It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# NSA Mind Control Technology and A.I. Revealed

page: 17
99
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Bedlam
One, microamperes is not a unit of charge - sloppy at best.

hmmmm....

In practical terms, the ampere is a measure of the amount of electric charge passing a point in an electric circuit per unit time with 6.241 × 1018 electrons, or one coulomb per second constituting one ampere.

en.wikipedia.org...

No banana so far...

Originally posted by Bedlam
Two, it really really should have bothered him (assuming that deepthought IS a him) that the paper was using uA/cm^2 for current, because that's not a current, it's a current density. There is a BIG difference. And it's one he didn't catch - he even tried to USE it to get his units to come out right, which is a major failure.

No, he caught it. He was working out the peak power density as a result (Watts/cm2).

Originally posted by Bedlam
But the upshot is that the 29 microamperes referenced is per square centimeter of axonal cross section
...

No, it does not state this, you read the first line of the model and assumed this. The page you have referenced is a personal page and supplies no reference for the claims.

Originally posted by Bedlam
Next, you'll notice that he screws up the next step as well - he takes a power density (he even carries the 1/m^2 term along) and tries to calculate a spherical power density - multiplying two terms, both with 1/m^2 terms in them, he would have gotten a 1/m^4th if done right, he just handwaves it and keeps 1/m^2 - the error should have told him something was wrong but he blows smoke and hopes you won't notice the mistake.

In case you didn't notice, but he supplies a calculator in the comments and the figures are identical. There is no mistake in his calculations.

Originally posted by Bedlam
Finally, the biggest shaggy dog of all, and you didn't get it. Skipping all the other mistakes he's made in just one or two paragraphs here, the biggest false leap of all yawns before you. He's telling you that every bit of dissipated electrical energy in that neuron is converted to RF. Think about that one. Even if he'd got the current right, you can't just say P = IV -> all emitted RF. No no no. That's not how that works. At all.

He knows that, the ideal model was used to obtain ballpark figures, not an accurate measurement. This will become clear in a moment.

Originally posted by Bedlam
Not nearly. Let's take his "scientific paper" - they're saying that the firing frequency of their model is something like 270Hz (see page 1552). You've got an axon maybe 1cm in length, its behavior is dominated by straight ohmic resistance (on the order of 2.5E8 ohms for a 1cm length - op cit). So what you're going to have happen to that I*V product is that it's going to be dissipated as straight I2R heat loss. Tomorrow - why that's so. First step is to understand that when you're putting a few nanoamps in a 2500 megohm path, that resistance is going to dominate the radiative impedance of the thing viewed as an antenna. Also the thing is a few hundred kilometers too short - it's the same reason your speaker wires don't radiate all your sound away as ELF/SLF. The speaker wire seen as an antenna for radiating it is so very very short, it's all e-field and nothing radiates as RF at all. A radio engineer would say it's totally capacitive as an antenna.

I was waiting for that. This is the difference between physicists and engineers. An engineer would say nothing there is no ELF radiation, but a physicist would say there is, but it is very weak.

There is nothing in your statements that show either of the following points:

1. That ELF waves are not emitted from the human body.
2. They are not detectable at a distance.

In fact, whilst you have been rambling about "ballpark" figures, you ignored the scientific papers on the detection of ELF waves from the human body.

Anyway, nice try, but woefully inadequate.

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Bedlam
Oh, by the way, checking his numbers just to see if he'd muffed something else, he puts down 30mv as .003V (wrong) and 29 microamps as .0000029 Amps, also wrong. He did do the cm^2 to m^2 conversion correctly, so he can at least multiply by 10000, even though he next missed that he was multiplying two areas to get an area - also wrong.

I sent Deepthought a quick email on this. Its probably just typo, but it only makes the signal stronger.

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 12:24 PM

Originally posted by somerandomuser

hmmmm....

In practical terms, the ampere is a measure of the amount of electric charge passing a point in an electric circuit per unit time with 6.241 × 1018 electrons, or one coulomb per second constituting one ampere.

No banana so far...

Oh, my. Let's look at your couple of sentences - an ampere is the measure of charge passing a point. Not charge itself. Coulombs are the unit of charge. Amperes are a measure of how many coulombs per second pass a point. Amperes are a rate like miles per hour. You can't have 22 microamperes of charge any more than New York is 75 MPH distant from Boston.

"am·pere/ˈamˌpi(ə)r/
Noun:
The SI base unit of electric current, equal to a flow of one coulomb per second."

