Improving one's health through earthing. Please share your experience.

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Well, here you go:
www.youtube.com...

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Tusks
 


Geez, where to begin with this.

First off, it's Mercola. He's a tweak above Sorcha Faal in terms of accuracy, but only a tweak. If THAT'S your 'proof', it's likely to be shaky...let's pick the video apart.

0040: "We've picked up a low voltage electronic meter" (waves around a cheap EMF meter)

That's not a voltmeter. It's an EMF meter, totally different. Mercola names the other guy but doesn't state any bonafides, that's suspicious.

0051: "If you don't believe this, you can perform this observation for your own analysis"

Only if you have some understanding of what the instruments are showing, and how to use them. Obviously YOU don't, so how are you expecting Joe Sixpack to do it?

02:37 "Your body is a conductor, you are an antenna"

The first part's right. You're not acting as an antenna for an electric field though, you're a coupling capacitor. He's mixing radiating EM waves with electric fields, not the same at all.

02:52 "If you're ungrounded in free space, these electric fields are going to be attracted to your body"

Wrong. Bzzt! The fields are the fields. They're not attracted to you. They simply exist, and you're in them. You will still be after grounding, it's just going to change the way you couple to them. Basically, you're a little low capacitance node in a distributed field. Your potential with respect to ground will bounce up and down a few volts with the field, but no electrons will flow, because you are in free space. You don't gain charge, you don't lose charge. It has no effect on you at all, it just changes your reference.

02:59 "So it creates a surface charge on your body"

Wrong. All charge on a conductor is surface charge, all the time, regardless of external fields. You also cannot induce a net charge on a conductor in free space with an electric field - no electrons are moving because you ARE isolated. Your charge state is the same regardless of the field's presence or absence.

03:18 "A surgeon's not going to operate on you unless you're grounded"

What a load of malarkey. The medical industry puts a WAD of money into making sure all their equipment is totally isolated. It does not apply a ground reference to you, and needs no ground reference on you to operate properly.

03:19 "Anyone who works on software chips in the factory have to be grounded so that they don't build up any static electricity or charges on their body so that when they touch something it will harm the software"

Software chips? SOFTWARE chips? A static discharge will "harm the software"??? *sigh* Ok, that's just stupid. OMFG. This "expert" isn't one. He's not an engineer, he's not a physicist, he's not even a QC guy. I'm betting he's the local computer repair shop guy or an electrician.

If you work with ICs or some types of FETs, yes, you want to be grounded so you don't pick up a net charge. That's why I've got a pair of nice electrometers at work, we've got conductive tile floors, we've either got wrist straps, heel draggers or static shoes with carbon-loaded rubber plugs through the soles or me, I go barefoot in the lab. Because your shoes can induce a static charge through triboelectric charging. That's NOT NOT NOT the same as what this guy is picking up with his little EMF meter. Not in any way.

03:21 "And it's for the very reasons we're describing now, and you can demonstrate it if you don't believe it"

No, no it's not. It's two very different things. In one case, friction between two surfaces with different electronegativities is causing a net motion of charges from one object to another, producing a triboelectric charge. Your socks, the carpet, the motion of walking and you pick up a net charge. You can then pop the gate structure of a FET by punching through it, if the FET is grounded and you have a net charge when you touch it.

That's ABSOLUTELY not the same as you being an isolated conductor in an electric field. In that case, NO charge moves. You do NOT pick up any net charge. You're just coupling the electric field between the lamp and the EMF meter because you're conductive - sort of a salt water extension cord for the field to flow around.

03:45 "and and and grounding the body to prevent these charges goes back to the dynamite industry"

Sure - you don't want a static discharge when you're handling explosives...although it's really REALLY tough to get them to detonate that way, except for the new nano-metallic halogen composite stuff, that's how you set those off. But, again, THAT is triboelectric static charging, not electric fields from lamps and toasters.

04:08 "So it's a very real phenomenon"

Sure, but it's a very DIFFERENT phenomenon from the one you're talking about. My question is, do you know that and you're being fraudulent, or are you just incompetent?

04:29 "a low voltage electric field detector...low voltage works best for what we're trying to identify here"

I guess, because you need a much more sensitive detector as there's not much to measure. You're trying to make it look more dramatic. Also, it's got nothing to do with static charging. I note you don't make the distinction.

05:55 "The closer you are to an electrical cord, the more charge that's going to be created on your body"

Bull#. Total lackwit bull#. What he's got there is a Fluke meter set for AC millivolts. Now, that's probably what you think was showing net charge. It's not. He hasn't looked at net charge yet. He talks about it, and erroneously conflates that with coupling AC electric fields to you in free space. Now he's using a Fluke on AC millivolts to measure Mercola's body bouncing up and down in potential relative to ground.

But you have to understand what you're actually seeing here. There's wires in the walls (and the lamp etc) that are moving up and down in potential with respect to ground. That creates an electric field that radiates away from the wires, it's bouncing up and down 60 times a second. Mercola is a conductor immersed in that field, but without any reference to ground, since he's covered in somewhat insulating clothing and shoes on what's probably insulating carpet over insulating backing over concrete. Mercola's got no ground reference at all. So his potential WRT ground is bouncing up and down too. That's meaningless. No current flows at all, because he's got no reference to ground. The meter is reading the bounce up and down of the wires in the wall with respect to whatever ground the guy is using, with Joe included as an intermediate capacitive coupling. Other than being able to say "well, that doesn't mean a lot except that Mercola's got a few millivolts of difference from whatever reference he's using", it doesn't tell you much. You don't know, for example, how much the reference is bouncing. It's pretty common in our building for the green ground to have several volts of AC above a metal stake driven into the dirt. But even if it was a good, local ground (it's not, he's using the green ground in the outlet, I've got the same pad to do circuit work on), AC voltage on Mercola is meaningless. And it's not static charge.

(cont)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   
06:32 "and we'll see how the voltage on Joe dropped from about 1 Volt to about two thousandths of a volt"

No, not really. You're using a high impedance AC millivoltmeter to read Joe bouncing up and down in free space. So you're seeing Joe's relative change in potential with respect to ground as an isolated node. Not charge. Not "voltage on Joe". Now, you're giving Joe a ground reference by grounding him to the same reference the meter's using. Essentially, you just shorted the leads of the meter together. Of course you're not going to pick up a signal now. Duh.

Worse, though, if you think about it, now that Mercola has a conductive ground reference, the electric field from the wall is now doing something it couldn't do before. It's actually inducing a tiny AC current flow in Joe. For whatever that's worth. That happens in nature too, you're bathed in tiny AC fields.

06:47 "zero is perfect, because that's where we would be in nature"

Really? Nature is a bath of tiny little AC fields. Lightning strikes over the horizon, the Sun, radio waves from the universe, all of them are there all the time. Even trees waving in the wind induce little fields on you. If you lift your foot off the ground and you've got a shoe on the foot that's down, you'll bounce up and down several hundred volts.



So, yeah, your guy's not measuring net charge. He conflates net charge with electrostatic induction. Several times. And best of all, the thing he's whinging about doesn't move electrons onto or off of you at all. Fail.
edit on 6-11-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
"Change/difference in potential" isn't the same as "charge?"

So grounding doesn't remove electrostatic charge either? No electrons move when you ground yourself??

Just think of all the trouble that the folks in the explosives and computer chip industries go to that you could tell them not to worry about.
edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)
edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)
edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Tusks
"Change in potential" isn't the same as "charge?"


Same as charge: no, not when you're talking an AC circuit.

I don't have a digitizing tablet here, so I can't draw out what you're seeing with the guy doing the EMF meter.

Verbally, in the wall, there's a wire that's green ground, ignore that, another that's "neutral", and it's roughly the same as the green ground but not always. There could be some AC on it with respect to the green ground, due to voltage drop along the neutral to where it's bonded at the box. The "hot" wire is bouncing up and down 115V rms with respect to the neutral, if everything's copacetic.

It forms the plate of a capacitor. A long, thin one, but that's what's going on. Coming off of that capacitor plate is an electric field, that's following the potential on the wire, radiating away from it.

Mercola is an isolated conductor in that field. The field lines are following him, and bouncing him up and down in relative potential as an isolated intermediate plate in the circuit. He neither gains nor loses charge.

The field that's using Mercola's conductive body as an extension then couples to the ground through space. You've essentially got a circuit with 110V RMS, a very small capacitor (air to Joe), a conductor (Joe), and another very small capacitor (Joe to ground). Joe, being isolated, is floating and has no direct reference to ground. No electrons are moving onto or off of him due to this signal.

