them, but being told something and seeing it happen so I can analyse it are two different things (people have a habit of leaving out details).

First: I can't tell if you're merely being pedantic with terminology or trying to make a point? You still need to generate a charge by means (an uneven charge does not come out of thin air - or you'd break the second law of thermodynamics). Footwear to floors generate a positive charge on one side, and a negative charge on the other.

Second: Easy, negative ion generator and positive ion generator would quickly eliminate this concern (I've read it's possible to have the same generator do the opposite charge by inverting/swapping diodes). But the only way you'll get any charge to interfere with positively charged equipment (EG a mouse) is by a negative charge - as negative is drawn to positive, so you can easily infer it as negative ions instead. I don't know anyone with a swappable (so people can't say the two different models work differently as a grounds for flawing it) ion generator.

Third: You're getting confused. The human body is basically an electro-chemical machine. In this thread, I'm suggesting an emotional outpouring (triggering a hormonal or other change) would alter the body chemisty (as it would do), thus altering the electrolytic content of the whole body, either causing any (or all?) of the following in either A) Reducing the amount of charge it can hold (removing ionic compounds like a layden jar), B) Increasing the amount of charge it can hold (adding ionic compounds, like a layden jar), or C) Generating an electrical charge (like an aptly named 'electrolytic battery').

Fourth: It's this one. It has what appears to be a 12 volt DC fan on the inside, two removable filters at the back, what I suspect to be a transformer at the base, and some sort of grey, intertwined string at the front (which I believe is wired to the transformer, and used to generate the negative ions and give me nasty electric shocks every time I put my hand near it). Budget (the one I got was £7.99), and a review speaking about 'getting electric shocks off plants' were the determining factors. I think you're getting pedantic over the generation phrase. I'll need you to clarify what your understanding of 'generation' is, and why you think it's not valid? As far as I understand it, it merely forces electric to a tip where the ion 'jumps off' and attaches to some air molecule.

Fifth: I am not sure what you are getting at here. I was under the impression pH paper was for testing acid/alkalines? I suppose it's figurative? What I plan to do, first, is get a vague idea how it works (by generating and testing sub-theories - heavy metal is one), then when I feel I have gotten a good idea how it works, formulate a test to validate that it does indeed work, and then open it up to the public.

The youtube video is not an official test - it's merely to give credence there is a possible mechanism that interferes with electronics. I'd really need people who do it naturally. My issue would be, what would the experiment's control for the electronic device to disable be? I can't afford a streetlamp and a computer mouse would leave too much room for criticism (faulty wire, mouse is being interfered with by a program or some such rubbish). I suppose lightbulbs? They're cheap, pretty standard and people absolutely hate energy saving ones...

And for the record, careful observers would notice I had my earphones in on the video - but aren't obviously causing me any electric shocks (despite the negative charge jumping to any metal surface in close contact with the skin). I only got shocks from the earphones (and laptop keyboard) whenever I was stressed. I've not really tested that yet (because it hurts), but might be an interesting lead nevertheless.
JoshuaFlynn
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:58 am

Postby AstraSequi » Sat May 26, 2012 9:31 pm

It’s okay to make a plan without having all the resources – for example, you might find out that not all the resources are necessary. Or, as in this case, people might help you improve your experimental design. You need to be able to do this if you are planning to perform any experimental tests.

Also remember that the first experiment should be to convincingly demonstrate that the phenomenon in question exists. I don’t think that you’ve done this yet. :)


1. The point is that you need to know where the opposite charges are going. Most importantly, you must always be able to say where charge is coming from or disappearing to in all circumstances. It also means that it is incorrect (or at least could be interpreted as misleading) to say that a single type of charge is ever being “generated” – you can call this pedantic if you wish though.

2. Not really - electrons are also negatively charged. (Electrons are not ions – just to make sure that you understand that.) Also, even if the initial source of a charge is ionic, the movement of charge that neutralizes it is generally electronic.

By the way, why do you think only negative charge will cause interference – have you tested it?

For switching – I would be satisfied by a generator that makes both positive and negative at the same time (as I mentioned above, a conventional water ionizer will do this).

3. I’m not confused. Again, if you say that ions are carrying the charge, that means there are chemical molecules travelling from the charge’s starting place to its ending place. That’s what ions are. And as I just mentioned, in almost all cases, charge is carried not by ions but by electrons.

