Scientists Levitate Small Animals

[grizmaster]

this is just too cool for words.

http://www.livescience.com/technology/061129_acoustic_levitation.html




Scientists have now levitated small live animals using sounds that are, well, uplifting.

In the past, researchers at Northwestern Polytechnical University in Xi'an, China, used ultrasound fields to successfully levitate globs of the heaviest solid and liquid—iridium and mercury, respectively. The aim of their work is to learn how to manufacture everything from pharmaceuticals to alloys without the aid of containers. At times compounds are too corrosive for containers to hold, or they react with containers in other undesirable ways.
"An interesting question is, 'What will happen if a living animal is put into the acoustic field?' Will it also be stably levitated?" researcher Wenjun Xie, a materials physicist at Northwestern Polytechnical University, told LiveScience.

Xie and his colleagues employed an ultrasound emitter and reflector that generated a sound pressure field between them. The emitter produced roughly 20-millimeter-wavelength sounds, meaning it could in theory levitate objects half that wavelength or less.

After the investigators got the ultrasound field going, they used tweezers to carefully place animals between the emitter and reflector. The scientists found they could float ants, beetles, spiders, ladybugs, bees, tadpoles and fish up to a little more than a third of an inch long in midair. When they levitated the fish and tadpole, the researchers added water to the ultrasound field every minute via syringe.

edited to add...
(can a levitated manatee be far behind? LOL)

[Sabriel]

1. How did they get that manatee up so high?

I wonder if it has deleterious effects on the subjects. Yikes.

[grizmaster]

3. think it had something to do with some really loud

Led Zepplin ultrasound

[John Gauger]

8. Hell, I think they should play Zep

even if it doesn't levitate us. It's just so awesome. But if you wanted to recreate that scene, Zep would definitely be the sound to use.

[wtmusic]

128. "Dazed and Confused" at 280db would be appropriate

although the manatee would likely want seats in the second balcony next time

[Uncle Joe]

66. Taco Bell n/t

[Megahurtz]

95. Rofl!

:rofl:

[itsmesgd]

2. holding out for floating monkeys

As soon as they levitate a monkey, I'm buying one.

[seemunkee]

5. That would be better than a monkey butler

[grizmaster]

6. might want to hang on for the upgrade

that makes monkeys fly out your butt.


Heard the "when pigs fly" model was spotted outside Rove's office when the dems swept the House and Senate on Nov 7

[petronius]

23. I don't know - flying monkeys are pretty scary for those of us who

watched The Wizard of Oz too many times... :scared:

[grizmaster]

28. yikes!

and that outfit is pretty damn scary too

[enlightenment]

4. Do those sound waves do anything to their innards?

They said they "appeared fine" - except for the fish (poor fish) - but are they going to keep an eye on them?

And because I'm too stupid to figure it out; what are the potential applications for this technology?

on edit: I also cannot spell this morning . . . sigh.

[Sabriel]

9. Potential applications are myriad

For one thing, hamsters and guinea pigs will never have to stand in their own filth again, thus releasing millions of young children from the onerous burden of cleaning their pets' cages. On the other hand, ants will be able to reach your countertop more easily.

(Can you tell I have no idea?)

[grizmaster]

11. frictionless machinery perhaps

also in creating exotic materials. Some materials and drugs that they can only create in space now might be able to be created at ground level using this technology

[Squatch]

15. "Frictionless machinery" cannot exist

You might be able to achieve very high levels of efficiency, but there will always be losses due to friction/heat.

[grizmaster]

26. should have said "virtually" frictionless

there'd still be friction with the air as you point out


but it certainly would reduce wear and tear

[ThomCat]

13. It's hard to imagine that sound waves with enough

pressure to levitate something don't cause some kind of internal trauma. It doesn't sound like they're paying too much attention to the potential damage though.

[grizmaster]

24. that's what they told me about going to concerts

"It doesn't sound like they're paying too much attention to the potential damage"

and other than a slight ringing in my ears I'm fine. And isn't ultrasound the preferred method in medical uses because of its safety record?

[ThomCat]

25. Speakers and ultrasound don't generate enough

physical pressure to push you. I'd say that's like the difference between a small flashlight and a laser. Just because the flashlight doesn't hurt you doesn't mean the laser won't.

[grizmaster]

32. it's ultrasound that they're using

try reading the article

and they say it's a field they've created, so it's not pressure it's more like a net.

[petronius]

27. Haven't there been discussions of weapons that use intense focused

sound for non-lethal applications like crowd control? It would seem to me that this new 'turn-up-the-woofers-till-the-car-floats' technology would be more likely than not to have some unpleasant side-effects.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

64. I've got a perfect application for this

Impact free treadmills! Inspired by the ladybug who was trying to escape by fling in place. It would lessen the wear and tear on the users joints.

