Fly-back voltage vs back-emf

[Dave45]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but where do you get these ideas from? Pure voltage and pure current? There is no such thing as pure current except possibly in a superconductor. Perhaps it would be easier if you tried to explain what you think is happening.

You have it backwards in your picture. Also you label the bemf and femf as if they are currents, which they are not. The femf can induce a current however. BEMF and FEMF are short for Back ElectroMotive Force, and Forward Electromotive Force. Electromotive Force can be thought of as "Voltage forcing a current to flow." That is, it is in volts, it is NOT a current

Here, I made a diagram for you. This hopefully will help clear things up for you. It shows the bemf and femf do not happen at the same time. They are in different time frames, they dont happen simultaneously.

Only as a positive, helpful recommendation, I would suggest you try to learn the basics of electric circuits before trying to offer advice to others. Im offering constructive advice to you because there were plenty of other people who have helped me along with my understanding of electricity. And if you listen to what others have to say, use careful discernment, theres a lot of BS out there.

Lets just agree to disagree
It'll all come out in the wash, soon
dave

[jpolakow]

Hello JPolakow,

Great and excellent response..I really like this type of debates, knowing it comes from a very qualified and knowledgeable person like you, Sir!



As We all know...A. Einstein also disregarded Asymmetry as well as H. Lorentz...


Now first, let me say, JPolakow, that everything you wrote above...I am in complete agreement with. Excellent resume.

The only thing I have noticed...(And this is exactly the same issue that I have been noticing/discussing all along since my early years of Engineering Studies...This Debates have been "My Main Course" for the last Thirty Plus Years with all my Colleagues... )

I have noticed that most, well knowledgeable Individuals in this Fields...keep only seeing/analyzing/calculating all Electromagnetism Phenomena, ONLY and BASICALLY, from the Conductor/Electron behavior SIDE...While dedicating a Minimal observation/Calculation/Analysis to the Magnetic Field Spectrum, and all its Patterns behavior.

As I understand the Magnetic Field is an "Intangible" Body...Invisible and very hard to evaluate in most cases without the proper and right equipment, which I also understand is very expensive... and requires many hours of dedicated testing...to be able to "See into the Invisible"...by just Touching-Feeling...

It is a completely wrong Scientific Approach, when analyzing an Electromagnetic Phenomena...to just concentrate in the means that produce it (In this case the Electron/Current Flow Parameters behavior)...and NOT on the result ..."The Final Product"....The Magnetic Field itself. We are "working" ONLY this way on ONE SIDE OF THE WHOLE EQUATION...simple as that.
This way We will NEVER have a complete understanding of the Whole Process.

All Your conclusions, statements and logic are perfectly fine...however, ignoring the other side and its consequences to all Your statements makes them simply, incomplete.

First of all, We MUST realize, that Most of all ancient Laws related to everything we are ALL discussing here...are based on CLOSED CIRCUITS...From the Energy Conservation Laws, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, etc,etc all the way to the Kirchhoff Laws...ALL...Relate to closed loop circuits.

OPEN CIRCUITS...deliver a complete 180 degrees opposed, wide and vast Horizon of New Concepts that have been ignored, disregarded and therefore, disappeared from our Scope of Study...for many years that add more than a Century.

An Electromagnetic Field IS an OPEN System looking at it NOT only from our "Generation" side...I mean, why do we have to analyze the means that produced an "Artificially Generated Magnetic Field"...when we KNOW that there ARE vast patterns of Magnetic Fields without ANY need of "Circuits" all over our Planet, they exist in our Skies, in the Water, in the Ground..in our ALL Space?

At the time those Ancient Laws were created...None of those great Scientists had access to the State of the Art Solid State Pulsing Systems we all have nowadays...That not only can create "Hybrid Circuits" where Open-Close is part of their everyday "Game" and at Giga and Mega Hertz Frequencies? those "Toys"...in those times existed only in their Science Fiction Books...

Why do we have to keep limiting ourselves so much?

If we REALLY want to get DEEP into the Roots of this...the first thing we MUST realize...Is that an Electron is part of an Atom...no matter what...and that Atom have other components...like a proton, a neutron...and a Nuclei...Now, that "electron"...does not "fly out" of the whole Atom by itself...unless We separate it through an expensive Atomic Particle Fission Process...BUT We are not doing that here...
As, an Electron DOES NOT only "lives" inside our conductors either...they are all over our Environment...including inside Electromagnetic Fields.

When we create an Electronic flow, based on just Two Ends, we are just setting an "Electron Transmitting Side", that is just an "Overpopulated Electronic Area" or a Negative side...and an "Electron Receiving Side", or "Lack of Electrons"...a Positive Side.
We have created our own laws and Parameters to Measure that Electronic Flow Network, based just on Potential and Intensity...just Two simple readings based on electronic population in a given cross section (I) as the measurement also of Electronic Population between two ends(V)...
We all must realize that this Procedures, are not precise and accurate measurements at all, when it comes to complex forms of Electronic Signaling Protocols...like interrupted and reversed flows at very high frequencies in our State of the Art Electronic Circuits and Components...Therefore, it would be understood all this kind of "Confusion" in our readings, like sudden spikes, randomly developed increments and other we call "Parasitic behaviors" manifested in our systems... When all we have "available" to Calculate them...are those rudimentary Laws...made, more than a Century ago...when ANY of this electronic processing was able to be performed.


