>> ^chilaxe:
Would the video be recoverable if that was what it did to his hand?


No, not if he had that kind of damage to his hand. Lightning creates an EMP when it strikes due to the huge release of electrons. Video tape uses magnetic fields to store the video data on the tape. Assume there was not extensive physical damage to the tape, it would have been erased on recovery. I also find it strange that the camera would capture 5 whole frames of the lightning strike.

Oh my. Munging tectonic plate movement and the reversal of the magnetic field into a furious realignment of the earths crust. Somebody sure has a vivid imagination. But of course, "scientific rationalists" will just say that that is nonsense. I think my head hurts.

>> ^phelixian:
Is it just me or was that pretty damn boring. I'd rather watch some kid play with the mustache and hair magnets/iron filing toy. I also thought the commentary was asinine and directed towards 4th graders. And what's with the annoying radio static type sound thing going on? Is this supposed to simulate the sound of a real visual magnetic detector? LAME.


My my my, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed, didn't they Mr. Fuzzy Pants? Oh yes I thought so too.

>> ^E_Nygma:
trying to understand what she's saying is like listening to this guy

LOL! Wow, I had not seen that before... wild.

>> ^clamps:
One of my dreams is to be able to see magentic fields (radio waves too). This was amazing.


Wait til the sun goes down, put a deckchair in your back garden, ingest 500 grams of LSD, and you'll be able to watch them for about 5 hours in complete wonder and astonishment. The next day you will be completely at a loss to describe a single bit of it using any form of words whatsoever.

This is not real. Just special effects created using the sun's magnetic fields for refrence.

from http://www.myspace.com/magneticmovie

"Combining their in-house lab culture experience with formidable artistic instincts in sound, animation and programming, they have created a magnetic magnum opus in nuce, a tour de force of a massive invisible force brought down to human scale, and a “very most beautiful thing.” "

"Car goes 65 MPH, with a range of 40 miles. Why aren't we all driving on electricity?"
Answer:
Because transitional magnetic fields are far more efficient, you, Heathkit©, shade-tree, soldering iron, motherfucker!??
*
or, we don't all have disposable incomes and an engineering degree or a small penis and nothing to do all day....but kiss babies- (wait, did he say driving on sunlight!!??)Sign me the fuck up!!

They have a high magnetic field not energy. They are most likely neodymium.

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

I have always enjoyed The Magnetic Fields, and this song always sticks out in my mind when I think of them. As well as Bubsy Berkeley Dreams.

>> ^laura:
so wait, was the jar vibrating and producing the sound, or what?

not quite. it's actually the "vibration" of the plasma that causes sound waves. Plasma speakers are cool because they don't have to use a magnetic field to move a speaker cone, so they are very very responsive to frequency changes because they have no mass to move around. They manipulate the air directly. Do a wiki of "plasma speakers" for a quick explanation.

^ not obscure enough for ya', eh buddy?
s'ok. thanks to ox's new power-jammies,
this has a new home in *engineering.

and, in answer to the above:

>> ^ronin165:
>> ^sirex:
A magnet of that size is not going to do any harm to the hard drive.

correct, ronin.

it needs only a magnetic field the size a crappy refrigerator magnet generates.
and only for the moment you hit your power switch.
sirex should use his noggin before he tries pokin' holes.


>> ^southblvd:
What happens when you take the magnet away?

yeah, it'll stay on. ^Payback's answer was completely correct.

this is actually just creating a pre-switch, en route to your power switch, which has 'off' as the default state. holding a magnet there allows that gate to open, then you hit the real power switch, and the 'on' signal is allowed back to the mobo. you take the magnet away, and everything's groovy.

>> ^wax66:
Yeah, that'll stop anyone who doesn't know much about computers. It may be 4 EU to protect the thing, but it'd only cost 1 cent to bypass it (since pennies are such great conductors).

poke, poke, poke. some people just can't help pokin' holes.
wasn't meant to keep the KGB out, wax. just your kid brother or something.


>> ^DrPawn:
How about a password ?

yeah. those'll work too.
(who summoned the Legion of the Obvious? yeesh.)

Yeah, no load (or load meter), just a simple multi meter on the motor INPUT and no sensors around the "device" to see what it is actually doing to the magnetic field.

What's with the clicking noise when it speeds up? And the numbers he is talking about are irrelevant unless his power supply is absurdly well regulated.

This looks like adding a magnet to an electric motor, which causes the motor to momentarily fail, either by inducing current where it should not be, or acting as a force on electro magnets. This failure coincides with a speed up of the shaft, which may simply be a consequence if the motor getting back in phase.

The next step in the scientific process, collect data, seems to be of no interest, any number of potentially illuminating measurements could have been made in the time that video took. Why simply repeat the same non-informative observation over and over again?

>> ^Kreegath:
So the reason Dawkins didn't have any sort of experience is that he's not sensitive enough to the magnetic fields?
Couldn't it be that the hypothesis that magnetic fields is wrong? Nah, that's obviously out of the question isn't it?


It's a hypothesis, so yeah, by it's very nature it's got a pretty high likelihood of being wrong. But I believe they said this worked for about 80% of their test subjects and that those it didn't work for seem to have similar responses on their questionnaire, Dawkins being among them. I think the consistency is enough to warrant a "hey, they might be on to something".

This documentary is almost 5 years old (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml). I wonder what's developed since then?

So the reason Dawkins didn't have any sort of experience is that he's not sensitive enough to the magnetic fields?
Couldn't it be that the hypothesis that magnetic fields is wrong? Nah, that's obviously out of the question isn't it?

In the intro to the pdf you posted, it refs a study on human cells which agrees with my assertion about exposure mutation.

Well, that was kind of the point of my referencing that particular study, as the basis for using a study on S. cerevisiae was as a setup to establish a baseline by which to compare mutagenicity, carcinogenic response, and other potential to reactions. It references the human cell exposure (notably, melanoma and osteosarcoma cells) study and a few others specifically because it was indirectly questioning the validity of those results, as they study S. cerevisiae's mutagenesis but also its recombinational repair. If you note in the conclusion, Shimizu et. al. suggest that ELF-MF "LF-MF does not injure the basic genetic system in the same manner as ionizing radiation or chemical carcinogen does". It is because of this that they call for further research on yet-more indirect mechanisms for any effects of MF exposure, and also a call for better exclusion of experimental setup issues ("involvement of eddy currents induced in the culture medium could not be precluded"). In fact, I do believe these issues of experimental procedure are very difficult to deal with - going through similar papers, they are a constant concern, especially when it comes to bacteria. This is ultimately a large issue of expanding all disease-related effects from simple organisms to more complex organisms, as complex organisms - in full, not just isolated cells - will ultimately not respond to such delicate, unintentional and untracked variable changes in experimental environment. This is, again, why epidemiological studies of humans will trump small-scale bacterial studies.

Certainly many of the things we take for granted in our lives are many times more dangerous then HV lines, you will get no argument from me on that. While I do see the tendency by many to fixate on a minor risk while ignoring real risks(terrorism vs car accidents for instance), that does not mean that the proper response should be to discount concerns of risk which are based on unexceptional claims, even if we lack conclusive proof.

I see your point, in that in the face of a great risk, minor risks should not be ignored. However, my argument is that in the face of all adequate studies, all evidence points to an either insignificant or non-existent risk.

Due to the complexity of the systems involved the correlation of leukemia to HV lines (as in the 2005 study from Oxford) is very similar to the correlation of global atmospheric temperature to CO2.

To the specific study (Childhood cancer in relation to distance from high voltage power lines in England and Wales: a case-control study):
This study actually is pretty deep and requires a strong analysis not typically afforded it. Of note in the study, is the fact that they control using the Carstairs deprivation index for socioeconomic status statistically, specifically for affluence vs. risk of childhood leukemia. This needs to be considered with the fact that they're studying an association between distance of home address at birth from high voltage power lines. Do you see the issue in the combination of that control and that effect study? The basic control isn't so easily useable because of the number of confounding variables, including numbers of moves vs. birth location (stress factor), parental employment vs. location, etc. (These are only indirectly related to socioeconomic status as countered by Carstairs index, which uses four indicators: population density, owning a car, low social class, and male unemployment.) Then when you consider, within 200m, the analysis found a relative risk of 1.69 (95% confidence interval 1.13 to 2.53), the result becomes not merely questionable but likely variably confounded, something that the paper notes: "There is no accepted biological mechanism to explain the epidemiological results; indeed, the relation may be due to chance or confounding." and "We have no satisfactory explanation for our results in terms of causation by magnetic fields, and the findings are not supported by convincing laboratory data or any accepted biological mechanism." and "We emphasise again the uncertainty about whether this statistical association represents a causal relation.", which altogether amounts to an immense amount of ass-covering.

It is also worth mentioning that assuming "400-420 cases of childhood leukaemia occurring annually, about five would be associated with high voltage power lines" approximately, and childhood leukemia is a pretty rare disease as it is. The amount of money blown on these types of studies would cover the treatment for these patients many times over. Of course, the issue of extended disease results still needs to be dealt with, but from the standpoint of pragmatism....

Overall my concern is more that the HV lines are an anachronism, just as with CO2 spewing cars and power plants, it is not technologically necessary to put up with these things when we have better option which use less energy, and produce less waste, both in physical and EMF terms. I think arguing that it may be a small risk, but it would be better to do away with the tech even if it were not, is more pragmatic then arguing from a complex, and sometimes conflicting, body of data that we should ignore it.

My argument with this sift specifically lies in epidemiological claims, and I take up the debate because of my interest in the topic and my exposure to the issue. I am arguing against claims of increase in disease incidence as caused by EMF exposure from power lines, cell phone towers, etc., something that has not only not been demonstrated but that, if causally linked, is highly unlikely to matter in any reasonable scale of public life. From a scientific/academic perspective, it's worth researching. From a medical perspective, most likely not. From a public health perspective, almost certainly not. And we're being practical here.

Like I said, I have no experience or anything approaching debate-worthy levels of knowledge on the technological necessity or lack thereof of HV lines, something separate from its possibility of causing diseases. If you would like to sift something about the technology of HV lines and its economic feasibility or some such that I could watch and then read up on, I'd be more than happy to look into it.