The body is a chemical machine, but it is not an electrochemical machine (i.e. a battery). Certain parts of it could be viewed that way, but the body as a whole does not cause a net separation of charge. Or at least, it is not known to, and then this would be one of the things you would have to experimentally demonstrate.

Also, hormones (etc) do cause biochemical changes, but as far as I know the body contains no mechanisms that will turn an electrolyte (sodium, potassium, etc) into a non-electrolyte or vice versa – you have to consume or excrete them. This is also something you would need to demonstrate.

4. An air ionizer generally works by shooting extremely high voltage sparks through the air. Under these conditions, electrons get ripped off the air molecules, leaving them positively charged. Since O2+ is generally unstable (it reacts with nearby air molecules), the ions generated are mostly ozone (O3+). (Ozone is toxic, and it is what kills the bacteria etc in the air to purify it.) If you can feel static charge without touching it, that is because the air itself is ionized.

(I already discussed the word “generation” above.)

5. In water, positive charge is acidic and negative charge is basic (with certain exceptions). Given this information, you should be able to design a controlled experiment to test if the ionizer does what it is supposed to. :)


With regards to the video – the mechanism is well-known. Any strong charge or strong current will interfere with electronics. One control would be to test whether the mouse requires you to be in between – touch the mouse directly to the ionizer and see whether there is an effect. Another would be to touch it to a reasonably strong electromagnet (these are fairly easy to make, and it is also easy to measure their strength).

Most electric devices are far less delicate than computer electronics though. I don’t think you could get very much visible interference on something like a lightbulb - though you could use a voltmeter or ammeter to get more sensitive measurements. I’m also not sure what kind of control you’re referring to (whether it is a positive or negative control, what it would be controlling for, etc).
AstraSequi
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:14 am


Re:

Postby JoshuaFlynn » Sun May 27, 2012 10:54 pm

AstraSequi wrote:It’s okay to make a plan without having all the resources – for example, you might find out that not all the resources are necessary. Or, as in this case, people might help you improve your experimental design. You need to be able to do this if you are planning to perform any experimental tests.

Also remember that the first experiment should be to convincingly demonstrate that the phenomenon in question exists. I don’t think that you’ve done this yet. :)


1. The point is that you need to know where the opposite charges are going. Most importantly, you must always be able to say where charge is coming from or disappearing to in all circumstances. It also means that it is incorrect (or at least could be interpreted as misleading) to say that a single type of charge is ever being “generated” – you can call this pedantic if you wish though.

2. Not really - electrons are also negatively charged. (Electrons are not ions – just to make sure that you understand that.) Also, even if the initial source of a charge is ionic, the movement of charge that neutralizes it is generally electronic.

By the way, why do you think only negative charge will cause interference – have you tested it?

For switching – I would be satisfied by a generator that makes both positive and negative at the same time (as I mentioned above, a conventional water ionizer will do this).

3. I’m not confused. Again, if you say that ions are carrying the charge, that means there are chemical molecules travelling from the charge’s starting place to its ending place. That’s what ions are. And as I just mentioned, in almost all cases, charge is carried not by ions but by electrons.

The body is a chemical machine, but it is not an electrochemical machine (i.e. a battery). Certain parts of it could be viewed that way, but the body as a whole does not cause a net separation of charge. Or at least, it is not known to, and then this would be one of the things you would have to experimentally demonstrate.

Also, hormones (etc) do cause biochemical changes, but as far as I know the body contains no mechanisms that will turn an electrolyte (sodium, potassium, etc) into a non-electrolyte or vice versa – you have to consume or excrete them. This is also something you would need to demonstrate.

4. An air ionizer generally works by shooting extremely high voltage sparks through the air. Under these conditions, electrons get ripped off the air molecules, leaving them positively charged. Since O2+ is generally unstable (it reacts with nearby air molecules), the ions generated are mostly ozone (O3+). (Ozone is toxic, and it is what kills the bacteria etc in the air to purify it.) If you can feel static charge without touching it, that is because the air itself is ionized.

(I already discussed the word “generation” above.)

