what is electrical current ?

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Theory and Learning Center > EM Theory > what is electrical current ?

2024-05-19, 08:58:11
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

« previous next »

Author Topic: what is electrical current ? (Read 37194 times)

Chet K	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #25 on: 2011-01-31, 19:48:52 »
Group: Ambassador Hero Member Posts: 4015	ION I'll take your "Hunches" any day!,I know we have the Learned amongst us And as Wattsup said that can be a bit stifling in the "creative juices" department. So be it! Nobody is going to look silly here! we know there is more to our world than our current interpretation,and we need to feel free to explore our thoughts in a safe [not being made fun of] place. Let this be that place !,Times a wasteing, I'll take your hunches any day! A different technique for induction ? A dlfferent way to Harvest? ? Chet

Grumpy	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #26 on: 2011-01-31, 20:15:33 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	Quite a while ago, I tried to induce current in a coil by using two forces, no rotation, based on "guiding center" principles for particles. This was a long-shot as free particles in space or a plasma are not constrained like particles in matter are. This test was unsuccessful, but very valuable. I made a large coil of about 2500 feet of wire and applied HV DC impulses to this. My understanding was that this produces an indepenedent force (gravity is also an independent force). Around the pulsed coil was a collector coil. Around the entire coil was a solenoid coil, fed DC from a power supply. All coils wound same direction, like three solenoid coils plced concetrically. The results was some ES induction and no current to speak of. I had no force in the direction of the wire, and I think this is why the electrons did not drift.

giantkiller	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #27 on: 2011-01-31, 21:31:41 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 1579 Frequency equals matter...	Very good converse here. Let me open a can of worms that I have been fighting / accepting / and hiding. I realized early on that some of you were tallking in inverse explanations all leading to the same goal. I guess protection was the reason. I don't know but I have my suspicions. Like: SM said 'No' to my 20 foot diameter audio ring connected to a stun gun. But if you look at the SM17 there is twenty feet of cord in those large hoops. Now if we shock those we would get a high speed effective aperture. So along these lines this has been haunting me for 5 years and I wanted to know if we push away the natural magnetic force and when it returns we effectively have many lines (Flux) crossing a fewer lines (copper). See what my youtubes all point to now? When I saw the large white sparks on the SM17 video I knew it was a stun gun circuit driving it and I was trying to fit this against a tuned circuit with a return force. but I fell for the arguments when I should have stayed with my suspicions all along. That was the time I had identified the answers that could be reversed for valid explanations. Some are, some aren't. I had a good concept coming into this OU thing. But the mystery of it and the status quo existance I had been living up till then under the guise of standard education had me amazed and baffled at the same time. So in the last five years I have sooo many 'Oh shit' moments I have lost track. And do ya think you can go around with the nermils and explain this? 'Friggin whacked' they say. This is where I am headed with this current effort. It is a combination of all things discussed here and closely fits the SM17 physical design. With the large capacitors, the large diodes and the assumed 'Closed' spark gap device it sure looks like the stun gun circuit to a tuned ring, no? That would make it a horizontal ringed Tesla coil. The discharge we never seen but it thumps. Same thing. And it fits the simple circuit as most have tauted because we already know this design. This is why I posted this here. A charge pulse circuit with a coil, a diode, a neon bulb to a secondary. The shock wave that hits the secondary is minor current and huge voltage. This rings the secondary into a greater force. The magnetic field is held outward until this coil setup subsides and then is snaps back. No? @Chet, 689 days left(IMO)... « Last Edit: 2011-01-31, 22:12:19 by giantkiller » --------------------------- http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/

Grumpy	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #28 on: 2011-01-31, 22:08:47 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	Resonance is just a means to an end and even Tesla himself said you can often do better with an ordinary transformer. I think "resonance" has made things more confusing than any other term. Stick to basics and not patterns, hints, clues, or other forms of possible BS.

wattsup	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #29 on: 2011-02-01, 00:35:27 »
Hero Member Posts: 520	Quote from: Farrah Day on 2011-01-31, 17:52:58 Absolute, utter madness! It's been quite a long time since I've read so much drivel - and never before on this forum. I don't think that we'll be doing much talking unless you come out of fantasy land and get something close to a decent education. Why do people like you seem so ready to sweep known science under the carpet and make up your own versions of it... as if you are privvy to something that scientists and great minds are not? Not everything is some great conspiracy! Electrons do have mass. SCIENCE FACT! Electrons do not travel at or near the speed of light through copper or anything else in terms of current flowing. Drift velocity is relatively very slow - in the order of just a few inches per minute. You really should know all this. Anyway, I'm not going to start a flame war so I'll leave you to your delusions. You know what, I did not expect anything less then such responses. But that's OK. I was just testing how open you guys really are to new ideas and now I know that this will never be the place to advance any new perspectives. Too bad because it goes so much deeper then this, but I realize this now was a big mistake to advance here. Sorry for that. And now back to our regular amps/volts programming. wattsup PS: Let me remind these great people here that the title of this forum combines "overunity" and "research". I don't know about you but in my book research means working towards new ideas, new perspectives, new outlooks, and only in that manner is this research towards overunity. But I guess I read the title wrong and should go back to grammar school as well. --------------------------- http://etherimpress.com

Grumpy	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #30 on: 2011-02-01, 00:53:55 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	I mention particle drift earlier. There are particle drift modes comprised of multiple forces that can add energy to (accelerate) the particles. I would not be surprised to find that this occurs in conductors. You constantly expend energy to accelerate the particles and the universe is constantly slowing them back down. Apply your forces a little differently and the universe doesn't mind so much. If this occurs in a conductor, then the particles will move in a spiral along the conductor path, and I have heard that they do.

Grumpy	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #31 on: 2011-02-01, 17:15:10 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	Attached is an articles by Edwards and Saha that explains how displacement current difuses into conductors to establish conduction current. ------------------------ Diffusion of Current into conductors_080_Edwards_AUPEC01paper.pdf (69.13 kB - downloaded 458 times.)

Room3327	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #32 on: 2011-02-01, 20:35:33 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 568	Quote from: Grumpy on 2011-02-01, 00:53:55 I mention particle drift earlier. There are particle drift modes comprised of multiple forces that can add energy to (accelerate) the particles. I would not be surprised to find that this occurs in conductors. You constantly expend energy to accelerate the particles and the universe is constantly slowing them back down. Apply your forces a little differently and the universe doesn't mind so much. If this occurs in a conductor, then the particles will move in a spiral along the conductor path, and I have heard that they do. Grumpy I am with this idea, I was thinking the resistance to the flow of electrons is inside the conductor so if you switch the fields, that is have the magnetic field flow through the conductor instead of the current then you would have the electrons flowing around the outside of the wire, similar to the magnetic field flowing around a current inside a wire. Would this cause there to be less resistance for the electrons to deal with? Couple that with a moving or rotating magnetic field inside the copper and the electrons will follow, from what I have read, a south pole and is probably pushed some by a north pole, creating a current flow in one direction, and you have DC output. --------------------------- "Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material" Nicola Tesla "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke

Grumpy	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #33 on: 2011-02-01, 22:55:27 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	Quote from: Room3327 on 2011-02-01, 20:35:33 Grumpy I am with this idea, I was thinking the resistance to the flow of electrons is inside the conductor so if you switch the fields, that is have the magnetic field flow through the conductor instead of the current then you would have the electrons flowing around the outside of the wire, similar to the magnetic field flowing around a current inside a wire. Would this cause there to be less resistance for the electrons to deal with? Couple that with a moving or rotating magnetic field inside the copper and the electrons will follow, from what I have read, a south pole and is probably pushed some by a north pole, creating a current flow in one direction, and you have DC output. Well, if you use a method of induction that constantly re-creates a displacement current along the outside of the conductor, then you can develop a lot of current outside the conductor that is not subjected to the limiting factors inside the conductor. Using this form of induction would result in more current in smaller conductors since more of the soaking effect occurs in a shorter amount of time, as mentioned in the Edwards article. More current in smaller conductors was mentioned by Spherics in the AVEC literature. If you could make the atomic world of the conductor more "ordered", this should lower the resistance that slows the electrons. One way is cooling the wire down. Another would be to somehow apply forces to the particles to limit their motion. This might be accomplished by applying forces in three directions. Un-Bound or loosely-bound particles are free to move, as an induced current, and everything else is constrained by these forces. A similar effect is electrostatic cooling. Displacement current is the transfer of momentum, as Chef mentioned, without charge carriers moving.

Grumpy	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #34 on: 2011-02-02, 17:55:49 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	DS shared some interesting observations: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=534.msg8482#msg8482 HV DC output induced by a rotating field in a looped Tesla secondary.

Room3327	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #35 on: 2011-02-02, 19:08:23 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 568	Grumpy, Yes that is the same basic results I got 2 years ago at OU.com but with a little different set-up, but very similar results. A high DC voltage showing up where it didn't belong. So I'm thinking we may be on the track of something here, lets hope. --------------------------- "Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material" Nicola Tesla "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke

forest	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #36 on: 2011-02-02, 20:33:28 »
Sr. Member Posts: 462	If electrical current is a drift or flow of electrons then why if I connect negative terminal of one car battery via 12V bulb with positive terminal of another car battery there is no effect on bulb ? What is so magic in power source that you can have many currents in one wire and each is related only to his own power source ? Can you explain it ?

giantkiller	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #37 on: 2011-02-02, 22:30:00 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 1579 Frequency equals matter...	As Poynt stated and DS just mentioned: it is phase pumping. Quote from: forest on 2011-02-02, 20:33:28 If electrical current is a drift or flow of electrons then why if I connect negative terminal of one car battery via 12V bulb with positive terminal of another car battery there is no effect on bulb ? What is so magic in power source that you can have many currents in one wire and each is related only to his own power source ? Can you explain it ? --------------------------- http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/

Room3327	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #38 on: 2011-02-02, 22:35:22 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 568	Quote from: forest on 2011-02-02, 20:33:28 If electrical current is a drift or flow of electrons then why if I connect negative terminal of one car battery via 12V bulb with positive terminal of another car battery there is no effect on bulb ? What is so magic in power source that you can have many currents in one wire and each is related only to his own power source ? Can you explain it ? Forest, In the first question you do not have a complete circuit, you have an open circuit and until you close it by either connecting the other ends of the battery together or grounding both ends nothing is going to happen in the bulb. No current can flow as you have it connected and if you measure the voltage across the bulb you will find zero. As for your second question I believe this has been answered many times If I am understanding it correctly. --------------------------- "Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material" Nicola Tesla "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke

darkspeed	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #39 on: 2011-02-03, 13:32:57 »
Group: Guest	With enough voltage and frequency in a coil you will ionize a small gas layer on the surface of your coil and if the conditions are right it will become the conductor Which brings up another problem, if you have an insulated high voltage coil and you achieve a conductive gas layer you now have a virtual capacitor due to the insulation. When this capacitor fails where does the little emp go when the virtual plate collapses

Grumpy	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #40 on: 2011-02-03, 15:23:06 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	Non-ionic currents appear conductive. ...and can discharge just like conduction currents, but there is a slight difference Anyone know what the difference is?

exnihiloest	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #41 on: 2011-03-14, 13:52:00 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: wattsup on 2011-02-01, 00:35:27 You know what, I did not expect anything less then such responses. But that's OK. I was just testing how open you guys really are to new ideas and now I know that this will never be the place to advance any new perspectives. Too bad because it goes so much deeper then this, but I realize this now was a big mistake to advance here. Sorry for that. And now back to our regular amps/volts programming. wattsup PS: Let me remind these great people here that the title of this forum combines "overunity" and "research". I don't know about you but in my book research means working towards new ideas, new perspectives, new outlooks, and only in that manner is this research towards overunity. But I guess I read the title wrong and should go back to grammar school as well. Electrons without mass or electrons flying in metals at the speed of light are not "new ideas". They are old but wrong ideas that have been discarded a century ago by very intelligent people, for obvious reasons due to observations and measurements that skilled people can still verify today. All science domains are linked together, mechanics is compatible with electromagnetism, electromagnetism is fully compatible with relativity, and so on... Science is internally consistent. To keep only a part of science by accepting the notion of "electron", while rejecting another part such electron mass, is a nonsense: in doing such a thing, you break the internal science consistency so you can be sure you are wrong. Your electron without mass is no more an electron. You can call it "magical donut" or whatever you want. Contrarily to what you said, you are not "working towards new ideas, new perspectives, new outlooks" but you are fighting known working ideas from skilled people! We can only progress by "standing on the shoulders of giants". Ampère, Coulomb, Faraday, Maxwell, Fermi... were not nuts. It is a vain and pretentious product of ignorance to deny in layman terms and fuzzy assertions, without showing a single working counter-experiment, the intellectual work already done, which is based on observations, proved by measures and by confirmed predictions, and brilliantly demonstrated by all the technology using it. Science is not complete but only at the fringe, so the progress will not come from unskilled and immodest people who refuse to study it (or are unable to do it) and make again and again the errors of the past (and many new ones ).

muDped	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #42 on: 2011-03-14, 21:15:07 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011-03-14, 13:52:00 ... Contrarily to what you said, you are not "working towards new ideas, new perspectives, new outlooks" but you are fighting known working ideas from skilled people! We can only progress by "standing on the shoulders of giants". Ampère, Coulomb, Faraday, Maxwell, Fermi... were not nuts. It is a vain and pretentious product of ignorance to deny in layman terms and fuzzy assertions, without showing a single working counter-experiment, the intellectual work already done, which is based on observations, proved by measures and by confirmed predictions, and brilliantly demonstrated by all the technology using it. Science is not complete but only at the fringe, so the progress will not come from unskilled and immodest people who refuse to study it (or are unable to do it) and make again and again the errors of the past (and many new ones ). Did the "giants" on whose shoulders we must stand know what they were doing? Did they understand what they were looking for? Fortunately for us they did not. Ever more fortunately they didn't feel bound or restrained to a set of "laws" which were inviolate. Their minds were very open and receptive to whatever phenomena were observed. The "laws" (which were never intended to thought of as boundaries not to be crossed) came later as did the restraints to be "good scientists" and not ask difficult unorthodox questions. Those few scientists today who've not lost their childhood curiosity, optimism and hope are largely shunned by the "mainstream" institutions; particularly if their views are sympathetic towards the "fringe." The pressures which can be brought to bear in order to keep "science' within the box are awesome. --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

Allcanadian	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #43 on: 2011-03-15, 06:29:46 »
Hero Member Posts: 2661	@exnihiloest Quote Contrarily to what you said, you are not "working towards new ideas, new perspectives, new outlooks" but you are fighting known working ideas from skilled people! We can only progress by "standing on the shoulders of giants". Ampère, Coulomb, Faraday, Maxwell, Fermi... were not nuts. It is a vain and pretentious product of ignorance to deny in layman terms and fuzzy assertions, without showing a single working counter-experiment, the intellectual work already done, which is based on observations, proved by measures and by confirmed predictions, and brilliantly demonstrated by all the technology using it. Science is not complete but only at the fringe, so the progress will not come from unskilled and immodest people who refuse to study it (or are unable to do it) and make again and again the errors of the past (and many new ones I'm a big fan of the "oldies" such as Ampère, Coulomb, Faraday, Maxwell, but would include Tesla, Weber, Steinmetz .... just because what they said was so simple and made so much damn sense. Today when we read the science journals it's hard to say what in the hell their talking about because of the terminology, my theory was always that if they cannot explain something in simple terms almost anyone can understand then there is a good chance they don't know what their talking about, kind of like a parrot -- it's sounds smart but it just ain't. Quote Electrons without mass or electrons flying in metals at the speed of light are not "new ideas". They are old but wrong ideas that have been discarded a century ago by very intelligent people, for obvious reasons due to observations and measurements that skilled people can still verify today. I think we should be careful when we use the terms "intelligent", "observations" and "people" in the same sentence maybe because it wasn't all that long ago that the most intelligent people observed the fact that obviously the world was flat, that heavier than air machines could never fly etc...., you know how the history goes. In which case I can't say I have a great deal of faith in the supposed experts ability to get it right, their track record and the fact that they keep changing their damn story. One minute they say the electron has energy as mass in motion, then it's the field energy around the electron, then it's no longer a particle but a cloud, then it's not the electron nor it's field but the field oscillations, my god would you trust anyone who constantly tells you something is a irrefutable fact then later completely changes their story?. I guess we could ask the question how could an electron appear to be without mass without losing any? One answer could be that if the rate of change of the field density between any two electrons propogates faster than either of the masses then it could appear to have no mass because we never were measuring the electrons only the change in the fields associated with them. I recently read a quote by one of the physicists who developed a metamaterial which renders solid objects invisible to certain wavelengths which seems relevant, "fundamental physics has no limits", for clarification I would add-- the only limit is our understanding of fundamental physics. Regards AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

