| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
E-Field across MEAT
A few weeks ago, I asked about generating an 140kHz electric field
across a leaf, part of a bio-med lab. Thanks for the answers. But it turns out I misread the roster and was in the wrong group. What I ACTUALLY NEED to do is generate a 100kHz electric field, at 1v/cm, across a T-Bone steak, to measure whether it retards or accelerates decomposition over time. The hypothesis is that the e-field retards growth of certain bacteria inside the meat. By design, we have not been instructed exactly how to construct the methods and apparatus. I have at my disposal a function generator and various amplifiers. It is a gross oversimplification to just connect one wire to one end of the steak, and another wire at the other end, and apply 20V RMS across a 20cm steak to generate 1V/cm? Thanks. Sorry about the idiot questions. |
E-Field across MEAT
On Sep 5, 1:00*pm, Jon Mcleod wrote:
A few weeks ago, I asked about generating an 140kHz electric field across a leaf, part of a bio-med lab. *Thanks for the answers. *But it turns out I misread the roster and was in the wrong group. What I ACTUALLY NEED to do is generate a 100kHz electric field, at 1v/cm, across a T-Bone steak, to measure whether it retards or accelerates decomposition over time. *The hypothesis is that the e-field retards growth of certain bacteria inside the meat. By design, we have not been instructed exactly how to construct the methods and apparatus. *I have at my disposal a function generator and various amplifiers. It is a gross oversimplification to just connect one wire to one end of the steak, and another wire at the other end, and apply 20V RMS across a 20cm steak to generate 1V/cm? Thanks. *Sorry about the idiot questions. What you are refering to is the induction process as applied to present day induction cookers available in stors for the general consumer Best regards Art |
E-Field across MEAT
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:00:52 -0400, Jon Mcleod
wrote: A few weeks ago, I asked about generating an 140kHz electric field across a leaf, part of a bio-med lab. Thanks for the answers. But it turns out I misread the roster and was in the wrong group. What I ACTUALLY NEED to do is generate a 100kHz electric field, at 1v/cm, across a T-Bone steak, to measure whether it retards or accelerates decomposition over time. The hypothesis is that the e-field retards growth of certain bacteria inside the meat. A pretty shabby hypothesis. By design, we have not been instructed exactly how to construct the methods and apparatus. I have at my disposal a function generator and various amplifiers. It is a gross oversimplification to just connect one wire to one end of the steak, and another wire at the other end, and apply 20V RMS across a 20cm steak to generate 1V/cm? Yes it is a gross oversimplification. What are your controls? Thanks. Sorry about the idiot questions. Hi Jon, It has been historically proven that the e-fields of 60 Hz current across the ribs of convicts, over time (about several minutes) seriously accelerates decomposition. Sterilization would naturally follow too answering the point about bacteria growth. Between those two obvious observations, it would seem you have a conflicting agenda. The hypothesis you are testing seems to want to simultaneously challenge and support longstanding evidence through shifting frequency without actually specifying how MUCH current should be applied. Thus the hypothesis devolves to: "How does frequency enter into what has already been observed?" Let me point out that this, too, already has longstanding evidence of doing pretty much offering the same outcome; and the state, for the sake of economy, has long since abandoned the hypothesis of performing executions with 100KHz electric chairs. To put it simply, you have to many unstated and unfulfilled variables to call your proposal a hypothesis. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
E-Field across MEAT
Art Unwin wrote:
What you are refering to is the induction process as applied to present day induction cookers available in stors for the general consumer Best regards Actually, no, the induction cooker uses a much stronger field. This is a low voltage field (1v/cm) that doesn't cook (or heat) the steak. Supposedly it disrupts internal structures inside bacteria when they try to divide, at least so goes the hypothesis. |
E-Field across MEAT
On Sep 5, 1:27*pm, Jon Mcleod wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: What you are refering to is the induction process as applied to present day induction cookers available in stors for the general consumer Best regards Actually, no, the induction cooker uses a much stronger field. *This is a low voltage field (1v/cm) that doesn't cook (or heat) the steak. Supposedly it disrupts internal structures inside bacteria when they try to divide, at least so goes the hypothesis. Well you are partly correct.If the heating section is not fully resonant and a time varying current is applied Then you attain a position where radiation is retarded and replaced by heat. If the heating section is resonant then the applied time varying current will only supply the energy to overcome friction and where all the rest is radiation. The equivalent electrical circuit is known as a Tank circuit where applied energy only replaces the friction involved in the continuos movement of charges backwards and forwards between the inductor and the capacitor in a near perpetual motion.. So in the correct circumstances only a bare minimum of heat is generated and where the rest of the energy goes to provide radiation a well known attribute created for sterelization found by Madame Curie of France Cheers Art |
E-Field across MEAT
Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:00:52 -0400, Jon Mcleod wrote: A few weeks ago, I asked about generating an 140kHz electric field across a leaf, part of a bio-med lab. Thanks for the answers. But it turns out I misread the roster and was in the wrong group. What I ACTUALLY NEED to do is generate a 100kHz electric field, at 1v/cm, across a T-Bone steak, to measure whether it retards or accelerates decomposition over time. The hypothesis is that the e-field retards growth of certain bacteria inside the meat. A pretty shabby hypothesis. By design, we have not been instructed exactly how to construct the methods and apparatus. I have at my disposal a function generator and various amplifiers. It is a gross oversimplification to just connect one wire to one end of the steak, and another wire at the other end, and apply 20V RMS across a 20cm steak to generate 1V/cm? Yes it is a gross oversimplification. What are your controls? Thanks. Sorry about the idiot questions. Hi Jon, It has been historically proven that the e-fields of 60 Hz current across the ribs of convicts, over time (about several minutes) seriously accelerates decomposition. Sterilization would naturally follow too answering the point about bacteria growth. Between those two obvious observations, it would seem you have a conflicting agenda. The hypothesis you are testing seems to want to simultaneously challenge and support longstanding evidence through shifting frequency without actually specifying how MUCH current should be applied. Thus the hypothesis devolves to: "How does frequency enter into what has already been observed?" Let me point out that this, too, already has longstanding evidence of doing pretty much offering the same outcome; and the state, for the sake of economy, has long since abandoned the hypothesis of performing executions with 100KHz electric chairs. To put it simply, you have to many unstated and unfulfilled variables to call your proposal a hypothesis. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Mr. Clark, The control is another steak is similar size from the same grocery packaging, placed in a second apparatus that is not powered. The idea is that a certain frequencies of low-voltage e-fields inhibit cellular mitosis. The professor saw an article in Science magazine about treating cancer with these fields, and decided it would be a nice lab activity for his students to observe other effects with this type of field. http://www.rife.de/files/disruption_...eplication.pdf Since generating an e-field in "meat" or "plant material" is not so easy, this is part of the assignment. We need to figure it out and then fully describe it in our methods section. The leaf people are using high-voltage insulated wires. With "meat", which is larger, I don't think this will work. I am wondering if I can use a low-voltage direct connection. My problem is that our group is weak on electromagnetism. They have been floundering, and now I am floundering with them. I have some ideas, but ideas are best vetted through those with PRACTICAL experience, which you guys seem to have. I have also wasted almost 2 weeks by sitting in the wrong group. OK I am an idiot in terms of BOTH electromagnetism and reading directions. Bottom line: I need to generate a 1V/cm field across a t-bone steak. Merit or no merit (this is college). Does anyone have any place I might look on line, or any book I might buy, or any advice on how I might accomplish this? Thank you. |