However, since Joe is one plate of a capacitor in this circuit, there's a small AC potential that's present between Joe and the ground. When you hook him up to the Fluke, now you've got a different two caps - wall to Joe, Joe as a conductor to the meter, and a cap in the meter. That flows across a 10Meg load resistor in there, and you see it as an AC voltage.




So grounding doesn't remove electrostatic charge either? No electrons move when you ground yourself??

Just think of all the trouble that the folks in the explosives and computer chip industries go to that you could tell them not to worry about.


You should stop and re-read what I posted, it was very very clear.

Grounding does remove electrostatic charge. Said that about five ways. The electric field from the wall does not deposit a charge on you. Period. What the EMF meter the guy is using is doing is reading the electric field coupled through the air to Joe, and along Joe, and then from Joe to the meter. The fact that Joe is conductive allows the field to run along him efficiently. It is not, however, adding or removing charge from him. At all. The 'expert' in the video doesn't understand that.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
@Bedlam
Let me just say, that you clearly know more than I do regarding electronic devices and fields.

Let me get your opinion regarding living beings(specifically--us):

We are complex organisms whose lives depend upon oxidation. Many of our other metabolic processes involve acid-base reactions and excretion or movement of ionic elements/compounds. Essentially all cellular membrane functions involve electrostatic large-molecule charges, as well as the constant small ion transport.
Between the excretion of urine, sweat, and the exhalation of gases and the oxidation of "foodstuffs",
some of these processes produce particles known as free-radicals, which seem to be harmful to many body parts. These free-radicals, by definition, possess an electrical charge--nearly always from an unpaired electron, resulting in an ion or molecule that is positively charged.

In contrast to isolation/insulation by non-conductive bodies, could it be possible that contact with the Earth might be able to reduce these free radical charges--however small they may be?

And conversely, could the presence of an EMF field influence the stability of a free-radical?
edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)
edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)
edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Tusks
...resulting in an ion or molecule that is positively charged.

In contrast to isolation/insulation by non-conductive bodies, could contact with the Earth be able to reduce these charges--however small they may be?


Well, let's talk chemistry, then.

No chemical reaction can create or destroy charge. Creating a free radical creates a free electron. You don't just eradicate the thing, it's there. You don't develop a net charge through metabolism.

All electrons are the same. You don't use them up, they don't become tired, they don't run out of energy, they don't go away. So any electron is co-equal to any other. Ones from dirt aren't better, or fresher.

Given that you're not sitting there using them up, or wearing them out, you're not going to build up a net positive charge. Even if one is imposed on you, unless you're in a very oddball environment, that charge will leak away over a few seconds. More, your body has a pretty small free-space capacitance, thus even a pretty good positive charge doesn't represent a lot of electron deficit.

Once you are at or near ground potential, grounding doesn't give you any extra electrons. They're not going to flow into you for the fun of it. Once you are at ground potential, that's it. If they DID flow into you, you'd become negatively charged, and they would push each other away and back into the dirt.

More, given that you're fairly conductive, any free electron you get in terms of loose charge is going to make its way to your skin in short order. Whereever it comes from.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Yes, I think electrons are lost easily enough. That would make production of positively charged free-radicals easier, I would think.

In Medicine, with EKGs, we are measuring electrical potential in millivolts. This is easy to see and measure, with changes of less than 1 millivolt being usually ignored. In the body as a whole, we are likely talking about net total-body charges with potentials, relative to Earth, in nanovolts-- millionths of a millivolt--being conducive to free radical maintenance and hence cellular membrane injury--and maintaining these minute charges until grounded.

My suspicions are that grounding does, in fact, either supply electrons to reduce free-radicals or produces a field or cage which prevents production.

I am aware of several studies that have shown that exposure to environmental 50-60 Hz electromagnetic fields increases concentrations of free radicals, lengthens their lifespan, and enhances the probability that they can do damage to the body .

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Tusks
Yes, I think electrons are lost easily enough. That would make production of positively charged free-radicals easier, I would think.


No process creates or destroys charge. Certainly no chemical process. You can move electrons from one place to another, but a chemical reaction will not cause electrons to be 'lost'.



In Medicine, with EKGs, we are measuring electrical potential in millivolts. This is easy to see and measure, with changes of less than 1 millivolt being usually ignored. In the body as a whole, we are likely talking about net total-body charges, relative to Earth, in nanovolts-- millionths of a millivolt--being conducive to free radical maintenance and hence cellular membrane injury--and maintaining these minute charges until grounded.


