What is Electric Current?

[FuzzyTomCat]

Harvey,

Thank you, unfortunately the link did not provide a descriptive for motion in spacetime.

Schpankme

"Inductance represents energy storage in space as a magnetic field." - Eric Dollard

Hey Schpankme,

This is not my field of expertise but this maybe to your liking ....

Motion in Spacetime

Regards,
Glen

[Harvey]

There are no embedded 'inferences'. I apologise profusely if this is seen as confrontational. I only meant, most urgently, to draw attention to some 'flaws' in the presentation of your arguments. Facts were possibly 'misrepresented' and I am concerned that this will confuse rather than advance the knowledge that we all so urgently seek. If my observations are 'wrong' you can perhaps point out where. That would form the basis of a discussion. If you prefer it that I do not post here then I will happily abstain. But then I would ask you not to bring zipons into your discussions.

Yes it is definitely seen as confrontational, especially after you petitioned Aaron (and then forwarded that petition to CatLady) that I be banned from your thread. Furthermore, all of your comments are wrong and misleading and have been posted here only to illicit arguments as they have absolutely no basis in reality or fact. I do not wish to engage in any discussion with you on the matter of electrical current as we have already covered this topic between ourselves ad nauseum and you still fail to accept the empirical proof of decades of millions of CRT operations the world over which work ONLY by electron current flow and cannot be ascribed to any other possible cause.

Therefore, "happily abstain" from posting in this thread and I will no longer use the OPEN SOURCE term "Zipon" and will henceforth use my own term ZipNOT.

[Harvey]

Can I just quickly add a bit about superconductors ?
I don't know much about them - except that they take electron pairs in at one end - and move them very quickly to the other end.

Does your theory hold out for superconductors ?
Why are some superconductors magnetic at low temperatures only ?

Thank you for your informative posts guys...I'm learning a lot

This little page of Type One Superconductors may prove helpful:
Type 1 Superconductors

Regarding why temperature plays a role in magnetic properties, you may wish read up on Curie Point.

Also of interest along these lines is Flux Pinning , The Meissner Effect, Type II Superconductors and Flux Pumping.


I learn new things constantly and am a firm believer that when we stop learning it is because we are dead.

[EgmQC]

This little page of Type One Superconductors may prove helpful:
Type 1 Superconductors

Regarding why temperature plays a role in magnetic properties, you may wish read up on Curie Point.

Also of interest along these lines is Flux Pinning , The Meissner Effect, Type II Superconductors and Flux Pumping.


I learn new things constantly and am a firm believer that when we stop learning it is because we are dead.

Thanks for the reference Harvey !

Best Regards,
EgmQC

[witsend]

I do not wish to engage in any discussion with you on the matter of electrical current as we have already covered this topic between ourselves ad nauseum and you still fail to accept the empirical proof of decades of millions of CRT operations the world over which work ONLY by electron current flow and cannot be ascribed to any other possible cause.

Therefore, "happily abstain" from posting in this thread and I will no longer use the OPEN SOURCE term "Zipon" and will henceforth use my own term ZipNOT.

Golly. A 'zipNOT'. That could do untold damaged to my decade or so of hard work on the thesis. I do hope you're joking.

You wrote the following.

The classical approach to current flow recognizes that charge motion is predominately that of electric charge. The aspect of this thesis that is considered appropriate to this submission relates to current flow. It proposes that current flow comprises the motion of magnetic charge which, in turn comprises elementary magnetic dipolar particles. In classical terms, these particles would align with Faraday’s Lines of Force and therefore the number of lines that exist through a particular real or imaginary surface, would still be represented as magnetic flux while the particles themselves, in distribution along those lines, represent the magnetic field.
It is proposed that these fields are extraneous to the atomic structure of matter and are thought to play a critical part in binding atoms and molecules into gross identifiable matter. Further, the particles obey an immutable imperative to move towards a condition of balance or zero net magnetic charge. Given a source material with an ionized charge imbalance which is measured as a potential difference, and given a closed circuit electromagnetic material path, these particles will return to the source material with the necessary charge to neutralize that imbalance.
Typical electronic circuits provide such material paths through the circuit components of which they are made which includes all conductors. During the passage of current flow through such closed circuitry it is proposed that the charge imbalance is transferred to those circuit components. The individual imbalances in each component and each conductor then seek balance according to that immutable imperative. In typical electronic circuitry, each component that has been ‘charged’ by this transfer, will either neutralize the charge internally, or influence a secondary current flow in anti-phase or opposite polarity to the first cycle.
While this is substantially in line with classical assumption as it relates to the transfer of charge, the distinction is drawn that the energy that is then transferred to such electromagnetic components, is able to regenerate a secondary cycle of current flow in line with electromagnetic laws. This energy is then not limited to the quotient of stored energy delivered during the first cycle and as presumed by classical theory. Instead it is dependent on the circuit component’s material characteristics and the means by which those materials balance a charge put upon them. Therefore there is a real energy potential in the secondary cycle which would reflect in a measured improvement to the performance coefficient of the circuit arrangement. This enhanced performance coefficient may be at the expense of the bonding of the material in the circuit components. In a worst case condition, this energy may be released as is observed in an exploding wire that is put under extreme charge conditions due to excessive current flow. In a best case condition, the energy is released gradually over time and results in fatigue to those components. This paper addresses an application of the gradual release.