E-Field across MEAT
"Jon Mcleod" wrote in message m... Richard Clark wrote: On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:00:52 -0400, Jon Mcleod wrote: A few weeks ago, I asked about generating an 140kHz electric field across a leaf, part of a bio-med lab. Thanks for the answers. But it turns out I misread the roster and was in the wrong group. What I ACTUALLY NEED to do is generate a 100kHz electric field, at 1v/cm, across a T-Bone steak, to measure whether it retards or accelerates decomposition over time. The hypothesis is that the e-field retards growth of certain bacteria inside the meat. A pretty shabby hypothesis. By design, we have not been instructed exactly how to construct the methods and apparatus. I have at my disposal a function generator and various amplifiers. It is a gross oversimplification to just connect one wire to one end of the steak, and another wire at the other end, and apply 20V RMS across a 20cm steak to generate 1V/cm? Yes it is a gross oversimplification. What are your controls? Thanks. Sorry about the idiot questions. Hi Jon, It has been historically proven that the e-fields of 60 Hz current across the ribs of convicts, over time (about several minutes) seriously accelerates decomposition. Sterilization would naturally follow too answering the point about bacteria growth. Between those two obvious observations, it would seem you have a conflicting agenda. The hypothesis you are testing seems to want to simultaneously challenge and support longstanding evidence through shifting frequency without actually specifying how MUCH current should be applied. Thus the hypothesis devolves to: "How does frequency enter into what has already been observed?" Let me point out that this, too, already has longstanding evidence of doing pretty much offering the same outcome; and the state, for the sake of economy, has long since abandoned the hypothesis of performing executions with 100KHz electric chairs. To put it simply, you have to many unstated and unfulfilled variables to call your proposal a hypothesis. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Mr. Clark, The control is another steak is similar size from the same grocery packaging, placed in a second apparatus that is not powered. The idea is that a certain frequencies of low-voltage e-fields inhibit cellular mitosis. The professor saw an article in Science magazine about treating cancer with these fields, and decided it would be a nice lab activity for his students to observe other effects with this type of field. http://www.rife.de/files/disruption_...eplication.pdf Since generating an e-field in "meat" or "plant material" is not so easy, this is part of the assignment. We need to figure it out and then fully describe it in our methods section. The leaf people are using high-voltage insulated wires. With "meat", which is larger, I don't think this will work. I am wondering if I can use a low-voltage direct connection. My problem is that our group is weak on electromagnetism. They have been floundering, and now I am floundering with them. I have some ideas, but ideas are best vetted through those with PRACTICAL experience, which you guys seem to have. I have also wasted almost 2 weeks by sitting in the wrong group. OK I am an idiot in terms of BOTH electromagnetism and reading directions. Bottom line: I need to generate a 1V/cm field across a t-bone steak. Merit or no merit (this is college). Does anyone have any place I might look on line, or any book I might buy, or any advice on how I might accomplish this? Thank you. the problem is, do you want the field 'inside' the meat, or in the air around the meat? The problem is made harder because the steak is not only a dielectric material, which changes the magnitude of the field, but is also moderately conductive, which essentially shorts out the field. also, the properties depend on the direction of the field... you might want to see if your library has this article: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...rnumber=300250 . personally i would probably go the other way and suspend the meat on an insulating net horizontally and put a plate above and below it that are bigger than the steak. it is much easier to generate a uniform field between large parallel conductive plates than with wires... as a first approximation make the plates about double the largest dimension of the steak. it may be acceptible to set the steak on one of the plates (sterilize it first) and just suspend the other one above it. |
E-Field across MEAT
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:42:31 -0400, Jon Mcleod
wrote: Mr. Clark, The control is another steak is similar size from the same grocery packaging, placed in a second apparatus that is not powered. The idea is that a certain frequencies of low-voltage e-fields inhibit cellular mitosis. The professor saw an article in Science magazine about treating cancer with these fields, and decided it would be a nice lab activity for his students to observe other effects with this type of field. http://www.rife.de/files/disruption_...eplication.pdf Hi Jon, Let's examine the hypothesis of "low-voltage e-fields" in light of the source: In Vitro Experimental Set Up. Cultures were grown in standard culture dishes (4-well cell culture chambers; SN 138121; Nalge Nunc International). The TTFields were generated by pairs of 15-mm-long, completely insulated wires (P/N K-30–1000; VT Corporation; outer diameter, 0.5 mm; ethylene tetrafluoroethylene insulation thickness, 0.125 mm; dielectric breakdown, 1800 V/mil) fixed to the bottom of each dish at a distance of 1 mm from each other. The wires were connected to an oscillator (GFG8219A; Instek) and a high-voltage amplifier (A303; A. A. Lab Systems Ltd.) that generated the required sine-wave signals (range, 300-800 V). This would equate to an average of 5,500V/cM or roughly 275kV across the chest of a convict. History reveals that this prisoner would be specially prepared with conductive paste and electrodes that were NOT insulated (such as specified in your source). Thus we have two differences: 1. Frequency (100KHz vs. 60 Hz); 2. Insulation; 3. Application (in situ vs. in vitro). Since generating an e-field in "meat" or "plant material" is not so easy, this is part of the assignment. We need to figure it out and then fully describe it in our methods section. The leaf people are using high-voltage insulated wires. With "meat", which is larger, I don't think this will work. I am wondering if I can use a low-voltage direct connection. You would then be changing the conditions from testing fields to testing conduction. Ask yourself, if faced with the prospects of sitting in the electric chair, would you care to amend the conditions to include insulative pads at all points that formerly contacted the seat? Your rational answer would suggest you already know you are redefining expectations. My problem is that our group is weak on electromagnetism. They have been floundering, and now I am floundering with them. I have some ideas, but ideas are best vetted through those with PRACTICAL experience, which you guys seem to have. I have also wasted almost 2 weeks by sitting in the wrong group. OK I am an idiot in terms of BOTH electromagnetism and reading directions. Bottom line: I need to generate a 1V/cm field across a t-bone steak. Merit or no merit (this is college). Does anyone have any place I might look on line, or any book I might buy, or any advice on how I might accomplish this? You stick to the source if you want a good grade. To replicate the experiment, you have to conform exactly to the conditions, but not necessarily the means. It follows from shallow reading (speaking of my own efforts, not yours) that there is not much current flowing (otherwise this would immediately place us in the chair with the convict). This is to your advantage. You use the function generator you have, apply it to what is called a step-up transformer to obtain the voltage specified; and you come very close to the original conditions. Your function generator should have enough power to both step-up and supply the low current (you will have to confirm this through other means). You will have to use a small portion of meat because this is an e-field experiment that is measured in volt/meter. Choosing a T-Bone exacerbates your voltage problem, and making a direct connection invalidates it. Almost any insulated wire will perform adequately, the source is simply providing information for you to choose a suitable alternative, it is not necessary to find the exact reel of wire from a specific manufacturer. Google for the topic "100 KHz voltage transformer" and you will find a design that shows you how to construct one within an hour of obtaining the cheap components. It is merely a matter of ratios (how much voltage out of your function generator, and how much do you need?). This, of course, requires you to have a voltmeter that measures voltage at that frequency. Go to the EE department and visit their second year circuits lab. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
E-Field across MEAT
Dave wrote:
the problem is, do you want the field 'inside' the meat, or in the air around the meat? The problem is made harder because the steak is not only a dielectric material, which changes the magnitude of the field, but is also moderately conductive, which essentially shorts out the field. also, the properties depend on the direction of the field... you might want to see if your library has this article: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...rnumber=300250 . personally i would probably go the other way and suspend the meat on an insulating net horizontally and put a plate above and below it that are bigger than the steak. it is much easier to generate a uniform field between large parallel conductive plates than with wires... as a first approximation make the plates about double the largest dimension of the steak. it may be acceptible to set the steak on one of the plates (sterilize it first) and just suspend the other one above it. Thank you! In hindsight, obviously applying a field top to bottom will be easier than side-to-side! I need to research it, but I should be able to calculate the voltage required to generate the 1v/cm field in the steak if I know the dielectric constant of the "meat"... One question, what if the plates both touch the steak and I use a smaller voltage? I guess since steak is conductive, keeping the plates at a 1V/cm potential may actually sink a lot of current through the steak and cook it after all. |
E-Field across MEAT
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:53:53 GMT, "Dave" wrote:
The problem is made harder because the steak is not only a dielectric material, which changes the magnitude of the field, but is also moderately conductive, which essentially shorts out the field. Hi Jon, through Dave, Let's examine what is offered above, and the fault in a large T-Bone. The original work was performed with an average of 550V across a gap of 1mm which contained a sample of cells. Those cells, too, shorted out the voltage, but across a shorter distance. Most function generators will only source several volts at best, let's call it 5.5V to simplify comparisons. We replicate the field arrangement with a 10cM portion of steak. When we revisit the field strength, we will find it has plunged from the normalized 550,000V/m of the original work to the now feeble 55V/m or 4 orders of magnitude lower field of your suggested work. It would follow from the original author's thesis that your efforts will show 4 orders of magnitude less results. Call it zero. There's no point in doing it without replicating the fields as specified in the original. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
E-Field across MEAT
On Sep 5, 1:27*pm, Jon Mcleod wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: What you are refering to is the induction process as applied to present day induction cookers available in stors for the general consumer Best regards Actually, no, the induction cooker uses a much stronger field. *This is a low voltage field (1v/cm) that doesn't cook (or heat) the steak. Supposedly it disrupts internal structures inside bacteria when they try to divide, at least so goes the hypothesis. Jon, the idea of heat is confusing you!. The BBC aired a segment from Germany where they placed a slab of ice on top of a induction oven and then placed a cooking utensel on top of the ice so they could cook its contents. If the induction oven was creating heat instead of a radiation field one could surmise that the ice would melt . This was not the case as radiation bypassed the ice and gyrated towards the diagmagnetic cooking utensil. The experiment may well still be shown on U tube! I have just to get away and do some honey dooos ! Regards Art KB9MZ |
E-Field across MEAT
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:11:20 -0400, Jon Mcleod
wrote: I need to research it, but I should be able to calculate the voltage required to generate the 1v/cm field in the steak if I know the dielectric constant of the "meat"... Hi Jon, The dielectric constant of anything is a sidebar, or distraction, simply because you don't know the dc of the original work's cells either. In all probability they are the same, but this is unnecessary information. More to the matter is where you derive 1V/cm from the original work's application of an average of 550V (nearly 3 orders greater) to 1mm gap (exactly 1 order smaller). Your 1V is off by nearly 4 orders of magnitude. Again, if you were a convict and they let you set the voltage DOWN by 4 orders of magnitude, you might ask for a cool drink while the threw the switch and waited several hours for your execution. They may have to suspend it on account of darkness until the next dawn. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
E-Field across MEAT
Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:53:53 GMT, "Dave" wrote: The problem is made harder because the steak is not only a dielectric material, which changes the magnitude of the field, but is also moderately conductive, which essentially shorts out the field. Hi Jon, through Dave, Let's examine what is offered above, and the fault in a large T-Bone. The original work was performed with an average of 550V across a gap of 1mm which contained a sample of cells. Those cells, too, shorted out the voltage, but across a shorter distance. Most function generators will only source several volts at best, let's call it 5.5V to simplify comparisons. We replicate the field arrangement with a 10cM portion of steak. When we revisit the field strength, we will find it has plunged from the normalized 550,000V/m of the original work to the now feeble 55V/m or 4 orders of magnitude lower field of your suggested work. It would follow from the original author's thesis that your efforts will show 4 orders of magnitude less results. Call it zero. There's no point in doing it without replicating the fields as specified in the original. Mr. Clark, In the introduction, they describe, "In the present study we show for the first time, to our knowledge, that very low-intensity (2 V/cm), intermediate-frequency (100–300kHz), alternating electric fields induced by insulated electrodes have specific inhibitory effects on dividing cells in culture." The novocure dude is talking about 2 V/cm, and the prof here is talking about 1V/cm. I don't need to duplicate this experiment, I need to immerse a T-Bone into a 1V/cm, 100kHz e-field. I appreciate your help so much, but I don't understand where 550,000V/m is coming from??? |
E-Field across MEAT
Following my post, I read your source material closer to then ammend