Regards



Ufopolitics

Hi UFO,

Good response. I appreciate your opinion. I think you would really enjoy the study of Eric Dollard's work. That is the source of most of my understanding and seems to provide the clearest picture of what the dynamics of electricity are. There is an enormous amount of material written by him, it could take over a year to read it all and comprehend. But that is what he covers, the very basics of electricity, how it works, what is REALLY going on.

In this context, there is both the magnetic and dielectric field, both being components of what we term "electric energy flow." From this understanding, there is only electricity where there is the union of both the magnetic and dielectric field, and it is when these two fields are combined at right angles to each other, then the "carriers" of electricity appear, not as electrons, but as the plancke, or photons. However that is not to say the fields always have to be co-joined. This IS actually what is taught in college level physics, but they call it the magnetic and electric field. However they make no distinction as to what the "charge carriers" are, and I believe electrons are still assumed to be the carriers of "electricity." They teach the magnetic and dielectric field being the components of an electromagnetic wave, but when it comes to electricity flow its back to electrons.

In terms of magnetism flowing around a conductor as a current. We can say a superconductor reflects ALL magnetism, that is, no magnetism gets into the conductor. However it is we deal with "normal" conductors, which aren't perfect reflectors. So some magnetism "gets in" to the conductor. This then creates a Back EMF, opposing the magnetism flowing. In addition, once this magnetism gets into the conductor, it immediately starts plowing into electrons, jostling electrons around. THIS is the source of electrons moving. This is also the source of the heating of the conductor, and thus resistance. So one can say magnetism getting into the conductor, bumping into electrons, cause the electrons to move which dissipates energy as heat. Furthermore we could say that electrons ARE NOT the actual charge carriers of electricity, but that the electricity or electric energy flow, is a wave, an electromagnetic wave, which propagates through the conductor by means of photons. I would not say that current is "electrons flowing", a more accurate depiction would be that the electrons jiggle back and forth, but do not actually travel all the way down the wire.

Think about a transverse wave versus a longitudinal wave. In a transverse wave (current electromagnetism) the movement of the particles composing the wave move perpendicular to the direction of travel of the wave, that is, the particles do not move in the direction of flow of the wave. Then it is easier to see how electrons wiggle back and forth while photons propagate down the conductor.

Furthermore, it isn't very hard to see why current theory doesn't necessarily explain all phenomena. What about a standing electric wave on a conductor? Here, the voltage varies as a sine wave with distance as you go down the conductor, or transmission line. The same with current. How could electron flow possibly explain this? Have a spot where there is current flowing, but then a distance down the line there is no current, but then there is current further down. How could this be possible in a uniform movement of electrons? Here, voltage and current vary with distance, not with time.

Concluding, electron flow seems to be flawed, and is more a theory of accepted belief than accuracy or observed phenomena. It is however, that electron flow theory somewhat "works" for low frequencies and DC. The lower the frequency, the more time magnetism has to seep in to the conductor, so more magnetism infiltrates the conductor and starts getting electrons moving. In the case of DC, all the magnetism gets in. This is directly related to the "skin effect" with high frequency AC. The higher the frequency, the less magnetism gets in.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "open systems." More detail here would be necessary for me to comment. You note:

"vast patterns of Magnetic Fields without ANY need of "Circuits" all over our Planet, they exist in our Skies, in the Water, in the Ground..in our ALL Space?"

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. As far as electromagnetism, a changing magnetic field would be required to induce a current as I'm sure you're aware. Are you theorizing some way of harnessing a static magnetic field?

Regards,

John

[jpolakow]

Lets just agree to disagree
It'll all come out in the wash, soon
dave

Please don't take this as an insult, because its not meant to be, its more confusion on my part...

You have close to 2,000 posts. You seem to know what the magnetic and dielectric fields are. You know about snubber circuits, and flyback diodes. How on earth do you know what these things are without the proper comprehension of them? It is very curious to me, and somewhat suspicious. I mean, I have never, ever before seen the ideas you have presented anywhere!

I somewhat question what your motives are. Do you try to verify your ideas with experiment? I could easily describe to you experiments that counter your theories. Are you willing to validate your ideas?

I mean no offense man, but some of your stuff is just absurd. A magnetic field being divided by voltage and current? What does that even mean? Current implies charge carriers moving. What is moving in a static magnetic field?

You propose that free energy can be harvested from both femf and bemf, and that they happen at the same time. Preposterous!

Also you show FEMF and BEMF as currents directly opposing each other. What on earth are you thinking? This isn't just my idea, nor is this just some difference on terms. One can easily see EMF's ARE NOT CURRENTS. Furthermore how could one voltage source (the coil) induce TWO OPPOSITE currents that directly oppose each other? This defies rational thought man!

I initially thought you were misinformed, so I tried to explain how it works. While I'm not directly accusing you, it would seem the goal of your posts are to confuse others who aren't as knowledgeable. I have seen this type of purposeful behavior before. I'm not going to devote any more time to refuting your ideas.

