Medical data is for informational purposes only. You should always consult your family physician, or one of our referral physicians.

1

®

ANSWERS TO ASSERTIONS

SEPARATE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF OPPOSITE

MAGNETIC POLE FIELDS

Evidence from peer reviewed science literature

Evidence from non-peer reviewed science literature, value

confirmed

DEFINITION OF MAGNETIC POLARITY

Compass needle geographic definition

vs

Electromagnetic definition

VALUES AND LIMITATIONS OF BOTH MAGNETIC

POLES

By

William H. Philpott, M.D.

17171 SE 29th St.

Choctaw, OK 73020

(405) 390-3009/ Fax: (405) 390-2968

Email: polarp@flash.net

William H. Philpott, M.D.

The following is in response to requests

for a review of specific assertions.

ASSERTIONS:

This is used to designate the assertions that are made for which

a review has been requested. This presentation focuses on the issues

raised by assertions and purposely does not identify the persons

making the assertions.

W.H. PHILPOTT’S ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE

ASSERTIONS & ANSWERS

Assertion:

“There is no proven benefits to the idea that putting a north,

south or alternating sides of a magnet toward the body is better. The

benefits of magnets are derived from the Hall effect. Magnetic fields

can influence the speed of blood flow by dilating blood vessels

which will increase circulation and accelerate the healing process.”

Assertion:

Positive and negative magnetic fields are also misleading and

inaccurate terms that originated with the British Admiralty’s efforts

to improve the compass. They had created a freely flowing magnetic

needle mounted over a card containing markings to indicate gradua-

tions in direction based on the orientation of the needle when it points

to the geographic north pole. The end of the needle that points north

was called the north, or positive pole of the magnet. Actually, it

should have been called, north-seeking pole which would have

meant that it was actually negative rather than positive. By the time

this error was recognized, the terminology had become so ingrained

that it was too late to correct it.”

Assertion:

“Various claims are made by different manufacturers with re-

spect to the superiority of their product design or the benefits of

applying either pole or both poles to the body. However, there is

absolutely no clinical evidence that these magnetic fields produce any

biological effects that are superior, safer or even different.”

Assertion:

“The terms positive and negative applies only to electric poles

and not to magnetic poles.”

W.H.PHILPOTT’S ANSWER TO THE

ABOVE ASSERTIONS

The magnetometer is an accepted scientific instrument which is

used to identify the magnetic poles in terms of positive and negative.

This scientific instrument identifies magnetic poles as positive and

negative whether we are examining a static field magnet, the mag-

netic poles of the earth or the magnetic poles formed at the poles of a

direct current circuit. A direct electric current circuit forms magnetic

poles at each electric pole. A negative DC circuit electric pole forms

a negative magnetic field. A positive DC circuit electric pole forms a

positive magnetic field. This is why a magnetometer can be used to

identify the separate magnetic poles of a static field magnet, the

separate magnetic poles of the earth or the separate electromagnetic

poles of a DC circuit. The present day use of magnetic positive and

magnetic negative bears no relationship to the British Admiralty’s

use that they may have made of the terms positive and negative as

applied to magnetic poles of the earth determined by a compass

needle. The history that I have been able to find about the discovery

that the navigators had incorrectly named the poles does not make

any reference to any consideration that the British Admiralty made on

the subject of magnetic positive and magnetic negative.

William Gilbert in 1600, in the classic book on magnetism

entitled, “ De Magnete,” described the fact that the compass needle

that points towards the north pole of the earth is indeed a south pole

rather than a north pole (1). Through the years, others have followed

suit in making correction of the original misnaming of magnetic

polarity. Despite these corrections, the traditional way of naming

poles is still either north or north- seeking, or south or south-seeking.

B. Beleney (2) describes the traditional way of naming magnetic

poles as being incorrect and therefore producing “semantic confu-

sion”. His solution to this is to use the electrical definition of positive

and negative. This is justified because there is always a magnetic

field created at each electric pole and that magnetic field justifiably

has the same sign as the electric pole. This correct way of naming the

poles is particularly satisfying to the physician who deals with the

human body which has a direct current circuit. Therefore by naming

the poles according to the electrical definition, there is no kind of

interpretation needed. The magnetometer is a scientific instrument

used to identify either the electric poles of a D.C. circuit or magnetic

poles of a D.C. static field permanent magnet in terms of electromag-

netic positive and negative.

The question is: is there scientific justification for naming the

poles of a direct current circuit (which of course always has a mag-

netic field) and the poles of a DC static field magnet as positive and

negative? A magnetometer tells us they are one and the same. A

gauss meter tells us they are one and the same. Biological responses

tells us they are one and the same. The physicist, B. Beleney, states

the problem and solution in the following quotes from the New