5. In water, positive charge is acidic and negative charge is basic (with certain exceptions). Given this information, you should be able to design a controlled experiment to test if the ionizer does what it is supposed to. :)


With regards to the video – the mechanism is well-known. Any strong charge or strong current will interfere with electronics. One control would be to test whether the mouse requires you to be in between – touch the mouse directly to the ionizer and see whether there is an effect. Another would be to touch it to a reasonably strong electromagnet (these are fairly easy to make, and it is also easy to measure their strength).

Most electric devices are far less delicate than computer electronics though. I don’t think you could get very much visible interference on something like a lightbulb - though you could use a voltmeter or ammeter to get more sensitive measurements. I’m also not sure what kind of control you’re referring to (whether it is a positive or negative control, what it would be controlling for, etc).


Designing plans when you have no realistic means of funding them is inefficient at best. I'd prefer to do groundwork research (which I have been doing, note other thread) which will give me a practical idea first - then the plan should follow naturally.

1. You've not explained what point you're getting at. You say 'disappearing' (since when does energy 'disappear' - I thought energy was only interchangeable between matter and didn't magically disappear), but cause concern with 'generator', which, under last definition fell under either "a device for producing a voltage electrostatically" (electrostatically being under a. "Of or relating to electric charges at rest"), or "any device that converts one form of energy into another form" - which would happen to include converting an AC current into negative ions (and I use negative ions as it doesn't produce the air molecules the negative ions attach themselves to, and I'm not going to say negative charge because this would fail to denote the charge airborne - so negative ions). I think your whole 'they would have issue with generator' is merely pedantic trickery. The terminology of 'generate' seems common enough.

2. And where do you propose the negatively charged electrons are coming from? But does it matter the means of origin? The negative ion generator is merely to artificially induce the effect to occur - pre-existing electrons being the cause for the event would merely demonstrate it as being naturally occurring. Besides, one could argue initial negative/positive levels could be tested with an ion counter ($99 for an inaccurate one, or $499 for a very precise one... neither of which I can obviously afford on my kind of budget). But you'd need a large number of negatively charged electrons just to have any level of interference (my hand has to near to the ioniser just to get an effect).

Why only a negative charge? A bit of electronic theory. A negatively built up charge grounds itself through the nearest positively charged source, correct? And is more drawn to a more powerful positive source, also correct? If that is so - then we see this in that the mouse is being interfered with - but my earphones are not sparking or causing me any harm (earphones take far less power than a 5v 0.1 amp mouse). If someone had a positive charge, it'd be attracted to a negative source (EG away from a positively charged mouse etc). But I'll consider testing with the positive ion generator anyway, both to see what happens and if it confirms what I'm saying (although a switchable negative/positive ion generator isn't safe for an electrically inexperienced person as myself - shocking - really). Although I can't find a pre-built unit that I can use safely.

3. Okay, I get what you're saying. In the case of the negative ion generator, the ions attach themselves to the air molecules, which then connect with my body (in this case, my hand), the charge then builds up in my body (with it acting as a pseudo-leydon jar), before discharging (once of a sufficient enough charge) into the mouse. Curiously, despite getting a shock off metal... I'm not getting an electric shock off the mouse (I wouldn't be able to hold it if it did) - curious, shouldn't it shock me when transferring to the mouse? Why isn't it?

As for the electro-chemical theory, it's a combination of two ideas (but I'm trying to find out which one it is), where either a negative net charge (to use your terms) is generated in the body, and then discharged (I'm theorising here, don't freak for the inaccuracies - I'm hoping to clarify the vague stuff when I investigate further) at point of emotional outpouring - triggering something similar to the mouse (but not on a long-term scale), the other being naturally occurring negative ions build up over time then discharge (again, via the emotional outpouring), which would explain why people watches stop (the backs are often made of metal - but it can still stop without the metal in contact, I have been told - the mouse I'm holding is plastic).

4. That's clarified a few points (electrons, notably), but I was aware of the rest. Same mechanism that apparently makes walls black with dirt as the negatively charged 'dirt' (crude term) is attracted to the positively charged walls.

5. I did not know this, and this might actually be extremely important... given the blood does deal with a specific pH level. And Lemons.

I mention lightbulbs as they are the most often reported for 'popping' or going out (and they are cheaper to replace than a mouse, and also produced en-mass to a specific standard). Too much sensitivity might allow room for claims other non-human interference. There's no controls as I have no test yet. I suppose... you could design an experiment to infer it. You take two control groups, one group of volunteers are the people who claim to cause it (who are then asked to cause it and are put under stress - with their consent, of course), and another group of volunteers who are non-stressed (the control group) who don't claim to have any such ability - who are started at the same time, in separate rooms (a good distance apart), with freshly installed energy saving lightbulbs in each, and something to measure the volts/amps used (preferably an independent supply of energy for each room so it would be possible to see if any discrepancies in energy usage occur).

In theory, same number of people, in the same rooms, with the same number of lightbulbs (which are the exact same model), supplied by the exact same energy source, who don't use any other electrical sources during their time here - should in theory, have very similar energy usages. If one was to blow a lightbulb or even interfere with the any part of the lightbulb circuit, it would show up as a discrepancy in the energy usage. It's measurable, statistical and theoretically repeatable.

You say that discharges interfering with electronics is a known occurance... is there any way to measure electric output of either the human brain or heart (or any other electrically significant part of the body)? If that's the case, then one would only need to demonstrate the body could produce sufficient quanities of energy to form a discharge sufficient to disrupt electronics (lot easier than the room experiment!).
JoshuaFlynn
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:58 am

Postby AstraSequi » Mon May 28, 2012 1:32 pm

1. - By “disappearing,” I meant “leaving” – sorry about that.
- “Negative ions” are not a form of energy – they are a form of matter. Current is a form of energy, because it involves charges that are moving.
- Also, a current is not “converted into” negative ions – a current is used to do work, which either strips electrons from molecules (creating positive ions) or adds electrons to them (creating negative ions). I imagine you will also class that as “pedantics” though.
- The terminology is common mainly because of pseudoscience. You will note that there are no journal articles, Wikipedia articles, major scientific organizations, etc that are brought up by your search (well, except for one for Wikipedia, but it seems to be quite poor quality). The terms are not specifically important to what we’re discussing, though, as long as you recognize that charge cannot come from nowhere, so I’ll drop it for now.

2. This is materials science. In a conductor (like wires), electrons are only loosely held to their atoms. A voltage (technically called a potential difference) causes those electrons to move. And there are a large number of them!

For testing – another approach would be to make a Leyden jar (or any capacitor). One plate will be negative, and the other will be positive – however, a Leyden jar builds up electrons instead of ions. If your effects are still observed, then the causation is not limited solely to ions. Actually, I would find that demonstration quite convincing (that the effect has something to do with ions as opposed to electrons).

(Although of course, you would need to make sure that the charge that the capacitor can hold is not dangerous, etc. I am assuming that you know basic electrical safety, and I take no responsibility for anyone who may read this or other of my posts and later injure themselves in any way. :) )

Also, you seem to be assuming that your mouse is positively charged – why is that, and how can you test it?

3. Whether you get shocked depends on the voltage at the point of contact. The charge is initially very concentrated, because it is in a small volume. After you touch it, the same amount of charge is spread out over a much larger region (your body), so the voltage between you and anything in the environment (like the mouse) is much lower.

What I was actually saying about the molecules, though, is that if the effect is ionic, then you are saying that there is some chemical molecule that is entering your bloodstream, travelling through your body, and then entering or otherwise affecting the mouse. Electrons can do this easily (in fact, they can travel anywhere in your body), but ions cannot.

Also, what do you mean by “naturally occurring” negative ions?

5. Lemons would be a positive control – what about a negative one? :)

Also, the relevant ion for your blood is bicarbonate.


Your proposed experiment sounds reasonable, and the lightbulb method seems like a good measurement system now that I understand what you mean. Your experiment involves two variables, though – the person’s claimed ability and whether they are put under stress. This means you would need four groups – claim/stress, claim/no stress, no claim/stress, and no claim/no stress. Otherwise you couldn't be sure of how the factors were related.


For human electrical output, definitely – EKG for the heart, and EEG for the brain (and in fact, it’s also known what patterns they follow). However, don’t forget that distance will also be important – like gravity, the electromagnetic force decreases with the square of the distance. You can calculate the exact force of attraction/repulsion that will be exerted at a given distance.

I strongly advise you not to experiment on that though. Because of Newton’s Third Law, if you are able to use your cardiac or neural electricity to disrupt electronics, the electronics will also disrupt your own electricity to the same degree. (All electric charge disrupts all other electric charge – it’s just that it’s usually insignificant.)