Yeah, I don't fully understand all the benefits either, but you have to admit, it's neat. :D

[FlaGranny]

69. If it could be done with people

it would prevent bed sores in disabled and old folks. It would also have made removing the 160-pound and 200-pound tumors easier re: turning the patient. Can you tell I work in the medical field?

[YOY]

7. Damn...soon Pigs will fly

I guess that will make alot of people eat their words made so long ago.

[Squatch]

10. PeTA add denouncing this in 5...4...3...2...

[ThomCat]

14. I hope so.

On non-living things I have no problem. But on any living thing? No way in hell.

[Squatch]

16. But how can you be sure the animals don't enjoy being levitated?

[itsmesgd]

18. it reminds me of "indoor skydiving"

I loved it and my guts were fine.

[ThomCat]

22. That uses air, not sound

and sound penetrates the body.

[Beelzebud]

29. Do the bugs even detect this sound frequency though?

[ThomCat]

35. Hearing it is the least of the concerns.

Can their bodies feel the vibrations? How strong are those vibrations? And what are the physical effects of those vibrations on their tissues?

[Beelzebud]

52. Considering the bugs lived, I'd say the vibrations aren't too strong.

The story talks about lady bugs flying after the experiment, and fish eggs hatching while inside the field.

If fish eggs can hatch, and lady bugs can still fly, I'd say it isn't too dangerous for the insects...

[ThomCat]

55. We'll see.

Time would tell what deformities might result, or if the eggs hatched prematurely, how how painful the field was. But time will only tell if they bother to look and ask the questions. Again, it's a mistake to simply assume that something is safe.

[Beelzebud]

58. It's also a mistake to simply assume something is dangerous.

[ThomCat]

60. It's never a mistake to assume that something MIGHT be

dangerous and test first. :wtf:

[Beelzebud]

61. I know. Thats why you test it on bugs first.

I never said it wasn't good to question things like this.

It's just not good to automatically assume something is safe or dangerous. This is why they are testing with bugs and not people...

[The2ndWheel]

75. But it's for our benefit

Not the bug. We don't care about the bug, as seen in your statement.

We just have two very different ways of seeing the world.

[Beelzebud]

81. I care quite deeply about the bugs. They are an essential part of our world.

They provide maintenance of the land, they provide food for animals and people, and they have a valid role in research for the betterment of humanity. I don't condone this research out of murderous intent. I'm being rational.

I think we do have a difference of world views. I also think you make a lot of assumptions about what mine are.

What I get from you is that all life forms should be treated exactly the same. Are you honestly suggesting there is no distinction between human beings, and non-sentient insects? If we did not use animals or insects for research, the only alternative would be research on human beings; and since we all agree that is immoral, the alternative is to just suspend all scientific research that involves any form of biology.

Don't suggest I'm uncaring, or cruel minded. I'm being realistic, optimistic, compassionate, and open minded. Do I care about the insects? Hell yes I do, they are helping us progress into something more than we are now. This research seems valid. It seems like it could serve VERY useful purposes for developing vaccines, cures, and many other biological applications. The fact that the insects came out of the field alive is a very positive sign that this could someday be used in medicine that involved living things, a.k.a. humans.

[The2ndWheel]

92. Your rationality is the problem then

"Are you honestly suggesting there is no distinction between human beings, and non-sentient insects?"

Is there a distinction? Absolutely there is.

"If we did not use animals or insects for research, the only alternative would be research on human beings; and since we all agree that is immoral, the alternative is to just suspend all scientific research that involves any form of biology."

Yeah.

"Don't suggest I'm uncaring, or cruel minded. I'm being realistic, optimistic, compassionate, and open minded. Do I care about the insects? Hell yes I do, they are helping us progress into something more than we are now."

So the only reason to care about insects is because they're useful to use in helping us get to some higher state? So you see them as objects to be exploited? Would you question why some men see women as objects then?

[Beelzebud]

93. Are you suggesting im sexist? Where did that come from?

Do you use any products that contain chemicals? If so you're being a hypocrite because every chemical has been tested on animals and insects. I also would like to know why you equate my view on scientific research to men regarding women as objects. That seems like an odd thing to throw into the mix.

[The2ndWheel]

106. I didn't suggest anything

I asked a question.

I try not to use products that contain chemicals. The problem being that every product contains chemicals that come from the exploitation of life. Our entire way of life comes from the exploitation of life. Of course I'm a hypocrite. We all are. We all live in the reality of 2006.

