Cop>17 Here's Why This Result Was Predicted

[witsend]

Thanks.

I still confuse with how the energy transfer is. I will try to understand it by rereading.

Do you mean to say that not one of my three proposed scenarion explain your theory?

There is energy produced in resistor so the actual total energy is 55 watt?

Actually yes. A further 5 watts was indeed added to the system. Sorry. I missed this. Of course it's right. But that's only in the event that current flow is reversed and the initial 5 watts loss in pd at the battery supply source is now recharged to that same value. Then the extra 5 watts is in the heat dissipated. Golly Suchayo. I do hope it's getting clearer. If not. Then I'm still not explaining it right.

[sucahyo]

Ok, thanks, still rereading.

can you explain this more?

Only nuclear fission or fusion alters the atom. Otherwise the atom remains inviolate. A kind of closed system within a prescribed range of variants relating to its ionised state. Fire does not change the atom. Whatever chemistry comes into play - as proposed by classicists - the simple fact is that the atom remains.

What is your definition of atom change? it's existence? reduction of proton/neutron/electron?

[witsend]

Guys, I'm going to try this again.

Transfer of energy is the transfer of fields of magnetic dipoles that - under all usual circumstances are hidden inside bound amalgams. In this transitional state of imbalance - they can move through space and in time in order to re-establish a balance. Here's what they can do.

They can use closed circuit conditions to transfer their fields to re-arrange their spin and this understood by mainstream as the 'flow' of current. That results in or promotes a balance. Or they can use open circuit conditions - more tenuously - such as air to manage - that same 'flow' of current. But the 'flow' through the air or the environment is not stable.

They can peel away from their 'hidden' orbits and manifest as heat or flame. Then they can move through adjacent material to find a new 'abode'. This is done at the expense of the 'bound' condition of this 'source' material. Under such circumstances the departure away from that amalgam or that 'abode' can be permanent as they recongregate material bonds away from their original 'source'.

Again. But 'energy' the thing that transfers itself and is never destroyed? That 'thing' is here proposed to be magnetic dipoles. They usually remain 'hidden' inside amalgams. Interrupt their orbits, this natural, invisible state and they enter a 'transitional phase'. This is what we can measure as either voltage imbalance - that can induce a current flow - or we measure it as heat or flame when the transitional phase also induces a reduction to the 'bound' state of that amalgam. This latter example results in a degradation of the bound state of that amalgam - be it an electric stove element or a light filament, or simply a fire that is buring wood. This all is proposed to be emanations of 'dark energy' and these particles or zipons are proposed to be this 'dark' matter - made temporarily visible or measurable. Literally therefore, I am proposing that energy is simply the transfer of these particles that are not in anyway like particles from the standard model.

They have a velocity of 2c and are cold under hidden stable smooth field conditions Then the particle is charged but the field is neutral. Or they have zero velocity and are visible and hot - under unstable chaotic conditions outside their normal nonmanifest field conditions. Then the particle is still charged but the field is either compromised which can induce a current flow or is non-existant in which case the particle manifests as flame.

[witsend]

Ok, thanks, still rereading.

can you explain this more?
What is your definition of atom change? it's existence? reduction of proton/neutron/electron?

Hi Suchayo. It's always a relief that you've not given up here. I have no idea what 'generated' the complex atoms. It's understood that the nuclear fire - even from a sun such as our own - is not enough to generate the required energies for this complex growth. But there are proposals that suns at varying stages of their development or decay could do so. My own proposal is that the atom's growth into the complexities that we know today - may be the result of not only heat but gravitational pressures - such as those in the centre of our own earth. But whatever their cause, it has proven to take extraordinary energies to either 'split' the atom or to 'fuse' the atom. Doable - but difficult.

