Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Atomic Frequency

  1. #1 Atomic Frequency 
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Please critique this video's validity

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu68B...eature=related

    I'm only a hobbyist and haven't delved into this stuff much. This video seems to be the most credulous resource about the so called "Hutchinson" effect, but refers to it in very plain terms.

    Please help me understand this better, I don't want to waste my time following fraudulent leads.

    The thesis is that the distance between atoms is equal to the "atomic wavelength"(my term, not sure if it's technical or not) of the material. By matching this frequency the atoms are "trapped" in the waves. Then by increasing the frequency the atoms are "squished." Is this accurate?


    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Atomic Frequency 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Please critique this video's validity

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu68B...eature=related

    I'm only a hobbyist and haven't delved into this stuff much. This video seems to be the most credulous resource about the so called "Hutchinson" effect, but refers to it in very plain terms.

    Please help me understand this better, I don't want to waste my time following fraudulent leads.

    The thesis is that the distance between atoms is equal to the "atomic wavelength"(my term, not sure if it's technical or not) of the material. By matching this frequency the atoms are "trapped" in the waves. Then by increasing the frequency the atoms are "squished." Is this accurate?
    That video is basically worthless. You will not that the speaker does not really discuss any non-trivial physics.

    I suggest that you siimply pay no attention to anything that you see on the internet from anything other than known reliable sources. There is just too much garbage out there.

    You should particularly ignore anything that smacks of a conspiracy to conceal scientific principles. The scientific community is simply far too open to permit such a conspiracy to succeed.

    Yep, there are military secrets and there is classified information. Most of that classified information relates to very specific details of weapon systems capabilities and vulnerabilities. It is boring stuff. It is in the nature of engineering details and not basic science. Nobody is hiding alien spacecraft or weaponry. The Air Force does not have a "Star Gate". Hutchinson appears to me to be your basic nut.

    If you are interested in learning some real physics, and need it presented without much mathematics, then the videos from Ridchard Muller's Berkeley class "Physics for Future Presidents" is highly recommended. http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_d...sid=1906978373


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Did you watch the video? I didn't notice any conspiracy theories mentioned.

    The only part of the video I care about is the description of manipulating frequency to manipulate atomic structures.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    That video is too vague, and incorrect on many points.

    Huchinson's results have never been reproduced and are widely considered a hoax. There is truth that resonance can cause some interesting things, but mostly on the side of destruction. Increasing or decreasing the frequency from resonance detracts from the magnitude of the effects of the resonance. The further you get away, the less likely it is that you will see any effect.

    The example of the bridge is true. It was destroyed by resonance from the wind causing it to oscillate. Once the oscillations became high enough in magnitude, the bridge was able to overcome the material strengths and rip itself apart. Tesla's Earthquake machine is plausible, but not really feasible. If Tesla was successfully able to do that, and the the results were reproducible, then there is no chance of you ever finding information on it. A weapon of that magnitude would surely be well hidden by any government in attempts to keep the bigger stick. Think of the applications for covert operations!


    Sorry to ruin the illusion of awesomeness.
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    the opening mentions the Bermuda Triangle, a conspiracy.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Did you watch the video? I didn't notice any conspiracy theories mentioned.

    The only part of the video I care about is the description of manipulating frequency to manipulate atomic structures.
    I took his reference to two "Philadephia Experiments" to be a conspiracy theory.

    He is not very clear on what "frequency" he is talking about. Electromagnetic ? Acoustic ? Actually he talks about both indiscriminately. He also seems to confuse the wave mechanics associated with the quantum mechanical state function with other waves. In fact he waves the word "wave" around without much thought at all.

    There is all sorts of junk science on the internet. It is not worth trying to debunk all of it in detail. You can pretty well bet that anything that sounds weird, and is coming from a source that you cannot verify has credibility, is nonsense.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Experiment

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hutchison
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    "Sorry to ruin the illusion of awesomeness."

    No illusions here, that's why I'm asking for help instead of making statements and using this video as proof.

    The only illusion I have is that I'm debating getting some equipment and doing experiments of my own, since to paraphrase Hutchinson "The scientists can do work. I'll leave the measurements to them."

    I'd like to measure whats going on, if anything. I'm skeptical, but my skepticism is on both sides. I can see why a government would want to suppress such things, and have no illusions about their ability to do so, but I am also skeptical about Hutchinson's claims of his lab being confiscated.

    It may have been, but then again, there may have been a reason that he is not sharing: violating local ordinances or zoning regulations, for example.

    He makes a big deal about another raid on his house. His guns were confiscated and his lab was inspected. That's all he says about it. He makes a point of saying it in that order, it makes it seem as though they were there for two reasons, to confiscate his guns and inspect his lab... the truth is that they were probably there to confiscate the guns, to make sure they are all legal, and in noticing the lab, they probably had to call in an electrical inspector to make sure it was all "up-to-code."

    I still don't know what to believe. Obviously the fact that others either can't reproduce the effect, or haven't done so publicly, is a big red flag.... but then again, has anyone heard of anyone trying? I'd like to if there is any reason to, but the general consensus is that the reasons are nil.

    The low quality of his videos, and the fact that he is calibrating his machines in a non systematic way, and "targeting" random materials without gathering any data or making any calculations, that's another big red flag. This sort of thing compromises the validity of the experiment, to the point that it's not an experiment at all. Even if the effects are real, it's not science, it's a big kid playing with his big toys.

    and I'll end by apologizing... indeed conspiracies were mentioned, I just didn't pay much attention and completely overlooked them. My bad.

    I suppose he does use the word "wave" too much eh...

    well, assuming he is talking about electromagnetic waves, can you do the things he suggests? pushing atoms together by decreasing the wavelength, or pulling them apart by increasing the wavelength?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman

    well, assuming he is talking about electromagnetic waves, can you do the things he suggests? pushing atoms together by decreasing the wavelength, or pulling them apart by increasing the wavelength?
    You can do lots of things with electromagnetic waves. Put a tin cup in your microwave and turn it on if you want some excitement. (Kids don't try this at home.) At least one nut tried to dry a cat that way. It was pretty hard on the cat.

    Any time you put a lot of energy into a concentrated mass, you can get things to happen, Usually bad things. There is nothing new or mysterious about this.

    Atoms are built from charged particles, and if you apply and electromagnetic field they will respond accordingly. But if the applied is time varying, the response will also be time-varying. You are not going to pull apart macroscopic materials in that way, at least at any field levels that you are going to produce in a laboratory. What you might be able to do is to heat entrained water to a level that produces very high internal pressures and causes things to "blow up". That is not a big deal. You can do something similar with high-strength steel by electroplating it and failing to treat it properly so as to preculde what is called "hydrogen embrittlement". This is not new physics.

    If you think you are, with ordinary electronic equipment, going to produce em waves with a wavelength comparable to the interatomic spacing in a crystal, you are kidding yourself. You are talking about wavelengths shorter than visible light.

    One of the differences between physics and engineering is the complexity of the systems involved. Physicists deliberately work with simple systems so that they can very precisely study targeted phenomena. Engineers have to make complex systems work, so they often deal with system level interactions that are modeled only empirically. Surprises in engineering experiments are due to unforseen interactions, and not new physics. It is often quite a challenge to determine the real cause of these sorts of surprises. If you are fooling around with high energy sources while you do this, and if you don't know what you are doing, you can get hurt.

    Read the links that I provided. Apparently there have been some attempts to duplicate Hutchinson's experiments. They failed. Apparently even he can't duplicate them. That is a big red flag.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    But his methods are, as I said, random at best.

    Watching him "tune" his dials makes it seem like some sort of art form. He claims to be tuning different frequencies by ear.

    If I were him(assuming this is real) I would be keeping track of all the different frequencies, materials and effects. Quite simply, I want to see his notes.


    If it's as simple as the video I posted suggests, then each material will have it's own frequency based on the distance of the atoms. he doesn't seem to calculate ANYTHING nevermind the material of what he's working with, or the frequencies at which he's operating, and which materials are triggered in what way by what frequencies.

    Indeed I'm not assuming he has discovered anything new. I assume he's a no different than a magician, taking advantage of ignorance and appealing to the fantastic. but, I'm curious nonetheless, about his demonstrations(they do not deserve to be called experiments)
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •