We are in the difficult position of thinking it might work despite having all the hallmarks of a scam. That is a very unfortunate position to be in. And if anyone recommends it, it makes them look just as bad. It is not much different from the Q Link situation. We can of course make excuses for them, like they have to be misleading to have a viable marketing strategy, etc. It seems they are not keen on going after the structured water angle and instead want to present it as an electronic device, but I would be surprised if there is any measurable emanation from it.
Potential EMF Mitigation? Compensatory Magnetic Oscillator
- Thread starter Keyhole
- Start date
We are in the difficult position of thinking it might work despite having all the hallmarks of a scam. That is a very unfortunate position to be in. And if anyone recommends it, it makes them look just as bad. It is not much different from the Q Link situation. We can of course make excuses for them, like they have to be misleading to have a viable marketing strategy, etc. It seems they are not keen on going after the structured water angle and instead want to present it as an electronic device, but I would be surprised if there is any measurable emanation from it.
I don't know about the protection value of the gizmo in question. I couldn't understand the science-fu.
However, it did prompt me to try to work out a few basics.
The idea that all objects have a resonant frequency, measured in Hertz, is nothing new. If a signal is emitted, and a nearby object shares a resonant frequency, it absorbs energy and starts to vibrate with greater amplitude, (in the case of a guitar string, this would be "louder").
If a calcium atom, (or "ion") has a resonant frequency matching a radio source, then it too will pick up energy and vibrate with more energy, changing how it behaves and interacts within biological systems.
Okay.
So.., I tried to verify what the resonant frequency of various ions were.
That's not easy to do! The great internet is rarely asked this particular question, and when it is, responders don't really know how to answer it, or if they do, they use units of measurement which are difficult to translate into hertz.
So I started off simple: Hydrogen. The humble "H" atom! Surely we must know the resonant frequency of the hydrogen atom?
Well, probably we do, but it's not quite so simple as asking Google. (Try it. Maybe you'll have better luck than me.)
For instance, Wikipedia has this to say about the hydrogen mazer - (different from a laser in that the emitted beam is not visible):
Okay. But 1.420 GHz is waaaaaaaay beyond the frequencies studied in the paper quoted in original post of this thread looking at cyclotron resonance in regard to Calcium; "one was close to 7 Hz and the other was close to 50 Hz".
That's orders of magnitude different. And I'm guessing that the Calcium ion is probably not so different in its resonant frequency from that of Hydrogen. But I don't necessarily doubt the claims; I think it's far more likely that I'm simply not understanding something.
-In fact, I ran across the idea of Cyclotronic Resonance many years ago, in discussions about the Lithium ion, and the active number where biological effects were seen was at 60 Hz. The effect observed being that in conjunction with wall socket electrical frequencies (60 Hz) and the Earth's Magnetic Field, any free Lithium ions in the blood of the subject energizes and mobilizes, and becomes more medicinally active. Lithium is used in anti-depressant drugs, and mice or rats or whatever creature being studied indeed became measurably slower when exposed as compared to controls.
But 60 Hz again is waaaay below the resonant frequency you'd probably need to energize Lithium gas in a laser-type system. It's probably up in the gigahertz region as well, I'd guess.
So... what gives?
Are we talking about some other aspect of these atoms which vibrates?
Other issues complicating includes the fact that the gas pressure a cloud of ions is stored at changes the resonant frequency. (I found a great paper on that which was a morass to wade through, but I could sort of understand and pick some useful things from. It's a lovely old text written back when science was more honest and straight forward. You can look at it here: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/481216.pdf )
Though one thing which does stand out in all of this...
The gigahertz range is exactly where the new 5G systems are expected to operate; within the same resonant window that fundamental atoms and presumably molecules live.
Just some thoughts from a science noob with the power to read books and scratch his head and ask sensible sounding questions, but who is usually just further confused by the answers.
However, it did prompt me to try to work out a few basics.
The idea that all objects have a resonant frequency, measured in Hertz, is nothing new. If a signal is emitted, and a nearby object shares a resonant frequency, it absorbs energy and starts to vibrate with greater amplitude, (in the case of a guitar string, this would be "louder").
If a calcium atom, (or "ion") has a resonant frequency matching a radio source, then it too will pick up energy and vibrate with more energy, changing how it behaves and interacts within biological systems.
Okay.
So.., I tried to verify what the resonant frequency of various ions were.
That's not easy to do! The great internet is rarely asked this particular question, and when it is, responders don't really know how to answer it, or if they do, they use units of measurement which are difficult to translate into hertz.
So I started off simple: Hydrogen. The humble "H" atom! Surely we must know the resonant frequency of the hydrogen atom?
Well, probably we do, but it's not quite so simple as asking Google. (Try it. Maybe you'll have better luck than me.)
For instance, Wikipedia has this to say about the hydrogen mazer - (different from a laser in that the emitted beam is not visible):
Okay. But 1.420 GHz is waaaaaaaay beyond the frequencies studied in the paper quoted in original post of this thread looking at cyclotron resonance in regard to Calcium; "one was close to 7 Hz and the other was close to 50 Hz".
That's orders of magnitude different. And I'm guessing that the Calcium ion is probably not so different in its resonant frequency from that of Hydrogen. But I don't necessarily doubt the claims; I think it's far more likely that I'm simply not understanding something.
-In fact, I ran across the idea of Cyclotronic Resonance many years ago, in discussions about the Lithium ion, and the active number where biological effects were seen was at 60 Hz. The effect observed being that in conjunction with wall socket electrical frequencies (60 Hz) and the Earth's Magnetic Field, any free Lithium ions in the blood of the subject energizes and mobilizes, and becomes more medicinally active. Lithium is used in anti-depressant drugs, and mice or rats or whatever creature being studied indeed became measurably slower when exposed as compared to controls.
But 60 Hz again is waaaay below the resonant frequency you'd probably need to energize Lithium gas in a laser-type system. It's probably up in the gigahertz region as well, I'd guess.
So... what gives?
Are we talking about some other aspect of these atoms which vibrates?
Other issues complicating includes the fact that the gas pressure a cloud of ions is stored at changes the resonant frequency. (I found a great paper on that which was a morass to wade through, but I could sort of understand and pick some useful things from. It's a lovely old text written back when science was more honest and straight forward. You can look at it here: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/481216.pdf )
Though one thing which does stand out in all of this...
The gigahertz range is exactly where the new 5G systems are expected to operate; within the same resonant window that fundamental atoms and presumably molecules live.
Just some thoughts from a science noob with the power to read books and scratch his head and ask sensible sounding questions, but who is usually just further confused by the answers.
There are some clues in the first post. The CMO graphic shows that low frequencies affect the ion spin and the GHz frequencies affect the ion moving back and forth without spinning. The ion is polar, so it will attempt to align it's field with the external field. If this field is alternating, it might cause the ion to spin not unlike an electrical motor. The references in the first post don't necessarily agree with the CMO graphic on the frequencies though. The CMO graphic says 35Hz whereas the reference says 7Hz and 50Hz (approximately).
The reference:
www.sciencedirect.com
Note that if an ion is oscillating back and forth in 2 directions, it's path is circular and this may be mistaken as a spin. However this is not the case, the ion is simply translating through space in a circular motion. This is not the same as a polar ion spinning in place due to an alternating magnetic field. I don't know why the spin frequency is so much lower than the vibratory frequency, perhaps it has to do with the distances involved or with the difference in mass between electrons and molecules.
In electronics, the main mechanism of RF interference is called demodulation. An AM receiver uses this intentionally to convert the AM modulated carrier wave to a modulated DC wave which contains audio frequencies. The AM receiver uses a diode to do this, and this effect is not limited to AM receivers. All semiconductor devices contain enormous numbers of diodes. Every transistor has at least 2 diodes inherent in it's structure. So any transistor or microchip can in certain conditions act as a demodulator, an unintended RF receiver. The main argument used by engineers to dismiss harmful effects of EMF is that the localized heating caused by EMF is extremely low. Yet if RF interference caused localized heating in an electronic circuit, it's a near certainty that the circuit has already been permanently damaged in some way. The body should be seen as a different type of circuit. The current scientific conception of the body as it relates to RF exposure is to see it like a pot on an induction heated stove. The magnetic field of the induction coil heats up the pot but the pot is fine as long as it doesn't melt. But the results would be very different if you put a circuit on top of the induction heater. The body is more like a circuit than it is a pot.
I also found this interesting paper that goes into the math a bit. But it seems it requires some background and I don't know if it's any good:
http://www.aetherscience.org/www-aspden-org/reports/Es10/esr10.pdf
The reference:
Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health
Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, ce…
Note that if an ion is oscillating back and forth in 2 directions, it's path is circular and this may be mistaken as a spin. However this is not the case, the ion is simply translating through space in a circular motion. This is not the same as a polar ion spinning in place due to an alternating magnetic field. I don't know why the spin frequency is so much lower than the vibratory frequency, perhaps it has to do with the distances involved or with the difference in mass between electrons and molecules.
In electronics, the main mechanism of RF interference is called demodulation. An AM receiver uses this intentionally to convert the AM modulated carrier wave to a modulated DC wave which contains audio frequencies. The AM receiver uses a diode to do this, and this effect is not limited to AM receivers. All semiconductor devices contain enormous numbers of diodes. Every transistor has at least 2 diodes inherent in it's structure. So any transistor or microchip can in certain conditions act as a demodulator, an unintended RF receiver. The main argument used by engineers to dismiss harmful effects of EMF is that the localized heating caused by EMF is extremely low. Yet if RF interference caused localized heating in an electronic circuit, it's a near certainty that the circuit has already been permanently damaged in some way. The body should be seen as a different type of circuit. The current scientific conception of the body as it relates to RF exposure is to see it like a pot on an induction heated stove. The magnetic field of the induction coil heats up the pot but the pot is fine as long as it doesn't melt. But the results would be very different if you put a circuit on top of the induction heater. The body is more like a circuit than it is a pot.
I also found this interesting paper that goes into the math a bit. But it seems it requires some background and I don't know if it's any good:
http://www.aetherscience.org/www-aspden-org/reports/Es10/esr10.pdf
@Keyhole, here is a paper I just found with interesting results regarding the effect of the magnetic Schumann resonance on hypoxia and oxidative stress:
Cardioprotection from stress conditions by weak magnetic fields in the Schumann Resonance band
They take you through the logic for deciding which of the proposed mechanisms may be responsible for the specific effect they observed, which is interesting.
Also interesting is the fact that the cyclotronic resonance frequency is not a constant. It varies with the recent field history and field orientation, the presence of static fields etc.
Cardioprotection from stress conditions by weak magnetic fields in the Schumann Resonance band
They take you through the logic for deciding which of the proposed mechanisms may be responsible for the specific effect they observed, which is interesting.
Also interesting is the fact that the cyclotronic resonance frequency is not a constant. It varies with the recent field history and field orientation, the presence of static fields etc.
ReasonBear
The Force is Strong With This One
There's a ground wire in the wall. LessEMF has a lot of good information on their site. Since we're dealing with such misunderstood subject matter, one would be well advised to read as much as possible before investing any money. One of LessEMF's own product tests revealed that high-frequencies >6Gb are easily absorbed by the skin, and our blood circulates throughout the whole body so....the Roulet's formations and other blood anomalies we've found will still occur unless every inch of the body is shielded, which is obviously impractical.
The Faraday cage could be a good solution, if the field strength isn't too high. Silver fabrics shield higher frequencies pretty well, but they do poorly against others unless properly grounded. You can buy a $15 outlet-tester from LessEMF to make sure that's the case with yours.
I'm glad you included that picture of the skull cap along with your question about shielded clothes. What do you think will happen if we use a cell phone while wearing a shielded hat? Spoiler alert: shielding materials work by reflecting EMFs, and they reflect in both directions.
EMFs can be measured with different values, but shielding is always measured in decibels - just like sound is measured. The stronger the signal in a given area, the more robust shielding will be required. We need to understand there really are no 'safe levels' of EMF. If all the pollution in the bedroom is caused by in-home sources, we could simply switch everything off at night and achieve a better result. Specialized 'demand switches' can be installed on the circuits affecting the bedroom so those particular wires go completely 'cold' overnight.