exnihiloest	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #44 on: 2011-03-15, 08:22:24 »
Group: Guest	@allcanadian, @Dumped I understand your objections. But what I said is based on pragmatism, not on fuzzy philosophy. I judge only on the results and the facts. What are the facts? On one side, that one of conventional science: nuclear plants providing energy, versatile communication networks around the earth via optical cable or satellite, sophisticated consumer electronics, transport means able to fly to the moon, or around the earth in less than 1 day, or to take photos of far planets, marvelous tools to help people as nmr or echograph imagery and so on... On the other side: endless OU claims but not one working free energy machine, nothing except likely Mill's or Rossi's production of extra power. The outcome is clear. Bearden, Aspden, Bedini, Steorn, Lutec, MPI, Floyd, Milkovic, Minato and so on: zero point. Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Ampère, Coulomb, Weber, Helmholtz, Tesla (except his longitudinal wave), Faraday, Fermi, Bohr and so on: all the points Special mention: Randell Mills, Sergio Focardi, Andrea Rossi. These real scientists based their work on conventional science and then, they go beyond. Their methodology is "standing of the giants shoulders" to go further. We see it is efficient.

Farrah Day	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #45 on: 2011-03-15, 08:35:40 »
Group: Guest	In defence of Exn, who was basically supporting my response to Wattsup's earlier post, while there are things that are a little fuzzy in science, things that do not always abide by general rules and laws as we have set up - hence things that have not ultimately been pinned down - there too are things that are undisputed and which we categorically 'know'. I agree with Exn, in that Wattsup was stating things that are dated and incorrect - thoughts and ideas that have long since been resolved. He was confusing the issue by effectively trying to reinvent the wheel, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it has long ago been invented. I guess it comes down to doing the research, which many people just don't seem to want to do - or simply don't have the background for understanding the science in the first place. Whatever it is, we see many times on these forums that science and electronics is misunderstoond and misinterpreted by those without the necessary background to understand what is occurring. The point is, the work of great people and great scientists cannot and should not be overlooked. Their work provides us with great leaps of knowledge and indeed provides us with the stepping stones for us to move forward, and to simply wipe the slate clean and start again would be next to criminal. In 1915 Tolman and Stewart devised an experiment which ultimately determined that electrons do have mass, and indeed the mass of the electron is now scientific fact and an accepted figure. So to say that electrons have NO mass and move at the speed of light is a quite ludicrous statement from an ill-informed individual who needs to get up to speed. Simply by doing the research in the first place, ridiculous statements and silly posts can be avoided. And let's face it, with the internet, research is a lot easier than it used to be. Incidentally, with reference to the title of this thread, I see nothing at all wrong with our present definition of electrical current. As I see it, electrical current is the the movement of charged particles (any charged particles). Anything else, any other form of energy displacement or transference that does not involve the movement of charged particles is something else entirely. At least that's how I see it. « Last Edit: 2011-03-15, 19:49:26 by Farrah Day »

Farrah Day	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #46 on: 2011-03-15, 08:40:11 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011-03-15, 08:22:24 These real scientists based their work on conventional science and then, they go beyond. Their methodology is "standing of the giants shoulders" to go further. We see it is efficient. This in my opinion is the key to good research. Start from a solid foundation and move on from there. DO NOT, as many appear to do, start from and try to progress from dodgy footings.

muDped	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #47 on: 2011-03-15, 20:18:06 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	Quote from: exnihiloest These real scientists based their work on conventional science and then, they go beyond. Their methodology is "standing of the giants shoulders" to go further. We see it is efficient. Quote from: Farrah Day on 2011-03-15, 08:40:11 This in my opinion is the key to good research. Start from a solid foundation and move on from there. DO NOT, as many appear to do, start from and try to progress from dodgy footings. Isn't it odd that Science now has a subset thought of as "conventional science?" Has something been lost within the realm of science and its true goals? Thankfully, there have been some who've tried "to progress from dodgy footings" as it were; without their fearless efforts to attempt what at first seemed unreasonable we'd not have those brilliant discoveries which were "foolish accidents!" One thing sure about people in general, and perhaps several orders of magnitude more-so for those who think of themselves as "scientists:" We never know nearly as much as we think we do. It is true that we've learned to "judge" as part of our "programming" by associational osmosis; but are we actually prepared to judge? We go through the motions in accordance with what we've seen as "role model examples" but our "Judgments" are often sorely lacking. Truth be known, our judgments more often than not are simply manipulations to establish superiority over others whom we've judged to be "less worthy." So there we have it: EGO Science as it is presented to the masses is ego driven. And, it is very much "controlled." --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

Farrah Day	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #48 on: 2011-03-16, 11:05:18 »
Group: Guest	Quote Isn't it odd that Science now has a subset thought of as "conventional science?" Has something been lost within the realm of science and its true goals? Personally it's just ALL science to me, and it seems that references to 'conventional' science, as opposed - presumably - to 'non-conventional' science, is simply usually a product of ignorance. I very much doubt that established scientists ever use the term 'conventional' science. Certainly to me science is science and I find the term 'conventional science' a bit of a misnomer.

sivispacem	Re: what is electrical current ? « Reply #49 on: 2011-05-30, 23:30:06 »
Group: Guest	Hi all here on OUR. I'm new here and english is not my first language - so please excuse any "strange wordings"... First of all: this is by far the best forum regarding alternative physics (as far as I am aware of...) - congratulations! I'm still busy digging into all the posts and surely haven't got my head around all the theories posted here. Shortly to my standpoint: I believe in the aether (or whatever you may call the underlying structure of the "classical quantum physics"), I have read - beside many other theories - T. Bearden (don't agree too much), Harold Aspden (yes, but not completely convinced) ...and of course Nikola Tesla, who is my "favourite workbench and lab in reading". I have an engineering background (which is more than never a real obstacle...) and also have an eye on the biological aspects of "non-classical" physics - I just want to play it safe enough . Grumpy's post "...that will blow your hair back..." lead me to this website. But more to this maybe at another time... So, now I want to bring up a thread again, which, like some of the most interesting other ones, ends with an open question from Grumpy... (...maybe i'm the only only one here who doesn't get it, then please let me know...) Quote from: Grumpy on 2011-02-03, 15:23:06 Non-ionic currents appear conductive. ...and can discharge just like conduction currents, but there is a slight difference Anyone know what the difference is? As far as I understand it, in "non-ionic currents" no charge in form of an electron or ion moves, like the displacement current (is this the only non-ionic current?). These currents appear conductive like in the paper by Edwards and Saha discussed, so charge movement is a secondary effect. If you, Grumpy, didn't like the words "electromagnetic waves" in the abstract of this article, I would not be surprised. The non-ionic currents are the movements by the "particles" mentioned in: Quote from: Grumpy on 2011-02-01, 00:53:55 I mention particle drift earlier. There are particle drift modes comprised of multiple forces that can add energy to (accelerate) the particles. I would not be surprised to find that this occurs in conductors. You constantly expend energy to accelerate the particles and the universe is constantly slowing them back down. Apply your forces a little differently and the universe doesn't mind so much. If this occurs in a conductor, then the particles will move in a spiral along the conductor path, and I have heard that they do. Then the slight difference should be: - in ionic currents the energy is discharged by ripping molecules apart, during recombination light/waves/etc. are generated. Ion movement is what seeks to cancel the electrostatic field. - in non-ionic currents the discharge takes place on the level of the "particles" themselves...(?) ...and here is where my wild speculations begin. Aspden's quons are also charges, what the "opposite background charge" may be, he admits having no clue... Anyone a hint for me where to start? ...now on to more digging in the posts... Cheers, Sivispacem

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-05-19, 08:58:11

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2