The addition or substraction of valence electrons - however - does induce a kind of charge imbalance. We know that for every electron there is a corresponding proton in the 'heart' or nucleus of the atom. And with a reduction to this 'required' number of electrons that are relatively easily stripped from some atoms, then that atom is imbalanced. This inclines it to 'bond' with another to compensate, somehow for the loss of that electron. What I am proposing is that the bonding of two atoms into a molecule is not the chemistry between two atoms - but is, in fact, enabled by these binding fields that always 'seek out' a balance. They will find two such atoms and then bond them or hold them together as a molecule and then, as soon as the connection is made, they revert to their 'field' state and become invisible. It is thereby proposed that these fields of magnetic dipoles are also the 'glue' that binds all things in the universe. It is extraneous to the atom and it is extraneous to the 'background' magnetic field that I also propose is the background to all matter. The 'cloth' behind the tapestry as I've explained it.

[witsend]

Now we can move on to open circuit conditions. The battery has been disconnected. All the potential difference from the battery has gone. Not only that, but the continuous 'oribt' of magnetic dipoles through the circuit, those fields of zipons have now broken. No longer a circle - it's now a line. And a line represents a break. The only potential difference on the circuit is now at the resistor. You will recall that 5 watts worth of zipons were expelled and they're orbiting the material of the resistor. That's the only imbalance that the 'line' or 'string' of zipons now experience. Without 5 watts of imbalance holding it away from it's natural abode - these extruded fields re-enter the material - at pace. They reformulate inside that string, and in so doing they, in turn 'expel' those magnetic dipoles that previously forced them out. They take over as the 'new' energy source. The expelled battery sourced zipons now orbit the material in an opposite direction.

[witsend]

Just as the battery supply source first looked for an found and then forced their way through circuit components, now these 'reconjoined' zipons from the resistive material look for a path through the circuit to return to their source and to 're-organise' their spin. Remember that both the source and the resistor belonged to imbalanced material. Valence conditions everywhere. Ideally, given an opportunity to do so, they will rearrange their spin to neutralise that source. Imbalanced voltage conditions - broken strings - allow just this opportunity. They find their path by reversing the flow of current and then moving through the intrinisic body diode of the MOSFET. Effectively what they have done is 'lined' up north to south, as before, but moved in a southerly or anti clockwise direction back through the battery, through the shunt resistor through the MOSFET which has a polarity to allow this directional path - and then back to the resistor itself. And when they move 'backwards' through the battery itself, then those fields are reassembled as they were before, thereby adding to the potential difference or 'imbalance' at the resistor. Instead of a forward march - it's now a backward march. And once those zipons reach back to their own terminal - the far side of the resistor - then they've reached 'home' so to speak. Conditions at home are pretty chaotic but their object is to use this chaotic condition to recombine the material in as 'balanced' a charge distribution as possible.

[witsend]

But this is no sooner done than the switch has again closed. The battery comes into play. Potential difference is now transferred back to the battery. And the cycle is repeated. In effect the battery orbit is done at the expense of breaking the strings in the resistor. The resistor's orbit is done at the expense of recombining the broken strings in the battery. The cost of this 'exchange' is about 5 watts of energy - in this example - and that energy is transferred only - first from the supply to the resistor and then from the resistor to the supply - and in all instances, both the supply and the resistor are simply using circuit components to 'return' zipons back to themselves.

[witsend]

This can be seen, in the mind's eye as an orbiting string of zipons in a clockwise direction - then a break - then an orbiting string of zipons in an anti clockwise direction - then a break - and so on - depending on the rate of the switch. But all that is being transferred - subject to the efficiency of the circuit components and to the steadiness of that resonating frequency, is that five watts of energy is first transferred away from the source - and then back to the source - while 5 watts of heat is first dissipated then partially re-established and then dissipated - at the resistor itself. The actual theoretical loss of energy from the supply is zero. The actual dissipated energy at the load is held to a steady value notwithstanding the fact this is dissipated without an attendant cost to the supply.