"I also would like to know why you equate my view on scientific research to men regarding women as objects."

You said you care about insects because they allow us to attain some higher state in the future. You rationalize the violence against those animals tested. You said that we cannot assume something is safe or dangerous, that's why we test on bugs and not people. Since some of those tests can be dangerous, we cannot test on humans, as that would be immoral. So we test what may be dangerous products on bugs, because it's not immoral, even though they are also life. They came from the same soup that we did.

Why do we do scientific research? To allow more pleasure? To take away pain? Well, some men see women as objects because they can attain a higher form of pleasure from them. It's the same mentality. Mice, rats, bugs, etc, are useful because they can allow us to have more pleasure at sme point in the future.

It's like the general who won't actually go fight in the battle. If the general won't get into the game, why should anyone go? If humans won't be leading the way, in the form of having tests for human progress conducted on humans, why should rat's be brought into the game? If we know some of these tests can be dangerous, who are we to put other life in harm's way if we're not willing to do the same?

[Beelzebud]

114. I think it's easy for you to make that comparison because you see humans and bugs on the same level.

[The2ndWheel]

126. It's not about any levels

It's about life. Different life exists for its own sake. To talk of levels, is to talk of evolution as some sort of linear process. We're "more" evolved than this or that species. There's no such thing.

[Zhade]

119. Are you volunteering to be a human test subject?

If not, you're no better than what you're decrying, because you're consigning Some Other to undergo the testing on your behalf.

[The2ndWheel]

124. Absolutely not

Maybe I didn't make this point, but I don't want any testing. However, if we're going to continue testing(and we will, especially on non-human life, no matter what I say), we should do it on other humans. If human testing is immoral, but we're willing to do the exact same tests on non-human life, we know it's wrong to do it. But we do it, because it's the rational, logical, most advantageous thing to do from our perspective.

[Zhade]

136. You don't want ANY testing?

So we should consign AIDS victims to death? Cancer victims?

We shouldn't have medicine?

I mean, that's just...wow.

[The2ndWheel]

149. Test on humans then

Many of the viruses and such are as a result of the way we've built our civilization, but who cares about that. We need to do the exact tests that we find dangerous on non-human life, and then rationalize the violence.

[Odin2005]

142. Humans are sentient, bugs arn't. QED. you are comapring apples to oranges.

[The2ndWheel]

150. Human testing for human progress

We know the testing is wrong, but we continue to rationalize the violence against the other because it's to our benefit.

[Odin2005]

140. OMFG, talk about pathetically tortured logic.

I can't beleive you are comparing 1/2 of the population of a sentient species (women) with BUGS! :banghead:

[The2ndWheel]

152. The mentality

It's the seeing of life as objects for use. You're the one rationalizing violence by using words like sentient. Words such as those are created to make it easier on our minds.

[Odin2005]

139. Who care about bugs?

I swat flies and mosquitos often, as do most people.

[The2ndWheel]

153. That's chance

It's not the controlled experimentation on non-human life for human progress that I'm talking about.

[Generic Brad]

141. If it could lift my fat ass off the ground, now that would be an invention!

Plus it would be a sight to behold! I want to fly!! Skip the bugs. I'll be first in line to levitate.

[ThomCat]

21. If that's a possibility

then they should prove that first. We should not let anyone just assume they're not causing harm, especially when the potential is so clear and obvious.

[grizmaster]

30. ummm... what "potential is clear and obvious"?

[ThomCat]

33. Sound cannons are already being proposed for crowd control

because of the pain and discomfort. Sound is vibration, and vibrations can cause trauma and tears in tissue and organs.

So that seems pretty clear and obvious to me that any use of high volume sound to create physical pressure needs to be checked for safety and ethical concerns.

Though maybe you're right and something that's already known to be dangerous realy isn't potentially dangerous after all. :eyes:

[grizmaster]

40. it's an ultrasound field not a sonic cannon

as to this...

"Though maybe you're right and something that's already known to be dangerous realy isn't potentially dangerous after all"

you've yet to point out how an ultrasound field is dangerous. Seems safe enough that almost every pregnant woman in this country gets multiple ultrasound snapshots and even video of the child they're carrying.

Would you agree that if it's safe enough for humans it's ok for a beetle?

[ThomCat]

48. Ultrasound is a low powered application.

As I've already mentioned it's like comparing a flashlight to a laser.

[grizmaster]

90. that's a complete falshood

flashlights and lasers are completely different. Lasers emit coherent light light in a focused beam and flashlights don't.

It's more like comparing two different brands of flashlights with two different stength bulbs.

And again, they're employing an ultrasound FIELD to SUSPEND the critters, not some sonic cannon.