If there is something you disagree with me about concepts, feel free to voice your opinion. I'm sure others will chime in too, actually I'm rather surprised nobody else has already. This was a huge misunderstanding for me when I first got involved with electronics, so I think having a clear understanding of what BEMF is and isnt is important

[Ufopolitics]

Hi UFO,

Good response. I appreciate your opinion. I think you would really enjoy the study of Eric Dollard's work. That is the source of most of my understanding and seems to provide the clearest picture of what the dynamics of electricity are. There is an enormous amount of material written by him, it could take over a year to read it all and comprehend. But that is what he covers, the very basics of electricity, how it works, what is REALLY going on.

In this context, there is both the magnetic and dielectric field, both being components of what we term "electric energy flow." From this understanding, there is only electricity where there is the union of both the magnetic and dielectric field, and it is when these two fields are combined at right angles to each other, then the "carriers" of electricity appear, not as electrons, but as the plancke, or photons. However that is not to say the fields always have to be co-joined. This IS actually what is taught in college level physics, but they call it the magnetic and electric field. However they make no distinction as to what the "charge carriers" are, and I believe electrons are still assumed to be the carriers of "electricity." They teach the magnetic and dielectric field being the components of an electromagnetic wave, but when it comes to electricity flow its back to electrons.

In terms of magnetism flowing around a conductor as a current. We can say a superconductor reflects ALL magnetism, that is, no magnetism gets into the conductor. However it is we deal with "normal" conductors, which aren't perfect reflectors. So some magnetism "gets in" to the conductor. This then creates a Back EMF, opposing the magnetism flowing. In addition, once this magnetism gets into the conductor, it immediately starts plowing into electrons, jostling electrons around. THIS is the source of electrons moving. This is also the source of the heating of the conductor, and thus resistance. So one can say magnetism getting into the conductor, bumping into electrons, cause the electrons to move which dissipates energy as heat. Furthermore we could say that electrons ARE NOT the actual charge carriers of electricity, but that the electricity or electric energy flow, is a wave, an electromagnetic wave, which propagates through the conductor by means of photons. I would not say that current is "electrons flowing", a more accurate depiction would be that the electrons jiggle back and forth, but do not actually travel all the way down the wire.

Think about a transverse wave versus a longitudinal wave. In a transverse wave (current electromagnetism) the movement of the particles composing the wave move perpendicular to the direction of travel of the wave, that is, the particles do not move in the direction of flow of the wave. Then it is easier to see how electrons wiggle back and forth while photons propagate down the conductor.

Furthermore, it isn't very hard to see why current theory doesn't necessarily explain all phenomena. What about a standing electric wave on a conductor? Here, the voltage varies as a sine wave with distance as you go down the conductor, or transmission line. The same with current. How could electron flow possibly explain this? Have a spot where there is current flowing, but then a distance down the line there is no current, but then there is current further down. How could this be possible in a uniform movement of electrons? Here, voltage and current vary with distance, not with time.

Concluding, electron flow seems to be flawed, and is more a theory of accepted belief than accuracy or observed phenomena. It is however, that electron flow theory somewhat "works" for low frequencies and DC. The lower the frequency, the more time magnetism has to seep in to the conductor, so more magnetism infiltrates the conductor and starts getting electrons moving. In the case of DC, all the magnetism gets in. This is directly related to the "skin effect" with high frequency AC. The higher the frequency, the less magnetism gets in.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "open systems." More detail here would be necessary for me to comment. You note:

"vast patterns of Magnetic Fields without ANY need of "Circuits" all over our Planet, they exist in our Skies, in the Water, in the Ground..in our ALL Space?"

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. As far as electromagnetism, a changing magnetic field would be required to induce a current as I'm sure you're aware. Are you theorizing some way of harnessing a static magnetic field?

Regards,

John

Hello JPolakow,

Wow...Big time analysis...you and I are going too deep into this...I believe that our friend PeacePenguin is going to be really confused now...

The lack of properly reading voltages-currents like you have mentioned I already explain them before...We are using a Test Lamp and an Analog Meter to measure sophisticated electrons signaling...simple.

I really will not dare to say that electron flow is not part of charges moving...and much less replace them by mass-less photons of light...I have seen the effects of HV Discharges through Human Bodies...and it is nothing "Mass-Less" what went through there my friend!!

Open Systems are systems that get Opened at certain range of time during its performance...

"vast patterns of Magnetic Fields without ANY need of "Circuits" all over our Planet, they exist in our Skies, in the Water, in the Ground..in our ALL Space?"

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. As far as electromagnetism, a changing magnetic field would be required to induce a current as I'm sure you're aware. Are you theorizing some way of harnessing a static magnetic field?

I wrote "Magnetic Fields"...Not "Electro" Magnetic Fields...there is a difference there. I was referring to Natural Magnetic Fields, not Artificially generated Ones...

Static Magnetic Fields?...Are you referring to Permanent Magnets?...they are "Static" only based on the fact they are permanently Pole - Oriented...There are NO "Static" Magnetic Fields my friend..looking at their Atomic constant and dynamic flow...it is always in constant movement at their atomic levels...It is a Perpetual Motion Process...if it is a Perpetual/Permanent Magnetic Field...

Have you ever heard of a "Static Atom"? Never right?...An Atom is got always...in constant movement all its Electrons and neutrons...and protons rotating around their Nuclei...Magnetic Fields are composed of Atoms...magnetized/aligned atomic chained structures in constant movement...creating a flow...and in complete interaction with other atomic structures aligned around them...

I am pretty sure you are aware of that...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[jpolakow]

Hello JPolakow,

Wow...Big time analysis...you and I are going too deep into this...I believe that our friend PeacePenguin is going to be really confused now...

The lack of properly reading voltages-currents like you have mentioned I already explain them before...We are using a Test Lamp and an Analog Meter to measure sophisticated electrons signaling...simple.

I really will not dare to say that electron flow is not part of charges moving...and much less replace them by mass-less photons of light...I have seen the effects of HV Discharges through Human Bodies...and it is nothing "Mass-Less" what went through there my friend!!

I certainly cant prove this "theory", however it is an alternative view of what could be causing the underlying phenomena.

Does something need mass to cause a force? Do the magnetic fields of magnets have a "force" even though they arent physically touching something? There are force equations that accurately describe what the forces are of magnetic and dielectric fields. Look at pictures of the inside of a breaker box when there was a massive short circuit. The wires are all pushed away from each other. Magnetic fields repel, dielectric fields attract.

I wrote "Magnetic Fields"...Not "Electro" Magnetic Fields...there is a difference there. I was referring to Natural Magnetic Fields, not Artificially generated Ones...

Static Magnetic Fields?...Are you referring to Permanent Magnets?...they are "Static" only based on the fact they are permanently Pole - Oriented...There are NO "Static" Magnetic Fields my friend..looking at their Atomic constant and dynamic flow...it is always in constant movement at their atomic levels...It is a Perpetual Motion Process...if it is a Perpetual/Permanent Magnetic Field...

Have you ever heard of a "Static Atom"? Never right?...An Atom is got always...in constant movement all its Electrons and neutrons...and protons rotating around their Nuclei...Magnetic Fields are composed of Atoms...magnetized/aligned atomic chained structures in constant movement...creating a flow...and in complete interaction with other atomic structures aligned around them...


Ufopolitics

I'm not saying the lines of force are stationary. However the magnitude of the magnetic field or force of a permanent magnet is fixed, or static, at a given distance. If the amplitude was varying we wouldnt have to worry about free energy generators anymore, we would just put a bar magnet next to a coil of wire and we'd have free electricity. That's what I'm saying. In order to induce an electromagnetic current you need an amplitude varying magnetic field. You seem to be talking about a different type of current. Just a static amplitude magnetic field doesn't seem to produce useable electricity, at least that I'm aware of.

[myenergetic]

Back EMF vs. Collapsing Magnetic Field Spike by Aaron

Please don't take this as an insult, because its not meant to be, its more confusion on my part...

You have close to 2,000 posts. You seem to know what the magnetic and dielectric fields are. You know about snubber circuits, and flyback diodes. How on earth do you know what these things are without the proper comprehension of them? It is very curious to me, and somewhat suspicious. I mean, I have never, ever before seen the ideas you have presented anywhere!

I somewhat question what your motives are. Do you try to verify your ideas with experiment? I could easily describe to you experiments that counter your theories. Are you willing to validate your ideas?

I mean no offense man, but some of your stuff is just absurd. A magnetic field being divided by voltage and current? What does that even mean? Current implies charge carriers moving. What is moving in a static magnetic field?

You propose that free energy can be harvested from both femf and bemf, and that they happen at the same time. Preposterous!

Also you show FEMF and BEMF as currents directly opposing each other. What on earth are you thinking? This isn't just my idea, nor is this just some difference on terms. One can easily see EMF's ARE NOT CURRENTS. Furthermore how could one voltage source (the coil) induce TWO OPPOSITE currents that directly oppose each other? This defies rational thought man!

I initially thought you were misinformed, so I tried to explain how it works. While I'm not directly accusing you, it would seem the goal of your posts are to confuse others who aren't as knowledgeable. I have seen this type of purposeful behavior before. I'm not going to devote any more time to refuting your ideas.

If there is something you disagree with me about concepts, feel free to voice your opinion. I'm sure others will chime in too, actually I'm rather surprised nobody else has already. This was a huge misunderstanding for me when I first got involved with electronics, so I think having a clear understanding of what BEMF is and isnt is important

Back EMF vs. Collapsing Magnetic Field Spike

@ jpolakow and others

May be it is a habit of not reading most of the posts in the site. The subject have been initiated by Aaron in Feb 2009 thread and was discussed in detail by fair contribution from forum members. It worth extra effort reading before further wasting the effort.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...eld-spike.html

@ jpolakow

Thank you for reminding us Eric

“If you consider these transmissions helpful, please donate to Eric Dollard via PayPal at DollardDonations@gmail.com He needs the funds to continue his writings.”

Hope it helps

jj

[jpolakow]

Hello JPolakow,

I really will not dare to say that electron flow is not part of charges moving...and much less replace them by mass-less photons of light...I have seen the effects of HV Discharges through Human Bodies...and it is nothing "Mass-Less" what went through there my friend!!

What you are saying is that the "medium" through which electromagnetic waves flow dictates what the charge carriers are. A radio wave propagates through the air, are electrons flowing through the air? Light can travel through a vacuum where are the electrons? But when the electromagnetic wave is in a conductor, now it is that electrons are the carriers of electricity, not the wave itself. Photons might be a bad analogy, more accurate would be "union of the magnetic and dielectric fields".