[witsend]

But this zero loss to the battery supply is only a theoretical value. What is actually evident is that the 'self-oscillation' of the system ocassionally becomes aperiodic and chaotic. During this interval some of those source zipons in fact reach their negative terminal and in so doing they immediately but very slowly dicharge some of the potential difference. This means that in closed conditions the potential difference is systematically discharged. But it is discharged at a rate that is far, far slower than would be managed under permanently 'closed' conditions. And certainly the 'rate of discharge' has no equivalent value to the rate of energy dissipated at the load. This goes to the throat - to the gullet of the argument. Thermodynamic Laws call for an equivalence. They require that the 'loss' of potential difference from the supply equals or is greater than the energy dissipated at the work station on a circuit. The fact is that the 'recharge' to the battery is both determinate and proven. And this questions the validity of those laws as it applies to the exchange of electric energy on a circuit. It also indicates that the particulate nature of current flow may be consistent with the evidence. Certainly this is the only possible explanation of the results that were both predicted and required by the magnetic field model that proposes this particulate nature of charge or current in the first instance.

[sucahyo]

Thanks.

Based from: "They can peel away from their 'hidden' orbits and manifest as heat or flame." I think the answer for previous scenario is number 1:
Both fast and slow version of zipon is included in calculation, resistor heat up sign of more slow zipon do not change energy, the batery has 50 watt available. But as the zipon peel away from orbit when they heat up, they are no longer part of the closed circuit and no longer counted, the battery has 45 watt available.

But whatever their cause, it has proven to take extraordinary energies to either 'split' the atom or to 'fuse' the atom. Doable - but difficult.

Electrolysis is a fission of water into H+ and O-. For 1L/minutes production of hydroxy a good cell need only 10 amp at 12V. Fuel cell is a fussion of H2 and O2 to produce water along with heat and electricity by just letting them meet each other in an expensive prototype container. In Internal Combustion Engine there is process of atom bonding or releasing, molecule ou is different from molecule in.

Plasma or spark can transmute thing. This can be done with 500 watt electricity. Cold fussion produce heavier/rare metal. Cold fussion is Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, a table top experiment.

BTW, Eugene Mallove in "Tesla and Aether" mention that electrolysis is a process where the heat is extranous, more energy out than energy in:

Had an electrochemist been around then with an accurate calorimeter, excess heat in ordinary water electrolysis in nickel/ platinum systems might have been discovered at the turn of the century!

Bonding between atom has rule. Some reaction are a balance, while other is one way. Spesific condition may have some different reaction scenario. Electrocuting water force the molecule to split up, no just displacing their electron. Same way happen on battery liquid H2SO4, which separate to H+ and SO- when charging.

Operation of Lead Acid Batteries

The overall chemical reaction is:


At the negative terminal the charge and discharge reactions are:


At the positive terminal the charge and discharge reactions are:


As the above equations show, discharging a battery causes the formation of lead sulfate crystals at both the negative and positive terminals, as well as
the release of electrons due to the change in valence charge of the lead. The formation of this lead sulfate uses sulfate from the sulfuric acid electrolyte surrounding the battery. As a result the electrolyte becomes less concentrated.

Full discharge would result in both electrodes being covered with lead sulfate and water rather than sulfuric acid surrounding the electrodes. At full
discharge the two electrodes are the same material, and there is no chemical potential or voltage between the two electrodes. In practice, however, discharging stops at the cutoff voltage, long before this point. The battery should not therefore be discharged below this voltage.

The only potential difference on the circuit is now at the resistor. You will recall that 5 watts worth of zipons were expelled and they're orbiting the material of the resistor.

I think you should made a distinction between an inductionless resistor and inductive resistor since they may have different behaviour. Are you suggesting that a common 5 watt ceramic resistor will also give gain in your circuit just the same as 5 watt inductive coil resistor?



I notice that you use the word "classic" to refer current science. I usually use "modern" term to refer them. I usually use "classic" to refer science pra Einstein. Do you know that before Einstein, 100 years ago, scientist believe in existence of something unseen and non matter that called aether?