[ThomCat]

99. So you're really saying

that the difference between this levitation technology and a medical ultrasound is just the brand name? :eyes:

Ok, right...

[grizmaster]

101. no I'm saying your analogy is way off

These are two different applications of the use of ultrasound. And our current medical use of ultrasound does expose infants to ultrasound, whereas you've presented ZERO to support your argument that an ultrasound field exposes these critters to anything more dangerous than a fetal ultrasound.

I repeat, ZERO evidence. So are you going to keep posting the little eye-rolling emoticon or substantiate your position with even a glimmer of a factual basis for your position.

[ThomCat]

104. You've presented nothing to support your idea

that a medical ultrasound is a valid comparison to this levitation technology. So who are you to be calling my analogy inacurate? :eyes:

Sorry, I don't normally make the mistake of having discussions with total fools. I should have known better.

[wtmusic]

122. It's not even ultrasound

It's about 17khz and well within the range of human hearing.

[Zhade]

117. ...as well as the strength of the field.

I think that's what the poster was saying.

I agree that it should be checked out for safety, but he is right - your laser analogy is flawed.

[ThomCat]

120. I disagree.

The issue isn't just the intensity of the sound, but how it's delivered. I chose flashlight vs laser because this represents a change in the intensity and a change in the method of delivery. This isn't a matter of turning up a speaker to make a loud enough noise to lift something.

[wtmusic]

125. I agree

and actually it's exactly the same as "turning up a speaker to make a loud enough noise to lift something". Of course the frequency is important, but they're essentially beating the crap out of the bugs with upward-directed sound pressure waves which in aggregate cancel gravitational pull.

[ThomCat]

129. It's repeated, short duration pulses of high frequency sound

and it appears that the speakers they use to generate the sound focus it, so they are not at all like regular speakers. It doesn't sound at all like turning up a regular speaker to generate presure.

If it was even remotely possible to generate pressure like this from regular speakers we would have seen it in the front row of rock concerts. :)

[wtmusic]

132. Where do you see anything about pulsing?

in the video it appears to be a steady sound. And I'm not sure what "regular" speakers are, but pretty much any technology for generating sound waves relies on the same principle--use an electromagnet to shake something really fast.

[ThomCat]

134. It's in one of the links on that page.

And, pulses, if they are close enough together would seem like a continuous sound.

Regular speakers versus what they use: comercial speakers designed to project audible sound, versus something designed to create specific wavelengths in a confined area. I'm not saying the basic priciple behind the speakers is different, but the engineering certainly is.

[wtmusic]

135. From the closeup of the floating ant

it appears they're creating a parabolic sound mirror below the ant to focus all the sound waves on one place. The sound appears to be generated from above and directed straight down into the mirror.

I can't find the "pulsing" link but there wouldn't be any particular advantage to pulsing the sound over using a continuous one. And regardless of what some people on this thread say--that's a hell of a lot of energy focused on one place, and I can't believe the bugs weren't pretty beat up after the experience.

Your light/laser analogy is an apt one.

[Zhade]

138. The light from a laser and from a flashlight are not of the same quality.

It doesn't matter how strong the light from a flashlight gets, it will never become a laser, because it's diffuse.

They're simply not the same type of device.

[ThomCat]

146. That is exactly my point.

And the sound from your stereo will never be load enough to levitate anything. Nor with the sound from a medical ultrasound. They're simply not the same type of device as this levitation uses.

[Zhade]

147. Ah, gotcha.

I misunderstood the way you were using the analogy. My mistake.

[The2ndWheel]

34. Imagine if we tested on humans

The cries of injustice that experiment's would bring then. Sure, human testing for human progress makes sense, but you can't do that. No, save the real testing for mice and bugs. They have no reason for existing. I mean, they know nothing of human advances. What is life without progress?

[grizmaster]

37. we've used ultrasound on humans for decades

[The2ndWheel]

38. Great

Now lets continue testing on humans for human progress, and leave other species alone.

[grizmaster]

41. see I never would have guessed there was a luddite insect protection society

:rofl:

[The2ndWheel]

47. That is pretty funny

Still, why don't we test on humans for human progress?

If I may be so bold; if an alien species came to Earth, took our parents, siblings, and children to test on them, would you be alright with that? If you didn't speak their language, could you say stop? If you were at the mercy of them thanks to technology, would you have any way to fight back?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. We did that.

Well, Joseph Mengele did it.

[Beelzebud]

54. Actually we did it too. Tuskegee experiments and the Plutonium experiments.

We aren't innocent.

We also aren't evil.

This is why we test things like this on bugs first.

Some people don't like that. Fine. They have every right to disagree. I'd much rather we test something on bugs than people.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Tuskegee.

Case study in ethics of biological research.

[The2ndWheel]

72. That's my point

But if we're not willing to continue to test of humans for human progress, why do it to another species?

Progress doesn't come without costs. I guess the cost of controlling life isn't too much, as long as it's not human life. What's a rat anyway? Just a lower form of life. Not as sophisticated as we are. Not as advanced. Haven't evolved as much.

It's the whole mindset.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. Because human beings are more important than bugs.

Or do you disagree?

[The2ndWheel]

77. Completely disagree

What's the definition of more important? How? Why? In what context? We're not more important from the bug's perspective. But then they don't count, since they're less important.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

83. Heh.

So. How many bugs are currently plastered to the front of your car?

[The2ndWheel]

107. None. Don't have a car

And you still didn't tell me how humans are "more important".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

123. How many are on the bottom of your shoes.

You're dodging the obvious.

[The2ndWheel]

127. You're comparing two different things

And still haven't told me how we're "more important".

I'm talking about the scientific testing of other life for our benefit. You're talkng about chance in the form of cars and shoes.

[Beelzebud]

94. How many products containing chemicals do you use? They are all tested on animals and insects.

If you use products with chemicals in them, you are contributing to the supposed problem that you seem to be speaking out against.

[Zhade]

118. Better stop breathing - you're killing millions of germs.

You kill mold and bacteria every day, as well as mites and all sorts of microscopic critters.

I mean, how far do you want to take this? Respect for all life is wonderful; refraining from killing any of it in everyday life is impossible.

[The2ndWheel]

130. Where did I say that?

I'm talking about the controlled scientific testing in labs of other species specifically for our benefit. I'm not talking about the microscopic critters that live and die in a day as a natural process.

[Odin2005]

144. We are more important because we are sentient, END OF SUBJECT.

Of course we are no more important then any other creature in a EVOLUTIONARY CONTEXT, but that has no relavence to using non-sentient organisms in experiaments IMO.

[The2ndWheel]

154. I agree with that

They are two different issues. We don't like evolution, we want to control it, so that's why we seperate the two. The only reason we're more important then is because we say so, and might makes right. That's why we can rationalize violence, and always have, whether it was against women, blacks, savages, whoever happened to stand in the way of progress. Now it's non-human life.

[grizmaster]

78. if you went through life trying not to hurt any insects or rats

what life would you have left?

For instance, think of all the bugs killed in mining that got the metals and plastics your car is made of; or all the bugs and rats that died during the collection, transportation, and manufacturing of your cloothes, or your food for that matter.

So unless you're naked, living outdoors, and walking very carefully you're living large at the expense of a bunch of bugs, rats, fish, etc.

[The2ndWheel]

87. That's quite true

You're actually getting to the heart of my point better than I have. We don't care about life.

"So unless you're naked, living outdoors, and walking very carefully you're living large at the expense of a bunch of bugs, rats, fish, etc."

And other humans(since there would be no progress without the control of humans, like there would be no America without slavery, genocide, and theft), and land, and air, and water, etc, etc.

"if you went through life trying not to hurt any insects or rats what life would you have left?"

That is an interesting question. So without the subjugation of life, there is no life? I think you get to the core of why civilizations and empires have been built.

[grizmaster]

91. all life lives off other life

so unless you intend on becoming a breatharian (living on breathing alone) you're going to have to accept being in the food chain. Oops, forgot about microbes, better skip the breathing too, might kill some bacteria.

It's not a matter of empire or civilization, it's how life itself works

[The2ndWheel]

108. Yes it does. It doesn't test on other life for progress though

Life does follow a cycle, won't hear an argument from me.

You're confusing survival with scientific testing. Let me say this, scientific testing can go on and on and on until we cure death. Just do it on humans. If we do it for human progress, test on humans. That makes sense. If we're not willing to do that, then there is obviously something wrong, and we know it.

[grizmaster]

112. and why do we do those scientific tests?

because increased knowledge increases the likelihood of the survival of the species.

[The2ndWheel]

133. We'd know more

if we tested on humans for human survival though.

We can't do that, because it's wrong. Brings up too many creepy images. We can do it to other life, even though we don't like to do it to ourselves because it might be dangerous and other reasons, because we can explain it away as a requirement for our survival.

We all love evolution, but we're actually afraid of it because we might die out if we couldn't control and manipulate the circumstances. By doing so, we're attempting to stop evolution. Evolution can be messy, that's why we do the scientific tests.

If another species could do it, I bet they would. Like I said, it makes perfect sense. They most likely wouldn't test on themselves either.