"cou·lomb/ˈko͞oˌläm/
Noun:
The SI unit of electric charge, equal to the quantity of electricity conveyed in one second by a current of one ampere."

No, he caught it. He was working out the peak power density as a result (Watts/cm2).

Not really. You have to have Watts prior to dividing it around the area of the sphere(and it's probably not spherical, more on that later), and he's got a current density number, not a current. That's why when he multiplies that by the area of a sphere later, he's going to get 1/m^4, not an area. I know what he was TRYING to do, it's just totally wrong.

Originally posted by Bedlam
No, it does not state this, you read the first line of the model and assumed this. The page you have referenced is a personal page and supplies no reference for the claims.

Read the paper that deepthought referenced, man. And Pinsky 1994. Ica is not a current, it's a current density, given in microamperes per square centimeter. page 1550 of the 'scientific paper' - 'following Pinsky and Rinzel (1994), we express the current flows between soma and dendrite...in microamperes per square centimeter" - that unit is a current density, not a current - and if you read Pinsky 1994 (pdf), going to page 41 you'll see "Currents and conductances are expressed as densities with units of uA/cm^2.." It's not a current, it's a current density. You can't chunk a current density into an equation that's looking for current as a unit. It just doesn't work.

In case you didn't notice, but he supplies a calculator in the comments and the figures are identical. There is no mistake in his calculations.

You've also got to get the units right. That's what we call dimensional analysis. Look at what he's doing. He even shows that he's multiplying two areal terms in the denominator, and coming out with another area. Doesn't work.

He knows that, the ideal model was used to obtain ballpark figures, not an accurate measurement. This will become clear in a moment.

Oh, hell no. He's not ballparking, he's baldly stating that the entire power dissipation of the neuron is emitted as RF. Not only is it not accurate in several different ways, as I've pointed out, he's straight up lying here.

I was waiting for that. This is the difference between physicists and engineers. An engineer would say nothing there is no ELF radiation, but a physicist would say there is, but it is very weak.

The guy is baldly trying to slip past you that the entire electrical energy in the axon is being radiated as RF. First egregious error. That number alone was 'very weak', even if it HAD all been emitted as RF, but it's not. Next, you've got two BIG BIG elephants in the room for this thing emitting ELF. One, the resistive dissipation of power in this system as heat totally dominates the power budget. He starts off with a miscalculated 87 microwatts/cm^2 that he's using as Watts later and trying to claim it's all emitted. But 86.9999..99 microwatts (even giving him that number, and it's wrong) of that is going away as heat, not RF. Two, the radiation efficiency of a 1cm antenna for 270Hz is going to be beyond the dreams of bad. You just can't emit 270Hz radio waves with a 1cm antenna. So the tiny fraction of energy that's available to GO into RF out of your guy's badly calculated 87 microwatts isn't going to convert to propagating radio waves due to impedance and wavelength-to-antenna length mismatches.

Out of space here - will try to get back to it in a few hours. There's a lot still to cover, and we're in a couple of paragraphs in his first screed! Of course, this is where he makes his base claims so it's worth going over it closely.
edit on 19-2-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 12:55 PM

Originally posted by somerandomuser
I sent Deepthought a quick email on this. Its probably just typo, but it only makes the signal stronger.

Hey, I'm honest on these things. If I find a mistake in his favor, I'll point it out. But it's two mistakes on one line - he got the scaling wrong twice - and it's still a current density. Since you don't like the first thing I grabbed on axonal ion currents (it was 3am) I'll find a few more. But Pinsky and Wang are seriously both using current densities across a standardized unit for axonal cross section. The actual current per axon is miniscule.

Later after we tapdance all over radiation efficiency, things that can generate near field effects that don't couple into propagating RF and issues with gross scale mismatches between radiated wavelength and antenna size, we'll get around to the fact that it's probably not an isotropic radiator either, although man, that system's so screwy for ELF I'm not sure how to evaluate it.

In the meantime, if you're really interested in analyzing this stuff and not going to just stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la, you might look around at the size of ELF and VLF antennas. Why are they that big? Why isn't that big enough to be very efficient, even though it's friggin huge? Why is 1cm a bad bad size for emitting or receiving a radio wave with a wavelength in the thousands of km?
edit on 19-2-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 12:55 PM
Well most of this is way above me, but I got a reply from Deepthought, so here it is:

From Deepthought:

Thanks for pointing out the error, I checked my notes for that article and it is indeed a typo. From what I remember, I wrote that article without the notes present. So, I am not surprised errors crept in.

