tirsdag 14. november 2017

The Michelson Morley experiment revised.

The Michelson Morley experiment should show that aether exists by measuring speed changes in light in different directions when the earth is moving through space. They found no changes and concluded that the light speed is constant.

The experiment was based on that mirrors and diffraction that waves form special patterns when combined again.

In experiments, one should always look for measurement errors. Diffraction is robust against inaccuracies in the setup, but what about the atoms in mirrors and detectors. We know that atoms are highly dependent on the frequency of electromagnetic waves such as light. Can the same apply to speed?

In a mirror, the light must interact with the atoms in order to be able to bend off and be reflected. What if there there is not enough impulse time to react with the atoms, then the electromagnetic waves will go straight through the matter int the same way as the frequency dependence of x-rays.

The speed of light c is given by the electrical permeability of substances and its magnetic permittivity. The rate in substances will decrease when this product increases: c = 1/(εμ)1/2, the two components indicate how a substance interact with the environment.

The Lorentz factor will provide a mathematical description of how atoms will respond to radiation at different speeds.

Zero ​​point of Lorentz factor


This is a window function. All speeds between -c and + c are detected

Poles of Lorentz factor.


This is also a window function, all speeds between -c and + c are detected. At the end points, the function goes in resonance. This may mean that something is being stored, but in this case we will probably get resonance where light is emitted or absorbed.

onsdag 2. august 2017

Mobile phones and cancer.

Then came mobile phones. The first from responsible manufacturers like Nokia, Siemens etc. that had an antenna connector so it could be connected to an external antenna when used indoors or in car. Later this was removed because it did not fit in a good design it.

Again, people began to complain about the discomfort associated with the use of mobile phones. Now the focus was on radio radiation since radio is used in the phones. This has been rejected by scientists, and certainly correct, since low effects are used.Mobile phones are used with frequencies from 450Mhz to 5GHz, this equals wavelengths from 1m to 10cm. Absorption of radio is greatest at ¼ of wavelength, that is, it may be the entire head or ear that will be heated. With the low power consumption (below 1W), heat is insignificant.

Something that has not come to mind yet, is that the mobile phone antenna will emit ionization in the air, but now it is very low effects, so the amount is small. Now we are not talking about distances of tens of meters as by power lines, not 25 cm as at data terminals, but centimeters distance from antenna to vital parts in the head so the danger is all the greater.

Mobile phones are based on reuse of area cells, ie. the effect should be so low that it covers only a small area so that the same frequency can be reused to any neighboring neighborhoods beyond. Therefore, in urban areas we should now have had very low power emitted in micro and pico cells. This has not happened, mobile operators are building large transmitter beacons, I do not know if there is a cost question or because there is great resistance to getting these masts in the neighborhood. Had the operators built the network with smaller cells, the effect on the mobile phone would be smaller and the antennas would be almost invisible, albeit more, almost like light on the roads.

Can mobile manufacturers who removed the possibilities for the external antenna connection in the future get the same lawsuit as the tobacco producers? What is the responsibility of mobile operators who send a higher effect in urban areas than is necessary?

An advise is to use hands free units or earplugs to increase the distance to your body.

Old data terminals

Old TVs used cathode ray tubes (CRT) to display image. These required a high voltage to make the picture, but since the picture was seen from a long distance, this went well. Then the came the need to watch computer screens also with the same CRT's, but smaller screens. These screens were viewed at a distance of 20 - 50 cm. Some people now got discomfort and rash. Was it the high voltage, strong magnetic field? Several installed negative ion generators to reduce the inconvenience. Was the ion generator helping to reduce the effect of the corona effect in the data terminal? Later we got flat screens for both TV and data terminals, so as a problem, this is now well forgotten, and let us now hope  we are not getting more problems in the future.

Power-lines and cancer

A few years ago, a power line in our local area should increase from 45 to 90kV. I was given the task to investigate the consequences.

A quick literature search gave contradictions results, some indicated increased cancer risk while others could point to no danger. The requirement  for the voltage induced in the surrounding environment had be a thousandths of what would cause electric shock by taking a step, the same is set for magnetism far lower than what is needed to tear iron objects out of the pockets of people.

A local health requirement was that the distance for a 300KV power line to a house should be 30m, for a 90kV line the requirement should be 1/3 of this, 10 meter. This would cost to much so the voltage was not increased.

When there are so divergent investigations on the risk of cancer with power lines, it usually are other reasons than those investigated.

Do you go under a high voltage line on a wet and rainy day, you hear the corona effect, small discharges of charged raindrops around the power lines. The same happens with ionized air, even if it does not sound, so that there is an invisible cloud of de-ionized air around the lines. This cloud will naturally also be influenced by wind so that it can stretch away on one side, while there is nothing on the other side.

There is no difference on ionized and de-ionized air, but air contains particles from the ground and contaminants that will also be ionized by the air. Could this have consequences for people who breathe this or skin that is in contact with the air? Ionized particles will be drawn out of the air as they approach objects associated with soil. It might be necessary to investigate more about this factor and not look at pure electrical or magnetic conditions.