[grizmaster]

76. when it comes to testing for cosmetics

and such I'm against using animals for the tests, but cruel or not I don't have much issue with this kind of research.

They aren't exposing the critters to higher and higher doses to see what level you have to get to before something bad happens. They're testing an ultrasound field which the insects are probably more accurately described as being ON the field not IN it.

[The2ndWheel]

79. Then let the bugs go

If the tests are safe, test on humans. It's our progress we're testing for.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. How do you know...

whether or not the tests are safe for humans?

[The2ndWheel]

109. I don't

Nobody does. That doesn't mean we have to use rats to see if they're safe or not.

If there is the possibility of dangerous consequences, and we're not willing to take the tests ourselves, then we know there is something wrong with what we're doing. If it's immoral, or you can be put in jail for life for doing it, but we still find a way to do it by using some other species who exist for their own sake, what does that say about us?

[Beelzebud]

96. Should people get cockroaches, mice or termites out of their homes, or is that immoral?

[The2ndWheel]

110. They can do that

I mean, if we went into a cockroaches home, they would defend it, so, that's life. That's the struggle. That's chance. You go for food, you take the risk.

That has nothing to do with testing on them in some lab for our benefit though.

[Odin2005]

143. Humans are sentient, same with aliens. bugs and rats arn't sentient.

[The2ndWheel]

155. Interesting

So if those aliens came here, lets say they had a different definition of sentient. If they started taking us and testing on us for their benefit, you'd be alright with that?

[Beelzebud]

59. I wonder what they think the makers of Raid test thier product on?

:evilgrin:

[ThomCat]

49. You're beating the ultrasound thing to death.

Do you not get the clue that a low powered application is not the same as a high powered one?

Antibiotics are low dosage poisons but you don't want to take large doses. Something that is useful and helpful at low levels can be deadly at high levels. You need to test for this.

[grizmaster]

80. I'm not beating it to death, I'm looking for even one response

You've yet to offer up a fragment of proof that anything is dangerous about this procedure.

And since it's an ultrasound field that is suspending them it sounds as if the critters are resting ON the field and aren't IN the ultrasound field anyway.

[ThomCat]

100. I'm not the scientist building it.

They're the ones that have to prove it's safe.

Do you own stock in this company? Why are you clinging so desperately to defend something you know nothing about?

[grizmaster]

102. you're the one knocking their work

You've yet to offer up a fragment of proof that anything is dangerous about this procedure. Until you do, your argument is baseless.

Why are you clinging so desperately to an argument you have no supporting evidence for?

[ThomCat]

105. I'm not required to prove it's dangerous.

They have to prove it's safe. Until they do, my argument is sound.

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. You don't know science. You don't know ethics. Goodbye.

[grizmaster]

111. An argument with no supporting evidence or basis

is not a valid argument. Pick up any Logic 101 book if you disagree.

On the subject of logic and ethics, I just finished my degree and took 4 philosophy and 4 theology courses with an A or A+ in every single one.

as to scientific basis, here's some info for you on the safety of ultrasound on fetuses.

http://www.thefetus.net/html/doppler/capitulos-html/chapter_02.htm

The passage of ultrasound through tissue causes a low-level radiation force on the tissue. This force produces a pressure in the direction of the beam and away from the transducer and should not be confused with the oscillatory pressure of the ultrasound itself. The pressure that results and the pressure gradient across the beam are very low, even for intensities at the higher end of the diagnostic range 7. The effect of the force is manifest in volumes of fluid where streaming can occur with motion within the fluid. The fluid velocities which result are low and are unlikely to cause damage.

Effects on fetuses

Effects are divided into mechanical and thermal. For mechanical effects, there is no evidence that cavitation occurs in fetal scanning. In a study of low-amplitude lithotripsy pulses in mouse fetuses, there has been concern that hemorrhage may be the result of tissue movement caused by radiation forces 8 . There is no evidence that this occurs in vivo in fetal scanning. The primary concern in fetal imaging is temperature rise. It is known that hyperthermia is teratogenic. The efforts of investigators have concentrated on defining the temperature increases and exposure times which may give rise to biological effects and on determining the ultrasound levels which might, in turn, lead to those temperature rises. With this information, criteria have been identified for the safe use of diagnostic ultrasound.

Temperature rises of 2.5°C have been demonstrated in excised unperfused guinea pig brain tissue after 2 minutes’ exposure to ultrasound at the high end of pulsed wave Doppler ultrasound intensity levels 9 . At the bone surface, temperature increases of up to 5°C were found. In a study on sheep using different intensity criteria 10 , the temperature rise in utero was found to be 40% lower than that in the equivalent non-perfused test. While the observed temperature increases occurred in high-intensity modes (typical of pulsed wave Doppler used at maximum power), these levels of intensity are achievable with some current scanner/transducer combinations.