I read through some of Bedlam's comments. I take it he is an engineer or something similar. Some of the points he raises are valid, but he is quite wrong when he says no radio wave is produced. His knowledge of antenna theory seems to be quite limited. He also states quite a lot of things I have noted in my series of articles, as though it is new information. A further issue, is that he doesn't seem to understand the processing side of things, I saw that he was lost as how to translate between a firing neuron and the information that reveals.

I think he has issues scaling up his knowledge in a practical sense, but I'm not worried by that, not many people can.

All said, I am not helping matters either. I dumbed down the articles to reach a wider audience, so purists would have issues with the language and some things I skipped over. Its just for readability, I leave the finer points to those that can handle the material.

I do like the reference he supplied for the axon current. I will use it as a basis for a new article that updates the values. I was seeking a reference like this, but I couldn't find one when I was writing the original articles.

I am in the process of revising the figures and fixing those mistakes. I will not correct those articles, I will just produce an updated version. I'll add a little on antenna theory that should explain why most of the energy is radiated and why it can be ignored for demonstration purposes.

Thanks,

Deepthought.

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 12:57 PM

Originally posted by somerandomuser
There is nothing in your statements that show either of the following points:

1. That ELF waves are not emitted from the human body.
2. They are not detectable at a distance.

In fact, whilst you have been rambling about "ballpark" figures, you ignored the scientific papers on the detection of ELF waves from the human body.

Anyway, nice try, but woefully inadequate.

I only get 5000 characters per reply. We're still on the couple of paragraphs wherein he tries to establish a baseline of putative RF output from a neuronal discharge. I can't cover everythihg he says all at once. We'll get to it.

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 01:05 PM

Originally posted by somerandomuser

I read through some of Bedlam's comments. I take it he is an engineer or something similar. Some of the points he raises are valid, but he is quite wrong when he says no radio wave is produced. His knowledge of antenna theory seems to be quite limited.

I note that you tried to claim that the entire energy in the axon is emitted as RF. Ignoring the gross calculation errors, this is not possible, it's going to be dissipated as heat. And we'll get to the antenna part later, after going over the problems in this first part. Perhaps you can substantiate at some point how you're emitting ELF from something that short - we'll ignore the impedance problems for now.

He also states quite a lot of things I have noted in my series of articles, as though it is new information. A further issue, is that he doesn't seem to understand the processing side of things, I saw that he was lost as how to translate between a firing neuron and the information that reveals.

I'll deal with that too, when I get there. It's a lot of material. I'm time limited, too, while I apparently don't know much about antennas, occasionally I get paid for designing comm systems. Guess I've got them fooled.

I do like the reference he supplied for the axon current. I will use it as a basis for a new article that updates the values. I was seeking a reference like this, but I couldn't find one when I was writing the original articles.

For some reason, this isn't readily available info. Sort of puzzled me too.

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Bedlam
I note that you tried to claim that the entire energy in the axon is emitted as RF. Ignoring the gross calculation errors, this is not possible, it's going to be dissipated as heat. And we'll get to the antenna part later, after going over the problems in this first part. Perhaps you can substantiate at some point how you're emitting ELF from something that short - we'll ignore the impedance problems for now.

I think he is adding a section to the new article on it. In the mean time, here is the scientific paper on it.

Progress In Electromagnetics Research Symposium 2005, Hangzhou, China, August 22-26
Existence of Electromagnetic Radiation in Humans in ELF Band
Jolana Lipkova and Jaroslav Cechak
University of Defence, Czech Republic

www.piers.org...

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:03 PM
Well, that was quick, the new article is out with the revised calculations and I must say its a good read.

deepthought.newsvine.com...

edit on 19-2-2012 by somerandomuser because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:01 PM

but a resonant cicuit re-radiates the incoming signal.

Easy fix... place two resistors in series with the induction coil, that should dampen the signal, and at least provide a measure of impedance to the EM signal, and perhaps throw up some interference to the original EM signal.

As for the DC component, I was just pointing out that an LC circuit only passes AC.

Ok, maybe I didn't read the articles in your OP as thoroughly as I could have... but where does the DC component come into play?

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:33 PM

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Easy fix... place two resistors in series with the induction coil, that should dampen the signal, and at least provide a measure of impedance to the EM signal, and perhaps throw up some interference to the original EM signal.

I don't know enough about shielding to be of much help. My area is biology and interaction with fields, perhaps Deepthought could help. He seems to know more about physics, electrical theory and all that.

I would recommend using an established company to produce a suitable enclosure.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Ok, maybe I didn't read the articles in your OP as thoroughly as I could have... but where does the DC component come into play?

It doesn't as far as I'm aware, sorry if I give that impression. I was just noting that the capacitor would prevent any DC current from forming.

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:45 PM

Originally posted by somerandomuser

Originally posted by Bedlam
I note that you tried to claim that the entire energy in the axon is emitted as RF. Ignoring the gross calculation errors, this is not possible, it's going to be dissipated as heat. And we'll get to the antenna part later, after going over the problems in this first part. Perhaps you can substantiate at some point how you're emitting ELF from something that short - we'll ignore the impedance problems for now.

I think he is adding a section to the new article on it. In the mean time, here is the scientific paper on it.

Progress In Electromagnetics Research Symposium 2005, Hangzhou, China, August 22-26
Existence of Electromagnetic Radiation in Humans in ELF Band
Jolana Lipkova and Jaroslav Cechak
University of Defence, Czech Republic

www.piers.org...

Cool - I'll try to get a look at it in the morning. Sorry not to have more time to devote to it, I've spent about four months at a customer site doing systems integration, and I get eight days off - this is day 4
- then back to the barrel for two months. This week is mostly playing daddy/hubby, so my passes through here are going to be choppy. Once I get back out there I will sometimes have civilian internet access and sometimes not, depending on where I'm at, so you'll likely see me pop in and out at weird times of the morning for a few minutes. But it's an interesting topic, and one that bears on my major work focus, which I'm apparently so uninformed about.
So maybe I'll learn how to design 1cm ELF antennas. God knows Navy had a rough time with it, and IIRC theirs was something like 75 miles long, and the loading coils you could literally drive a bus through. I got to see it before it went offline forever a few years back. Their ELF transmitter, and this is from memory, put something like 6 megawatts of drive power into the antenna to get a radiated ELF power of something like 5 watts. Because 75 miles is really really short compared to the wavelength of the frequency they were using, which was something like 67 Hz. If 75 miles is so short that you get 5W out for 6MW in, what will you get from a 1cm antenna? It gives one to think.

For most systems, you want a resonant antenna for highest efficiency, which really dictates your antenna size. In the case of ELF, you might wrap all the way around the earth at the bottom end, 6 - 7 Hz, while the Navy's ELF signal at 67 - 72 Hz was something like 1300 miles, to make a proper dipole. Obviously, you can't use a resonant antenna design for ELF. So, they did some neat tricks with bedrock and a long long wire (still way too short) and a hellacious feed-end inductor to make it tunable (short antennas have really bad capacitive reactance). And the antenna efficiency was still total crap. In a neuron, you're not going to have any sort of compensation for that (no big inductors in there). And you'll still have crap efficiency. Well, megacrap.

That's why you see ELF and VLF antennas be so large - it's to get past a bit of the length mismatch that spawns efficiency issues, and in this case, you'll have orders of magnitude worse. Anyways, I'll look at your link tomorrow, and I'll try to see if I've got some of the stuff around here I can scan and post. I have to figure out again how to link pictures/jpgs in ATS. I've got a squad of antenna design books here, and one goes into a few pages of detail on Sanguine, IIRC. Also there might be a DTIC publication on it in my office, I chunked a bunch of that stuff when we moved but I might have kept that one, it's probably not one of the restricted or confidential pubs.

Anyway - back to a question I posed earlier - why can you not just put a 1cm piece of wire on your audio amp and make yourself a 500W ELF transmitter? Why doesn't that work in real life? Why does the AC distribution network not spend all its power radiating the 60Hz away as ELF? (It does, some, enough to keep you from using 50 or 60Hz frequencies to communicate with subs)

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:17 PM

Originally posted by Bedlam
But it's an interesting topic, and one that bears on my major work focus, which I'm apparently so uninformed about.

This isn't your traditional setup and the rules are a little different. Deepthought explained it to me earlier.

From Deepthought:

With a traditional antenna, you are inducing photons by raising electrons from a ground state to an excited state. This creates motion, which in physics is heat. The more electrons you need to raise to an excited state, the more heat is generated. At a physics level, it means you are generating photons of the wrong type. So, the bigger the antenna, the more heat will be generated. Another way of looking at it is, more energy is lost the bigger an antenna gets.

The reason why the axon is so efficient is because the electric field is induced by the motion of charges entering the membrane. This limited motion reduces the heat and the alternating E-field can radiate effectively. In fact, if you look at the action potential closely, you will only find an E-field in motion. This, according to Maxwell's equations, generates a corresponding magnetic wave, which creates a electric wave and so forth. So, it near the ideal for dumping all the energy into the wave.

Originally posted by Bedlam
So maybe I'll learn how to design 1cm ELF antennas.

I think you just have.

Originally posted by Bedlam
God knows Navy had a rough time with it, and IIRC theirs was something like 75 miles long, and the loading coils you could literally drive a bus through. ...
...something like 6 megawatts of drive power into the antenna to get a radiated ELF power of something like 5 watts. Because 75 miles is really really short compared to the wavelength of the frequency they were using,..

...Anyway - back to a question I posed earlier - why can you not just put a 1cm piece of wire on your audio amp and make yourself a 500W ELF transmitter? Why doesn't that work in real life? Why does the AC distribution network not spend all its power radiating the 60Hz away as ELF? (It does, some, enough to keep you from using 50 or 60Hz frequencies to communicate with subs)

Apparently, its antenna design that is at fault.

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:40 PM

Originally posted by somerandomuser

This isn't your traditional setup and the rules are a little different. Deepthought explained it to me earlier.

Apparently QUITE different...

From Deepthought:

With a traditional antenna, you are inducing photons by raising electrons from a ground state to an excited state...

Um, nuh-uh. First - in a metallic conductor, you don't cause quantum transitions to excited states - the electrons are not attached to the metal nuclei in a traditional sense and you have a sort of electron gas called a Drude gas, where the electrons are relatively free to wander. Application of an electric potential causes the electrons to have a total net drift, although they are still moving somewhat randomly. But you don't get quantum transitions which cause photon emission as the electrons return to a ground state like some sort of LED. Well, not at least until you overdrive the antenna into a flaming ball of plasma. THEN you might get quantum transitions

The reason why the axon is so efficient is because the electric field is induced by the motion of charges entering the membrane..

I agree that a time-varying e-field will cause a time-varying h-field by Maxwell's equations - nonetheless, a current moving across a potential difference will cause I2R heat losses. Which will be all but an infinitesimal amount.

Now, if we're talking transverse membrane ion channel current instead of longitudinal axonal currents, your numbers change a LOT - the Ica number's not the one to use in that case, I don't think, and the effective antenna length becomes the thickness of the membrane, which is even worse. Then your putative RF emission becomes a superposition caused by a zillion tiny current flows transversely through the membrane as the ion channels open and the longitudinal axonal current flow from one end of the axon to the other across the total potential difference between the depolarized and polarized ends. Actually, the length of the emitter and the longitudinal current will change as the depolarization wave moves down the axon, although the longitudinal current variation will be sort of messy to calculate for.

Sweet - this ought to be complex as hell. I can see it in my head but drawing it out is going to suck. Anyway, your time-varying e-field in this case is first-order only going to be transverse. I see what deepthought was thinking now - at least I believe I do. At any rate, from his explanation to you, the first thing that comes to mind would fit his description. I'm going to have to sketch this out and a lot of the data I need sadly enough isn't on the net where I can find it, although I'm sure it's in the local university's biology library. I guess I can scan and post book pages on ATS without the SOPA police arresting me.

At any rate, I'll leave you with this in the meantime. Consider an axon of some convenient length.The entire axon is at resting potential - there is no net potential difference down the axon length, and thus no longitudinal current flow, and since the ion channels are closed there's no local transverse ion flow.

Stimulate the left-most end so that the axon fires. You will get an immediate group of ion channels opening in the annulus around the stimulus. The current flow will be mostly transverse ionic flow through the channels, and you will get a time-varying e-field across each channel, transverse to the membrane, as that area of the axon depolarizes. Now, stop it there in your head, just as the entire volume of the axon in a small discoid slice of axon at the left side (it's sort of obround) is now depolarized, with the rest of it still at resting potential. The e-field transverse to the membrane is now near zero in that spot - the ion channels opened and the charges have equalized. So you got a transverse delta-e event which is over with there. But now you've got a new e-field created from the depolarized spot to the right end of the axon, and it's going to have a potential value equal to about the resting potential, and the current is the axonal ionic current. So, there's another delta-e that happened at the same time. Now restart it - the action potential will slide along the axon to the right, but the potential difference doesn't change. A wave of depolarization will move down, but the potential difference is still the same from the depolarized area to the resting potential areas. You do change axonal current values, although that's symmetric and seems as if it would come close to cancelling. I think you're going to find the first order effects are all transverse impulse functions. The action potential propagating longitudinally down the axon isn't a time-varying e-field for the purpose of Maxwell, that's a group phenomenon. The real time-varying e-field is transverse to the membrane as the ion channels open locally.
edit on 19-2-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Bedlam
Apparently QUITE different...

