Schumann Resonances, Electro Magnetism, and the Brain.

This is a paragraph from the Persinger's paper:

The PC was equipped with custom software (Complex2) used to
generate the simulated geomagnetic storm by converting a column
of numbers (each value between 0 and 256) into voltages (±5 V)
that were then applied through the coils as electric current. The
point duration (duration of each successive voltage presentation)
for each of the 5072 points was 69 ms

The "presentation" here is the period of time when a voltage level corresponding to a number
read from the pre-defined sequence that was generated and held for 69 ms.

The voltage level changes were happening with the frequency of
roughly 14.5 Hz (based on 69 ms). One is left to guess whether the two subsequent
points were of opposite polarity, to the effect that the resulting signal was
a crude approximation of a wave with 7.25Hz frequency.

The important part here is that the actual shape of the signal was characteristically
step-like and not sine-like. This poses two problems -- one is that effectively
the subjects were exposed to a combination of frequencies since Fourier transform of
rectangular-shaped signal is rich in harmonics, and also because the inductance of the coils
would produce transients at switch-over points.

As a result, it's simply incorrect to say that the subjects were subjected to 7Hz oscillations,
whether they were modulated in mHz range or not. To simplify a bit for those who don't follow,
any results here is inconclusive -- maybe it was the 3rd harmonic that mattered, which was 21 Hz.

I leave aside the fact that the results were already iffy as evidenced by Fig.2 in the paper. When one
traces a fancy curve through a bunch of points with very generous error bars, this means one thing --
that they don't know what they are talking about.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Nice try -- again to knock down Persinger. haha. You are skewing his research -- misrepresenting it.

Most researchers don't understand error bars as this blog explains.

Forget the error bars -- look at the significance level determined mainly by the P-value:

If the p-value associated with the t-test is small (0.05 is often used as the threshold), there is evidence that the mean is different from the hypothesized value. If the p-value associated with the t-test is not small (p > 0.05), then the null hypothesis is not rejected and you can conclude that the mean is not different from the hypothesized value.

Now look at Persinger again:

Although there were no statistically significant effects of the applied magnetic field for right frontal, temporal or parietal gamma, or for right frontal or temporal theta (all F(4,18) < 2.860, all P > 0.15), right parietal theta showed the predicted interaction (F(4,18) = 4.241, P < 0.05; one-tailed test) for applied magnetic field intensity by 5- min time blocks of EEG recording (Fig. 2). Post hoc analysis indicated that the mean power over the right parietal region for the 20 nT group was significantly greater than that of the sham group after 5 and 15 min of magnetic field exposure (15 and 25 min, respectively, of elapsed EEG recording time), while the mean for the 70 nT group was significantly suppressed relative to sham after 10 min of magnetic field exposure (20 min elapsed EEG recording time). Power was not different for the 10 min prior to magnetic field treatment and all between-group differences attenuated after 15 or 20 min of field exposure.

That's my italics -- why ? Persinger already includes the background 7 hertz magnetic field against the amplitude modulation of the millihertz nanotesla.

So your attempted critique fails once again. haha.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Yeah you can say "volts of the voltmeters" and no one will complain.

You can say "amplitude (intensity)" or intensity amplitude and again no one will complain.

So the reason the link I gave wrote amplitude intensity is the same reason I did -- for emphasis of clarity

That's precisely why you had a hissy-fit over it - because you couldn't even realize what the amplitude intensity modulation was in Persinger's study. haha.

So I wrote amplitude intensity precisely for those who have special needs.

I'm glad you noticed -- and that was exactly why I wrote it. So you seem to have finally accepted that Persinger used millihertz amplitude intensity modulation.

Welcome to reality.

Maybe someone will finally help you out with your request to find Persinger's Megahertz carrier wave. haha.

Oh but wait that's not nonsensical is it? Demanding over and over again that Persinger used Megahertz even though the word is not in the paper.

Hmm. So it's wrong to use amplitude intensity or nanoteslas of the magnetometer even though it makes perfect logical sense -- but demanding someone get you information about some imaginary word in Persinger's report is completely sensical. haha.

Oh that's called "anger displacement" -- just admit you made a very bad reading comprehension error and then went on the attack without using any evidence to back up your claim.

It's your standard methodology as everyone here knows.

The rotation of a small pinwheel near her while she ‘concentrated’ upon it was associated with increased coherence between the left and right temporal lobes and concurrent activation of the left prefrontal region.

So first Persinger claims to have documented telepathy in his experiments. Now he documents telekinesis

Here's the ATS thread on Persinger's telepathy claims on ELF fields and his video about the Earth as a vast ELF mind control project

Originally posted by buddhasystem
He doesn't even care that the 7Hz carrier or has tons of various harmonics (which it very likely does, based on the description of the signal source).

Originally posted by Mary Rose
No, actually, your sentence makes no sense, and you need to explain yourself. What are you saying about the 7Hz carrier?

Hmmmm. No answer.

Do you know what you were/are saying?

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Nice try -- again to knock down Persinger. haha. You are skewing his research -- misrepresenting it.

In what exactly part? Are you aware that a signal that's rectangular in shape will result in a lot of harmonics? With some residual intellect and access to Google, it's extremely easy to explore and verify.

Most researchers don't understand error bars as this blog explains.

Oh, thanks for the quote! Indeed. So that Persinger sucks at error bars is not a surprise! I see. What's more,

a team led by Sarah Belia conducted a study of hundreds of researchers who had published articles in top psychology, neuroscience, and medical journals

Yeah well, the Persingers of the world ply their trade in these disciplines. In physics, we take error analysis a lot more seriously. If I ever published something like Fig.2 in the Persinger's paper, I would have been crucified, and for a good reason. Well, I never treated my data with negligence personified by Persinger.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Nope -- the error bars quote was for you B.S.er -- again ignore the errors bars because the P-value is what counts -- and I quoted Persinger on the P-value. Persinger uses the right P-value and his error bars reflect that. If a person doesn't understand the P-value then they're going to misunderstand the error bars. You have never even mentioned the P-values so ignore the error bars already.

Your attempt to "appeal to authority" about getting published in physics is pathetic considering the amazing blatant errors you've made about Persinger's paper.

Now you want me to do more googling for you about "square" waves? Hello -- that's your responsiblity as Mary keeps pointing out.

If you make a claim you have to provide the evidence to back it up.

Time to grow up.

I already pointed out and gave the evidence from Persinger -- which you have now ignored -- that Persinger takes into account the background field -- whether it's a square or triangle or sine wave does not matter because it's already considered.

Stop trolling this thread -- your desperate attempt to dismiss Persinger has failed on every level.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Nope -- the error bars quote was for you B.S.er -- again ignore the errors bars because the P-value is what counts -- and I quoted Persinger on the P-value.

I don't give a flying toss about what and where you quoted, because I'm referring to the original paper, which provides a graph that does not plot P-value or anything like that. Persinger himself put the error bars in the graph, and now you insist that I ignore his reasoning? Are you saying that Persinger is not knowledgeable enough to produce the right graph? Well maybe you are right, however I'll stick with the most straightforward way to look at the graph, which is to say that given the error bars in the graph the curves drawn there are nonsensical. If there was a hypothesis that would provide that shape, which needed to be tested, Persinger had ample opportunities to say so. In absence of such, it just looks like a very poor piece of work.

Now you want me to do more googling for you about "square" waves? Hello -- that's your responsiblity as Mary keeps pointing out.

No it's not. Speaking of Mary, she repeatedly says that it doesn't matter what I post here, so I'll let her wallow in ignorance.

I already pointed out and gave the evidence from Persinger -- which you have now ignored -- that Persinger takes into account the background field -- whether it's a square or triangle or sine wave does not matter because it's already considered.

Spectral characteristics of a signal do not have anything to do with the background.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
He doesn't even care that the 7Hz carrier or has tons of various harmonics (which it very likely does, based on the description of the signal source).

Originally posted by Mary Rose
No, actually, your sentence makes no sense, and you need to explain yourself. What are you saying about the 7Hz carrier?

Hmmmm. No answer.

Wrong. In particular, the answer is even posted right on that page (above your post). But since your level of education is lacking, you are at a loss while trying to comprehend it.

Do you know what you were/are saying?

Yes.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Yes error bars chart the P-value but the error bar is easily misread depending on the confidence value -- so that's why P-value is the way to understand the error bars

I already quoted Persinger giving his 95% statistical significance.

Error bars that represent the 95% confidence interval (CI) of a mean are wider than SE error bars -- about twice as wide with large sample sizes and even wider with small sample sizes. If 95% CI error bars do not overlap, you can be sure the difference is statistically significant (P < 0.05). However, the converse is not true -- you may or may not have statistical significance when the 95% confidence intervals overlap.

The size of the error bars that you refer to are not the way to read the P-value. The P-value is what matters.

You can't just say -- wow look at these big error bars this study sucks. haha. Also you keep referring to the curve or line -- again that is just the "mean value" -- it's based on the center of the bars. No tricks there -- so it's not just some haphazard curve or line.

Again on whether the 7 hertz field has harmonics and how big they are is not relevant because, as I quoted the study, Persinger includes the 7 hertz field as a control against the nanotesla amplitude modulation. O.K. so if the 7 hertz has strong harmonics that is already taken into account against the amplitude modulation. I think you understand this but want to misrepresent "background field" as "background noise" -- just using the word "background" -- again it doesn't matter. Persinger does the amplitude modulation and then Persinger measures any amplitude modulation while just the 7 Hertz (and any of its harmonics) are running. Understand? It's very very straightforward.

I can see why you haven't responded to Mary as she clearly knows your Modus Operandi. haha. You've been called a troll by others and the only reason I've responded to you is because I don't like seeing you (or anyone else) spread misinformation or disinformation.

O.K. so let's get this clear again on Persinger.

No -- Persinger did not use Megahertz.

No -- the 7 hertz was not frequency modulated.

No -- the magnetometer was not the wrong calibration.

No -- Persinger did not confuse people about the millihertz nanotesla amplitude modulation (except yourself).

No -- the error bars do not invalidate Persinger's P-value of less than .05 -- no matter what the error bars look like.

No -- any harmonics of the 7 Hertz signal are not excluded from the experiment.

O.K. so you have consistently tried to dismiss Persinger by demanding people find out information for you but you have never provided evidence for your claims and all your claims have been proven wrong. You have misrepresented information and have misquoted me.

We can all expect you to continue your modus operandi -- of mispresenting information -- trying to confuse people -- misquoting people, etc. Also you mainly just whine and complain yet you don't provide any actual information. You just dismiss stuff based on your own errors.

It's clear you need special attention and this is just about you seeking attention but claiming to be some "authority" figure. O.K. so this thread has become all about your personal needs. You are trolling.

So are you going to finally stop creating false claims against Persinger? Is your hissy-fit over with finally? If you did this in a court of law you would get penalized for false claims because you are being willingly dishonest. If you insist something is true but you haven't checked your facts and yet you insist other people check those wrong facts for you -- then you are being dishonest.

The B.S.er will by definition spew B.S.

O.K. this thread has become some counseling session for you about your special needs.

reply to post by buddhasystem


You can cut the crap about level of education.

Your sentence I quoted is nonsensical and you have refused to address it. Forget it.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You can cut the crap about level of education. Your sentence I quoted is nonsensical

But of course it is, Mary. See the first part.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Your sentence I quoted is nonsensical

Originally posted by buddhasystem
But of course it is, Mary. See the first part.

You're agreeing your sentence is nonsensical? Then directing me to go fishing for the requested clarification you refuse to post?



What a circus.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Oh buddhasystem, in your fervent crusade you have completely missed my points.. I am not going to elaborate on all of them, save one (that whole "wasted time" gig):

Of course Rodin is "on to something." The same patterns we use in everything from transformers to speaker crossovers. You see no evidence that in such a coil, inductance anomalies would present themselves? Let me ask in a more clear manner; in a coil, is there some currently unexplained behavior? There is a huge "elephant in the room" with such things, but Ill just see if you know what I am talking about.

Some coil wraps will affect inductance differently, this is what Rodin is touching on. He presents it, in my opinion, as "gobbledeegook," but what he witnesses is very real. He, seemingly much like you, isnt willing to explore it outside of his current perspective though. Interesting thing, that. Ironic too.

I suppose Ill say "good job" on destroying ignorance. You can see how well that is working out for you.. I appreciate the balance you provide to the other extreme though.

reply to post by pianopraze


Thank you for your kind words, Piano. I expected nothing less.

Cyclical structures are the arena where we will see the next biggest steps taken. Where we identify universal attributes and start to implement them in our technology. In my context, this includes the three topics mentioned by the thread title. I feel that these areas, specifically electromagnetism, are going to provide some very interesting discoveries in the future. Possibly to the extent of given humanity a hand up out of our.. "situation."

I also feel that the link between what Ill call "spirituality" and EM is simply not dismissed that easily. Of course, it can be a much more cold and calculated view of things. But at the same time, may provide some pertinent answers, as well as legitimate avenues of exploration to the "supernatural." Always found that word funny anyway.. (supernatural). Always thought that if it exists, it is entirely natural.

Then again, as I so often say, I have no idea what I am talking about.

Ah well, Ill be popping into the thread from time to time. Thank you for creating it!

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Oh buddhasystem, in your fervent crusade you have completely missed my points.. I am not going to elaborate on all of them, save one (that whole "wasted time" gig):

Of course Rodin is "on to something." The same patterns we use in everything from transformers to speaker crossovers. You see no evidence that in such a coil, inductance anomalies would present themselves? Let me ask in a more clear manner; in a coil, is there some currently unexplained behavior? There is a huge "elephant in the room" with such things, but Ill just see if you know what I am talking about.

So many words and no substance whatsoever! You see, you can't point to a single event, number or phenomenon that it outside of ordinary, with the Rodin's coil. You simply can't. Elephant in the room? WTF? There is not a mite in the room. You can't point to one, why do you keep talking?

Some coil wraps will affect inductance differently, this is what Rodin is touching on.

Hilarious! Sure, I can invent 1000 ways to wrap a length of wire around a plastic CUBE, and every configuration will have a different inductance. You can spit on the wall 1000 times and every spit will look different. Is that the thing that mesmerizes you? That's almost too bad to be true.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
So many words and no substance whatsoever! You see, you can't point to a single event, number or phenomenon that it outside of ordinary, with the Rodin's coil. You simply can't. Elephant in the room? WTF? There is not a mite in the room. You can't point to one, why do you keep talking?

Please explain to "us" (by that I mean the thread, the world, and the scientific community) the exact mechanism that explains how the cutting of created EM fields imparts voltage into another medium. Keep in mind, I am not necessarily asking for the mathematics that describe the effects, but there is the entire scientific community that would like to know the information that you, apparently, have. As far as the elephant in the room with inductance? Well, Ill let that stand open as a testament to either your bias, or ignorance, on the subject. I know, I bet you love that, right?

Also of note, I never said Rodins coil is somehow special. At least no more so than an inductor in a circuit, or in a transformer. Simply that the unknowns in the field allow for such misinterpretation. They all play by the same "rules." Rules that we are still learning about, and most importantly, still learning different applications. You are, again, fighting your own shadow.

Hilarious! Sure, I can invent 1000 ways to wrap a length of wire around a plastic CUBE, and every configuration will have a different inductance. You can spit on the wall 1000 times and every spit will look different. Is that the thing that mesmerizes you? That's almost too bad to be true.

Are you trying to make my points for me? Thank you!

Ill just add that it is not entirely unreasonable that certain configurations will be more beneficial in certain applications. Also, why did you capitalize "cube?" Seems to be an attempt to deride, however, we both should know that coils come in almost every shape and size, including squares, circles, rods, cubes, etc. In fact, it is the cube which is a common shape of many transformers. "Coil" refers to the construction, not the shape. I will assume, hopefully safely, that you were exaggerating to minimize my point. If it is reflective of your understanding on the matter, please refer to the last paragraph of this post!

While every spit may look different, they are all predictable in the sense that they must conform to the "laws of the universe." Given the exact same parameters, the spit would would be precisely the same, but the variables change. They, obviously, do not need to conform to our understanding of said patterns and the interpretations of them. Thats what advances (our understanding), not the patterns themselves. This is science, and how we put our understanding into application.

You.. do know that the idea of specific coil wraps imparting specific results is used in pretty much every electronic device out there, right? Did you miss my point completely again? Though, like I said before, Rodin presents his stuff as "gobbledeegook" and doesnt seem to understand that what he is observing is likely even being used in the equipment that he tests with. That is, if he actually uses equipment. Obviously (or it should be obvious) that does not preclude his observed pattern from being usefully applied, if shown to be consistent and more efficient than current forms.

I am not so sure you have the scientific credentials to really speak on these topics, given your freely given understanding and perspective on what has been presented. I will gladly be proven wrong on that, but it wont be through a piece of paper.. rather through your freely chosen actions and words. We will see, but I feel I have wasted enough time as is. I mean no offense by that, it is what it is. Ill take my own responsibility in that my words may have been unclear, but its a two way street. I will give kudos where it is due though; your successful attempts to keep discussions like these focused on you, instead of being productively explored.

All the best.

reply to post by pianopraze


Interestingly, threads like these may indicate a connection between the three stated topics in the OP.

Ill expand! I feel the most reasonable explanation for migration patterns, etc. is that they are based on the magnetic fields of the Earth. If we are seeing an increase in the Schumann Resonance* then such behavior in animals would be readily explained. Hard to say what its like from a different beings perspective, but it may be akin to being drunk. or.. "directionally challenged"

The curious part, however, is that something would likely cause this effect (because, well, thats how we understand things work, neh?). If indeed true, then I would be quite interested in learning about the cause.

*The Schumann Resonance (the "main" one, ~7hz) is according to the approximate standing wave of the circumference of the Earth. I havent looked into it much, but I would be curious as to how such a wave can actually change its frequency dramatically without also changing the parameters of what the wave is "standing" in. Piano, do you perhaps have any links you have found that point towards an explanation? I suppose it could be used to support the expanding Earth hypothesis, but I am not so sure about its validity. I have to admit, if it is shown to be increasing to ~12hz or so as claimed on the interwebs, it might be an error in data acquisition. If it isnt, I am curious as to the mechanics of such a change. It would seem more reasonable that if it is indeed increasing, it is a derivative of a different process. It would certainly be a convenient explanation for some of the "weird" things that we can observe, such as the linked thread, all the strange sounds, feelings, etc. Though, it is more probable such things are the result of the human condition, that are more easily communicated through technology. That could just be my flawed interpretation of something more complex though.

In the already discussed paper, he quotes an article in same journal dated 7 March 1997,

The amplitude modulation pattern,
which contained components and subcomponents within the mHz
range, is typical of geomagnetic power densities. The effectiveness
of this particular pattern for producing electrical lability in rodents
with histories of chemically-induced epilepsy has been shown [12].

[12] A.L. Michon, M.A. Persinger, Experimental simulation of the effects of increased
geomagnetic activity upon nocturnal seizures in epileptic rats, Neurosci. Lett.
224 (1997) 53–56.

So I went and got fulltext pdf ( jjjtir.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/1-s2-0-s0304394097134462-main.pdf ) to get more details on how it was applied.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9132690
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304394097134462

Neurosci Lett. 1997 Mar 7;224(1):53-6.
Experimental simulation of the effects of increased geomagnetic activity upon nocturnal seizures in epileptic rats.
Michon AL, Persinger MA.

2 text quotes from it

In the pursuit of these optimal parameters, we
[9,11,13,17,22] found that a ripple frequency, such as a 7
or 45 Hz square wave, whose amplitude increased incrementally
and then decreased incrementally over successive,
4 min periods, evoked significant increases in the proportions
of nocturnal seizures in chronic epileptic rats. The
present study was designed to discern if an experimentally
generated magnetic field could simulate vectorially (direction
and magnitude) the correlations between the incidence
of spontaneous seizures and natural geomagnetic activity.

The latter half of the year 1995 was considered optimal to
test the hypothesis because very few days of geomagnetic
activity with daily values exceeding 40 nT (or a daily ‘A’
value of 20 at the Fredericksburg station), which has been
shown to increase seizure risk, was expected.

Millihertz again, lowercase.

The 12 cages containing the rats were placed in an aluminum
rack (four cages per row) that was wrapped around
its 112 X 125 cm perimeter by 72 turns of 30 American wire
gauge (AWG). The experimental field was generated by a
custom designed generator that was set to increase the intensity
of a 7 Hz sine wave of the magnetic field from 0 to the
maximum value in 3, 30 s steps and to then to decrease the
intensity from the maximum value to 0 in 3, 30 s steps (after
a 30 s maximum plateau); the peak-to-peak duration was 3 min (5.5 mHz). Direct measurement by a Metex 3800 multimeter
and magnetic sensor probe (Electric Field Measurements)
indicated that the strength of the median, maximum
value was 50 nT (0.5 milligauss) within the central cages
and about 70–100 nT along the inner periphery of the coil.
When the experimental fields were not operative the 60 Hz
background was less than 10 nT (limits of meter).

Then a table in the article with statistical values, the only 1. No graph with modulation as with the 2012 study.

Originally posted by sinohptik

Originally posted by buddhasystem
So many words and no substance whatsoever! You see, you can't point to a single event, number or phenomenon that it outside of ordinary, with the Rodin's coil. You simply can't. Elephant in the room? WTF? There is not a mite in the room. You can't point to one, why do you keep talking?

Please explain to "us" (by that I mean the thread, the world, and the scientific community) the exact mechanism that explains how the cutting of created EM fields imparts voltage into another medium. Keep in mind, I am not necessarily asking for the mathematics that describe the effects, but there is the entire scientific community that would like to know the information that you, apparently, have. As far as the elephant in the room with inductance? Well, Ill let that stand open as a testament to either your bias, or ignorance, on the subject. I know, I bet you love that, right?

So again, you refer to some sort of "elephant" which you are still apparently unable to identify or even point to. Weird. And mind you, I didn't claim to have some sort of exclusive and unusual information on E&M outside of what you are likely to find in a typical textbook. Rodin, however, is talking about creating black holes at will in his lab, and other such nonsense. While you seem to admit he's full of it, for some reason you insist that "he's onto something". Problem is, you don't know what it is. And since you don't, it's a bit rich of you to claim there is some "elephant in the room" or whatever. In fact, rather silly.

Also of note, I never said Rodins coil is somehow special. At least no more so than an inductor in a circuit, or in a transformer.

So again, there is nothing noteworthy about it. I'm with you 100%.

Ill just add that it is not entirely unreasonable that certain configurations will be more beneficial in certain applications.

This is such a generic statement it has no value. Aspirin may help in some cases and it won't in others. Yawn. Again, what is at issue here if whether Rodin's coil is anything special, and you in fact seem to state that it's not. Case closed then. No elephant for you today.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Buddhasystem, just to clarify.. You can take it or leave it. I figure that you are being intentionally combative, but that there might be some misunderstandings that exist in what I have typed in others reading too.

The "elephant" is a separate behavior from anything Rodin is doing. I thought I made this clear, but apparently not. Though, since all of these things follow the same rules it is undoubtedly present in his "experiments." I can point to it, define it, and there is even accepted math for the behavior (though its horribly incomplete, and it doesnt explain the mechanics (same with EM field cutting)). I asked in the way I did because it is not something you will find on google, nor necessarily in a text book (though many do mention it). Its not me alone thats claiming this elephant exists, it is the very bane of electronic devices worldwide (huge hint, by the way). I would suggest you look into it a bit more, with those who have more experience in the field. What I speak of is actually very interesting and I suspect it might just be intriguing to you. Will you explore, or deride? The choice is all yours..

There is however quite a bit noteworthy happening with an induced EM device. Even historically, the application of the laws of electro and magentomotive forces allowed us to have things like electricity. The future applications of pretty much ALL technology is strictly based and derived from these things. I understand what I said could be construed to mean something else (cant everything we say?), but wanted to clarify that for you and others. Instead of thinking you know what I mean by saying he is "on to something," you could always ask me to expand. The choice is all yours..

And of course that was a comfortably generic statement about coil structures. I did that just for you Then again, further down the book I posted I did go further into detail about such things. I was curious to see if you would simply deride, or read through and ask questions about what I was presenting, as I said I would see your aptitude by your words and actions. The choice, after all, is all yours. I also forgot to add that if you would like to add more uniformity to your spit patterns, you can reduce variables by using a straw and wadded paper Again though, statements which apply generically are the very foundation of science. It is in specifying them through application that we advance technology and our understanding. Is it a safe assumption that you solely deal with the application side of science rather than the explorative side that gives it substance to work with? Never understood the divide between the two.

I am not so sure the issue is whether or not Rodin's coil is special as this thread has little to do with that beyond electromagnetism. Could you please go into further depth as to what you feel its relevance is? Specifically why you feel it confirms or denies what is being presented in this thread.