Is an electromagnetic wave through the air so different than an electromagnetic wave in a wire, such that the particles of its propagation are completely separate? If it is so that electrons are the only carriers of charge what do you make of this video? :
MIT Physics Demo -- Dissectible Capacitor - YouTube

[Ufopolitics]

Atomic Levels...

What you are saying is that the "medium" through which electromagnetic waves flow dictates what the charge carriers are. A radio wave propagates through the air, are electrons flowing through the air? Light can travel through a vacuum where are the electrons? But when the electromagnetic wave is in a conductor, now it is that electrons are the carriers of electricity, not the wave itself. Photons might be a bad analogy, more accurate would be "union of the magnetic and dielectric fields".

Is an electromagnetic wave through the air so different than an electromagnetic wave in a wire, such that the particles of its propagation are completely separate? If it is so that electrons are the only carriers of charge what do you make of this video? :
MIT Physics Demo -- Dissectible Capacitor - YouTube

Hello JPolakow,

Just because of many of your statements here...I am sure now, you do not have clearly defined some Atomic-Molecular Structures knowledge...You need to review this...to understand better...

Like when you write...

A radio wave propagates through the air, are electrons flowing through the air? Light can travel through a vacuum where are the electrons?

But Of Course Electrons are in the air...they are inside your body and mine...they are all over...this whole planet is made of Atomic Structures, called Molecules...that ALL Contain Electrons within...

Or do you think the extra two electrons orbiting around the Nucleus in an Oxygen Molecule are ANY different from the electrons that run in our wires and produce electricity?

Of course not...Oxygen is everywhere in our environments...around your wires...in our circuits, in our brains...

O2 molecules are paramagnetic. That is, they form a magnet in the presence of a magnetic field—because of the spin magnetic moments of the unpaired electrons in the molecule, and the negative exchange energy between neighboring O2 molecules. Liquid oxygen is attracted to a magnet to a sufficient extent that, in laboratory demonstrations, a bridge of liquid oxygen may be supported against its own weight between the poles of a powerful magnet.

A Water Molecule...is composed of Three Atoms...Two Hydrogen and one Oxygen...why do they "couple-bond" so fine?


Do you know?


Because they are "Electronically Compatible" enough, to make an Atomic Fusion...Why?...because their electronic compositions that are inherent to every Oxygen and Hydrogen Atom in our entire Universe...and that is...The fact that Hydrogen have Lack of ONE ELECTRON in their Atomic Orbits...As Oxygen have a "extra" Two Electrons in their structure...Oxygen has the second-highest electronegativity of all reactive elements...

Oxygen Molecule= O -2
Hydrogen=H+1
Water= H2O

I really do not want to expand this any more, but We could also cite CO2...

If We can not understand our own Atomic Structures, from the roots, and well defined...that configure our whole planet Earth, and every living being on this planet...that is in our Oceans...In Our Air...in the Ground...where electrons rotate galore...how could we -DARE- to explain the behavior of complex traffic flows of this electronic structures at speed rates and accelerations beyond their normal state??!!

I really do not mean to criticize the fact of not having the knowledge...I am really trying for all to understand the whole "Big Picture"...without much complications, therefore, hoping there will not be any more confusion...and the Light will really glow intense one day...




Regards


Ufopolitics

[jpolakow]

Hello JPolakow,

Just because of many of your statements here...I am sure now, you do not have clearly defined some Atomic-Molecular Structures knowledge...You need to review this...to understand better...

Like when you write...



But Of Course Electrons are in the air...they are inside your body and mine...they are all over...this whole planet is made of Atomic Structures, called Molecules...that ALL Contain Electrons within...

Or do you think the extra two electrons orbiting around the Nucleus in an Oxygen Molecule are ANY different from the electrons that run in our wires and produce electricity?

Of course not...Oxygen is everywhere in our environments...around your wires...in our circuits, in our brains...



A Water Molecule...is composed of Three Atoms...Two Hydrogen and one Oxygen...why do they "couple-bond" so fine?


Do you know?


Because they are "Electronically Compatible" enough, to make an Atomic Fusion...Why?...because their electronic compositions that are inherent to every Oxygen and Hydrogen Atom in our entire Universe...and that is...The fact that Hydrogen have Lack of ONE ELECTRON in their Atomic Orbits...As Oxygen have a "extra" Two Electrons in their structure...Oxygen has the second-highest electronegativity of all reactive elements...

Oxygen Molecule= O -2
Hydrogen=H+1
Water= H2O

I really do not want to expand this any more, but We could also cite CO2...

If We can not understand our own Atomic Structures, from the roots, and well defined...that configure our whole planet Earth, and every living being on this planet...that is in our Oceans...In Our Air...in the Ground...where electrons rotate galore...how could we -DARE- to explain the behavior of complex traffic flows of this electronic structures at speed rates and accelerations beyond their normal state??!!

I really do not mean to criticize the fact of not having the knowledge...I am really trying for all to understand the whole "Big Picture"...without much complications, therefore, hoping there will not be any more confusion...and the Light will really glow intense one day...




Regards


Ufopolitics

I am well aware of molecular structure, and atomic theory, and why molecules form . Here is where your explanation does not line up with current accepted electron flow theory. An element having electrons does not qualify to call it a conductor.