Interesting, isn't it?

Originally posted by Bedlam
Um, nuh-uh. First - in a metallic conductor, you don't cause quantum transitions to excited states - the electrons are not attached to the metal nuclei in a traditional sense and you have a sort of electron gas called a Drude gas, where the electrons are relatively free to wander. Application of an electric potential causes the electrons to have a total net drift, although they are still moving somewhat randomly (Poynting vector) But you don't get quantum transitions which cause photon emission as the electrons return to a ground state like some sort of LED. Well, not at least until you overdrive the antenna into a flaming ball of plasma. THEN you might get quantum transitions

Ok, so you want to get into the skin effect and free electrons, the Drude model is quite old. That's cool. Accelerating an electron causes photons to be emitted, we all know that. These photons are emitted in all directions, even into the antenna itself. These are absorbed and quantum transition do occur. Radiated energy is not limited to the free electrons.

So, no, you do not need to create a plasma for this to occur.

Originally posted by Bedlam
I agree that a time-varying e-field will cause a time-varying h-field by Maxwell's equations - nonetheless, a current moving across a potential difference will cause I2R heat losses. Which will be all but an infinitesimal amount.
...

...revised this...see below...
edit on 19-2-2012 by somerandomuser because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:50 PM
More than that, Deepthought's new article shows how to control firing patterns with an external ELF E-field. Now that cannot open the ion channels, so it can't effect the E-field transverse to the membrane.

Only the group phenomenon can be driven, which opens the ion channels, so it needs to be a time-varying e-field for the purpose of Maxwell.

Its a debatable point.

We would need to sit down and map out the entire mechanism. This would reveal where an E-field can dissipate energy to control the firing pattern.

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 10:15 PM
Got Deepthought's view on this:

From Deepthought:

Very, very close guys. The E-field that propagates along the axon is not a group phenomenom. The influx of ions changes the potential of the cell's membrane. So, this E-field is produced by the membrane itself, as such, it is a time-varying field for the purpose of Maxwell's equations.

Hope this helps,

Looks like we were both off a bit here.

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 10:38 PM

Originally posted by somerandomuser
Ok, so you want to get into the skin effect and free electrons, the Drude model is quite old.

It's also quite accurate - a lot of semiconductor physics depends on it.

That's cool. Accelerating an electron causes photons to be emitted, we all know that. These photons are emitted in all directions, even into the antenna itself. These are absorbed and quantum transition do occur.

Elemental copper has pretty energetic electron state transitions. Like UV light sorts of energy. Not so much for the sorts of energy you'd be getting in an antenna. Thus my jokey comment about heating it to plasma.

Are you talking about Debye? (back to old Drude...) you can transfer energy from the moving electrons into the copper (or whatever) lattice by collision, that's quantized into phonons, starts tripping all around Debye and Drude again, which is why metals heat the way they do under current flow. But something like n=1 to n=2 electron transitions for copper are heinously energetic.

...and yet it is detectable...

I'll get to it eventually. Not tonight, though.

edit on 19-2-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 10:45 PM

Originally posted by somerandomuser
More than that, Deepthought's new article shows how to control firing patterns with an external ELF E-field. Now that cannot open the ion channels, so it can't effect the E-field transverse to the membrane.

I'll get to that too. I'm putting what effort I can into delving through this at some depth. A lot of this biological stuff I haven't looked at since college. Give me a break.

I also don't have to normally putz around with some of this other stuff. That's always fun - I have to relearn it on the fly. Keeps you on your toes.

I'm not sure about the other - I think you can fire neurons with nothing but a potential gradient. How much of one I'd have to relearn. Just when I had my hobby time all filled up with optically triggering exothermic reactions from graphene/carbon nanotubes.

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Bedlam
I'll get to it eventually. Not tonight, though.

edit on 19-2-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

Looks like you are copying the posts for offline editing. I changed this and posted something from Deepthought as well...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

new topics

top topics

99