Have you ever read aether relation with electricity?:

In a seminal talk before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE) in May 1891 at what was then called Columbia College in New York City, Tesla spoke these telling words: “Of all the forms of nature’s immeasurable, all-pervading energy, which ever and ever change and move, like a soul animates an innate universe, electricity and magnetism are perhaps the most fascinating. . .We know that electricity acts like an incompressible fluid; that there must be a constant quantity of it in nature; that it can neither be produced or destroyed. . .and that electricity and ether phenomena are identical.”1 Tesla noted that this “ether” was everywhere moving and dynamic. The use of the ether would be the salvation of humankind, he said: “. . .with the power derived from it, with every form of energy obtained without effort, from stores forever inexhaustible, humanity will advance with giant strides.” He said, “. . .it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.”

[witsend]

Thanks.
Based from: "They can peel away from their 'hidden' orbits and manifest as heat or flame." I think the answer for previous scenario is number 1:
Both fast and slow version of zipon is included in calculation, resistor heat up sign of more slow zipon do not change energy, the batery has 50 watt available. But as the zipon peel away from orbit when they heat up, they are no longer part of the closed circuit and no longer counted, the battery has 45 watt available.

OK. You're right. In the first 'on' cycle at the switch - there is a reduction to the 'charge' in the battery of 5 watts. In other words the 'circle' or 'field' of zipons orbit through the circuit componenets. When they move through those circuit components they 'expel' one of the 'fields' binding that circuit material. This to secure a path through those components. When the do so in copper - or in the connecting wire - the balanced or valence condition of copper presents no real resistance. It simply extrudes one or other of its two outer energy levels. These extruded fields orbit that material. We can measure these extruded fields with an ammeter.

Then these same fields from the battery supply source reach the resistor. The valence condition of the resistor is not balanced. By removing half those fields they imbalance the other half. The expelled half still circles the material of the resistor. We measure that as voltage across the resistor. The second half of those binding fields remain in the resistor. They have lost half their orbit. This interruption results in a 'break' where the zipons move out of a 'field' or orbiting condition and manifest as 'heat'. Remember that now, the other 'half' of the zipons in the resistive material are from the battery. Then they continue their path - through the circuit - still in a line. That line has grown. And it's still growing.

Then these same fields from the battery move across the available 'leg' in the MOSFET. Then they get back to the negative terminal. That's when the line is at its longest. It now reaches from the positive terminal to the negative terminal. It's as long as that 'line' needs to get. Because now they've formed a circle through the components to reach the negative terminal of their supply. They've completed their orbital path. They re-enter the material of the battery. They reorganise the molecules and atoms with an alternate charge. And then, as you say, they diminish the potential difference at the battery by 5 watts.

But then the battery is 'disconnected' through the switch. The 5 watts of energy extruded at the resistor is now the only source of potential difference on the circuit. It was forced out with 5 watts from the battery. It now forces itself back into the resistor with that same 5 watts of energy. Firstly it It forces out the 5 watts worth of zipons in the 'line' inside the resistor. These, in turn are extruded from the resistor. Their fields reverse their orbit around the resistor. This is measured as a 'reverse' voltage. Meanwhile the newly intruded fields that actually belong to the resistor also need to reach their own opposite terminal. That's the far side of the resistor. They move there through imposing an 'anti clockwise' direction of flow - 'that line' of zipons. The move backwards, first through the battery - then through the intrisinisc body diode in the MOSFET and then to back to their source being that same resistor. That way they've completed their own orbit. Then the re-assemble - but they can't do this. Because no sooner are they there than the switch is closed and the whole 'first cycle' is repeated.

When they do this 'anti clockwise' flow - they move back through the battery which also reassembles those imbalanced molecules in their earlier bonded state. So the battery is now recharged with 5 watts of energy. That earlier 'loss' of potential difference is now re-established. Therefore is there zero loss. But the broken condition of the zipons in the resistor is still broken. The fields are still unravelling and this is generating heat.

Therefore is there more heat dissipated than energy measured to have been delivered from the source.

[witsend]

Electrolysis is a fission of water into H+ and O-. For 1L/minutes production of hydroxy a good cell need only 10 amp at 12V. Fuel cell is a fussion of H2 and O2 to produce water along with heat and electricity by just letting them meet each other in an expensive prototype container. In Internal Combustion Engine there is process of atom bonding or releasing, molecule ou is different from molecule in.