Current "electron flow theory" states that metals make excellent conductors not by virtue of the fact that they HAVE electrons, or what the net charge of the ion is, metals are thought to be excellent conductors by virtue of the fact electrons in the outer shells (valence electrons) of the metals are loosely coupled. That is, they are not bound very tightly and can "jump" around somewhat to different nuclei. THIS is what electron flow is purported to be, loose electrons in the outer orbits that are free to switch between atoms. Electron flow theory would have you believe these electrons constantly hop to another atom, and keep going down the line in a big loop around the circuit.

You are confusing an element having a net charge, or even electrons for that matter, with being electrically conductive. Water, in its pure state of H20, makes a HORRIBLE conductor. In fact it has an incredibly high dielectric constant(around 80, where glass is 3.8, making it about 20 times more insulative than glass). In fact, it is near impossible to make water conduct electricity (flow of electrons from your point of view) without adding an electrolyte, or salt, to the water first. This is why utility lines that bring power to your home are able to be unshielded (as in bare copper.) If Water were able to conduct so easily we would all have to worry about huge ground faults whenever it rained.

Air makes a horrible conductor to. I mean do you worry about the air suddenly conducting and short circuiting some electrical apparatus? Air cannot conduct unless it has been ionised, and that takes a VERY large voltage to do, in the thousands of volts.

What the individual charge of the ion is, or what charge it needs to be balanced, HAS NOTHING to do with its electrical conductivity. You are accusing me of not having knowledge, but honestly man, do you claim air is a good conductor of electricity? That seems to be what you are saying if an electromagnetic wave is able to propagate through it. You are somehow mashing together why molecules form, with an element or molecule being electrically conductive. That is incorrect. In electron flow theory, an element or molecule would need to be able to exchange electrons easily in order for "electrons to flow." It has nothing to do with the individual charge of an atom, molecule or ion, or whether they would combine readily with other atoms, molecules, or ions.

I mean its one thing to think you have an understanding of something. But if you are accusing me of not understanding how electron flow theory is purported to function at an atomic level you are mistaken.

Look at a periodic table of elements. Look at column 11. There represent the best conductors: copper, silver, gold. Is oxygen anywhere near there?

[Nick_Z]

I have a question to ask. Why is it that although people have been banging many kinds of coils with every kind of current, voltage, and frequencies that can be mustered up at them? Nobody has been able to produce any more energy out of any device, than is put into it. Open systems, closed system, any system.
Maybe there is another way than to solely use back EMF or Counter EMF, pulse induced spikes, flyback currents, magnetic currents through high voltage switching, or any other similar means that have been tried in 10.000 different ways up to now. That have produce no replicable results.
I am not aware of any such device, so please point me in the right direction. Or are we barking up the wrong tree?
IF is there a device that has no normal power source, like a battery, etz. that can run by itself, and light bulbs, run motors, and drive a load, which would prove the point of being able harvest energy from any type of EMF, please let us know. I'm not trying to be pain, I'd really like to know.

NickZ

[Ufopolitics]

I am well aware of molecular structure, and atomic theory, and why molecules form .

Hello JPolakow,

Atomic Structure is not a Theory...it has been proven beyond doubts to be as real as You and Me...
A "Theory" is when it's contents/claims have not been able to be proven...like Albert Einstein "Theory of Relativity"...it has been in that "Status" for many decades...and will keep being there for the next Century...till someone proves it does not work at all...

Here is where your explanation does not line up with current accepted electron flow theory. An element having electrons does not qualify to call it a conductor.

Where did I wrote that the fact of an Atom "having electrons" will make it a conductor?...
Could you cite where did I write such stupid/non sense statement, please?
ALL ELEMENTS HAVE ELECTRONS...Just because ALL Elements are made of Atoms...Electron is a PART of ANY Atom on this Planet.

Current "electron flow theory" states that metals make excellent conductors not by virtue of the fact that they HAVE electrons, or what the net charge of the ion is, metals are thought to be excellent conductors by virtue of the fact electrons in the outer shells (valence electrons) of the metals are loosely coupled. That is, they are not bound very tightly and can "jump" around somewhat to different nuclei. THIS is what electron flow is purported to be, loose electrons in the outer orbits that are free to switch between atoms. Electron flow theory would have you believe these electrons constantly hop to another atom, and keep going down the line in a big loop around the circuit.

Not "ALL METALS" are good conductors of electricity...(you know that)...why do you think some are and some are not?...why some metals are higher conductors than others?
According to that statement...then our electric flow only occurs in the "surface" of all the Metal made cores, steel lamination , including copper wires?...Sorry but do not agree there either.

Why do you think "it does matters" the cross section of a given conductor (awg/gauge)?...and IT DOES influence in Amperage, Voltage and many other Parameters related to Electric Flow and conductivity?
Because it travels INSIDE/WITHIN its Atomic structures...JPolakow
There IS a Type of Electrical Flow that DOES travel in the Surface of Conductors...but I really do not want to bring it here now...I will confuse You even more...

You are confusing an element having a net charge, or even electrons for that matter, with being electrically conductive. Water, in its pure state of H20, makes a HORRIBLE conductor. In fact it has an incredibly high dielectric constant(around 80, where glass is 3.8, making it about 20 times more insulative than glass). In fact, it is near impossible to make water conduct electricity (flow of electrons from your point of view) without adding an electrolyte, or salt, to the water first. This is why utility lines that bring power to your home are able to be unshielded (as in bare copper.) If Water were able to conduct so easily we would all have to worry about huge ground faults whenever it rained.

Air makes a horrible conductor to. I mean do you worry about the air suddenly conducting and short circuiting some electrical apparatus? Air cannot conduct unless it has been ionised, and that takes a VERY large voltage to do, in the thousands of volts.

Again, when I mentioned Atoms contains electrons...I was not saying because of "having electrons" will make them "All Conductors"...
That you may hear from a "Retarded Mind"...not from me John...
Like I said before...everything you could touch and even what you can not touch have electrons on them..just because they ALL have atoms...

Air is an Excellent Conductor of Radiant Energy...as Water also...

What the individual charge of the ion is, or what charge it needs to be balanced, HAS NOTHING to do with its electrical conductivity. You are accusing me of not having knowledge, but honestly man, do you claim air is a good conductor of electricity? That seems to be what you are saying if an electromagnetic wave is able to propagate through it.

See, that is where your big time problem is John...You can not "conceive" an Electromagnetic Wave...without "Our Artificial Electricity" running it..or generating it...coming out of a wall outlet, a Generator or a Battery... ...Seriously, you do need to read some more...Electromagnetic Waves do propagate all over, Air, Water...Ground...without any electricity like the one "You Know", yes the "Artificial One"...but Radiant Energy, ...and there my dear friend...there DOES exist the Photons...but not the only ones either.
That's a whole world of Engineering knowledge, John ...

Radiant energy is the energy of electromagnetic waves.[1] The quantity of radiant energy may be calculated by integrating radiant flux (or power) with respect to time and, like all forms of energy, its SI unit is the joule. The term is used particularly when radiation is emitted by a source into the surrounding environment. Radiant energy may be visible or invisible to the human eye.

One of the earliest wireless telephones to be based on radiant energy was invented by Nikola Tesla. The device used transmitters and receivers whose resonances were tuned to the same frequency, allowing communication between them. In 1916, he recounted an experiment he had done in 1896.[11] He recalled that "Whenever I received the effects of a transmitter, one of the simplest ways [to detect the wireless transmissions] was to apply a magnetic field to currents generated in a conductor, and when I did so, the low frequency gave audible notes."

[QUOTE]You are somehow mashing together why molecules form, with an element or molecule being electrically conductive. That is incorrect. In electron flow theory, an element or molecule would need to be able to exchange electrons easily in order for "electrons to flow." It has nothing to do with the individual charge of an atom, molecule or ion, or whether they would combine readily with other atoms, molecules, or ions. [QUOTE]

LOL, I was "mashing" molecules to remind you Oxygen DOES exist in the Air...and Oxygen contains Electrons...and more than most elements out there (very negatively charged, but never said it was a good conductor though)...But Oxygen DOES IS a Paramagnetic Element. Meaning it DOES Polarizes when near a Magnetic Field...

I do know that Jpolakow...I do know what a Material needs to be composed of , in order to be a good conductor...
Water is not a good conductor precisely because their atomic through electronic bonds are perfectly balanced/stabilized...
In order for a Material to be "conductive" it must have an "electronic unbalance"...either on the excess (-) or on the lack of electrons(+)...and, yes, I know...that is how they make the Semiconductors...by combining this Materials...in order they accept the flow only in one sense or direction like the Diodes...

I mean its one thing to think you have an understanding of something. But if you are accusing me of not understanding how electron flow theory is purported to function at an atomic level you are mistaken.

Look at a periodic table of elements. Look at column 11. There represent the best conductors: copper, silver, gold. Is oxygen anywhere near there?

Good night JPolakow...


Ufopolitics

[Aaron]

over 1.0 electromagnetic systems ARE HERE

I have a question to ask. Why is it that although people have been banging many kinds of coils with every kind of current, voltage, and frequencies that can be mustered up at them? Nobody has been able to produce any more energy out of any device, than is put into it. Open systems, closed system, any system.

There are plenty of examples of over 1.0 COP systems in this forum.

You do not make a distinction in your statement about "more energy out of any device, than is put into it. You mention open systems, closed systems, "any system" so if you know that there is a difference and know what the difference is, you are half way contradicting yourself or at least making an incomplete statement.

"than is put into it" by who or what? Only the operator of the system, only free environmental input, or both?

If you're talking about TOTAL input by the operator AND free environmental input, then you're right - there isn't going to be more out than in because accounting for BOTH our input and nature's input, there will still be losses and it will be under 100% efficient. You will not get more out than in if you're accounting for ALL input.

If you're talking about only the input we have to pay for not counting environmental input - then that is over 1.0 COP (still under 100% efficient) and there are many examples in this forum of over 1.0 COP electromagnetic systems, mechanical systems such as the Veljko oscillator or even a bouncing ball.

The distinctions have been pointed out countless times throughout this forum to clearly spell out what is and isn't happening in all these systems. Over 100% efficiency is NOT happening but over 1.0 COP IS happening in quite a few examples.

If you account for the mechanical work in the wheel, the Bedini SG is one of the most simple examples and is at about 1.15 COP.

Paul Babcock's arc test with and without an inductor shows the one with the inductor is operating at about 2.0 COP.

Why all these blatant examples are ignored and the same old "how come nobody ever showed x, y, z..." keeps coming up is astounding.

Nick, I'm not attacking you - just saying that there ARE examples of electromagnetic and other systems right here in this very forum that demonstrate more out than we have to put in. They are also pointed out fairly often and go ignored by many people evidently because they are still looking for something to prove it when the proof is dripping off the walls.

[jpolakow]

UFO I think it is near impossible to have an intelligent, constructive discussion with you. You're constantly changing the context of what we're talking about. Nor do I appreciate your superiority complex and that you seem to "know it all." Furthermore accusing me of having a "retarded mind" or getting my information from someone who has a "retarded mind", I personally take as an insult. I am offended and will no longer pursue a debate with you about your alleged knowledge or understandings. You seem intent on trying to demonstrate you know more, which I could care less about, and its great if you do, but your responses have little relevance to the topic we were discussing, nor does learning seem to be the objective here.

I mean you were endorsing Dave45 posts and pictures, which have serious errors in it. I'm not sure how you reconcile this with your advanced knowledge

I am aware of the properties of radiant energy, and the flow outside of the wires, but for the purposes of this discussion, we have been discussing classical electromagnetism as it relates to electron flow. You changed the subject to somehow "one up" me I suppose. I would assess that you have an incredibly difficult time clearly relaying what your ideas are, and relating them in a rational discussion without being offended, or insulting someone else's intelligence or comprehension if they disagree with you.

Wherever you have made a claim, I have countered with a point. Why you decided to bring the topic of chemistry into a discussion about classical electromagnetism and electron flow is beyond me. How you have come to the conclusion that all I know about is electromagnetism because that is what we have been discussing, is also beyond me.

When a debate breaks down into insults of intelligence, it is clear to me that the subject of discussion is no longer of importance. It is the ego.

[Ufopolitics]

No Insults there!!

UFO I think it is near impossible to have an intelligent, constructive discussion with you. You're constantly changing the context of what we're talking about. Nor do I appreciate your superiority complex and that you seem to "know it all." Furthermore accusing me of having a "retarded mind" or getting my information from someone who has a "retarded mind", I personally take as an insult. I am offended and will no longer pursue a debate with you about your alleged knowledge or understandings. You seem intent on trying to demonstrate you know more, which I could care less about, and its great if you do, but your responses have little relevance to the topic we were discussing, nor does learning seem to be the objective here.

I ..think you are taking it personal, and the wrong way John, I never said you have or anyone else have a Retarded Mind...but whoever could write what you are Interpreting/ Concluding "I meant" of my own words.
You did not understood me well...never meant to offend you at any point here...and I am really sorry you have taken it that way.

I mean you were endorsing Dave45 posts and pictures, which have serious errors in it. I'm not sure how you reconcile this with your advanced knowledge

I was endorsing Dave when He wrote that there are Two Flows running opposite to each others within the same strand of wire...and they "coexist" in complete harmony...and I still endorse that fact and can prove it any time any place...As a matter of fact, that was my First Thread here all about...A while back by now...

But I can prove that beyond that thread, with a simple test...if you like I will render a Diagram right here for you or anyone to replicate it.

However you wrote to Dave45 about that:

...Furthermore how could one voltage source (the coil) induce TWO OPPOSITE currents that directly oppose each other? This defies rational thought man!

Well, tell you what...get ready to defy your rational thoughts. Because it does happens...I recommend you take a look at My Thread

I am aware of the properties of radiant energy, and the flow outside of the wires, but for the purposes of this discussion, we have been discussing classical electromagnetism as it relates to electron flow. You changed the subject to somehow "one up" me I suppose. I would assess that you have an incredibly difficult time clearly relaying what your ideas are, and relating them in a rational discussion without being offended, or insulting someone else's intelligence or comprehension if they disagree with you.

Wherever you have made a claim, I have countered with a point. Why you decided to bring the topic of chemistry into a discussion about classical electromagnetism and electron flow is beyond me. How you have come to the conclusion that all I know about is electromagnetism because that is what we have been discussing, is also beyond me.

When a debate breaks down into insults of intelligence, it is clear to me that the subject of discussion is no longer of importance. It is the ego.

Everything is related...all Science have same exact roots...Chemical have direct relations with Electrical-Electromagnetism...Why can't I bring them here?...

Anyways, it is your decision...not mine, as it is the way you want to read me and interpret my statements/discussion.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Nick_Z]

I realize that there are electrical producing devices, such as wind, solar, and hydro, that do utilize available ambient energies to create an output of 100% free no cost energy. But, what I'm trying to understand is has there actually been proven devices that produce by a non moving, no noise, non-mechanical system, a way to take lets say 12volt, and 1 amp, and produce for example 110 volts, 50 amps. Or something useable, to some degree, not just to light an led, or two. Or, that use no external battery or other conventional source to produce electric power? Other than wind, solar, and hydro. That is my question.
I've heard about Tesla's car, and I do blindly believe that it was possible, Blind faith, I suppose. So, is there anything along those lines, to look into.
Somehow I doubt that Tesla was producing an output from a shoe box sized device in the glove compartment, by pulsing small coils and harvesting their BEMF to run the car's electric motor down the road at 90 miles per hour.
Does anyone know more about this, or have tried to build something similar. I know that is the question of the century, but...
it can't hurt to ask, the only guys I know that may have an answer.