my statements, interleaved below: On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:27:57 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:11:20 -0400, Jon Mcleod wrote: I need to research it, but I should be able to calculate the voltage required to generate the 1v/cm field in the steak if I know the dielectric constant of the "meat"... Hi Jon, The dielectric constant of anything is a sidebar, or distraction, simply because you don't know the dc of the original work's cells either. In all probability they are the same, but this is unnecessary information. In fact, they do report the dielectric constant, and as I speculated, nearly identical to that of steak (or seawater for that matter). More to the matter is where you derive 1V/cm from the original work's application of an average of 550V (nearly 3 orders greater) to 1mm gap (exactly 1 order smaller). Your 1V is off by nearly 4 orders of magnitude. In fact, they do report 1V/cm. The electric field intensity was mapped within the cell, based on the amplitude (1 V/cm), frequency (100 kHz) and waveform (sine) of the electric field applied to the cell culture. Unfortunately their reference for this was 11. Volakis JL, Chatterjee A, Kempel LC. Finite element method electromagnetics: antennas, microwave circuits, and scattering applications. which cannot be applied to a situation where the wavelength of excitation is 3000 meters and the gap is one thousandth meter. The calculation of 1V/cm based upon the application of an average of 550V across a 1mm gap flies in the face of credulity. However, and again confounding their use of power amplifier to deliver 1 V/cm in the near field, there is the report: The electric field intensity in the culture medium was measured by means of a probe, consisting of two (0.25 mm in diameter) insulated wires with exposed tips 0.5 mm apart, that was dipped in the culture medium. The wires were connected to a high-input impedance differential amplifier that translated the waveform amplitude into a calibrated steady voltage that was digitally recorded. Field intensities throughout the manuscript are expressed in peak voltage amplitude per centimeter (V/cm). Care was taken to eliminate any pickup from the field outside the culture medium. Continuous field monitoring could also be made by measuring the potential drop across a 100 Ohm resistor placed in series with one of the field generating wires. This last statement lacks data about what voltage was observed and says nothing of the contribution of field's interaction with the leads going to it to measure the voltage across them. I can understand your desire to simply shove your function generator's output directly into a steak. It is a choice that is tantilizingly teased as an option given this report of 1 V/cm. It also raises the curious aversion of the authors from performing the same test and removing the absurd complexity of amplifiers and remote senors. Afterall, 1 V/cm is trivial to obtain, demands no external amplification, and whose level can be monitored from the function generator itself. All of this (in concert with missing data and no computation shown) suggests a problematic correlation of results (which are inarguable) to field strength. Again, science would say replicate the conditions and observe if the results follow. You can make your own correlations. All things being practical, the application of an average of 550V across a 1mm gap demands a better reporting of a finding of 1 V/cm in the sample. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
E-Field across MEAT
"Jon Mcleod" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: the problem is, do you want the field 'inside' the meat, or in the air around the meat? The problem is made harder because the steak is not only a dielectric material, which changes the magnitude of the field, but is also moderately conductive, which essentially shorts out the field. also, the properties depend on the direction of the field... you might want to see if your library has this article: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...rnumber=300250 . personally i would probably go the other way and suspend the meat on an insulating net horizontally and put a plate above and below it that are bigger than the steak. it is much easier to generate a uniform field between large parallel conductive plates than with wires... as a first approximation make the plates about double the largest dimension of the steak. it may be acceptible to set the steak on one of the plates (sterilize it first) and just suspend the other one above it. Thank you! In hindsight, obviously applying a field top to bottom will be easier than side-to-side! I need to research it, but I should be able to calculate the voltage required to generate the 1v/cm field in the steak if I know the dielectric constant of the "meat"... One question, what if the plates both touch the steak and I use a smaller voltage? I guess since steak is conductive, keeping the plates at a 1V/cm potential may actually sink a lot of current through the steak and cook it after all. yes, that would be much harder and may result in cooking.. better to keep an air gap. |
E-Field across MEAT
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:41:15 -0400, Jon Mcleod
wrote: The novocure dude is talking about 2 V/cm, and the prof here is talking about 1V/cm. I don't need to duplicate this experiment, I need to immerse a T-Bone into a 1V/cm, 100kHz e-field. I appreciate your help so much, but I don't understand where 550,000V/m is coming from??? Hi Jon, Take 550V (the average of their amplifier's 300-800V capacity) and place it across 1mm. How many volts per meter? Consider the claim and specification of 1V/cm. How many volts per meter? How many volts will you need to obtain 1V/cm across a T-Bone steak measuring 20 centimeters? If you can solve one, you can solve them all. Where did the missing voltage go? This is a simple series impedance relationship that is linear with distance. To obtain 1V/cm from the author's source demands that there is considerable impedance isolating the sample from the excitation probes. This could be accomplished if there were a huge air gap between the first excitation probe and the cells' culture, and perhaps a corresponding huge air gap on the other side of the cell culture towards the second excitation probe. The ratio of impedances would be 550,000/10. The sum of both air gaps' impedance would have to exceed the cell culture's impedance by this ratio. This is possible, but the report is obscure to that possibility. The introduction of field measurement probes would be exceedingly disturbing to the balance of impedances too. The diameters of those probes consume half the gap within which the cell culture resides, and lay in exceedingly close proximity to the excitation probes! The probes themselves present more mass and area than the cell culture. The claims are specific, but all the evidence points to the authors having convinced themselves of a very problematic measurement. They are, afterall, no more versed in the art of antenna math and finite element modeling than you are. They got numbers to be sure, and performed what every student would recognize as "plug-n-chug." However, you are more interested in the results than the claims. Your assignment, as I understand it, is to investigate what results follow from your own variation of their work. Unless you are trying to also validate the correlations to fields, which I seriously doubt you could do, and would be suspect through direct attachment (as it does not conform to the original); then I would suggest you think smaller gap (not a T-Bone), up the voltage (as offered), and measure bacterial activity. Or, in your own terms: What I ACTUALLY NEED to do is generate a 100kHz electric field, at 1v/cm, across a T-Bone steak, to measure whether it retards or accelerates decomposition over time. The hypothesis is that the e-field retards growth of certain bacteria inside the meat. Set your function generator for a 1 volt output, separate two probes by 1 centimeter, place 0.99 centimeters of steak between. I will hope your grade isn't scored in competition to others puting their effort into more voltage across smaller gaps. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
E-Field across MEAT
One question, what if the plates both touch the steak and I use a smaller voltage? I guess since steak is conductive, keeping the plates at a 1V/cm potential may actually sink a lot of current through the steak and cook it after all. Sure, you can have the plates touch the meat. If it's 1cm thick, put a volt across it, and you're done. As you point out, though, if you put that field on the meat itself (whether by direct contact, or because it's suspended between two plates with air in the middle), current will flow, and heat will be dissipated. Your exercise is to figure out how much, and how hot it gets. Assume the thermal capacity is the same as water. I'd assume the conductivity is about the same as sea water (60 mS/cm) as a start. |
E-Field across MEAT
Do a google search on "TEM cell". That should get you pointed in the
right direction. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Jon Mcleod wrote: A few weeks ago, I asked about generating an 140kHz electric field across a leaf, part of a bio-med lab. Thanks for the answers. But it turns out I misread the roster and was in the wrong group. What I ACTUALLY NEED to do is generate a 100kHz electric field, at 1v/cm, across a T-Bone steak, to measure whether it retards or accelerates decomposition over time. The hypothesis is that the e-field retards growth of certain bacteria inside the meat. By design, we have not been instructed exactly how to construct the methods and apparatus. I have at my disposal a function generator and various amplifiers. It is a gross oversimplification to just connect one wire to one end of the steak, and another wire at the other end, and apply 20V RMS across a 20cm steak to generate 1V/cm? Thanks. Sorry about the idiot questions. |
E-Field across MEAT
Dear Student Mc Leod:
Roy Lewallen has a useful suggestion. I evaluate the performance of inanimate objects in a TEM cell, which may be thought of as an expanded transmission line. Zapping (an old EE term) an object with 100 v/m is not difficult, however that is not likely to be significant in your case. Your DUT (device under test) is a piece of meat. Room temperature meat has a significant conductivity. Even at 100 kHz, the conductivity of the meat results in the field amplitude decreasing rapidly below the surface of a thick piece of meat. Thus, if you were to use a TEM cell to place the DUT into a 100 v/m field, the DUT needs to be thin or you can not say that the whole DUT was subjected to 100 v/m. While all of this is going on, the DUT is exposed to air-born contaminates that may well be different than those of the control. If I had made this assignment, it would be because I expected the good student to perform an analysis of the experiment and prove that it was most unlikely to be a valid experiment. Alternatively, a student who I would recommend for graduate school would present me with a paper that shows what improbable measures would need to be taken (and why) to have a chance of having a valid experiment. The poor student is one who does what he or she is told to do without critical analysis. I have lived long enough to have several of my past students as honored colleagues. They all are able to think. Make friends with people in the EE department or some practical physicists. Do report back on what you ended up doing. Regards, Mac N8TT -- J. McLaughlin; Michigan, USA Home: "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message treetonline... Do a google search on "TEM cell". That should get you pointed in the right direction. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Jon Mcleod wrote: |
E-Field across MEAT
"Jon Mcleod" wrote in message m... A few weeks ago, I asked about generating an 140kHz electric field across a leaf, part of a bio-med lab. Thanks for the answers. But it turns out I misread the roster and was in the wrong group. What I ACTUALLY NEED to do is generate a 100kHz electric field, at 1v/cm, across a T-Bone steak, to measure whether it retards or accelerates decomposition over time. The hypothesis is that the e-field retards growth of certain bacteria inside the meat. By design, we have not been instructed exactly how to construct the methods and apparatus. I have at my disposal a function generator and various amplifiers. It is a gross oversimplification to just connect one wire to one end of the steak, and another wire at the other end, and apply 20V RMS across a 20cm steak to generate 1V/cm? Thanks. Sorry about the idiot questions. Hi Jon Is it practical for you to place the T-Bone between two plates? I would try a pair of parallel plates with the T-bone between them, fed with a 100 KHz, generator and the voltage across the plates adjusted to produce the field strength you want. Jerry KD6JDJ |
E-Field across MEAT
In article ,
Jon Mcleod wrote: What I ACTUALLY NEED to do is generate a 100kHz electric field, at 1v/cm, across a T-Bone steak, to measure whether it retards or accelerates decomposition over time. The hypothesis is that the e-field retards growth of certain bacteria inside the meat. Jon- Are the bacteria you want to retard inside the meat, or are they on the surface of the meat? You can't reach those inside due to the meat's conductivity, except by using enough energy to cook the meat. If on the outside surface, then the problem is much simpler. Use parallel plates but insulate the meat. Since meat is conductive (compared to air), do not include its thickness in your calculation of volts per meter. In other words, subtract the meat thickness from the spacing of the plates. Yes, the bacteria should be conductive. Their finite resistance will interact with the capacitive current that flows in the circuit, retarding their growth (or not!). I suggest you try it with a third (or fourth) steak, at different field intensities. Perhaps 0.1 v/cm, 1 v/cm, 10 v/cm, 100 v/cm or whatever you can manage with the available equipment. Fred |
E-Field across MEAT
"Jon Mcleod" wrote in message m... A few weeks ago, I asked about generating an 140kHz electric field across a leaf, part of a bio-med lab. Thanks for the answers. But it turns out I misread the roster and was in the wrong group. What I ACTUALLY NEED to do is generate a 100kHz electric field, at 1v/cm, across a T-Bone steak, to measure whether it retards or accelerates decomposition over time. The hypothesis is that the e-field retards growth of certain bacteria inside the meat. Hi Jon At your frequencies, a slab of meat will mostly resemble a resistor with some capacitive reactance. The resistance will vary with the thickness and area of the slab you're applying the signal to. Memory fades, but I recall that you will be looking at resisitivities on the order of a few hundred ohm-cm. (R = rho * L / A). At a field strength of 1 V/cm, the power levels will be pretty low -- the meat won't cook noticeably. The currents should be manageable, that is, I believe that your signal generator will be able to hold the 1V/cm without additional amplification. This will be true as long as the load resistance is the 50ohm output impedance of the signal generator. There is a decent chance that your meat slab will be less than the desired impedance. In this case you will need to measure the voltage periodically and adjust the generator output: As the meat degrades, its conductivity should be increased by the spillage of conductive cell contents. You will want to apply the field directly to conductive plates which are in contact with the meat -- if you have any air gap between a plate and the meat, the voltage drop will essentially be all across the air gap, none across the test sample. Best regards PN2222A NPN (Is = 14.34f Xti = 3 Eg = 1.11 Vaf = 74.03 Bf = 255.9 Ne = 1.307 Ise = 14.34 Ikf = .2847 Xtb = 1.5 Br = 6.092 Isc = 0 Ikr = 0 Rc = 1 Cjc = 7.306p Mjc = .3416 Vjc = .75 Fc = .5 Cje = 22.01p Mje = .377 Vje = .75 Tr = 46.91n Tf = 411.1p Itf = .6 Vtf = 1.7 Xtf = 3 Rb = 10) |
E-Field across MEAT
PN2222A wrote:
You will want to apply the field directly to conductive plates which are in contact with the meat -- if you have any air gap between a plate and the meat, the voltage drop will essentially be all across the air gap, none across the test sample. I've been thinking about this. There is a question on how to get an e-field into the meat, and there is a question about whether bacteria exist in the meat. I am assuming there is bacteria in the meat, but I've searched all kind of FDA and safety sites, and I don't see anything discussed except ground meat, so I don't know. Maybe there is not, just bacteria on the surface. As to whether you can get an efield into the meat, I found that the authors of the paper actually made a "helmet" to kill brain tumors in living patients: http://tinyurl.com/5aatcs They use insulated electrodes (dozens of them, apparently), but you do have to shave your head so they are close to the scalp. Are they really driving 1V/cm into someones brain without cooking it? Or is the actual field required to kill bacteria (and cancer) actually much smaller than 1V/cm? If the voltage is low, why don't they just put the electrodes in contact with the skalp? I have not idea if the trial is working, but if the device is curing patients, then whatever this box does would kill the bacteria in the meat (whether its there or not) without cooking the meat. I'm assuming they have fancy DSP to control all of the electrodes, but they still have to obey the laws of physics.... I think the field intensity to do this job may be WAAAAAY less than 1V/cm. |
E-Field across MEAT
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:34:31 -0400, Jon Mcleod