I have no quarrel with this or any of your following comments. When I referred to the following

"But whatever the cause, it has proven to take extraordinary energies to either 'split' the atom or to 'fuse' the atom. Doable - but difficult"

I was only referring to atoms themselves. Molecules are different. The combining and recombining of atoms into molecules or from molecules back to atoms is a well known art. But it is not that easy to fuse one atom into another - nor to split one atom away from another. That calls for a great deal more energy. Apparently the heat in our sun is not even enough to account for the growth of a simple hydrogen atom into say a more complex iron atom let alone a radioactive number of plutonium or suchlike. The puzzle is still how this was ever managed - and I think the question is addressed by astrophysicists because there are some suns at different stages of their cycles that could generate the required energy.

[witsend]

In a seminal talk before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE) in May 1891 at what was then called Columbia College in New York City, Tesla spoke these telling words: “Of all the forms of nature’s immeasurable, all-pervading energy, which ever and ever change and move, like a soul animates an innate universe, electricity and magnetism are perhaps the most fascinating. . .We know that electricity acts like an incompressible fluid; that there must be a constant quantity of it in nature; that it can neither be produced or destroyed. . .and that electricity and ether phenomena are identical.”1 Tesla noted that this “ether” was everywhere moving and dynamic. The use of the ether would be the salvation of humankind, he said: “. . .with the power derived from it, with every form of energy obtained without effort, from stores forever inexhaustible, humanity will advance with giant strides.” He said, “. . .it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.”

This reference given by Suchayo. I'd like to refer more to this hereafter.

[witsend]

I am no expert on Tesla. But Tesla was certainly the leader in his field and - indeed, in the way his insights pointed - is still very much so. Suchayo brought up the question of aether. I am a strong proponent. My model requires this aether to be everywhere and I consider it a shame that the question was somehow 'distanced' from mainstream focus when the Michelson-Morely experiments proved that consideration of aether was largely 'irrelevant'. This was based on the experimental observations that it had no measurable direction nor a material identity. The implications were that the field would not effect our dimensional reality. But it must also be remembered that these tests did not disprove the existence of aether. Just that if a field did exist - it had no force or influence applied to our realities.

A requirement for aether, surprisingly, comes from our string theorists. They need a link and they imagine this link as a kind of aether. It is seen to be a field provided by a kind of smooth background scaffolding made up of particles in fields that criss-cross through space in even distribution but fixed there. A sort of 'steady state'. Just a kind of vast - a universal - scaffold, but structured from infinitesemally tiny particles joined up into immense lengths. Hence the term 'strings'. With this structure they can prove a total 'reconciliation of all things'. And what this means? This 'reocnciliation of all things'? It is that they can then explain everything in terms of one unified force probably emanating from one single particle.

But to 'reconcile' their numbers they've had to split reality into different dimensions. It's an exotic mathematical art form that even eludes most expert mathematicians. And they've come up with varying numbers of dimensions from 11 - all the way to 36 - I think it is. Possibly more. But not only do they often argue amongst themselves but their logic is so exotic and so elusive that it is still discounted even by mainstream. And this discreditation or this unpopularity is - presently, on the upswing. But the fact is that they are the only ones who have managed this 'reconciliation' and that reconciliation is still the Holy Grail of Physics. And again - my own model partially requires some of these concepts. I'm hoping therefore that this will be vindicated in due course. It certainly seems that ideas in physics enjoy temporary popularity and then unpopularity - and so it goes.

[witsend]

Like the string theorists I also propose a kind of background scaffold. But my scaffold needs must be nothing more than a magnetic field. In a close study of the required symmetries all that I need is Farraday's lines of force moving in a single justification and comprising long lines of tiny little mgnetic dipoles that exceed light speed. Like the string theorists this would result in a perfectly smooth distribution of charge in space that it would appear to be neutral at all its parts. But then I would also need to propose that this is a primary force. I would also somehow need to explain how this single particle can then manifest into the myriad forms of matter that we know and see around us. It's presumptuous to state this but I believe that this thesis holds the explanation.