Also, production of “sufficient quantities” wouldn’t be very strong evidence if you couldn’t demonstrate that it actually happened. :)
AstraSequi
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:14 am

Re:

Postby JoshuaFlynn » Thu May 31, 2012 1:18 pm

AstraSequi wrote:1. - By “disappearing,” I meant “leaving” – sorry about that.
- “Negative ions” are not a form of energy – they are a form of matter. Current is a form of energy, because it involves charges that are moving.
- Also, a current is not “converted into” negative ions – a current is used to do work, which either strips electrons from molecules (creating positive ions) or adds electrons to them (creating negative ions). I imagine you will also class that as “pedantics” though.
- The terminology is common mainly because of pseudoscience. You will note that there are no journal articles, Wikipedia articles, major scientific organizations, etc that are brought up by your search (well, except for one for Wikipedia, but it seems to be quite poor quality). The terms are not specifically important to what we’re discussing, though, as long as you recognize that charge cannot come from nowhere, so I’ll drop it for now.

2. This is materials science. In a conductor (like wires), electrons are only loosely held to their atoms. A voltage (technically called a potential difference) causes those electrons to move. And there are a large number of them!

For testing – another approach would be to make a Leyden jar (or any capacitor). One plate will be negative, and the other will be positive – however, a Leyden jar builds up electrons instead of ions. If your effects are still observed, then the causation is not limited solely to ions. Actually, I would find that demonstration quite convincing (that the effect has something to do with ions as opposed to electrons).

(Although of course, you would need to make sure that the charge that the capacitor can hold is not dangerous, etc. I am assuming that you know basic electrical safety, and I take no responsibility for anyone who may read this or other of my posts and later injure themselves in any way. :) )

Also, you seem to be assuming that your mouse is positively charged – why is that, and how can you test it?

3. Whether you get shocked depends on the voltage at the point of contact. The charge is initially very concentrated, because it is in a small volume. After you touch it, the same amount of charge is spread out over a much larger region (your body), so the voltage between you and anything in the environment (like the mouse) is much lower.

What I was actually saying about the molecules, though, is that if the effect is ionic, then you are saying that there is some chemical molecule that is entering your bloodstream, travelling through your body, and then entering or otherwise affecting the mouse. Electrons can do this easily (in fact, they can travel anywhere in your body), but ions cannot.

Also, what do you mean by “naturally occurring” negative ions?

5. Lemons would be a positive control – what about a negative one? :)

Also, the relevant ion for your blood is bicarbonate.


Your proposed experiment sounds reasonable, and the lightbulb method seems like a good measurement system now that I understand what you mean. Your experiment involves two variables, though – the person’s claimed ability and whether they are put under stress. This means you would need four groups – claim/stress, claim/no stress, no claim/stress, and no claim/no stress. Otherwise you couldn't be sure of how the factors were related.


For human electrical output, definitely – EKG for the heart, and EEG for the brain (and in fact, it’s also known what patterns they follow). However, don’t forget that distance will also be important – like gravity, the electromagnetic force decreases with the square of the distance. You can calculate the exact force of attraction/repulsion that will be exerted at a given distance.

I strongly advise you not to experiment on that though. Because of Newton’s Third Law, if you are able to use your cardiac or neural electricity to disrupt electronics, the electronics will also disrupt your own electricity to the same degree. (All electric charge disrupts all other electric charge – it’s just that it’s usually insignificant.)

Also, production of “sufficient quantities” wouldn’t be very strong evidence if you couldn’t demonstrate that it actually happened. :)


1. I'm fully aware of the second law of thermodynamics (I use it to argue an infinite universe theorem). If I had said 'creating' ions I could see where you're coming from, but generator is an often used term (Van De Graff generator, for example).

2. I'm probably not arguing ions or electrons per se, as I'm still trying to figure the precise mechanism behind it (like being in a pitch black room trying to find a phone that has it's numbers re-arranged and trying to dial a number when you suffer from memory failures and confusion). I know my ambiguity is annoying (think of it as trying to work out magnetism when it hadn't yet been discovered) but I don't want to make any false claims.

