johntee said:Hi Len,
Your response is impressive and factual from my limited knowledge. I'm far from an expert in any field and thus I'm at the mercy of those who freely choose to impart their knowledge to me. Of this I'm truly grateful. My aim, as previously stated, is to acheive as maximum a penetration of biological materials as possible, in as great an alternating + varying field strength & frequency as possible, within what I believed was achieveable via my origininal concept of static field (neo magnetic inductor) + that of the added and created pulsed fields from the circuitry. Yes I understood the basic concept. I must convey honestly that I'm not the most adept or able person to impart my ideas and concepts to others, but I do hope I can achieve such a realisation of my intents in my somewhat naive way via you and friends on this forum.
In my minds eye I visualise the reality of adding something to that which already exists, i.e. neo-magnetic gauss + ?, but cannot claim any expertise in that area of static magnetics + a pulsed electronic content.
Likewise I cannot make any claims to my beliefs or visualisations of this concept because I don't possess that expertise in any capacity.
Len, on this basis, and from your electronic experience, do you believe, without predjudice of course, that what I'm aiming to achieve with my revealed concept is viable with just a strong alternating field as you suggest?
I have no doubt that you can create a strong alternating field. But I have no biological knowledge as to the effect of such a field.
RE: But I'm dubious about your claim that the static component will give you a deeper penetration.
For clarity, it's revealed that all static magnets have a known 'Magnetic Permiability depth' of all materials to varied extents. Yes, I don't doubt that. See below. Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that such a fixed content can be added too with the correct pulsed magnetic content via circuitry electronics. Once again, maybe I'm totally wrong in my inspired concepts. Don't sell yourself short. I personally make no claims.
I do relish and appreciate our communications and hope I don't outstay my welcome with my enthusiasm in this area. I'm happy to help.
Kind regards
John in the UK
The way you're proposing to do it will vary the strength of the static field.
So if the static field is much stronger than the alternating one, then it will be like a wave on the surface of deep water.
On the other hand, if you make the alternating field so strong that it overpowers the static field, and therefore causes the flux direction to alternate, then why have the static field?
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the saturation issue can be resolved.
If the static field is 10000 Gauss as you said and the alternating field has a peak of say 12000 Gauss (ie. when the magnet is not present), then the resultant field will change from a maximum of 2000 Gauss in one direction (ie. when the fields are opposing) to a maxiimum of 22000 Gauss in the other direction (ie. when the fields are adding).
So my question is - do you want a field that has a bias in one direction, or one that alternates from -12000 Gauss to +12000 Gauss?
I can't answer the question, but intuitively, I suspect that an unbiassed field would be better than a biassed one.