I don't doubt that you're getting positive results from your investments. Unfortunately, there are so many different situations and potential solutions out there, it would be irresponsible to make blanket-statements on the wrong side of caution.
ReasonBear
The Force is Strong With This One
If you can explain how you came to this conclusion, I might be able to clear things up.
Andrew
Jedi Master
Thanks for your response ReasonBear! I did some additional digging myself and came across this research study on the topic:
Cap for EMF protection
Essentially what they found is what ReasonBear mentioned above. When the frequencies are reflected (from the left, right, bottom-up and behind the brain) they're basically bouncing around inside of the 'hat/cap' through the unshielded body and acting as a mini-oven on the brain effectively heating it up. (see link for imaging)
I think here, the solution would be as ReasonBear said above:
But again this would be impractical for most, making this a more viable option:
If memory serves me, I also believe I read (here on the forum) if the body is properly supplemented with iodine, the iodine would also protect the body from being zapped.
Thanks again ReasonBear for bringing this to awareness!!
Here is a cyclotron resonance calculator set for a Ca2+ ion:
www.omnicalculator.com
Assuming I got it right, the inputs are:
Charge: +2 because Ca2+ is missing 2 electrons
Mass: 40 which is the Ca mass given on the periodic table
Magnetic field: 40 microteslas which is middle of the range for Earth's magnetic field (25-65uT).
This calculator assumes the ion is in a cyclotron, not a human body. So the conditions may be different.
Note that the resonance frequency is highly dependent on the static magnetic field. Thus, if cyclotron resonance is the culprit then I would expect magnets placed near the affected area to be highly effective.
I'm not sure if the Wifi frequency effect has anything to do with cyclotron resonance. Perhaps if the wifi polling rate is 30Hz it gets demodulated in body tissue to a 30Hz wave?
Cyclotron Frequency Calculator
Unlock precision in physics! Use our cyclotron frequency calculator now to accurately determine cyclotron velocity and frequency.
www.omnicalculator.com
Assuming I got it right, the inputs are:
Charge: +2 because Ca2+ is missing 2 electrons
Mass: 40 which is the Ca mass given on the periodic table
Magnetic field: 40 microteslas which is middle of the range for Earth's magnetic field (25-65uT).
This calculator assumes the ion is in a cyclotron, not a human body. So the conditions may be different.
Note that the resonance frequency is highly dependent on the static magnetic field. Thus, if cyclotron resonance is the culprit then I would expect magnets placed near the affected area to be highly effective.
I'm not sure if the Wifi frequency effect has anything to do with cyclotron resonance. Perhaps if the wifi polling rate is 30Hz it gets demodulated in body tissue to a 30Hz wave?
ReasonBear
The Force is Strong With This One
Andrew, please provide a medical reference for this, or consider removing it from the thread. :)
I believe it's irresponsible to disseminate inaccurate healthcare advise.
Don't you agree?
Please note: It is not up to forum members to decide what can and cannot be posted on this forum. Yes, we do not like false information being posted here, but sometimes what others think may be inaccurate is accurate and vice versa.
Also, sometimes what we accuse others of doing is also what we are doing.
Fear not, if the Administrators, Moderators or Ambassadors see something that shouldn't be posted, we will take care of it.
In addition to what Nienna wrote, I'd just like to point out although I agree that references are important in many contexts, "medical references" are also somewhat redundant since many things have not been studied in any meaningful way. Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.
Andrew
Jedi Master
My apologies ReasonBear for not posting my reference. Here's the session I was referring to. And FWIW I didn't mean to imply this as Healthcare advice; simply something recalled from memory. :)
Thank you Nienna. And my apologies for not posting my reference.
Indeed!!!
Thorough and interesting paper. Here is another from 2001
Schumann Resonances, a plausible biophysical mechanism for the human health effects of Solar/Geomagnetic Activity
After reading that and others by Sandyk R. a year ago I built this generator emitting a weak (about 100nT) magnetic field. Frequency was selectable from 7.8 to 20Hz. Powered by a coin cell it works for a few months of continuous use. I wore it as a pendant for a month day and night. Results are difficult to quantify, as at the time I was also doing NO, and LENS: far from a double blind placebo controlled randomized trial
.