But talking about safe charges... what size would a leyden jar have to be to emulate human capacitance? Because I know even 2 litre bottles of water (suitably modified) are capable of holding dangerous charges... and the human body is substantially larger than that (according to this, anyway)... so what happens if a mock leyden jar is made to approximately the same size as a small human? (I wouldn't want to mess with that as I have no aptitude in electrics and I get the distinct impression that under the right circumstances I could theoretically be toast). What kind of potential charge could that hold?

I am indeed assuming that the mouse is positively charged (I have no way to test, so I have to work in the theoretical). My (understanding of the topic and) reasoning is thus:

  • The negative ioniser generates negative ions (if it's not, that's misleading and the company that sold the product would be liable to Trading Standards in the UK).
  • Opposite charges attract.
  • Negative ions are drawn to positive ions.
  • When my left hand is touching or near the ioniser, other parts of my body get shocks (so we know it's flowing from my left hand towards another part of my body and jumping the gap - otherwise my left hand would get shocks instead as the positive charge jumps to the negative charge).
  • The attraction between negative ions and positive ions is stronger where there is a greater disparity in the charges (stronger negative charge to stronger positive charge).
  • Negative ions aren't drawn to other negative ions.
  • I get electric shocks from my earphones, so my earphones are more positively charged than the negative ioniser.
  • I don't get electric shocks from my earphones whilst holding the mouse... ergo:

The mouse is more strongly positively charged than the earphones, which must mean that the mouse is positively charged. We also know the mouse has to utilise a positive charge to power the light (because photons are positively charged) - the light isn't working correctly, ergo it's positive charge is being neutralised by the negative charge.

I could test to see if it's positively charged but if all the above line of reasoning is true, then logically we know it is positively charged - which would save the expenses and time for a test. We could test the groundwork of the reasoning later on to add further credibility after the main conclusion (humans affect electronics) is demonstrated. But if my reasoning is flawed, it saves a wasted expenditure.

3. Oh no, I'm not saying it's a chemical (to me, I understood an ion as a charge that is attached to a molecule - and when I say it travels through the body, I'm suggesting the ionisation in the air gets transferred to some material that can absorb an ionic charge - like electrolytes or heavy metals in the body). I suppose it might help if I explained what I was thinking.

Basically, I see it that:

Ions in air (or other similar source) -> Contact with body -> Body stores 'ionisation' (I suppose 'charge' is better? Although I want to be able to explain where the charge is going) in electrolytic water (like a leyden jar) -> Person triggers an emotional outburst, forming a hormonal release/stress reaction, affecting the body -> number of electrolytes in the bloodstream is modified (I'd imagine reduced by the electrolytes being converted/utilised during the stress reaction) -> charge on the electrolytes gets displaced (I wonder what happens if one were to 'remove' (change/convert) electrolytes in a charged leyden jar by converting them to some non-ion accepting form? What happens to the charge?) -> Person has an increased charge (fewer electrolytes but the same amount of charge resulting in the charge needing to find a way to balance itself back out) -> Charge jumps to the nearest positively charged source (I say positively charged because it would explain why only powered electronics get affected) -> Disables watch (by neutralising the positive charge) or similar.


I hope that makes sense but I haven't got the precise mechanics down for it, and I'm leaving that concept open to modification (in-case it's by some overlooked process). But it would explain why people could theoretically stop (excuse the pun) watches - if I could (artificially) disrupt a mouse, a very weakly powered watch could theoretically be disrupted with a sufficient enough bodily charge.


What do I mean by naturally occurring negative ions? This, for example (I would find other supporting studies that I had read previously, but unfortunately I only seem to pick up a lot of sites trying to sell negative ion generators).

Also, negative ion generators use 'corona discharge' - which is noted for the fact that 'corona' is derived from the solar corona. In a converse point, solar activity streams a lot of protons (and thus positive ions) - which is a natural source of positive ions. If solar activity can generate positive ions naturally, then it wouldn't be too absurd to suggest negative ions could occur naturally. Given lightning typically has a negative charge and is formed naturally, we can infer natural negative ions can occur (especially if the polarisation of charges in the atmosphere... excuse the pun... holds any water).

5. I am not aware of what you mean by positive and negative controls (you'll have to explain that one to me).

I'll take a look into bicarbonate (is there any chemical that makes the blood more acidic?).

Four groups could be useful. I suggested two as it uses an efficient 'binary tree search' (if the initial two groups showed no difference, there would be no need for more complicated controls). If the first group (claim/stress) showed a higher tendency to blow or affect lightbulbs - one could then divide the group into two (claim/no stress, stress/no claim) to see if it's merely people with a specific disposition for it, or hormal stress factors - or both. I know this style doesn't suit, but the two groups test would probably pique someone's interest to fund a proper four group test if the two group test succeeds.

...Surprised I didn't think of this. I don't suppose you happen to know what voltage/amperage differences are caused by different states of mind (delta, theta, alpha, beta, gamma, etc)? Assuming one can alter their brain waves - and with it, how much electrical output the brain is generating... and somehow store it/build it up...

Your mention on the third law is an intriguing one, and I'm going to make a few inquiries to check something...

I'll worry about demonstration and supporting evidence when I have the theory working.

Sorry I haven't replied in a few days, I'm working on a coding project as well. I take on too many tasks.
JoshuaFlynn
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Electromagnetic fields generated by the human body

Postby vanguardblaze » Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:48 am

_at_ Miak. I can aslo feel that resistance thing with my hands. i even asked my family members to do that and they confirmed that they can feel too. I also feel like my hands are charged. hard to explain in words. I want to ask that can we somehow use this phenomenon?
vanguardblaze
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:31 am

Re: Electromagnetic fields generated by the human body

Postby DrBarb » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:19 am

It would be good research if an University would compare the EM signature pattern of the Spirit and the psychological profile of both the consciousness and the Spirit.

A visual modality into the Spiritual and Divine Realm can determine if the Spirit is of the negative force - dark gray down to pure black aura and EM measures from -2 down to -30. Psychological profile is a destroyer of life and society.

There is a EM signature pattern for a mortal and Immortal Spirit. The Immortal Spirit Illuminates Energy from +10 to +50 to +100 in the Living Presence of either the Chryseis Daughter or Christ Son.

Why cannot society believe in the fact you have a Spirit. If you remove the Spirit from the biological body, it drops into a coma in 5 hours. If you use a Taser or ECT on the Brain you destroy the Spirit that in the next life, the Spirit's ability to work with that part of body is gone. I am finding that the young person whose heart stops playing basketball at the age of 19, was tasared in the chest in his past life. The Spirit is reborn 20 years after its last biological body's death.
DrBarb
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:27 am

Re: Electromagnetic fields generated by the human body

Postby DrBarb » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:29 am

It would be interesting research if an University would compare the EM signature pattern of the Spirit and compare that reading with the psychological profile of both the consciousness and the Spirit.

A visual modality into the Spiritual and Divine Realm can determine if the Spirit is of the positive or negative force, which is dark gray down to pure black aura and EM measures from -2 down to -30. Negative force being's psychological profile is a destroyer of life and society.

There is a different EM signature pattern for a mortal and Immortal Spirit. The Immortal Spirit Illuminates Energy from +10 to +50 to +100 in the Living Presence of either the Chryseis Daughter or Christ Son.

I would prefer society believe in the fact that you have a Spirit, your true state of being and purpose of life itself. If you remove the Spirit from the biological body, it drops into a coma in 5 hours. If you use a Taser or ECT on the Brain you destroy the Spirit that in the next life, the Spirit's ability to work with that part of body is gone. I am finding that the young person whose heart stops playing basketball at the age of 19, was tasared in the chest in his past life. The Spirit is reborn 20 years after its last biological body's death.
DrBarb
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:27 am

Re: Electromagnetic fields generated by the human body

Postby DrBarb » Tue Oct 01, 2013 5:51 pm

If a cancer cell takes from a healthy cell next to it, which makes the cell fall into a cancerous cell. Why not bombard with a high EM field to kill cancer cells. Also, use this same field to kill other virus.
DrBarb
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:27 am

Postby DrBarb » Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:19 am

Does anyone know of who might be doing research on the Human Body's EM field?
DrBarb
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:27 am

Postby greenfrog » Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:57 pm

I read this thread with interest. I'm surprised there is no mention of Leon Trotsky's work. For example his work with low frequencies and how the US military, some believe have used to develop weapons based on this. Search for trotskey on youtube and look for a 45 minute or greater documentary.
greenfrog
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:51 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Human Biology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron