Talk:Bioelectromagnetism

New Age?

Why is this page categorized as "New Age"? Everything it says is scientifically valid. Therefore, by definition, it is not "New Age." I won't vouch for the links, though; some of them did look to be "New Age." Perhaps there should be two entries, one on the scientific facts and one on the pseudoscientific fantasies?

i wonder if the energy stored in the cells could produce enough power to supply something the size of a watch? if so, what if we could make that something moniter the body and its functions much like a doctor would check with the heart rate machine and such. if we could do that, maybe we could create enhancements the body could use, somewhat like a download, enhancements like muscular increase, brain activity enhancements. if we could do this and power it by the body itself, it could revolutionize the world. if you have any suggestions, comments, or information, please email me at SyMaster@cox.net.

there's a lot of mystical, mythological, new age ideas about bioelectricity that should be refuted. remember in The Matrix how they implied that human "bioelectricity" was used like batteries to run things? there are also similar ideas in science fiction where people equate bioelectricity with some sort of "life force" and tap it or steal it or use it to run machines, which is all quite silly (right?). i'm not sure how to present it, but we should show some examples of this kind of pseudoscience and explain the relationship to the reality behind it. - Omegatron 16:43, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Still some confusion

I think there's still some confusion in this article.

1. cells use bioelectricity to store metabolic energy? is this true? if so, I don't see how related it is to the types of things studied by EEGs
2. links to life cycle, Mana, spontaneous generation - Omegatron 21:20, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, by using different kinds of fuels (organic/inorganic), cells create proton gradient across the inner mitochondrial membrane, which can be understood as a form of bioelectricity. This gradient is then used to synthesise ATP. --Eleassar777 11:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)==science fiction== The Matrix-like idea that humans could be used as a power source is science fiction. The definition of energy is basically the ability to "do work" in the physics sense. The body does indeed store a lot of energy in concentration gradients across cell membranes that generate voltages across those membranes. Thus is it tempting to think this energy could be put to use somehow. The problem is, that the energy is stored across cell membranes. So while it would be theoretically possible to tap this source of energy by putting a little electrode inside each and every cell, this is, from a practical standpoint, impossible. There is no significant voltage generated by the human body as a whole that is large enough to be a practical energy source. Yes, EEG is a voltage that develops inside the body relative to an outside ground, but we are talking a grand total of a few milli volts here. That's a few 1/1000's of a volt. The only way I could see that would conceivably make a significant power supply out of a living organism is to either:

• put a bunch of them together in an insulated contained and collect the heat they give off, or
• extract from them the organic compounds from them that they make to store energy (e.g. ATP).

While this could concievably work, to do either of these things in such a manner as to collect a significant amount of energy would seem incompatable with the continued life of the organisms.

Oh! I forgot the 'good old fashioned' way of obtaining energy from animals. Use their muscular contractions to do work. If the machines in the Matrix existed in a real world where they needed to obtain energy from humans, the only practical way would be to have them turning the crank of a generator.

Synaptidude 7 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)

What they were doing is collecting heat. The human body dissipates an enormous amount of heat. Correct me if I'm wrong but it's the HEAT that we make which was harvested to generate electricity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.195.186 (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

With nanotechnology however, couldn't one develop the nanotechnology to have the ability to decrease their resistance and become a conductor to lead the electrical current out of the body? Cyberman 10 September 2005

No.

As for The Matrix, I think I heard that the original script called for the people to be in those vats because their brains were being used as nodes in an organic supercomputer called the matrix, which suddenly makes the whole movie make sense (no feeding the dead to the living perpetual motion nonsense, the explanation of how certain people can bend the matrix's rules, etc.) I don't know why they took this out. I guess they thought it was too advanced for typical audiences. — Omegatron 07:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I also read this somewhere, possibly in talk page of the movie article. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Quote

Shouldn't only a link to Wikiquote be here? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the quote by Feynman is appropriate in this context. He was clearly speaking from a reductionist standpoint, refering to the fact that the electromagnetic force is important to atom-atom interactions, so the force is very important to molecules & hence lifeforms consisting of very complex molecules. User:anonymous 27 October 2005

Magnetism?

It seems that this article has much to do with chemical and electric effects. But there seems to be little to no scientific evidence for magnetic phenomena. Should this page simply redirect to Bioelectricity? Nimur 17:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Bioelectromagnetics vs. Bioelectromagnetism

Can anyone explain why these two articles shouldn't be merged? There's only one article for magnetics and magnetism, so I'm at a complete loss as to why a far, far smaller topic needs 2 articles.

And following on from the comment above, maybe the Bioelectricity article too. If there isn't enough research to complete 3 featured articles, then why not try to complete 1 featured one? Kayman1uk 11:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a habit of new age chuckleheads to create unnecessary complexity and esotericism. It allows for the co-existance of more high priests. Rogerborg (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bioelectromagnetism as a power source

I propose that it can be a very potent energy source that is as of yet untapped by our scientists see [1] as a possible reference source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdailey1 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Interference with watches

I can't wear watches, because my bioelectric field screws them up. My father has the same problem. What is going on here? 156.34.190.134 (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This user has asked another stupid question on the elephant talk page, complete rubbish. Just another form of vandal. ZooPro 02:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You're ignorant. All I asked was if Elephants could climb trees. As for this question, digital wristwatch displays always screw up, not displaying the numbers correctly or not keeping time.156.34.182.142 (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070316045551AAXrUFk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.190.18 (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My father can also not wear watches because he shorts out the batteries; it doesn't matter if they're digital or analog. There's no reason hundreds of people would lie about such an insignificant phenomenon. ~Mike K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.180.165 (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a show on the science channel called "Humanology". One episode focused on a guy in South America who is unaffected by electrocution, able to touch high voltage wires & such. There was a shorter segment, halfway through about a woman nammed Debbie, in the UK who also had the watch problem, but she also affected larger appliances. They measured her with an "oscilliscope", and she was shown to be generating electricity. If it was just static, like so many debunkers claim, she wouldn't've been able to raise the level of electricity she was generating.

Some poltergeist activity, specifically the appliances going haywire, is caused by people's brains firing off emps when they get stressed. It's even been shown recently, that simply being angry at your computer can screw them up.156.34.176.213 (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Merger

There's no reason why these two articles, Bioelectromagnetics and Bioelectromagnetism should remain separate. As someone said before, there's only one article for magnetics and magnetism, so why should a far smaller topic need 2 articles?

It is wrong, and in fact misleading, to counter-oppose these two subjects. I've looked at the relevant specialist textbooks at Google Books, and nowhere is there found such an opposition.

There are textbooks for 'Bioelectromagnetics', and there are textbooks for 'Bioelectromagnetism', and they all treat more or less the same subject areas.

Here's a free online textbook for 'Bioelectromagnetism',

http://www.bem.fi/book/00/tx.htm http://www.bem.fi/book/00/co.htm

According to the Introduction, Bioelectromagnetism would include Bioelectromagnetics,

Bioelectromagnetism is a discipline that examines the electric, electromagnetic, and magnetic phenomena which arise in biological tissues. These phenomena include:

• The behavior of excitable tissue (the sources)
• The electric currents and potentials in the volume conductor
• The magnetic field at and beyond the body
• The response of excitable cells to electric and magnetic field stimulation

These two terms seem basically interchangeable, or perhaps 'ism' would include 'ics'. --Dyuku (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge - Seems pretty clear. Also fix the redirect from Bioelectromagnetic. Let's close this and get on with it. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)