Your potential with respect to ground is meaningless. It's whether or not you have a net charge.

No process in your body has a clue how far above or below earth ground you are.

Also, if you have chemical processes that can be disrupted by some nanovolt potential, you are dead. Because you're constantly jumping up and down with potential with respect to the ground, and it's a LOT more than a nanovolt.

As far as EKG goes, you're not gaining and losing charge there. You are developing a potential between two points on your body due to an electrochemical process forming a dipole.

eta: What's the dissociation potential of a common free radical? It looks like about 5eV for the hydroxyl radical, I'm not sure a few nanovolts is going to get the job done.
edit on 7-11-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Perhaps we should be talking "valences" or oxidation state. The free radicals have typically been partially oxidized and have lost electrons. That is essentially the definition of free-radicals in human pathology. Free radicals can exist longer and appear to cause more damage in the presence of certain EMFs. Grounding of an object in space can disrupt EMF effects on that object.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Tusks
Perhaps we should be talking "valences" or oxidation state. The free radicals have typically been partially oxidized and have lost electrons.


Sure, but the electron didn't cease to exist, it's right over there. It just popped off. It's not like you have any fewer than you did, they're just arranged a bit differently.



Free radicals can exist longer and appear to cause more damage in the presence of certain EMFs. Grounding of an object in space can disrupt EMF effects on that object.


Well, it changes the effects from those of voltage to those of current - you've provided a ground reference. So now external electric fields CAN move electrons onto or off of the object. An AC field like the ones Mercola were demonstrating will do so, 60 times a second. So you have to ask yourself - is it worse to just be in an electric field, but with no relationship to it, or be part of the circuit? It's not like it makes them go away, you know, they just don't register on a voltage mode device like the EMF meter. However, if you had a SQUID there, it would act the opposite. No reading for isolated Joe, bat# for grounded Joe.

However, you have given me a great idea. I need to see if anyone's made one. I can cure your ills, my friend, with the Electronimo. Small, light, rechargeable, runs all day in near silence, and pumps new, fresh electrons into you that it steals from your surroundings. Never be without extra spare electrons AGAIN!



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Bedlam

Tusks
Perhaps we should be talking "valences" or oxidation state. The free radicals have typically been partially oxidized and have lost electrons.


Sure, but the electron didn't cease to exist, it's right over there. It just popped off. It's not like you have any fewer than you did, they're just arranged a bit differently.



Free radicals can exist longer and appear to cause more damage in the presence of certain EMFs. Grounding of an object in space can disrupt EMF effects on that object.


Well, it changes the effects from those of voltage to those of current - you've provided a ground reference. So now external electric fields CAN move electrons onto or off of the object. An AC field like the ones Mercola were demonstrating will do so, 60 times a second. So you have to ask yourself - is it worse to just be in an electric field, but with no relationship to it, or be part of the circuit? It's not like it makes them go away, you know, they just don't register on a voltage mode device like the EMF meter. However, if you had a SQUID there, it would act the opposite. No reading for isolated Joe, bat# for grounded Joe.

However, you have given me a great idea. I need to see if anyone's made one. I can cure your ills, my friend, with the Electronimo. Small, light, rechargeable, runs all day in near silence, and pumps new, fresh electrons into you that it steals from your surroundings. Never be without extra spare electrons AGAIN!


We could go in to partnership, you with your Electronimo© and me with my unicorn-shaped, pink-himalayan-salt-dipped earthing pad.
Judging by the interest on Youtube we'd be millionaires by the middle of next year.

It's not like we'd have to produce any robust studies or anything since if we put ANY studies out at all people will believe them (belief is the key, evidence is unnecessary) .
Even if they're shown to be fabricated, it really doesn't matter in the slightest.....
edit on 7/11/13 by Pardon? because: Syntax



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


I could actually DO it. Dump a negative charge on you, that is. It would be sort of conspicuous, because I'd have to have a battery, a high voltage supply and something to snag electrons off of air, maybe a little fluff of steel wool. So it's not going to be tiny. Maybe like a thick calculator wristwatch.

Of course, you're going to get shocked a little with a static discharge whenever you touch something metallic, but that'll let you know it's working.

Whether or not a 1kV negative charge is actually going to do anything for you one way or another, meh. But I can lay one on you, definitely.
edit on 7-11-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join