I have no idea but I'm willing to be the guinea pig of that experiment

I know the breathing exercise and can do it myself. It's pretty easy too, and the effect begins after about 40 breaths. You feel a strong pull going up the sides of your head with each breath and the top of your head starts tingling and feels as though it's got a bit of static charge to it.

cool! Is it kinda like charging up your energy or power?

Yup

sweet! Mif has superpowers!

http://www.item-bioenergy.com/infoc.....ndingAuras.pdf

Does this help hun???

Only mentions that nerve impulses generate 55 millivolts. Although that can probably be easily converted into the mGauss measurement it doesn't address the brain as a whole :P

Also that stuff is pretty much pseudoscience X3

sowwy x.x I tried

thanks anyway :3

yushs ^.^

actually that article goes into ALOT of physics about how EM waves and their characteristics work and how in "Theroy" they would apply to generating your EM field. Your overlooking the fact that this article is nearly 80% physics and 20% pseudoscience and practically ignoring the physics that are involved with your questions.

Having training in physics I can tell you the physics discussions in that paper is probably about as good as your going to get with your enquiry in official science as to field strength and characteristics of a human brain. Anything more detailed than this at the "total body level" as you want is beyond current accepted science and has yet to be studied and applied.

The only problem with this manual is that it is not in a form of peer review and has no references or citations or previous research to back the claims up. The article is a good stopping point for an introduction but without the actual full article to your above claim it is as good a reference as to the original.

Essentially saying anything beyond "these practitioners are generating massive measured electromagnetic fields" is pseudoscience. To investigate anything further as to how, why, or what occurs to cause this is going to fall into pseudoscience at the same level as the reference given.

Your likely asking for the field strength of "normal folk" to compare and infer that the practitioners are effecting their magnetic fields more for whatever reason. After that is found out than maybe you can start to move into the physics behind what is causing such phenomena in some way of peer reviewed science.


I dont know your level of understanding of physics but unless you understand what your really asking for here your not going to find your answer with your current searching methods.

As for your request for the stats you want in miliGauss (1*10^-3G) please read this definition from this page:

http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictG.html

gauss (G or Gs) [1]
the CGS unit of magnetic flux density. A field of one gauss exerts, on a current-carrying conductor placed in the field, a force of 0.1 dyne per ampere of current per centimetre of conductor. One gauss represents a magnetic flux of one maxwell per square centimeter of cross-section perpendicular to the field. In SI units, one gauss equals 10-4 tesla. The unit is named for the German mathematician and astronomer Karl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855).
gauss (G or Gs) [2]
a former name for the CGS unit of magnetic field strength, officially renamed the oersted in 1930.
gauss (G or Gs) [3]
the CGS unit of magnetic dipole moment per unit volume, more commonly written emu/cm3 or emu/cc. In this use the gauss equals 1000 amperes per meter in SI units.

as well as the base unit the Tesla

http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictT.html#tesla

tesla (T)
the SI unit of flux density (or field intensity) for magnetic fields (also called the magnetic induction). The intensity of a magnetic field can be measured by placing a current-carrying conductor in the field. The magnetic field exerts a force on the conductor, a force which depends on the amount of the current and on the length of the conductor. One tesla is defined as the field intensity generating one newton of force per ampere of current per meter of conductor. Equivalently, one tesla represents a magnetic flux density of one weber per square meter of area. A field of one tesla is quite strong: the strongest fields available in laboratories are about 20 teslas, and the Earth's magnetic flux density, at its surface, is about 50 microteslas (µT). One tesla equals 10 000 gauss. The tesla, defined in 1958, honors the Serbian-American electrical engineer Nikola Tesla (1856-1943), whose work in electromagnetic induction led to the first practical generators and motors using alternating current.

To see the average mG of humanity you would have to test the field accordingly to every single person in a large enough control group under the same circumstances with the same equipment and the same measurement techniques. YOU cannot find it given a single voltage with no indication as to how it was found nor what it is being passed through (RLC elements and issues, Current, charge, and frequency characteristics).

Matter of fact as given in the definition Field strength actually has to do with current time I(t) over voltage time V(t) given the magnetic field is current/charge based.

I have yet to see such a study but knowing how complex the physics are with such things The International College of Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutic Research" is not going to be involved with that given its focus. Maybe if you get into biophysics or bio-mechanics you may find more information to this but not when its going to be applied to proving a controversial therapy works.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=journals&term=%22Acupunct%20Electrother%20Res%22[Title%20Abbreviation]

Please re-read the article that was given as well as research all the underlying physics that apply before you call it pseudoscience and expect what your asking for not to be. I say this because this article you have presented as is with all "complementary therapies" are considered forms of pseudoscience by mainstream medicine.

---

As for your request for references well this is the limits of PubMed. PubMed doesn't give much credit to full articles as the limitations of copyright with periodicals today don't let PubMed do so. PubMed is a great place to start research when you draw a blank but you still have to go to the periodicals themselves to obtain your full articles (and your references). Usually you have to pay for this privilege unless your a student whom's school has access to this journal through whatever data provider they have subscribed with.

Pubmed has a linkout feature as well that links to fulltext data providers that carry the article.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Its a load of fail because I too have had issues with such for my own research.

My physics education was until grade 13 advanced physics here in canada. I spose that's 2nd year college level. I also studied biology & chemistry to the same level.

You are correct in your assumption that I want the hard numbers so i can determine if the results they're talking about are in anyway exceptional or beyond standard deviation.

I'm familiar with quite a few different theories as to why they may be generating such a field ranging from bioelectricity to conscious interface with the structure of the universe itself ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Russell ). There are quite a few theories out there.

I too have my OAC (what Grade 13 used to be), Physics as well as Both OAC, Chemistry and Biology. I can assure you that OAC Physics does not prepare you whatsoever for 2nd year university physics. I studied 2 years of mechanical engineering which was pretty much applied physics courses and math. Ive also had quite a bit of study on biochemistry so hence I can understand how some of the theories in the article may work.

Considering the introduction of differential equations in 4th semester and vector calculus in 3rd its no where near second level university however. Though having OAC calculus gave me a leg up in 1st year university (thanks to the knowledge of integrals given in that course when grade 12 here does not)

I do not believe advanced magnetism is taught in high school or at least not in the Ontario new or old curriculum. Though some of the basics of RLC circuit analysis is (bio-electricity) as well as a nice portion of biochem in grade 11 and 12/OAC.


But otherwise understood. Like I said your probably looking in the wrong journal for your info as its applied to complimentary medicine. Theres probably more relevant information if you were to move toward biochemistry or biophysics type material. (its outside of the online journals archives where they go to volume 27 and this is in volume 23)

Just remember it is still technically a form of pseudoscience so you may not get it as well established information that has anything really definate.

Ah I thought you went to school in the states where highschool ends sooner. I completely agree that they're not equivalent to 2nd year university level. I'd consider them a foundation of the basics at best :P

Grade 13/OAC no longer exists in Ontario as I am sure you are aware of (known as the "double cohort" of 2003 which I was apart of) So nowadays Ontario is in-line with the rest of the world with a 4 year program. It was a huge political mess that left Ontario with an unbelievably hard curriculum (almost as hard as the French) and a 33% dropout rate. I escaped this by a year thank god.

You sound like your pretty advanced into your studies may I ask what your field of expertise is?

I graduated in 2001 so I too squeaked by.

I'm actually an animator by training :)

This reminds me of a side show act I saw on an asian TV show about a magnetic family that would stick metal objects to their bodies. Perhaps their secret is no longer a secret?

Hmmm. . .Looks like magnetic compasses are useless if you try to relax out in the woods. XD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders.....agnetic_field)

The human brain is normally 0.1-1.0 picoTeslas. Even if they messed up the prefixes and those are supposed to be microTeslas in the abstract (and I think that's the case, that's still eight orders of magnitude.

Wow.

well It would be hard to say without actually looking at their data. m is usually mili which is 10^-3 and micro is a greek character. If that heavy of an error was made (when TEX and most documents support greek characters) than one could call into question the entire journals standards completely

But knowing their using coils with 80,000 turns on it and not indicating how their able to isolate such a massive amount of copper from picking up just about everything and screwing their readings up. This error could be possible.

A twelve year old article, in an iffy journal, with no sign of a follow up study since. Add to that an abstract that throws up some rather large red flags, foremost from the sample size, and I would take their results with a rather large grain of salt.

Not to mention the online archive of this journal from its publishers doesn't even go back this far.

but yeah the more Ive looked at this the more likely it seems to be junk science If this really was a significant find it would be present in the literature in far better results and numbers.

I remember several years ago they were doing controlled qi gong experiments on cell cultures. It was publicized at the beginning of the study and was even show on discovery.ca. Including some amazing thermal footage of the practitioner as he was demonstrating. They said they'd do a follow up after a year but I never found out what the results were.

yeah its effectiveness is well known by word of mouth but its VERY VERY hard to find this information in peer reviewed science if it is there at all. Its one of those limitations at the moment that our form of advanced knowledge has/

Discovery doesn't really count at the same level of legitimacy as is being published in peer reviewed periodicals but seeing such things with your own eyes does make one wonder whats going on and you would have to think there is something else there not being seen.

Peer review can be a really elitist and onerous process to go through ant alot of times there is still a closed mind in that world about such materials so often they are ignored from science for very long periods of time. (for example infection induced ulcers, "mycoplasma" infection and its implications in things like arthritis and other auto immune disorders)

I suspect this brain and bio-energy material is at this point with those same kinds of issues.

That's a pretty interesting study. I'm not familiar with Qigong breathing exercises. Are the exercises primarily used for meditation?

They're used for acclimating the body to generating and storing increased amounts of chi.

*cough*




... OVER NINE THOUSAAAA- *shot*

THAT's soo cool :D I ma totally do some of that stuff when I get older! Or maybe when I are middled aged or something :0 Or maybe soonz?

Chi-gong actually is a part of Tai-chi or a second step from it. Perhaps studying tai-chi will assist you with that before you get into Chi-gong.

Most martial arts believe it or not teach pieces of tai-chi in some of the breathing exercises and warm up instructions they give.

The other eastern practise which uses the human bio-energy field for healing and other things is known as Reiki. Essentially its all the same elements of things just different ways of harnessing and developing it.

Supposedly the current form of tai-chi was developed to be completely ineffective by a tai-chi master that refused to teach the new rulers of china the practice. However you are correct that many martial arts do incorporate tai-chi, specifically they incorporate the original practice or temple tai chi. Shaolin kung-fu is actually the physical branch of tai-chi but ignores the rest of the practice.