Magnetic Energy

Static magnetic energy is not measurable it requires a conductor moving through the field to generate a signal in the conductor. You will require a very sensitive coil to detect ambient fields, unless you are very near the sources. The coil is your measuring sensor; a precision amplifier with readout would be your meter. For the readings to make sense or be comparable you would have to be able to repeatably know the actual distance to source. Otherwise all readings will be relative and hard to correlate properly.

Really? A compass (remember those?) is a static device can sense both the strength and direction of a static magnetic field. Fast forward to today's 3 axis magnetometers embedded in our cell phones, they sense the orientation of the device by measuring the relative strength of the earth's magnet field in 3 dimensions, no motion required. From Wikipedia:

"... (Magnetometers are classified as)..."DC" if they measure fields that vary only slowly (quasi-static) or are static..."

Don't need a coil. Just need to measure the potential placed on a conductor by the Hall effect.

Hall Effect Sensors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_effect_sensor

http://www.infineon.com/cms/en/product/sensors-and-wireless-control/magnetic-sensors/hall-switches/channel.html?channel=db3a30433afc7e3e013b3c0361f95a15&ic=0101026

http://www.automationdirect.com/adc/Overview/Catalog/Sensors_-z-_Encoders/Current_Sensors_%28AC_-a-_DC%29?utm_source=msn+cpc&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=hall%20effect%20sensor&utm_campaign=current+sensors&s_kwcid=AL!3683!10!2838272638!24556773829&ef_id=UpAjEgAABFho533n:20131123033754:s

From the last link:

DC Current Transducers (Hall effect sensor with signal conditioner)

And

Multi-Range DC Current Switches (Hall effect sensor, signal conditioner and limit alarm)

For more links, see also http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=hall+effect+sensor&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35

Note that manufacturer's data sheets should be available with the devices, and will suggest schematics for practical uses. How practical this OT's use is, will be determined by others. But I doubt that there will be schematic saying something along the lines of "use this one to determine the magnetic field steered by nearby persons".

At any rate, the point is, Hall Effect Sensors DO sense STATIC magnetic fields.

Maybe you could be a little more specific.....are you trying to make a magnetic compass spin with your mind...?....perhaps..? ....or are you wanting to measure the efficiency of your electromagnetic beam weapon...?

Mind/Body. Not a terrorist. lol

just check out their aura

Lol, starting off with the expectation that the mind/body can "direct" something he calls "magnetic energy", which is also something not defined. So he wants a device to detect an imaginary capability of a human body to control an imaginary form of energy!

Basically, any imaginary device you can think up will work!

Must have a Green Lantern at home in the closet...

You mean a Green Lantern lantern...?

As I stated this would be more of a Quantum Physics application, which is the science you speak of that you say cannot be detected and doesn't exist.

Wait, wait, wait.

.

Let me get this straight:

.

You believe quantum physics is 'the science....that...cannot be detected and doesn't exist'

.

and with that belief firmly entrenched in your head, you have requested assistance with, what you describe as, a 'Quantum Physics application' of developing or sourcing a detector of some sort?!?

.

.

Isn't is obvious? If the stuff you are trying to find is of the type falling into the category of science for that which can't be detected and doesn't exist..... then you don't have to try to develop or source a detector...because you already don't have it... in fact it is probably very busy virtually not detecting stuff that doesn't exist.

.

Better hurry up, or you might miss all the stuff it isn't doing.

.

.

P.S. To everyone, I was woefully misguided in assumptions when I wrote comment #11.

I was referring to your comment, that something doesn't exist. And I was stating that Quantum Physics does exist and can be detected. But I guess by double negative got you confused.

I apologize. I mistook what you were saying.

I think his inability to communicate technical concepts is throwing some of us off.

The energy to which he refers is in fact a real energy. It is created from the electrical impulses inside primarily our brains.

Some theorize that birds use that energy to interact with the Earth's magnetic field to determine where "south" is.

Now the act of causing some movement with this minuscule energy sounds a little hypothetical.

Can't move any physical objects. That would be telekenisis. However I have done many experiments with people and about half feel the energy. The other half do not.

From what I have researched it is an energy that QiGong (Chinese Martial Art) describes and uses.

I would enjoy discovering speaking with others who have an insight on this energy.

Actually that energy field can be viewed with Kirlian photography which picks up the electrostatic field surrounding objects including humans. Some of us can sense this at distances as great as 12 inches from the other person. Sometimes it's reciprocal sometimes it's not, interesting stuff if you're into parapsychology. (and sometimes it's just the electrostatic field that one picks up as you cross a carpet!)

I have seen this application. And it has different colors, but the colors don't as of yet have a meaning behind them. Some coorelate the colors with Chakras. I would like to find on in the area that I live to experiment with.

"Magnetic energy" is not the same thing. Ki, Qi, Ch'i, prana, ond..... even telekinesis has nothing to do with magnets or metals. You mean this here. Can't touch this.

Cute movie. Not sure if some of those are real. Some certainly were convincing. Cute song.

'...telekinesis has nothing to do with magnets or metals....'

.

What? Magnet and metals are immune to telekinesis? The idea of just moving a bunch of plastic things around cheapens the whole prospect.

.

So if Magneto (of X-men fame, not motorcycles) doesn't have telekinesis, what does he have? Is it 'telemagnesis' or 'magnetokinesis' or 'psychomagnetosis' or what?

I don't say metals are immune, not at all. But Magneto, that really is...er... magnetokinesis sounds about right.

Meanwhile check out this guy. Bricks, buckets of water, glass... nothing plastic to cheapen the effect (not sure about the bucket, well, it could even be metal!).

That was entertaining. I especially like the 'I can't cut my belly!' demonstration.

.

I am more impressed by Reggie Watts...and he makes more pleasant noises during his performances.

If you can feel people's energy, I can get you a million dollars.

You up for that? I am quite serious.

Have you looked in to Particle/Wave Duality?

I know this is a device that measures Quantum particles. They have also observed that the observation of such an experiment changes the outcome. Hense the theory of your thoughts as a measured perception. I again would love to be able to meet with someone who has such a devise.

Such a device is very easy to make.

.

The double slit experiment can be effectively reproduced with any cheap laser pointer and three fine 'lead' refills for a mechanical pencil. Simply hold or tape the three tiny rods parallel side by side in one plane forming two small gaps (one layer of paper or thin tape can be used to gap the rods). In a dark room, shine the laser through the double slits you have formed onto a screen or wall and you should notice that interference pattern.

Wow I never heard of this. Now I have to find out where I can get one or be tested by one.

Thank you

http://www.gizmag.com/nist-miniature-brainwave-magnetosensor/22764/

So cool. How can I get tested?

I find it surprising that the magnetic field from currents flowing in nerve cells can be detected at all. These sensors are extremely sensitive. Notice they are talking about picoTeslas.

It may not be "passive" detection.

Given that the inductance of a circuit varies inversely as the current flowing in it; it may be possible to induce a micro-voltage in the tissue and then monitor the parameters of the inducing circuit to detect neural activity.

What is being "sensed" may simply be the impulses that would change the inductance of the tissue and therefor the parameters of the inducing circuit.

"...Given that the inductance of a circuit varies inversely as the current flowing in it...", not really, the inductance is a physical parameter independent of the circuit that it's in. What does vary is the inductive reactance which is proportional to the frequency imposed on it.

Thank you for your reply Ram.

The inductive reactance component of circuit impedance is indeed defined by the frequency of the signal as you stated; but I believe the inductance of a circuit does indeed vary inversely as the current flowing in it.

Please consider the following; and correct me if I am wrong.

Imagine two coils mutually linked. The power coil is part of a LC circuit operating at the resonant frequency as defined by the value of the inductance and capacitance of the power circuit.

The second coil is in close proximity to the power circuit coil. It is "mutually linked."

Unlike the coil in the power circuit that has an alternating current flowing in it, the mutually linked coil has a DC current flowing through it.

I believe the inductance, and therefore the voltage induced in it due to the proximity of the rate changing field produced by the power coil, will indeed be inversely proportional to the current flowing in it.

The defining formula for Inductance as given in "Resistive and Reactive Circuits " by Albert P. Malvino - L=NΦ/I where NΦ is the flux linkage and I is the current. This clearly indicates that inductance of a coil is inversely proportional to the current flowing through it.

Another example would be a long thin conductive wire that has a current flowing in it. If the wire is exposed to a rate changing magnetic field were the frequency of the imposing field approximates E/Υ = f where Υ is the length of the wire. The induced voltage from the rate changing magnetic field will be inversely proportional to the original current flowing through the wire.

Is this incorrect?

Thank you for sharing your expertise.

Thanks for the very informative reply Ram.

Looks like I need to do some review.

Thanks again !

This is why I have CR4 bookmarked under entertainment!

(By the way does anyone have a link to the thread with upside down heavy equipment in the indoor pond, it was before 6/17/2008, I can't find it by searching, but it started as a question about how to work on the ceiling over the pool. Sorry about the OT, but this seemed about as good a place as any to ask.)

(edit) I checked OT the first time, but thanks to the "could not submit form" garbage I backed up, copy/pasted, forgot to check OT, and now I can't change it.

This appears to be the state of art for mind/machine interface.

http://www.voanews.com/content/monkeys-use-minds-to-move-virtual-arms/1786802.html?fb_action_ids=10151980834463514&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

"Nicolelis said scientists are now developing a brain-controlled neuroprosthetic vest to allow the wearer to control prosthetic devices. The device translates the electrical signals from the brain into motor commands and eventually digital signals that a machine inside the vest can read.

Nicolelis said the vest will be unveiled at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil."

Sounds like it could be a great addition to an XBox.

I do believe you can detect Qui Gong with a static tester, heck, even the hairs on the back of your hand. Thats the easy part. Is this some sort of phychic internal energy or do you just have your subject walk across the carpet. Qui Gong is woo woo of the highest order and is total bull shite. Define the difference between the Qui Gong and ordinary static charges and then...

Take the challenge put out by a reputable scientific organization like the Center for Sceptical Inquirey, or the James Randi Educational Organization.

That link covers all you need to know. Please go and get your million bucks.

YOU design the testing mode. Must be approved as a true double blind study by a recognized institution. Most will fall down at that point. Must be published in a newspaper. Not sure why but if you can do it, there must be a slow news day out there somewhere.

YOU pay for the all testing and set up. They get a dozen a day, and the cost will NOT be borne by them. Hey they got the prize together. It will be peanuts if you win.

The Test is done by INDEPENDENT scientists, so you can't claim bias. Many sour grapes do... the You Tube is full of them whining about "the weather was wet that day, so it did not work, I want a second chance"

You decide what can be done and what cannot be done. So YOU set the conditions.

If you are correct, you win a million bucks. If you fail you lose all credibility.

By you throwing in the word "quantum" you have ALREADY lost credibility with me. So I am unsubscribing from this thread. However you carry on, and IF for some reason you win the million bucks, I'll throw in a hundred of my own.

For what it is worth, I can pick up the static on a person at 2 centimeters by the hairs on the back of my hand reacting. How much quantum woo woo science is involved there! Here is a link to a person who claimed to see auras. See how that worked out...

James Hendric claimed to have a powerful QuGong. It was totally debunked. THEY ALL GET DEBUNKED because they are all HOAXES!

Good luck on getting any engineers to spend some time to support on a hoax based theory.

Hope, There's an App for That...

"...Teslameter 11th takes advantage of the built in magnetometer in your iPhone/iPad, allows you to monitor the strength of magnetic field all around. There are a range of real-life applications for this useful item, such as: metal detector, AC magnetic fields, or finding low-magnetic places for sleeping (especially for babies) and of course, why not fun as well?..."

For a buck how can you go wrong, what will they think of next?

Why does an IPhone have a magnetometer?

I wonder what freqs it can detect.

The Ipad as a sniffer. Wow.

Didn't you ever wonder how it knows whether you're holding it vertically, horizontally, that you're shaking it, and how it can act as a compass, a level, etc.? I'm not sure which one they use but here's a data sheet on a magnetometer.

'....ever wonder how it knows whether you're holding it vertically, horizontally, that you're shaking it, and how it can act as a compass, a level, etc.?...'

.

With the exception of acting as a compass, I suspect these other functions typically primarily make use of accelerometers rather than a magnetometer, though using both might allow more reliable readings under a wide variety of conditions.

.

This is pure conjecture on my part, so if my assertion is not well founded, and someone want s to school me on such things, I wouldn't be offended in the least (come to think of it, for a few of my favorites here on CR4 that might be a deterrent to appropriate correction, so if necessary take what imaginative liberties that might be required to generate sufficient schadenfreude to motivate a snarky response).

Correct, the accelerometer and the magnetometer work together to improve the accuracy of both. Consider that an accelerometer sitting still only provides information in one axis (the downward force of gravity) while a magnetometer can determine its position by resolving the Earth's magnetic field in three axes. Here's a snippet from an article on the iPhone sensors:

"...So if you're using it as a detection of movement, you also have to take into account the fact that you're in a gravitational field and, of course, just spinning the iPhone left and right if it's sitting flat on the table isn't going to give you the roll. I mean that's one of the big gotchas of the accelerometer. And it's a mistake quite a lot of people make is that you're not going to get your pitch and roll out of the accelerometer. You need the magnetometer in addition to that..."

"accelerometer sitting still only provides information in one axis (the downward force of gravity) "

Ummm - hows that work? An accelerometer in equilibrium wouldn't be reading any force vectors - would it?

Speaking of quantum physics...

The "observer effect" is the most common and repeatable scientific demonstration of observation affecting matter. (I know this article is 15 years old and I would welcome an update or correction if there is one.) A shorter, updated agreement with the first article is here. A blog by the same author discussing how one's will might affect what happens in one's life is here. A simple but entertaining YouTube video discusses the concept via the dual slit experiment.

Quantum physics also allows for virtual particles -- physically detectable particles that come and go -- arising out of what? Dark Energy? Dark Matter? One citation in the Wiki article related to virtual photons is here.

I know it is important to some to find some way to demonstrate a causal effect between directed will/consciousness and matter. One such attempt is the Global Consciousness Project. But a dissenting interpretation of the data makes it debatable.

A better study, to me, is the more direct study of consciousness via investigating altered states of consciousness, which anyone can experiment with. Even if one could reliably demonstrate physical interaction of will and matter, then the next, obvious question would be, "What else might our consciousness be capable of?" Individual exploration of states of consciousness is, actually, in an anecdotal way, I think, more, potentially successful, than trying to influence what we consider inert matter by our will. Consciousness, as we experience it, is largely subjective anyway. To use a well-worn example -- love is anecdotal. Experimenting with consciousness has importance to a larger question that is much less amenable to orthodox scientific investigation -- what happens at death? To me, better to cut to the chase. While mind over matter might be interesting in a certain context, in a larger context, it is pretty much a waste of time.

I'm not sure how the second half of that video ties into the first.

.

The best explanation I have heard makes quantum mechanics far less bizarre.

I understand your point. I viewed the animated video as a simple description of the observer effect in the double-slit experiment. I think the Flatland metaphor/analogy could be taken as a multiple universe "add-on." It certainly wasn't necessary for describing the observer effect.

A book I've referred to before, Quantum Questions, contains writings by famous physicists dealing with mysticism in varying degrees. Yet the point is made by the editor (and by some of the physicists) that any coupling or equating of quantum physics to the subject of mysticism would not be agreeable to the physicists whose writings appear in that volume. It might be best to characterize the attempt of making sense of QM, as simply: There's a lot about our mathematical models of what we term reality, that leave us thinking we know the nature of reality, when in fact we don't. (If the math is right, then...?)

I will take a longer look at the video you linked to when I have more time. I did look at the first few minutes, though. Despite the speaker's defusing of one of the quotes below (at the very beginning of the talk), he does admit there is a strangeness to quantum physics that "doesn't go away." ("QM extracts a toll on one's intuition and some of that will never go away.") Quotes of some well-known and well regarded physicists, who certainly grasped the subject of QM enough to have created it, or understood the math behind it -- some, developed by their contemporaries -- refers to that strangeness, if not bizarreness that doesn't go away, despite an intellectual grasp. (accuracy of the quotes is only as good as the Net sources):

"Anyone not shocked by quantum mechanics has not yet understood it." (Niels Bohr)

"Anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics, doesn't understand quantum mechanics" (Richard Feynman) *a slide at the beginning of the video

"God does not play dice with the universe." (Albert Einstein)

"So Einstein was wrong when he said, "God does not play dice." Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that he sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen." (Stephen Hawking)

"The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."(Werner Heisenberg)

"In the world of the very small, where particle and wave aspects of reality are equally significant, things do not behave in any way that we can understand from our experience of the everyday world...all pictures are false, and there is no physical analogy we can make to understand what goes on inside atoms. Atoms behave like atoms, nothing else." (John Gribbin)

"Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business!"- (Erwin Schrödinger)

"A philosopher once said, 'It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results.' Well, they don't! (Richard P. Feynman)

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." (Albert Einstein)

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research." (Albert Einstein)

And one of my favorites...

Something unknown is doing we don't know what-that is what our theory amounts to. (Sir Arthur Eddington - further quotes - just love 'em.)

(Sorry for so many quotes. I guess I like them because these scientists, as great as they were, readily admit they really understand what's going on.)

I apologize if my post seemed to be equating quantum physics with the idea of telekinesis, as commonly understood, or in any way as an explanation of the supposed phenomena. The observer effect just came to mind when thinking about it. I intended my final paragraph to mean precisely the opposite -- that I consider linking the two and seeking to prove such phenomena, via physics (at least as currently understood), a pretty futile idea and a waste of time. Just me, I guess.

Almost all these quotes are more than a half century old. Do you think we know a bit more now?

(I know...I re-subscribed... probably by accident.)

The same thought certainly crossed my mind when gathering them, but I don't know of any data (not that I keep abreast of Physics) that contradicts or changes the fundamental theories of QM. There have certainly been newer theories, such as String Theory,

I found this article, from the Proceedings of the Royal Society which seems a nice summary in answer to the current state of Physical theory. There is the possibility that I have access to the paper because of the university's subscription. The abstract is free, but too condensed. In case it isn't viewable, but also in addition to, this article (the substance is mostly contained in the video) provides an answer in a different way.

Never seen a University study that ever provided an answer. Only data and questions from the data ever come up.

Scientists gather data, and follow the evidence. Engineers use the data as if it was actually real. Hopefully, it is...grin!

Yes, one of the questions is, "How does a sub-atomic world governed by QM, give rise to the stable, concrete (?) world we function in. It's real enough for engineering.

Quantum Mechanics explains that thought has substance and can be measured. Hence what you think can become realty. Hence what you think is attracted to you. For those of you who believe in God is this not where God speaks to you and why prayer seems to have a scientific effect. I could go on but this might not be the right audience. My favorite is "Science proves there is a God".

Hebrews 11:6 (KJV) But without faith it is impossible to please Him (God).

I grow tired of "proofs" of God. If it were possible to prove his existence empirically, by logic or physical proof, no faith would be required. I'll accept that faith is enough. I believe in God without requiring either to have Him proven, or to prove Him to sceptics.

Science cannot prove there is (or is not) God. This from a practicing Scientist, Science teacher, and 20+ year science fair judge.

One of my favorites is "it rhymes, so it must be true". Sadly though, it does not rhyme.

What I think can become reality! Right. After a lot of hard work of course.

Science does not prove ANYTHING about God, except He seems to hate amputees. And you are right, this would be a hostile forum for sure. Science tends to gather information, try to figure out how to apply it, and engineers USE that information if they need it. Scientific evidence and conclusions change a lot. Very shifty ground that "science", and it is always being checked, rechecked and re-evaluated. They tend to like double blind tests.

WHEN will APPLY for the MILLION DOLLAR Challenge!

Work up a testing procedure. If you don't want to do it with a recognized formal group like a university... work it up for yourself.

Otherwise I cannot understand why you have all these cockamamie ideas, and NOT try for a million bucks! Can't figure out what to do with a million bucks? Then I MUST assume you are so off the wall that it is worthless to deal with you.

If you are NOT worthless...then tell us what you have done to prove your point. Besides talk.

(Lordy, he thinks this a University Coffee house....)

Unsubscribes again....

You asked..

http://rantsandrage.com/2011/05/01/god-hates-amputees/

Sometimes God doesn't give limbs to someone to teach everyone else something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXlCeKBWfaA

This will change your life.

I'm glad he has found something he feels inspired to do, that brings him a sense of accomplishment and the ability to elevate the positive aspects of his life.

.

That is a huge accomplishment and probably well worth the distortions that diminish the profound difference modern technology enables him and the delusions that deify the protagonist of the particular ancient cultural myth with which his parents were exceedingly duped.

.

If suggesting this truth had beyond a negligible chance of putting that accomplishment at risk, it would be too reckless and irresponsible to write, but like many of the truly faithful these ideations bear the hallmarks of fortifications impervious to reason, fact and sound logic.

.

I hope everyone has a wonderful Sir Issac Newtons Birthday Celebration on the 25th.

Those are some good quotes. I especially like:

.

'....If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations-then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation-well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation....'