wrote: I've been thinking about this. There is a question on how to get an e-field into the meat, Hi Jon, I think that has been examined to death (no pun). The field does not cease to exist, it simply has plunged from 550,000V/M to 10V/M (if the suspect methods' data exhibit any correlation to reality). and there is a question about whether bacteria exist in the meat. If it does (and there is no presumption that it "cannot"), then it would be called an infection or necrosis. I am assuming there is bacteria in the meat, but I've searched all kind of FDA and safety sites, and I don't see anything discussed except ground meat, so I don't know. Maybe there is not, just bacteria on the surface. Take a hint from your source that had 10 microliters of cell solution spread out over the dish. Not much volume, not much thickness to call "inside" either. As to whether you can get an efield into the meat, I found that the authors of the paper actually made a "helmet" to kill brain tumors in living patients: http://tinyurl.com/5aatcs This is truly Bizarre. They use insulated electrodes (dozens of them, apparently), but you do have to shave your head so they are close to the scalp. A very telling question, and one they should have asked, and answered for themselves. This link points to some very inferior quality experimentation. Are they really driving 1V/cm into someones brain without cooking it? Or is the actual field required to kill bacteria (and cancer) actually much smaller than 1V/cm? If the voltage is low, why don't they just put the electrodes in contact with the skalp? Another very telling question. I have not idea if the trial is working, but if the device is curing patients, then whatever this box does would kill the bacteria in the meat (whether its there or not) without cooking the meat. I'm assuming they have fancy DSP to control all of the electrodes, but they still have to obey the laws of physics.... I think the field intensity to do this job may be WAAAAAY less than 1V/cm. In the 1960s, a product for cooking hotdogs (10cm) was sold. It consisted of exposed metal prongs that penetrated to each end of the hot dog, and were, in turn, plugged into the wall. Net result: in 3 minutes you had a broiled hot dog from 12V/cm. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
E-Field across MEAT - remove contamination
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:07:22 -0700, PN2222A wrote:
"Jon Mcleod" wrote in message All these are nice ideas and a marvel to engineering but I must say this.... ******* Whether it's radiated or E-fielded to kill the bacteria, there will still be **** ON MY FOOD! ********* Why can't they just stop the contamination as I don't want any crap on my food! I think it's very disgusting and would avoid radiated or electrified foods as I believe manufactures would find they could offset their cost be being less cleanly as long as they were not killing people. |
E-Field across BRAIN ("MEAT")
Richard Clark wrote:
In the 1960s, a product for cooking hotdogs (10cm) was sold. It consisted of exposed metal prongs that penetrated to each end of the hot dog, and were, in turn, plugged into the wall. Net result: in 3 minutes you had a broiled hot dog from 12V/cm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu0fWRtA4mw I have already drawn one preliminary conclusion from this whole exercise: I have purchased a wired (old-school, not bluetooth) earpiece for my cellphone.. e-field or no, it sure wont hurt anything to do it. |
E-Field across MEAT
"Jon Mcleod" wrote in message m... I've been thinking about this. There is a question on how to get an e-field into the meat, and there is a question about whether bacteria exist in the meat. Consider the meat as a resistive material, as I've already proposed. If you apply a voltage across the meat, that voltage will distribute itself across the thickness of the slab. (but with interesting distortions around the marbling, which has a significantly higher resistivity). The distributed capacitance will make some second order effects but the basic applied voltage across a medium / voltage field in the medium effect will remain. I am assuming there is bacteria in the meat, but I've searched all kind of FDA and safety sites, and I don't see anything discussed except ground meat, so I don't know. Maybe there is not, just bacteria on the surface. If there are no bacteria inside the meat, what is the purpose of aging? Are they really driving 1V/cm into someones brain without cooking it? What's the power density of 1V/cm into a 1cm cube of meat (or brain)with 300 ohm-cm resitivity? How does that compare to the power density reheating a quarter pounder in a 600W microwave oven? Quarter Pounder, Mmmmmmm. Regards PN2222A Biased? Of course I'm biased! |
E-Field across MEAT
PN2222A wrote:
"Jon Mcleod" wrote in message .... If there are no bacteria inside the meat, what is the purpose of aging?... Regards PN2222A Biased? Of course I'm biased! You don't suppose it might have something to do with enzymatic action do you? You know, to make the meat more tender? 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
E-Field across MEAT
"Jon Mcleod" wrote in message m... PN2222A wrote: You will want to apply the field directly to conductive plates which are in contact with the meat -- if you have any air gap between a plate and the meat, the voltage drop will essentially be all across the air gap, none across the test sample. I've been thinking about this. There is a question on how to get an e-field into the meat, and there is a question about whether bacteria exist in the meat. i think its normally assumed that bacteria contaminate the surface of cut meat during handling and from exposure to the air. ground meat is more likely to contain bacteria because it is ground... that is, the outer, possibly contaminated, surface is cut and chopped and put in contact with lots more meat surface, so bacteria can get spread throughout the mixture... and of course there is always the contamination probability on the grinding equipment which is much more complicated than a simple knife or saw used for sliced meats. |
E-Field across MEAT
"Dave" wrote in message news:RjEwk.582$Dj1.535@trnddc02... "Jon Mcleod" wrote in message m... PN2222A wrote: You will want to apply the field directly to conductive plates which are in contact with the meat -- if you have any air gap between a plate and the meat, the voltage drop will essentially be all across the air gap, none across the test sample. I've been thinking about this. There is a question on how to get an e-field into the meat, and there is a question about whether bacteria exist in the meat. i think its normally assumed that bacteria contaminate the surface of cut meat during handling and from exposure to the air. ground meat is more likely to contain bacteria because it is ground... that is, the outer, possibly contaminated, surface is cut and chopped and put in contact with lots more meat surface, so bacteria can get spread throughout the mixture... and of course there is always the contamination probability on the grinding equipment which is much more complicated than a simple knife or saw used for sliced meats. along the lines of another poster i would propose an alternate experiment that could be much more closely controlled. instead of starting with unknown contamination in meat, which is in itself a non-homogonous substance, it would be easier to setup and control a standard Petri dish contaminated with known bacteria samples. Those should be easily provided by any decent biology lab, and can be properly analyzed and scored using standard methods for measuring bacterial growth. Those methods are well documented, and again, any decent biology lab should be able to assist in the analysis. |
E-Field across MEAT - remove contamination
No Spam wrote:
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:07:22 -0700, PN2222A wrote: "Jon Mcleod" wrote in message All these are nice ideas and a marvel to engineering but I must say this.... ******* Whether it's radiated or E-fielded to kill the bacteria, there will still be **** ON MY FOOD! ********* Well put! I notice that the rules have been changed so that veggies will be irradiated to kill the e.coli and salmonella bacteria on them. But as you say, the food will still be spiced with whatever excrement is present. This will of course have the end effect of making the food filthier, as teh new Attitude will be "The radiation will get the germs, so I don't have to clean it. I guess we'll have to change the name to "Jalepeno Poopers". - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
E-Field across MEAT - remove contamination
Michael Coslo wrote:
Well put! I notice that the rules have been changed so that veggies will be irradiated to kill the e.coli and salmonella bacteria on them. Actually, e-field could be a much better way to kill bacteria on the surface of vegetables, if this whole kooky idea works. I mean, holy crap, if they're using it to cure brain tumors, it can probably sterilize the food without genetically damaging it. |
E-Field across MEAT - remove contamination
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:55:47 -0400, Jon Mcleod
wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: Well put! I notice that the rules have been changed so that veggies will be irradiated to kill the e.coli and salmonella bacteria on them. Actually, e-field could be a much better way to kill bacteria on the surface of vegetables, if this whole kooky idea works. I mean, holy crap, if they're using it to cure brain tumors, it can probably sterilize the food without genetically damaging it. Hi All, All of this remains highly suppositional and suspicious both. One need only graze beneath a common 110KV transmission line to experience field levels of 1KV/ft (33V/cm) to find no lower bacterial risk (and frequent claims to the contrary of these fields having healative powers). As for this last parenthetical, it demonstrates you can pick any topic and populate it with vapid ideas that embrace conflicting claims for the same weak evidence. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
E-Field across MEAT - remove contamination
All of this remains highly suppositional and suspicious both. One need only graze beneath a common 110KV transmission line to experience field levels of 1KV/ft (33V/cm) to find no lower bacterial risk (and frequent claims to the contrary of these fields having healative powers). While the field under the tower, in the absence of any conductors, is as you say (actually, the earth has a field on the order of 1kV/m just from thunderstorm return currents). If there's a conductor in that field, though, that does not imply that the field within the conductor is the same. |
E-Field across MEAT - remove contamination
On Sep 8, 1:06*pm, Jim Lux wrote:
All of this remains highly suppositional and suspicious both. *One need only graze beneath a common 110KV transmission line to experience field levels of 1KV/ft (33V/cm) to find no lower bacterial risk (and frequent claims to the contrary of these fields having healative powers). While the field under the tower, in the absence of any conductors, is as you say (actually, the earth has a field on the order of 1kV/m just from * thunderstorm return currents). *If there's a conductor in that field, though, that does not imply that the field within the conductor is the same. Jim Since you are with the space agency I jumped threads to ask a question. When a space ship leaves earth or a satellite is stable in the sky I assume that all are in thier own magnetic field because of relative motion of earth. Is it possible that there are a connecting magnetic field in the Universe of a like polarity tp that of a geo satellite? I would assume spacecraft record magnetic changes on their journey but I have read no details of such measurements. When I use computer programs to determine a radiation field in free space of an antenna in equilibrium the resulting radiation is zero as predicted by the extension of Gaussian law! Which begs the question, what provides the two like magnetic fields in a geosatellite or are charges just sliding off the end of antennas not in equilibrium? ( no gravity or combative weak fields being present) Regards Art |
E-Field across MEAT - remove contamination
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 8, 1:06 pm, Jim Lux wrote: All of this remains highly suppositional and suspicious both. One need only graze beneath a common 110KV transmission line to experience field levels of 1KV/ft (33V/cm) to find no lower bacterial risk (and frequent claims to the contrary of these fields having healative powers). While the field under the tower, in the absence of any conductors, is as you say (actually, the earth has a field on the order of 1kV/m just from thunderstorm return currents). If there's a conductor in that field, though, that does not imply that the field within the conductor is the same. Jim Since you are with the space agency I jumped threads to ask a question. When a space ship leaves earth or a satellite is stable in the sky I assume that all are in thier own magnetic field because of relative motion of earth. Is it possible that there are a connecting magnetic field in the Universe of a like polarity tp that of a geo satellite? I would assume spacecraft record magnetic changes on their journey but I have read no details of such measurements. When I use computer programs to determine a radiation field in free space of an antenna in equilibrium the resulting radiation is zero as predicted by the extension of Gaussian law! Which begs the question, what provides the two like magnetic fields in a geosatellite or are charges just sliding off the end of antennas not in equilibrium? ( no gravity or combative weak fields being present) Regards Art A spacecraft, like any other body, is immersed in whatever magnetic field there is around it, plus whatever field it has itself (imagine launching a bar magnet into space). In the case of an earth orbiter, the field of the earth is strong enough that electromagnets in the spacecraft can be used to change the orientation. Some spacecraft record the magnetic field as part of experiments to measure the solar system's magnetic field distribution. For these measurements, the spacecraft's own field is subtracted out. It's either measured or inferred from a series of measurements (e.g. if you spin the satellite, and measure the field, the varying component is due to the surroundings and the fixed component is due to the spacecraft... well, it's actually more complex, because any soft magnetic material on the s/c affects it too. The process is like swinging and calibrating a ship's compass, see, e.g., Chapter 6 of Bowditch: http://www.irbs.com/bowditch/pdf/chapt06.pdf ) |
E-Field across MEAT - remove contamination
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Jim Since you are with the space agency I jumped threads to ask a question. When a space ship leaves earth or a satellite is stable in the sky I assume that all are in thier own magnetic field because of relative motion of earth. Is it possible that there are a connecting magnetic field in the Universe of a like polarity tp that of a geo satellite? I would assume spacecraft record magnetic changes on their journey but I have read no details of such measurements. When I use computer programs to determine a radiation field in free space of an antenna in equilibrium the resulting radiation is zero as predicted by the extension of Gaussian law! Which begs the question, what provides the two like magnetic fields in a geosatellite or are charges just sliding off the end of antennas not in equilibrium? ( no gravity or combative weak fields being present) Regards Art well art, this sounds like a challenging situation for your theory to predict what happens... if there is no gravity to cause the magical mystery particles to settle on the diamagnetic elements and therefore they keep sliding off, how do satellites communicate with each other? a zero radiation by your extended guassian law sure doesn't help either! maybe you need to do some more thinking about all this stuff.... or you could do some actual research and see what the magnetic field environment is at geosynchronous altitude... just as a hint, take a look at this GOES Hp plot he http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/today.html then to get a look even farther out you can see the magnetic field that is part of the solar wind that moves your magical particles he http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_24h.html maybe the particle densities they measure can actually be related to your magical mystery particles? |
E-Field across MEAT - remove contamination
On Sep 8, 4:30*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Jim Since you are with the space agency I jumped threads to ask a question. When a space ship leaves earth or a satellite is stable in the sky I assume that all are in thier own magnetic field because of relative motion of earth. *Is it possible that there are a connecting magnetic field in the Universe of a like polarity tp that of a geo satellite? I would assume spacecraft record magnetic changes on their journey but I have read no details of such measurements. When I use computer programs to determine a radiation field in free space of an antenna in equilibrium the resulting radiation is zero as predicted by the extension of Gaussian law! Which begs the question, what provides the two like magnetic fields in a geosatellite or are charges just sliding off the end of antennas not in equilibrium? ( no gravity or combative weak fields being present) Regards Art well art, this sounds like a challenging situation for your theory to predict what happens... if there is no gravity to cause the magical mystery particles to settle on the diamagnetic elements and therefore they keep sliding off, how do satellites communicate with each other? *a zero radiation by your extended guassian law sure doesn't help either! *maybe you need to do some more thinking about all this stuff.... or you could do some actual research and see what the magnetic field environment is at geosynchronous altitude... *just as a hint, take a look at this GOES Hp plot hehttp://www.swpc.noaa.gov/today.html*then to get a look even farther out you can see the magnetic field that is part of the solar wind that moves your magical particles hehttp://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_24h.html*maybe the particle densities they measure can actually be related to your magical mystery particles? David, yes it was a challenge to my theory which led me down many paths of thought. You may remember that I expoused that charges travel thru the center of a conductor that is not in equilibrium. From the laws around equilibrium a charge on the outside of a radiator has no sideways motion thus per Newtons laws of action and reaction.Thus if the charge does move sideways then a charge also moves on the inside of the radiator again by Newtons laws. This suggests that in the case of a non equilibrium radiator the circuit at the end of the radiator has two choices. ! to creat an arc to complete the circuit 2 to travel down the center of the conductor where the resistance to flow is solely wire resistance. Quito Equador showed that in a thin atmosphere using a radiator not in equilibrium arcs would flowat the ends of the radiator. This phenomina was cured by using a closed circuit antenna such as the Quad where the same choices did not occur.( it is in equilibrium) So in my reasoning in outer space which is a vacuum an antenna cannot radiate without external components. When using a antenna program with an optimizer when inserting an arrangement in equilibrium first you get more gain on Earth than one of the present state of the art where "weak force is not included in the algerithums and 2 when placing a array in free space the resulting radiation is ZERO. Exactly what one would expect of a Gaussian field of statics when there is no fracture of the arbitrary boundary. So David that is how I resolved that question before I spoke of current flowing thru the center of a radiator. By the way there is no evudence that particles eminating from the Sun arrive by Solar winds where particles receive a charge by relative movement to Earth (Einstein?) Remember, Einstein only established the Laws of Relativity because of his disapointment of not determining the Weak force which he needed for the Grand Theory of a Universal Science/laws otherwise know as GUT. Using my aproach to radiation I consider Einsteins thoughts to be proven correct, tho not accepted as I am not an academic involved in a scientific structure, otherwise known as not invented here syndrom. I will look at the URL's supplied by you to see what they have to offer. Now I can say Best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg |
E-Field across MEAT - remove contamination
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:06:29 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote: All of this remains highly suppositional and suspicious both. One need only graze beneath a common 110KV transmission line to experience field levels of 1KV/ft (33V/cm) to find no lower bacterial risk (and frequent claims to the contrary of these fields having healative powers). While the field under the tower, in the absence of any conductors, is as you say (actually, the earth has a field on the order of 1kV/m just from thunderstorm return currents). If there's a conductor in that field, though, that does not imply that the field within the conductor is the same. Try it at any scale, and that certainly is true. Roll back this tape to the beginning and offer the same observation. There you would find upwards to 800V laid across 1mm of separation. Within that 1mm are two .25mm probes measuring a field described to be 1V/cm. Those same probes fall prey to your observation. Then carry that forward to a medical (sic) device doing the same (sic) thing with far less potential to the same (apparent) field, for a vastly greater bulk of conductive tissue. Yes, "fields" have been trotted out as the universal panacea - in the face of a counter argument for those same "fields" neither of which have any real science between them. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
E-Field across MEAT - remove contamination
On Sep 8, 4:04*pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: On Sep 8, 1:06 pm, Jim Lux wrote: All of this remains highly suppositional and suspicious both. *One need only graze beneath a common 110KV transmission line to experience field levels of 1KV/ft (33V/cm) to find no lower bacterial risk (and frequent claims to the contrary of these fields having healative powers). While the field under the tower, in the absence of any conductors, is as you say (actually, the earth has a field on the order of 1kV/m just from * thunderstorm return currents). *If there's a conductor in that field, though, that does not imply that the field within the conductor is the same. Jim Since you are with the space agency I jumped threads to ask a question. When a space ship leaves earth or a satellite is stable in the sky I assume that all are in thier own magnetic field because of relative motion of earth. *Is it possible that there are a connecting magnetic field in the Universe of a like polarity tp that of a geo satellite? I would assume spacecraft record magnetic changes on their journey *but I have read no details of such measurements. When I use computer programs to determine a radiation field in free space of an antenna in equilibrium the resulting radiation is zero as predicted by the extension of Gaussian law! Which begs the question, what provides the two like magnetic fields in a geosatellite or are charges just sliding off the end of antennas not in equilibrium? ( no gravity or combative weak fields being present) Regards Art A spacecraft, like any other body, is immersed in whatever magnetic field there is around it, plus whatever field it has itself (imagine launching a bar magnet into space). In the case of an earth orbiter, the field of the earth is strong enough that electromagnets in the spacecraft can be used to change the orientation. *Some spacecraft record the magnetic field as part of experiments to measure the solar system's magnetic field distribution. For these measurements, the spacecraft's own field is subtracted out. It's either measured or inferred from a series of measurements (e.g. if you spin the satellite, and measure the field, the varying component is due to the surroundings and the fixed component is due to the spacecraft... well, it's actually more complex, because any soft magnetic material on the s/c affects it too. *The process is like swinging and calibrating a ship's compass, see, e.g., Chapter 6 of Bowditch:http://www.irbs.com/bowditch/pdf/chapt06..pdf ) Very good. So here are two separate magnetic fields external to the boundary enclosed static particles which migrate to a diagmatic surface (the antenna) and since radiation does occur we can assume a collision of these magnetic fields which is opposed by the synthetic gravity of the space craft that generates the weak force. That leaves one gigantic problem of apparent weightless ness as seen on TV unless it is still there but not readily evident given a particular time segment. Thank you very much for supplying the above comment and I will now look at the URL presented Best regards Art Unwin.....KB9MZ....xg |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:44 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com