The issue of sensitivity of fetal tissue to temperature rise is complex and is not completely understood. Acute and chronic temperature rises have been investigated in animals, but study designs and results are varied. Work carried out in this field is summarized elsewhere 11 .
The uncertainty over chronic changes is reflected in the WFUMB guidelines 12 . These state that ultrasound that produces temperature rises of less than 1.5°C may be used without reservation. They also state that ultrasound exposure causing temperature rises of greater than 4°C for over 5 min should be considered potentially hazardous. This leaves a wide range of temperature increases which are within the capability of diagnostic ultrasound equipment to produce and for which no time limits are recommended.

[ThomCat]

115. You are the only one talking about ultrasound

It's a strawman. Nobody is claiming that medical ultrasounds are dangerous. Or that medical ultrasounds have anything to do with high volume or high pressure sound technology.

Some links about sound as a weapon, sound causing damage, and sound being dangerous:

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

http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/sonar.asp

http://www.wanttoknow.info/050708nonlethalweapons

http://www.omnisonic.com/bbillings.html

http://www.800nonoise.com/tutorial_noiselist.htm

http://spectrum.ieee.org/apr06/3212

There, now that i've provided some links to prove the obvious, that sound can be dangrous, prove that this levitation device isn't dangerous.

[grizmaster]

156. Wrong, the subject IS ultrasound

That's what they're using, not sonic cannons. And nowhere in the article does it say they're using high volume or high pressure sound. Comparing one ultrasound usage to another ultrasound usage is valid. Comparing ultrasound to sonic cannons and sonar is not. You said

"We should not let anyone just assume they're not causing harm, especially when the potential is so clear and obvious."

That is your premise and you have yet to provide any evidence that supports the way they're using ultrasound is dangerous. It's your premise and yours to either support or admit the premise is flawed.

Since you claim the danger is "clear and obvious" you should have any problem backing that up. Your attempt to treat the so-called danger as an a priori fact is unsupported.

I also suggest you brush up on modus tollens and modus ponens.

[wtmusic]

158. No, they're not

The sound is not ultrasound -- it is within the range of human hearing (about 17khz).

The type of ultrasound which is used for imaging and at very low energies would provide nowhere near enough force to levitate something of that mass. The sound would have to be extremely loud to provide the pressure required.

Even lithotripsy, which uses shock waves transmitted through water to break up kidney stones, is only effective because the frequency used is one identical to the resonant frequency of a typical calcified stone--and the stone "destroys itself" from shaking back and forth.

[Beelzebud]

63. Question: Do you protest the sale and manufacture of bug killer, or the Orkin man?

[The2ndWheel]

71. Protest? No

What good would that do? I'm in no position to stop any of these types of things, nor would I want to have that kind of power. That type of power would simply lead to the same power you protested against in the first place.

[ItNerd4life]

68. Not even Bush the insect?

Do you secretly support him? :)

[kestrel91316]

39. "Insect abuse! Insect abuse!"

[grizmaster]

44. insect abuse!!! Oh the huge manatee

next it will be docile marine mammals that they're floating all about the place!

[nolabels]

56. I like to use a vacuum myself

Most of the bugs that crawl into the house i will capture and put back outside. On the other hand, i break out the hose on the bag-less eureka for them spiders who go to ceiling and start spinning :-).

All in all through, a clean well maintained place is the best remedy for most of it.

[grizmaster]

84. spiders are your friends

leave them be and they'll kill off the bugs for you.

[nolabels]

89. I leave them to do their thing on the outside landscape but........

While sitting on the porch my wife got bit on the leg by a spider a couple of years ago then got real sick. So as a result I take no chances with them being in or close to getting inside the ole homested.

[grizmaster]

103. maybe I'm just a little slow on the learning curve

I got bit by a spider about 10 years ago and had my arm swell up to twice its size, and I still leave them be. Some of us never learn.


:dunce:

[Beelzebud]

98. I love the bugs of the world. I like when they crawl on me when I sleep!

You should never poison the poor cockroaches out of your house either! That would be unethical! Just put cotton swabs in your children's ears and hope for the best! We're (the bugs and humans) all in this together! We must co-exist peacefully!

:evilgrin:

[YOY]

46. Naw, they're not cute and fluffy animals

Besides, I think that ladybug had a big smile on it's mandibles. It was clearly enjoying itself.

[eliphaslevi]

12. Cool - although the bug doesn't look happy

We can levitate aluminum with high voltage electricity and now it's bugs with sound?! When can I get my hoverboard?

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifters.htm


http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://frozenhoverboards.buy999.com/interest.htm&h=370&w=555&sz=34&tbnid=SOp05FkTxomglM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhoverboard&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2

[MrCoffee]

17. .

"the bug doesn't look happy"
:rofl:

[grizmaster]

20. not happy? I could swear I detect an impish smile

on that there beetle


It's the fish that doesn't look too happy in my book

[donsu]

19. large 1000+ lb cattle have been lifted up to great heights and then

dropped too.

you should read up on it. I'm not joking. and whatever process is used causes the carcasses not to rot.

I used to have links to this info but not any more. google surely does.

[Cetacea]

31. Holding out for Humans

Interesting! Thanks!

[KittyWampus]

36. The Science of using Mantram is very old. Once again 'modern' science is just catching up

Mantram is using sound vibrations to manipulate the physical universe (which is, itself, comprise of sound vibrations.

Esoteric Science/Religion has known how to do this for thousands and thousands of years.

Using sound vibrations to manipulate sound vibrations.

Using Sound and Color for healing, for instance.

[Selatius]

42. Could mantram be used to move, say, several ton stones to build ancient temples and such?

I remember reading some of the stones at Tiahuanacu are as much as 400 tons and were quarried roughly 200 miles away, at a time when the wheel had not been introduced to the Americas yet. I'm speculating here, but whatever it was they used, be it mantram or an army of thousands simply using ropes to pull stones on sleds or lost technology that disappeared with the civilization, I was curious where you stood on the issue.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. LOL

Finally, scientists are catching up with flying carpet technology, which Arab magicians have known about for a thousand years.

:eyes:

[wtmusic]

131. For real?

I want a flying carpet for Christmas! (is that sacreligious?) :shrug:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

43. My husband and I are investigating the use of sound

in helping people with health problems. Using low frequency sound waves has helped me with acute pain.

[grizmaster]

45. biowaves- sounds like interesting stuff

is this what you're referring to?

http://www.biowaves.com/

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

50. oh yeah

You know the folks there? They are really nice. We ordered the entire program from them and are using it with folks and on ourselves. The spinal CD from there is awesome!

[grizmaster]

74. wasn't familiar with them, just googled from your decription

and my lower back can give me hell at times. I'll have to check there stuff out further.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

82. Read about the technique

we were encouraged to get into it by our doctor. We take the voice prints they describe-and it works! PLUS using the generic spine CD they offer has made it so I don't wake up with a backache.

[Little Wing]

51. 12 years too late, unfornately

in another 4 years, they'll be able to levitate chimps, and if the technology had more of a headstart, we could've retired Air Force One in 2001.

[OzarkDem]

62. Remember when the US used to do R&D

Boy those were the days, when US scientists had the money and incentive to develop cutting edge technology for manufacturing, energy, etc.

I'm so old, I remember when US corporations used to have R&D budgets, whole departments, in fact!

[lovuian]

70. Yep now we outsource our research

this will comeback and haunt Americans

[grizmaster]

86. two words- Bell Labs

I remember too.

[ItNerd4life]

67. Some questions: When can it levitate my car to avoid traffic?

When can we levitate Bush and send him to the moon?
Does this bring new meaning to the term facelift?
When will a levitating bra come out for saggy boobs?

This technology seems way to cool.

[war on errorism]

88. i can levitate birds, but no one cares

[KittyWampus]

113. How about levitating the Pentagon

[ForrestGump]

97. It's all fun and games until the

85-foot rhinoceros beetle eats downtown Beijing...

[INDIA]

116. delete

[wtmusic]

121. The sound they describe is about 17khz and within the range of human

hearing, so hardly can be considered "ultrasound". It also must be Really. F*cking. Loud. :scared:

[Gwerlain]

137. I cannot BELIEVE you guys had a flame war...

over whether the bug was injured or not. Honest to GAWD, it's a fucking BUG!

Teh evul sciencetis is tortuting teh bug!!!11!!

Give me a break.

[Odin2005]

145. They're ingaging in a fallacy by taking evolutionary biology out of context

NoMoreMyths is trying to make the argument, which I consider stupid, that since bugs are humans are equal when it comes to evolutionary biology they must be equal morally and the fact that bugs arn't sentient doesn't matter.

[ContraBass Black]

148. "I cannot BELIEVE you guys had a flame war over..."

Words that should never be spoken by a DUer. :P

[Neshanic]

151. So I am holding out for my plate to be levitated to me at Olive Garden.

[deutsey]

157. LOL

You better :hide: