Animal cruelty
Glenn
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100105150650.htm
"Electric Field Propels Worms to Test New Drugs"
"Researchers at McMaster University have developed a way to propel and
direct microscopic-sized worms (C. elegans nematodes) along a narrow
channel using a mild electric field."
Though they claim this is not cruel:
"The new development retains a worm's natural motion and causes no
harm to the worm."
Perhaps they would think twice about this if someone applied a
comparable mild electric field to their worm.
Devils Advocaat
Rumour has it that some people might enjoy that experience ... :P
Ron O
Ask adman.
Ron Okimoto
Greg G.
An electric field can be created by rubbing an inflated balloon on
your head, or someone else's if you're bald. You can feel the electric
field as it approaches you but it isn't painful. An electric field
does not necessarily produce current flow.
Muscles produce electric fields. Sharks can sense these when hunting.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that C. elegans uses electric fields
to locate a host.
Wikipedia says the worms have 302 neurons so they probably don't
contemplate their suffering.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pain is at the center of an organisim learning to survive. I would
suggest they infact do feel it and know it.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey. YOU are the one with a worm for a brain.
Glenn
With that attitude it's no wonder.
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:aa384e96-be02-4ee7...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Hey, here is something I can agree with ASI on! If you ever baited a hook
with a worm, you know it feels pain.
.
Grandbank
How do you know that? Have you applied that reasoning to plants?
> I would suggest they infact do feel it and know it.
KP
chris thompson
An electric field is not the same as an electric shock.
Chris
chris thompson
C. elegans doesn't search for hosts- it is free- living.
Chris
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>:
An electric field is not an electric current; electric
fields, while detectable if strong enough (through
mechanical effects, usually involving hair), can cause no
pain and do no harm at the levels generated in labs.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
William Morse
Greg G.
Are you sure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caenorhabditis_elegans
Dauer larvae can be transported by invertebrates including millipedes,
insects, isopods, and gastropods. When they reach a desirable location
they then get off, and at least in the lab they will also feed on the
dead host if it dies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dauer_larva
Dauer is German for "enduring". It describes an alternative
developmental stage of nematode worms, particularly Caenorhabditis
elegans whereby the larva goes into a type of stasis and can survive
harsh conditions. It may also be equivalent to the infective stage of
parasitic nematode larvae.
Perhaps the larva are so widely dispersed that they can't help but get
on bugs and snails. Perhaps the adult actively increases the odds of
its offspring finding a dispersal vector by seeking them out.
I hesitated when I used the word "host" but I couldn't come up with a
better word.
r norman
wrote:
An electric field does produce current flow if the medium has any
conductivity at all. Water with some ions dissolved in it does have
conductivity. Even pure distilled water has dissoved CO2 which
dissociates into H+ and HCO3- to make it conduct at least a little.
The electric fields detected by sharks and other organisms with an
electric sense is ordinarily in the range of microvolts/cm for large
fields and nanovolts/cm at the threshold of detection. The electric
field used on the roundworms was volts/cm.
r norman
wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 23:35:23 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
><GlennS...@msn.com>:
>
>>Forcing animals to do things is cruel.
>>
>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100105150650.htm
>>
>>"Electric Field Propels Worms to Test New Drugs"
>>
>>"Researchers at McMaster University have developed a way to propel and
>>direct microscopic-sized worms (C. elegans nematodes) along a narrow
>>channel using a mild electric field."
>>
>>Though they claim this is not cruel:
>>
>>"The new development retains a worm's natural motion and causes no
>>harm to the worm."
>>
>>Perhaps they would think twice about this if someone applied a
>>comparable mild electric field to their worm.
>
>An electric field is not an electric current; electric
>fields, while detectable if strong enough (through
>mechanical effects, usually involving hair), can cause no
>pain and do no harm at the levels generated in labs.
This is simply incorrect. Yes, an electric field is not an electric
current but the two are connected by Ohm's law (in Vector form)
Many animals have specialized electroreceptors that detect very small
fields without involving what is usually though of as "hair" although
the hair cells in our own inner ear are closely related to the
electroreceptor cells.
In the lab it is a trivial (through rather unethical and highly
illegal) procedure to tape the two wires in an electrical cord across
a subject's chest and then plug it into a wall socket. The resulting
electric field is quite likely to be lethal.
chris thompson
> On Jan 7, 3:11 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 8:31 am, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 7, 2:35 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Forcing animals to do things is cruel.
>
> > > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100105150650.htm
>
> > > > "Electric Field Propels Worms to Test New Drugs"
>
> > > > "Researchers at McMaster University have developed a way to propel and
> > > > direct microscopic-sized worms (C. elegans nematodes) along a narrow
> > > > channel using a mild electric field."
>
> > > > Though they claim this is not cruel:
>
> > > > "The new development retains a worm's natural motion and causes no
> > > > harm to the worm."
>
> > > > Perhaps they would think twice about this if someone applied a
> > > > comparable mild electric field to their worm.
>
> > > An electric field can be created by rubbing an inflated balloon on
> > > your head, or someone else's if you're bald. You can feel the electric
> > > field as it approaches you but it isn't painful. An electric field
> > > does not necessarily produce current flow.
>
> > > Muscles produce electric fields. Sharks can sense these when hunting.
> > > I wouldn't be surprised to find that C. elegans uses electric fields
> > > to locate a host.
>
> > C. elegans doesn't search for hosts- it is free- living.
>
> Are you sure?
Sure? No. Moderately certain? Yes.
"Host" implies a parasitic relationship. From the article you cite:
"Caenorhabditis elegans (pronounced /ˌsiːnɵræbˈdaɪtɪs ˈɛlɪɡænz/) is a
free-living, transparent nematode (roundworm), about 1 mm in length,
[2] which lives in temperate soil environments."
Many organisms can be transported by other organisms. I guess you can
call this a host-parasite system (a la remoras on sharks) but most
biologists would probably dispute it.
Chris
Mike Painter
<snip>
>
> In the lab it is a trivial (through rather unethical and highly
> illegal) procedure to tape the two wires in an electrical cord across
> a subject's chest and then plug it into a wall socket. The resulting
> electric field is quite likely to be lethal.
Well, it's not trivial but it does ensure that the rest of the students will
stay awake for the remainder of the semester.
We never used tape. All the seats were grounded so all the instructor had to
do was hold a copper ball connected to the hot side. Somebody yelled and
when the sleepers head came up the instructor yelled "catch". Worked every
time until soccer caught on.
******
In Germany in the 60's it was hard to tell the American kids from the German
kids.
The solution was to toss a ball at them. If they caught it, the were
American. If they sent it back with head or chest they were German.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by r norman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:
>On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:34:25 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 23:35:23 -0800 (PST), the following
>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
>><GlennS...@msn.com>:
>>
>>>Forcing animals to do things is cruel.
>>>
>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100105150650.htm
>>>
>>>"Electric Field Propels Worms to Test New Drugs"
>>>
>>>"Researchers at McMaster University have developed a way to propel and
>>>direct microscopic-sized worms (C. elegans nematodes) along a narrow
>>>channel using a mild electric field."
>>>
>>>Though they claim this is not cruel:
>>>
>>>"The new development retains a worm's natural motion and causes no
>>>harm to the worm."
>>>
>>>Perhaps they would think twice about this if someone applied a
>>>comparable mild electric field to their worm.
>>
>>An electric field is not an electric current; electric
>>fields, while detectable if strong enough (through
>>mechanical effects, usually involving hair), can cause no
>>pain and do no harm at the levels generated in labs.
>
>This is simply incorrect.
Is it? Or did you misread my statement?
> Yes, an electric field is not an electric
>current but the two are connected by Ohm's law (in Vector form)
Sure. So?
>Many animals have specialized electroreceptors that detect very small
>fields without involving what is usually though of as "hair" although
>the hair cells in our own inner ear are closely related to the
>electroreceptor cells.
Uh-huh. Again, so? My statement was intended to address the
detection of fields by those creatures (such as humans)
which do *not* specifically have such receptors.
>In the lab it is a trivial (through rather unethical and highly
>illegal) procedure to tape the two wires in an electrical cord across
>a subject's chest and then plug it into a wall socket. The resulting
>electric field is quite likely to be lethal.
You seem to have missed my point. An electric field In
itself, such as the field generated by a Van de Graff
generator, can be detected even by creatures not specially
equipped (something about one's hair standing on end...) but
cannot cause harm unless there is a path for current to
flow. Simply generating the field is not harmful *unless*
such a path is provided, as in your example of the criminal
lab techs/engineers/scientists. Granted, a strong enough
field can cause ionization of the air followed by a
discharge, possibly lethal if the discharge goes through the
body, but that's a current path again, and a separate issue.
An electric field will not cause harm without a current
path.
heekster
wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:34:25 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 23:35:23 -0800 (PST), the following
>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
>><GlennS...@msn.com>:
>>
>>>Forcing animals to do things is cruel.
>>>
>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100105150650.htm
>>>
>>>"Electric Field Propels Worms to Test New Drugs"
>>>
>>>"Researchers at McMaster University have developed a way to propel and
>>>direct microscopic-sized worms (C. elegans nematodes) along a narrow
>>>channel using a mild electric field."
>>>
>>>Though they claim this is not cruel:
>>>
>>>"The new development retains a worm's natural motion and causes no
>>>harm to the worm."
>>>
>>>Perhaps they would think twice about this if someone applied a
>>>comparable mild electric field to their worm.
>>
>>An electric field is not an electric current; electric
>>fields, while detectable if strong enough (through
>>mechanical effects, usually involving hair), can cause no
>>pain and do no harm at the levels generated in labs.
>
>This is simply incorrect. Yes, an electric field is not an electric
>current but the two are connected by Ohm's law (in Vector form)
Incorrect. The vector form of Ohm's law connects the current density
vector with the electric field vector. Current and current density
are not the same thing. The scalar form of the law relates current
with voltage. What you just stated is nonsense from the POV of
dimensional analysis.
The space surrounding an electric charge or in the presence of a
time-varying magnetic field has a property called an electric field.
This electric field exerts a force on other electrically charged
objects. This force is attractive, if the object has opposite charge,
and repulsive, if the charges are the same.
Electric fields are fully modeled by Maxwell's equations. Ohm's law
is a special case, or degenerate solution of these equations.
>Many animals have specialized electroreceptors that detect very small
>fields without involving what is usually though of as "hair" although
>the hair cells in our own inner ear are closely related to the
>electroreceptor cells.
>
What they detect, is the electrostatic force of the electric field on
their epethelial and ampullary structures, which couple capacitively;
there is no current flow.
>In the lab it is a trivial (through rather unethical and highly
>illegal) procedure to tape the two wires in an electrical cord across
>a subject's chest and then plug it into a wall socket. The resulting
>electric field is quite likely to be lethal.
Incorrect. Current kills. The E-field exists, but it is merely
associated with the intrinsically charged beta particles in the
alternating current.
Desertphile
<GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> Forcing animals to do things is cruel.
Tell that to my boss.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
r norman
wrote:
What you say is true in the abstract. However in the real world of
biology it is extremely difficult to find an insulator. Organisms are
built on electrolyte solutions which are very good conductors. So an
electric field across a biological entity will necessarily produce
electric currents in that organism. If you stand in front of a Van de
Graff generator, there may well be an electric field near you, but not
across or within your body. The original experiment that started this
thread involved an electric field in an aquatic environment and
certainly involved current flow through the worm. And the method of
detection is certainly crucial here. The worm does not have "hairs"
capable of responding the way you describe.
And, if you really want to get picky (which I do), detecting the field
by means of deflecting hairs requires that an electric current be
produced. The external field in air produces an induced charge
imbalance in the hair which itself require charge to move from one
side of the hair to the other. Then the hair moves in the external
field carrying the induced charges with it and thereby producing
another flow of electric current. No motion; no current. But no
motion; no detection.
Glenn
wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 23:35:23 -0800 (PST), Glenn
>
heekster
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 23:35:23 -0800 (PST), Glenn
><GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Forcing animals to do things is cruel.
>
>Tell that to my boss.
I did not know that you were married.
r norman
wrote:
As to Ohm's Law --
I simply assumed that all my readers would be familiar with Ohm's law
in the appropriate format, where the gradient of electric potential
(volts/cm) is equal to the current density (amps/cm2), J, times the
resistivity of the medium (ohm-cm), rho. The actual electric current
across any area is, of course, the surface integral of J.dS over the
area involved. (Note, J(amps/cm2) . ds(cm2) produces amps, in case
you aren't clever enough to see that.)
As to currents and current densities---
See my response to Bob Casanova. In a biological context the
environment always is a conductor. In particular, this thread deals
with the behavior of roundworms in an aqueous channel in which an
electric field is imposed. Even fresh water has significant
conductivity and there is necessarily an electric current (more
properly, a flux of current density). And in order for the animal to
detect the electric field, there must be an electric potential
difference across the receptor and, since the animal itself appears
electrically like a rather more concentrated electrolyte solution,
there is necessarily an electric current (OK, flux of current density)
across the receptor.
I live in the real world. Much more important, I do experiments (or
did in an earlier life) in the real world. And since the experiments
I did were electrophysiological in nature, I am quite familiar with
the biophysics of electric fields and current fluxes in electrolyte
solutions, the only applicable physics here. You can do all the
theorizing you want in pure dielectric media but it has nothing
whatsoever to do with biology in conductive media.
Glenn
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:51:25 -0600, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:30:52 -0700, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:34:25 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 23:35:23 -0800 (PST), the following
> >>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
Even not considering a current, it appears that worms squirm as a
result of the effects of electric fields on neurons. I'm not sure
whether there is theory on what this means, but how can we know that a
todey doesn't experience distress, "pain", or something they usually
do not experience, when in the presence of an "unnatural" electric
field. They apparently get up and go towards the big plus sign in the
sky when prodded. I certainly wouldn't be the first to volunteer my
neuron for experimentation.
heekster
wrote:
<snip the igorant response>
You were wrong. You can replay it all you want, and spin it however
you like, you're still wrong. Your statement regarding a "lethal"
electric field is an imbecility.
Or is it loki?
r norman
wrote:
Wow, my argument is totally demolished starting from point,.... er,
from point......
Well, now that I look at it more closely, starting from no point at
all.
In a conducting medium you cannot separate current flux and potential
gradient -- they go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other.
(OK, in a superconducting medium, one can.) A lethal electric field is
one which when applied to a living organism results in the death of
that organism. And that is something I can easily perform in the
laboratory.
And while I am at it, I might point out the incredible stupidity in
the statement "The E-field exists, but it is merely associated with
r norman
wrote:
>On Jan 8, 8:07�pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
Quite frankly, there is no way to understand even what "distress" or
"pain" means with an organism whose nervous system is at the level of
Caenorhabditis. What you do is observe the behavior of the animals
and if the only really noticeable effect is the direction or rate of
locomotion, and if the stimulation has no discernable after effects,
then you conclude that it is not particularly noxious.
I have frequently applied such electric fields to my own neurons as a
teaching demonstration illustrating nerve and muscle conduction.
There is something so far unnoticed but far more important than
whether these roundworms suffer "distress' (I can assure you that
roundworms are treated far worse in the lab and much much worse in the
kitchen if they happen to be noticed). That is whether these
experiments show much promise for research or whether the article is
pure PR hype, which it definitely seems to be. That roundworms
respond to applied electric fields is sort of interesting. That this
opens up a vastly important new avenue for drug research and testing
as quite questionable.
Ganesh
> Forcing animals to do things is cruel.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100105150650.htm
>
> "Electric Field Propels Worms to Test New Drugs"
>
> "Researchers at McMaster University have developed a way to propel and
> direct microscopic-sized worms (C. elegans nematodes) along a narrow
> channel using a mild electric field."
If I was the worm I would have felt it extremely bad, I would try to
run away from the field. Again, I would certainly like if there's a
field that gets me attracted towards it. I would not mind that
Also, this type of field is good to me if it is going to take me away
from a certain danger. If I have to drive away earthworms from my farm
in a certain direction to avoid them getting killed, is good.
It also depends where such experiments would be ideally applied. I
would certainly not mind recalling a distress signal that would save
my life even if that is a little annoying.
Glenn
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 19:46:47 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
That may be the problem. Pain often leaves no discernable after
effects.
However, in one of my experiments, using a microfiche scanner modified
for use as an observational tool, found certain todes to Don what
appeared to be sunglasses when an electric field was applied, before
running off-screen screaming "we knew it, the world IS flat!"
>
> There is something so far unnoticed but far more important than
> whether these roundworms suffer "distress' (I can assure you that
> roundworms are treated far worse in the lab and much much worse in the
> kitchen if they happen to be noticed). �That is whether these
> experiments show much promise for research or whether the article is
> pure PR hype, which it definitely seems to be. �That roundworms
> respond to applied electric fields is sort of interesting. �That this
> opens up a vastly important new avenue for drug research and testing
> as quite questionable.
I can't agree with that, though I'm not familiar with the research
into chemicals that was referred to and improved as a result of this
new method. And I'm not sure that studying the effects of electrotaxis
or other stimulative methods to determine what they experience would
be less important, whether or not it appeared less promising.
But you really didn't think I was serious about todey abuse, did you?
Glenn
I've always found that a bullhorn is the best tool to use on
earthworms, and one can easily be made with spare parts found in the
kitchen.
Baron Bodissey
> On Jan 7, 7:31�am, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 2:35�am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > Forcing animals to do things is cruel.
>
> > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100105150650.htm
>
> > > "Electric Field Propels Worms to Test New Drugs"
>
> > > "Researchers at McMaster University have developed a way to propel and
> > > direct microscopic-sized worms (C. elegans nematodes) along a narrow
> > > channel using a mild electric field."
>
>
> > > "The new development retains a worm's natural motion and causes no
> > > harm to the worm."
>
> > > Perhaps they would think twice about this if someone applied a
> > > comparable mild electric field to their worm.
>
> > your head, or someone else's if you're bald. You can feel the electric
> > field as it approaches you but it isn't painful. An electric field
> > does not necessarily produce current flow.
>
> > Muscles produce electric fields. Sharks can sense these when hunting.
> > I wouldn't be surprised to find that C. elegans uses electric fields
> > to locate a host.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Pain is at the center of an organisim learning to survive. I would
> suggest they infact do feel it and know it.
They certainly experience stimuli and react to them, but feel pain?
Anybody who's ever watched a cockroach feeding on its own entrails
would dismiss the idea that simpler organisms (note I didn't say more
primitive) feel pain or suffer.
Baron Bodissey
As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods,
They kill us for their sport.
King Lear Act 4, scene 1, 32�37
Glenn
> On Jan 7, 8:38�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 7:31�am, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
the Net where this guy's goldfish chewed off his own leg, and
everybody that's ever had a goldfish knows that they feel pain.
Ganesh
> On Jan 7, 8:38�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 7:31�am, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that's wrong. People scratch on their back if it itches them.
The cockroach does the same thing though it is harmful to itself. You
would not like someone else scratching your back without your consent.
Baron Bodissey
But people don't eat their own entrails.
Unless, of course, they're very, very hungry.
Baron Bodissey
The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the
palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
� H. L. Mencken
Ron O
> On Jan 7, 6:50�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 1:43�am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 7 Jan, 07:35, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Forcing animals to do things is cruel.
>
> > > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100105150650.htm
>
> > > > "Electric Field Propels Worms to Test New Drugs"
>
> > > > "Researchers at McMaster University have developed a way to propel and
> > > > direct microscopic-sized worms (C. elegans nematodes) along a narrow
> > > > channel using a mild electric field."
>
> > > > Though they claim this is not cruel:
>
> > > > "The new development retains a worm's natural motion and causes no
> > > > harm to the worm."
>
> > > > Perhaps they would think twice about this if someone applied a
> > > > comparable mild electric field to their worm.
>
>
> > Ask adman.
>
> > Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
See, he can't help himself. He has to keep attaching the electrodes
and flipping the switch.
Ron Okimoto
heekster
wrote:
>><snip the ignorant response>
>>
>>You were wrong. You can replay it all you want, and spin it however
>>you like, you're still wrong. Your statement regarding a "lethal"
>>electric field is an imbecility.
>>
>>Or is it loki?
>
>Wow, my argument is totally demolished starting from point,.... er,
>from point......
>
There was no argument, just gibberish, ignoring standard terminology,
dimensionality and relationships for electromagnetic behavior.
>Well, now that I look at it more closely, starting from no point at
>all.
>
I think you started from your lower posterior.
>In a conducting medium you cannot separate current flux and potential
>gradient -- they go hand in hand.
You don't even know the proper terminology. There is no such thing as
"current flux". You just conflated "magnetic flux density", B, with
"current density", J. Since you cannot use the proper SI units and
terminology to describe this, it is pointless to continue the
discussion any further. I find your bloviations not only incorrect,
but extremely sloppy.
The definitions here are good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
As to potential gradient, there is the standard physics definition,
which is the negative of the electric field, and there is a peculiar
to biology definition, which is the net difference in electric charge
across a cell membrane. You might want to specify what you were
referring to, instead of being pedantic, and assuming everyone knows
what you are talking about.
> One cannot exist without the other.
>(OK, in a superconducting medium, one can.)
You're familiar with organisms that exist in a superconducting medium?
Got any other straw men you want to toss out there?
>A lethal electric field is
>one which when applied to a living organism results in the death of
>that organism. And that is something I can easily perform in the
>laboratory.
>
I must have missed the memo where it dispensates you from using
standard terminology, because you can easily perform something in a
laboratory.
You failed to define the methodology of how you would do this. But
then, since you don't even know the proper terminology, it is good
that we were spared the grotesquerie of your Pitmanesqe explanation.
As mentioned above, the electric field is the negative of the
potential gradient. The units are Volts per meter. This is a rate,
specifically, the rate of change of the potential with respect to
displacement. So what you are saying, is that a negative rate, the
electric field, can have lethal effects. That is like saying 65 miles
per hour kills. In actuality, it is the trauma from an extremely
rapid rate of change of the speed, which can be lethal
>And while I am at it, I might point out the incredible stupidity in
>the statement "The E-field exists, but it is merely associated with
>the intrinsically charged beta particles in the alternating current."
You might, but you would be wrong, unless you shift the goal posts
again. You invoked Ohms law, and made reference to units which
implied a DC or steady state field. You then gave an example of
hooking up an electrical cord to a "subject's chest". This would be
AC, and Ohm's law, as you originally invoked it, would no longer
apply. Resistance would be replaced by impedance, and the AC version
of the law would apply.
Must suck to be so insecure at this stage of your life, that when a
simple error is pointed out, you respond with a massive attack.
r norman
wrote:
Wow, I didn't realize that 60Hz required a total replacement of Ohm's
Law in a medium where capacitance and inductance are totally
negligible. And I didn't realize that the charge carriers in an
electrolyte medium are beta particles. And I did not understand the
limits to utter stupidity that you have demonstrated. Now that I am
so enlightened I can die happily.
Apparently you are not capable of reading the expression of Ohm's law
in vector form for which I provided proper units. Apparently you are
not aware of the biophysics of electrolyte solutions. Apparently you
are not aware of the mechanism by which the action potential is
specifically triggered by electrical potential changes (here is the
first time I refer to transmembrane potential) and not by current
flow. Of course, you cannot produce a potential change without having
current flow just as you canot produce a current flow without having
an electrical potential difference.
el cid
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:43:25 -0700, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net>
> You don't even know the proper terminology. �There is no such thing as
> "current flux". �
Kinda sad the way the term is used so often in scientific literature
when there's no such thing. Luckily we are blessed by an expert
like you who can correct the world.
heekster
wrote:
>On Jan 9, 1:49�pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:43:25 -0700, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net>
>
>
>> You don't even know the proper terminology. �There is no such thing as
>> "current flux". �
>
>Kinda sad the way the term is used so often in scientific literature
>when there's no such thing.
Yeah, I can see that by the enormous number of examples that you
provided.
heekster
wrote:
Keep moving those goal posts.
> And I didn't realize that the charge carriers in an
>electrolyte medium are beta particles.
Conducting medium is not necessarily an electrolyte medium. This is
the first time you've mentioned it. Typical pedant.
> And I did not understand the
>limits to utter stupidity that you have demonstrated.
I'm sure that there is much that you think you understand, which you
don't.
> Now that I am
>so enlightened I can die happily.
>
Knock yourself out.
>Apparently you are not capable of reading the expression of Ohm's law
>in vector form for which I provided proper units.
Ah, richie, you're so weak that you have to lie, and that is pathetic.
you said:
>>>>>>>This is simply incorrect. Yes, an electric field is not an electric
>>>>>>>current but the two are connected by Ohm's law (in Vector form)
I then pointed out to you that:
The vector form of Ohm's law connects the current density
vector with the electric field vector. Current and current density
are not the same thing. The scalar form of the law relates current
with voltage. What you just stated is nonsense from the POV of
dimensional analysis.
Now, what part of that did you not understand?
Nevermind. I know that you won't answer me. Good luck with that
personal problem of yours, what ever it is. You argue like a
creationist.
> Apparently you are
>not aware of the biophysics of electrolyte solutions.
Vague general statement. Also, you did not even mention such solutions
until this post. I see that you are still going for pedant points, no
matter how intellectually sleazy you have to be to do so.
> Apparently you
>are not aware of the mechanism by which the action potential is
>specifically triggered by electrical potential changes (here is the
>first time I refer to transmembrane potential) and not by current
>flow.
I mentioned that you should have identified that, above. Judging from
your response here, you are desperately clinging to your position as
pedant.
> Of course, you cannot produce a potential change without having
>current flow just as you canot produce a current flow without having
>an electrical potential difference.
>
I know this. What is your point in saying this?
I suggest that you read what I wrote, for comprehension. You might
learn something.
r norman
wrote:
Anybody who can read can see what I wrote and compare that with what
you wrote. Apparently you cannot read where I said:
" I simply assumed that all my readers would be familiar with Ohm's
law in the appropriate format, where the gradient of electric
potential (volts/cm) is equal to the current density (amps/cm2), J,
times theresistivity of the medium (ohm-cm), rho. The actual electric
current across any area is, of course, the surface integral of J.dS
over the area involved. (Note, J(amps/cm2) . ds(cm2) produces amps,
in case you aren't clever enough to see that.)"
Kindly show me where either the physics is incorrect or the
dimensional analysis is incorrect.
Apparently you cannot read where I repeatedly made reference to the
biological context under discussion where organisms, which are
essentially neatly packaged electrolyte solutions, live in an aquatic
medium, again an electrolyte solution because the subject under
discussion is Caenorhabditis in those little channels.
Apparently you mistake being correct with pedantry. No problem. I
acknowledge that I am a pendant. That does not make you correct.
Glenn
>
> Apparently you mistake being correct with pedantry. �No problem. �I
> acknowledge that I am a pendant. �That does not make you correct.
But it does take pedantry to an entirely new level.
el cid
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 11:08:58 -0800 (PST), el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 9, 1:49�pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:43:25 -0700, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net>
>
> >> You don't even know the proper terminology. �There is no such thing as
> >> "current flux". �
>
> >Kinda sad the way the term is used so often in scientific literature
> >when there's no such thing.
>
> Yeah, I can see that by the enormous number of examples that you
> provided.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&num=100&q=allintitle:+%22current+flux%22&btnG=Search
Anyone who cared could google it up.
I've restricted it to google scholar and exact phrase in the title.
It's a problem when you make easily checked claims like "there is no
such thing as 'current flux'" and the phrase is in titles of
publications. Granted, some few of the publications are accidental
hits but not all. Thank you in advance for your public retraction.
Ernest Major
<heek...@ifiwxtc.net> writes
dismissively. Even after eliminating the cases where current is used to
mean contemporary, there seem to be a plenitude of examples.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&num=100&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_ep
q=current+flux&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_
ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en
--
alias Ernest Major
heekster
wrote:
Whatever you do, don't read what I wrote, because that is where I
already showed you. what you ask.
>Apparently you cannot read where I repeatedly made reference to the
>biological context under discussion where organisms, which are
>essentially neatly packaged electrolyte solutions, live in an aquatic
>medium, again an electrolyte solution because the subject under
>discussion is Caenorhabditis in those little channels.
>
The thread drifted. It happens. Bob C made a statement which took
the discussion away from the worms, and towards EM theory. Nothing
wrong with that. If you go back and read his post, then your
response, and then my response to you, you can see this.
>Apparently you mistake being correct with pedantry. No problem. I
>acknowledge that I am a pendant. That does not make you correct.
Apparently, you mistake pedantry with being correct. Since I am
unable to convince you to read what I wrote, I am, in this text based
forum, unable to convince you of anything, or even to engage in a
productive discussion with you.
For the third and final time:
>>>Apparently you are not capable of reading the expression of Ohm's law
>>>in vector form for which I provided proper units.
>>
>>Ah, richie, you're so weak that you have to lie, and that is pathetic.
>> you said:
>>>>>>>>>This is simply incorrect. Yes, an electric field is not an electric
>>>>>>>>>current but the two are connected by Ohm's law (in Vector form)
>>
>>I then pointed out to you that:
>>The vector form of Ohm's law connects the current density
>>vector with the electric field vector. Current and current density
>>are not the same thing. The scalar form of the law relates current
>>with voltage. What you just stated is nonsense from the POV of
>>dimensional analysis.
>>
>>Now, what part of that did you not understand?
>>Nevermind. I know that you won't answer me. Good luck with that
>>personal problem of yours, what ever it is. You argue like a
>>creationist.
I don't really give a damn whether you read it this time or not. It's
there so others following this can see your blatant lie.
Have a nice day, and btw how did your Alzheimers screening turn out?
Glenn
> On Jan 9, 3:46 pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 11:08:58 -0800 (PST), el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Jan 9, 1:49 pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:43:25 -0700, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net>
>
> > >> You don't even know the proper terminology. There is no such thing as
> > >> "current flux".
>
> > >Kinda sad the way the term is used so often in scientific literature
> > >when there's no such thing.
>
> > Yeah, I can see that by the enormous number of examples that you
> > provided.
>
>
> Anyone who cared could google it up.
> I've restricted it to google scholar and exact phrase in the title.
>
> It's a problem when you make easily checked claims like "there is no
> such thing as 'current flux'" and the phrase is in titles of
> publications. Granted, some few of the publications are accidental
> hits but not all. Thank you in advance for your public retraction.
Pick one, and support your own claim first. More than a few are
"accidental hits".
The two words do not go together. I'm with Heekster, although Norman
is attempting to describe what happens in reality when a worm in water
experiences a substantial electric field.
Glenn
>
> >>Now, what part of that did you not understand?
> >>Nevermind. �I know that you won't answer me. �Good luck with that
> >>personal problem of yours, what ever it is. �You argue like a
> >>creationist.
>
> I don't really give a damn whether you read it this time or not. �It's
> there so others following this can see your blatant lie.
>
> Have a nice day, and btw how did your Alzheimers screening turn out?
And you argue like an evolutionist.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by r norman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:
>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:22:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:30:52 -0700, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by r norman
>><r_s_n...@comcast.net>:
>>
>>>On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:34:25 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 23:35:23 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
>>>><GlennS...@msn.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>Forcing animals to do things is cruel.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100105150650.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>"Electric Field Propels Worms to Test New Drugs"
>>>>>
>>>>>"Researchers at McMaster University have developed a way to propel and
>>>>>direct microscopic-sized worms (C. elegans nematodes) along a narrow
>>>>>channel using a mild electric field."
>>>>>
>>>>>Though they claim this is not cruel:
>>>>>
>>>>>"The new development retains a worm's natural motion and causes no
>>>>>harm to the worm."
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps they would think twice about this if someone applied a
>>>>>comparable mild electric field to their worm.
>>>>
>>>>An electric field is not an electric current; electric
>>>>fields, while detectable if strong enough (through
>>>>mechanical effects, usually involving hair), can cause no
>>>>pain and do no harm at the levels generated in labs.
>>>
>>>This is simply incorrect.
>>
>>Is it? Or did you misread my statement?
>>
>>> Yes, an electric field is not an electric
>>>current but the two are connected by Ohm's law (in Vector form)
>>
>>Sure. So?
>>
>>>Many animals have specialized electroreceptors that detect very small
>>>fields without involving what is usually though of as "hair" although
>>>the hair cells in our own inner ear are closely related to the
>>>electroreceptor cells.
>>
>>Uh-huh. Again, so? My statement was intended to address the
>>detection of fields by those creatures (such as humans)
>>which do *not* specifically have such receptors.
>>
>>>In the lab it is a trivial (through rather unethical and highly
>>>illegal) procedure to tape the two wires in an electrical cord across
>>>a subject's chest and then plug it into a wall socket. The resulting
>>>electric field is quite likely to be lethal.
>>
>>You seem to have missed my point. An electric field In
>>itself, such as the field generated by a Van de Graff
>>generator, can be detected even by creatures not specially
>>equipped (something about one's hair standing on end...) but
>>cannot cause harm unless there is a path for current to
>>flow. Simply generating the field is not harmful *unless*
>>such a path is provided, as in your example of the criminal
>>lab techs/engineers/scientists. Granted, a strong enough
>>field can cause ionization of the air followed by a
>>discharge, possibly lethal if the discharge goes through the
>>body, but that's a current path again, and a separate issue.
>>An electric field will not cause harm without a current
>>path.
>
>What you say is true in the abstract. However in the real world of
>biology it is extremely difficult to find an insulator. Organisms are
>built on electrolyte solutions which are very good conductors. So an
>electric field across a biological entity will necessarily produce
>electric currents in that organism. If you stand in front of a Van de
>Graff generator, there may well be an electric field near you, but not
>across or within your body. The original experiment that started this
>thread involved an electric field in an aquatic environment and
>certainly involved current flow through the worm. And the method of
>detection is certainly crucial here. The worm does not have "hairs"
>capable of responding the way you describe.
Nor did I say they did; my *sole* point was that electric
fields *in themselves* are incapable of producing either
pain or damage in an organism at the levels usually found in
a lab, especially a bio lab. But thanks for making the point
that this experiment was carried out in an aquatic
environment, wherein such a field would result in a current
flow.
>And, if you really want to get picky (which I do),
As did I, which was why I objected to the idea that an
electric field could cause pain in the absence of any
current flow.
> detecting the field
>by means of deflecting hairs requires that an electric current be
>produced.
Not really; it requires only an initial charge movement
which polarizes the body, after which there is zero current
flow. Think of a capacitor - large field strength between
the electrodes; no current. And no possibility of either
pain or damage unless one makes contact with both electrodes
simultaneously; touching either while insulated from other
contact will definitely charge the body to the potential of
that electrode, but will be harmless (usually; I can't speak
to the results of touching either electrode of a 1000F
capacitor charged to 1MV).
> The external field in air produces an induced charge
>imbalance in the hair which itself require charge to move from one
>side of the hair to the other. Then the hair moves in the external
>field carrying the induced charges with it and thereby producing
>another flow of electric current. No motion; no current. But no
>motion; no detection.
True, but the movement of charges within a body is
*extremely* unlikely to do any damage. Sitting on a 100kV
Van de Graff generator polarizes one's body and makes one's
hair stand on end, but causes zero pain or damage.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Glenn
> In message <foqhk5liv02e6sl3fiv5vqccomglrsk...@4ax.com>, heekster
> <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> writes
>
> >On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 11:08:58 -0800 (PST), el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Jan 9, 1:49�pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:43:25 -0700, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net>
>
> >>> You don't even know the proper terminology. �There is no such thing as
> >>> "current flux". �
>
> >>Kinda sad the way the term is used so often in scientific literature
> >>when there's no such thing.
>
> >Yeah, I can see that by the enormous number of examples that you
> >provided.
>
> You might at least look to see whether he is correct before responding
> dismissively. Even after eliminating the cases where current is used to
> mean contemporary, there seem to be a plenitude of examples.
>
> q=current+flux&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_
> ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en
> --
The link is broken and I couldn't get it to work by manually copying.
r norman
wrote:
You are so accustomed to bloviating at the creationists here that,
when you are confronted by somebody who actually knows something, you
are incapable of reasoned argument.
Enough is enough. I presented correct arguments about reality when
electric fields are present in a conducting medium like the
electrolyte solution comprising and surrounding aquatic organisms. If
you have a problem with that, then live with it.
heekster
wrote:
>On Jan 9, 3:46�pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
Sure thing, poOkie, just as soon as you DEFINE current flux.
Take as many screens as you need.
Hint: This ain't it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_flux
Maxwell didn't define it.
You literally don't know what the hell you are saying. You see two
words juxtaposed, and you don't know what they mean.
Glenn
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:52:20 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by r norman
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:22:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:30:52 -0700, the following appeared
> >>in talk.origins, posted by r norman
>
> >>>On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:34:25 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 23:35:23 -0800 (PST), the following
> >>>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
electromagnetic fields and currents, seems counterintuitive to the
assumption there would be no damage.
I remember on TV some guy "sitting on a generator" but do not recall
the specifics. I'd rather my live cells weren't made to stand on end,
so would you provide some documentation showing that no damage occurs,
before I jump on one, or let my worm take a ride?
Does one have to plug their nose and not breathe? If you sliced off
the top of your head and then got charged by a generator, would there
be damage?
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
I got a search page.
Try again with this:
heekster
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <foqhk5liv02e6sl3f...@4ax.com>, heekster
><heek...@ifiwxtc.net> writes
>>On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 11:08:58 -0800 (PST), el cid <elcid...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 9, 1:49�pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:43:25 -0700, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net>
>>>
>>>
>>>> You don't even know the proper terminology. �There is no such thing as
>>>> "current flux". �
>>>
>>>Kinda sad the way the term is used so often in scientific literature
>>>when there's no such thing.
>>
>>Yeah, I can see that by the enormous number of examples that you
>>provided.
>>
>You might at least look to see whether he is correct before responding
>dismissively. Even after eliminating the cases where current is used to
>mean contemporary, there seem to be a plenitude of examples.
>
When he gets a degree in physics, an understanding of electromagnetic
field theory, and a quarter century of experience under his belt, I'll
consider it.
As things stand, he can't even define the term. It is a nonsense
term.
All he did was google up instances where the two words were
juxtaposed. That really doesn't prove anything.
>http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&num=100&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_ep
>q=current+flux&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_
>ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en
r norman
wrote:
When a conducting body like a person is put into an electric field,
there is an initial charge movement that polarizes the body. But then
the electric field is altered so that there no longer continues to be
a gradient across the body. Hence there is only a very brief time
under which the body is subjected to the field (or, correspondingly,
during which current flows).
John McKendry
These are all from the online open courseware for MIT 18.013A, Calculus
with Applications, Ch. 28.1, Electricity and Magnetism: Historical
Survey and basic Facts, at
http://www-math.mit.edu/18.013A/HTML/chapter28/section01.html :
"Faraday got the idea that if electric current flux causes magnetic
circulation, then there should be some sort of reciprocity: magnetic
flux ought to be able to cause electric current circulation."
"Maxwell concluded that the current flux could not possibly be the
flux of the curl of the magnetic field under these circumstances.
Ampere's law, which describes steady state current flow adequately
must be modified when current flow is time dependent!"
"The current flux with a given boundary will be different depending
on whether we pass our surface through the wire or through the gap.
The flux of the curl of the magnetic field must be the same in both.
If the curl of the magnetic field is to be flux of current in the wire
it must be something else in the gap and that something else must have
the same flux."
Here's a useful definition from the same page:
"We call the integral of the normal component of a vector W over any
surface the 'flux of W through the surface'."
Anything that can be usefully represented as a vector flowing through
a surface has a flux. The claim that "there is no such thing as current
flux" is either laughably misinformed or else, well, I don't know what
else it could be. The Heekster could conceivably make himself look like
less of a donkey here by explaining the technical details of the
thinking that led him to make this statement, but I don't see that
happening.
John
Glenn
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 15:28:40 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
And hair continues to stand on end? That would indicate a charge? If
so, why would an assumption be made there would be no damage?
Glenn
>
> "Faraday got the idea that if electric current flux causes magnetic
> circulation, then there should be some sort of reciprocity: magnetic
> flux ought to be able to cause electric current circulation."
>
> "Maxwell concluded that the current flux could not possibly be the
> flux of the curl of the magnetic field under these circumstances.
> Ampere's law, which describes steady state current flow adequately
> must be modified when current flow is time dependent!"
>
> "The current flux with a given boundary will be different depending
> on whether we pass our surface through the wire or through the gap.
> The flux of the curl of the magnetic field must be the same in both.
> If the curl of the magnetic field is to be flux of current in the wire
> it must be something else in the gap and that something else must have
> the same flux."
>
> �Here's a useful definition from the same page:
> "We call the integral of the normal component of a vector W over any
> surface the 'flux of W through the surface'."
>
> �Anything that can be usefully represented as a vector flowing through
> a surface has a flux. The claim that "there is no such thing as current
> flux" is either laughably misinformed or else, well, I don't know what
> else it could be. The Heekster could conceivably make himself look like
> less of a donkey here by explaining the technical details of the
> thinking that led him to make this statement, but I don't see that
> happening.
>
heekster
wrote:
You are, in simplest terms, a liar. The lie is immediately above.
Keep denying it.
>Enough is enough. I presented correct arguments about reality when
>electric fields are present in a conducting medium like the
>electrolyte solution comprising and surrounding aquatic organisms. If
>you have a problem with that, then live with it.
That isn't what this is about, but your ego seems to be blocking your
ability to read and reason.
Pity.
heekster
wrote:
>On Jan 9, 4:49�pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
Read the whole paragraph, with the "useful definition".
"We call the integral of the normal component of a vector W over any
surface the "flux of W through the surface". The remark above can be
stated as: the flux of electric field through the surface of a sphere
containing a charge at its center is proportional only to the amount
of charge and is a constant times the amount of that charge."
McKendry would conceivably look less of a donkey if he did not quote
out of context, and verified the definition of the terms he was using.
Electrical Flux is a 18th century term for current. It was abandoned
to avoid confusion between electric current, I, and electric flux,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/4/3/94381ead6803920126c150f13c18701a.png
Note that the McKendry cited URL discusses Electricity and Magnetism:
Historical Survey and Basic Facts from the late 18th century to the
end of the 19th century. Using that page to support a point in favor
of an abandoned terminology, is much like using Darwin's original OoS
to refute advances in evolutionary theory which have occurred since
its initial publication.
Glenn
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:10:16 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
>
> Note that the McKendry cited URL discusses Electricity and Magnetism:
> Historical Survey and Basic Facts from the late 18th century to the
> end of the 19th century. �Using that page to support a point in favor
> of an abandoned terminology, is much like using Darwin's original OoS
> to refute advances in evolutionary theory which have occurred since
> its initial publication.
Ok, you're back on again. I had originally surmised that "current
flux" was redundant, ie current flow, which is current, not flux as
understood and used today.
John McKendry
I can't tell you how much this pains me, but he's right. Current is
the flux of the current density, which makes it a scalar, not a vector,
and therefore not the sort of thing that can have a flux.
He's still a donkey, though. The definition of flux that I quoted
is correct, and the sentence that follows it doesn't change that.
John
Free Lunch
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
>Polarizing the body, when the body produces it's own various
>electromagnetic fields and currents, seems counterintuitive to the
>assumption there would be no damage.
I apologize; I misspoke (brain fart). Sitting on a static
generator doesn't polarize the body; it charges the entire
body to the same state as the generator; you can observe the
same effect, especially in winter, by walking across a wool
carpet wearing rubber-soled shoes - electrons transfer from
one insulator to the other (sorry, but I don't recall which
material gains electrons and which loses them, but that's
irrelevant), and your body assumes the same charge as the
shoes as long as you're not insulated from them (which you
almost certainly aren't; normal perspiration assures that).
You feel nothing until you touch a conductor, at which point
the charge you've acquired (up to several thousand volts)
discharges, giving you a sometimes-painful shock, and even,
in dim light, a visible spark. *That's* where the
possibility of damage and pain come from, when the charge
stored in your body discharges, producing a flow of current.
>I remember on TV some guy "sitting on a generator" but do not recall
>the specifics. I'd rather my live cells weren't made to stand on end,
>so would you provide some documentation showing that no damage occurs,
>before I jump on one, or let my worm take a ride?
The "hair standing on end" effect doesn't result from
polarization, but from the tendency of like charges to repel
each other. Each hair carries the same charge and therefore
each repels all others.
This discusses static generators more fully...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_generator
....and includes the statement:
"Simplified Van de Graaff generators are commonly seen in
demonstrations about static electricity, due to its
high-voltage capability, producing the curious effect of
making the hair of people touching the terminal, standing
over an insulating support, stand up."
>Does one have to plug their nose and not breathe?
No; why should you?
> If you sliced off
>the top of your head and then got charged by a generator, would there
>be damage?
Not from the generator. Are you interested in a serious
discussion, or just throwing out random comments?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by r norman
Correct; that was my point. But I have to apologize for my
misstatement; sitting on the ball electrode of a Van de
Graff generator doesn't result in polarization of the body
(which would require a secondary electrode contact, and
which *would* result in a current flow), but in the entire
body assuming the charge present on the generator.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
Any more questions/comments, Glenn?
>On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 15:28:40 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
><GlennS...@msn.com>:
<snip much discussion of static charge/electric fields>
Steven L.
news:1ab4b737-c6b0-4e05...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On 7 Jan, 07:35, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Forcing animals to do things is cruel.
> >
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100105150650.htm
> >
> > "Electric Field Propels Worms to Test New Drugs"
> >
> > "Researchers at McMaster University have developed a way to propel and
> > direct microscopic-sized worms (C. elegans nematodes) along a narrow
> > channel using a mild electric field."
> >
> > Though they claim this is not cruel:
> >
> > "The new development retains a worm's natural motion and causes no
> > harm to the worm."
> >
> > Perhaps they would think twice about this if someone applied a
> > comparable mild electric field to their worm.
>
> Rumour has it that some people might enjoy that experience ... :P
Oh, brother.
Haven't you ever eaten lobster at a fine restaurant?
We boil them alive.
Most likely they don't like it.
But their meat is absolutely delicious when prepared properly.
Man is the top predator on this planet.
So who gives a fuck what animals like.
If that lifestyle was good enough for Tyrannosaurus Rex and
saber-toothed cats, it's good enough for us.
We've taken over where those predators left off.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Walter Bushell
<67ae8f01-05af-4b07...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Ron O <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 7:35�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 6:50�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 7, 1:43�am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > On 7 Jan, 07:35, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Forcing animals to do things is cruel.
> >
> > > > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100105150650.htm
> >
> > > > > "Electric Field Propels Worms to Test New Drugs"
> >
> > > > > "Researchers at McMaster University have developed a way to propel and
> > > > > direct microscopic-sized worms (C. elegans nematodes) along a narrow
> > > > > channel using a mild electric field."
> >
> > > > > Though they claim this is not cruel:
> >
> > > > > "The new development retains a worm's natural motion and causes no
> > > > > harm to the worm."
> >
> > > > > Perhaps they would think twice about this if someone applied a
> > > > > comparable mild electric field to their worm.
> >
> > > > Rumour has it that some people might enjoy that experience ... :P-
> >
> > > Ask adman.
> >
> > > Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Hey. YOU are the one with a worm for a brain
>
> See, he can't help himself. He has to keep attaching the electrodes
> and flipping the switch.
>
> Ron Okimoto
See this is one reason I am questioning my time on this newsgroup. A lot
of it is just bear baiting with the difference the bear doesn't notice
he's dead.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
<682d1b8e-1c65-4dfb...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> Well I'm glad that you cleared up that primitive thing, but I read on
> the Net where this guy's goldfish chewed off his own leg, and
> everybody that's ever had a goldfish knows that they feel pain.
Carp have legs? Or did the goldfish eat the dude's leg?
Walter Bushell
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I thought the carpenter worm was the top predator.
The food chain is a cycle and has no top or bottom.
Walter Bushell
<a5f6fdaf-67d0-42a8...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Baron Bodissey <mct...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But people don't eat their own entrails.
>
> Unless, of course, they're very, very hungry.
Professors eat their brains when they get tenure, or at least many of
them do.
Paul J Gans
>In article
><67ae8f01-05af-4b07...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Ron O <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 7:35?am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> > On Jan 7, 6:50?am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Jan 7, 1:43?am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > On 7 Jan, 07:35, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > Forcing animals to do things is cruel.
>> >
>> > > > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100105150650.htm
>> >
>> > > > > "Electric Field Propels Worms to Test New Drugs"
>> >
>> > > > > "Researchers at McMaster University have developed a way to propel and
>> > > > > direct microscopic-sized worms (C. elegans nematodes) along a narrow
>> > > > > channel using a mild electric field."
>> >
>> > > > > Though they claim this is not cruel:
>> >
>> > > > > "The new development retains a worm's natural motion and causes no
>> > > > > harm to the worm."
>> >
>> > > > > Perhaps they would think twice about this if someone applied a
>> > > > > comparable mild electric field to their worm.
>> >
>> > > > Rumour has it that some people might enjoy that experience ... :P-
>> >
>> > > Ask adman.
>> >
>> > > Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>> >
>> > Hey. YOU are the one with a worm for a brain
>>
>> See, he can't help himself. He has to keep attaching the electrodes
>> and flipping the switch.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>See this is one reason I am questioning my time on this newsgroup. A lot
>of it is just bear baiting with the difference the bear doesn't notice
>he's dead.
I find it more useful than arguing with rigid folks who have
their minds set in concrete.
Wait....
Never mind.
--
--- Paul J. Gans