This is your writing and it is an impeccable account of the 'zipon' thesis as it relates to current flow and I have, both privately and publicly, commended you on both the level of comprehension and articulation. This is also written in the paper published in Scribd and it dominates the introduction to that paper. My alarm now is that you actually did not subscribe to this thinking? May I ask you then, with the utmost respect, why you ever endorsed it? Why then did you put your name to this thesis?

Then my ongoing concern is that you are now publicly stating that the electron current flow is acknowledged by mainstream. Wiki itself gives endless reference to the fact that electron flow is only a concept.

I entirely acknowledge that the zipon thesis may yet be modified - or even faulted. However, it is fundamentally erroneous to propose that electrons can be the 'carrier' of current flow. I am anxious only to alert our readers to this fact. I hope this does not harm or offend anyone. The truth is that there is no harm as such - to any conceptual model. If it works it can be used.

The downside, however, to this thinking is that it 'limits' the potential of energy exchange to unity. Those many experiments that are detailed in this and other forums prove that unity is breachable. Quite apart from the actual 'flaws' in the concepts related to electron current flow - it detracts from the obvious need to introduce a new particle. To access ZPE or aether fields, or dark energy - or anything at all outside of our tangible 'matter' - one needs to introduce a new and hitherto unknown material that does not - in any way - comply to 'known' models in order to account for those breaches. That is the reason that I am most anxious to continue to point out that - while my thesis my not be the explanation - that is yet to be determined - over unity results nevertheless, cannot be attributed to conventional flow of current based on any conventional material. Quite apart from the fact that it is not endorsed by mainstream - it is theoretically impossible for electrons to generate a 'field' that retains its coherence in a shared path. And such a 'flow of electrons' could NEVER give a result that breaches those elusive unity barriers.

[Harvey]

Witsend,

Please honor your agreement to "happily refrain" from posting here. Your attempts to bait an argument by posting the forgoing lies are being ignored.

I have not endorsed your thesis, nor will I. I did not author those words, I only corrected your work where it was very necessary to be understood. Those are your thoughts, not mine. Your statements are untrue.

Electrons are the primary charge carriers for Electric Current - proven, end of story. Accept it or not it doesn't matter to me, but your posts are not welcome here.

[witsend]

Witsend,

Please honor your agreement to "happily refrain" from posting here. Your attempts to bait an argument by posting the forgoing lies are being ignored.

I have not endorsed your thesis, nor will I. I did not author those words, I only corrected your work where it was very necessary to be understood. Those are your thoughts, not mine. Your statements are untrue.

Electrons are the primary charge carriers for Electric Current - proven, end of story. Accept it or not it doesn't matter to me, but your posts are not welcome here.

Harvey
I would happily swear to it in an affidavit if required - that the description of zipon current flow was entirely your authorship. Not one word of this is mine. It is, obviously, based on the thesis - but it is an impeccable rendition and shows an extraordinary grasp of some elusive thinking. I have nowhere 'lied'. My own contribution was based on the following which was included in the subsequent TIE submission.

INTRODUCTION
THE following tests were designed to evaluate a thesis that predicted anomalous heat signatures on an inductive resistor placed in series with a switching circuit. The thesis is developed from a non classical magnetic field model but a full description of this falls outside the scope of this submission. What is pertinent here is some overview of that thesis as it applies to current flow. The following paragraph is intended as a broad brushstroke description of this and is further clarified as described in the Appendix I.
The model proposes that charge has the property of mass with the material properties of velocities and thermal capacities associated with that mass. These particles do not conform to the standard model and remain hidden within three dimensional solid or liquid objects or amalgams. They are extraneous to the atom itself and only interact with the atomic energy levels that, in turn, comprise independent fields of the same fundamental particle. These extraneous fields are responsible for the bound condition of the amalgam. This interaction between the fields and the atoms’ energy levels results in a balanced distribution of charge throughout the amalgam. Measurable voltage reflects a transitional state of imbalance throughout these binding fields that, subject to circuit conditions, then move that charge through available conductive and inductive paths to reestablish a charge balance. In effect the circuit components that enable the flow of charge from a supply source are, themselves able to generate a flow of current depending on the strength of that applied potential difference and the material properties of the circuit components. Therefore both inductive and conductive circuit components have a potential to generate current flow in line with Inductive Laws.
Classical assumption requires an equivalence in the transfer of electric energy based as it is on the concept of a single supply source. Therefore voltage measured away from the supply on circuit components is seen to be stored energy delivered during closed circuit conditions of a switching cycle. The distinction is drawn that if indeed, the circuit components are themselves able to generate a current flow from potential gradients, then under open circuit conditions, that energy may be added to the sum of the energy on the circuit thereby exceeding the limit of energy available from the supply. Therefore if more energy is measured to be dissipated at a load than is delivered by the supply, then that evidence will be consistent with this thesis. The experimental evidence does indeed, conform to this prediction.


I detailed the logic. You detailed the current flow description. Both were included in that paper. You signed off on both. In fact you yourself submitted to the paper to TIE. I wonder therefore why you associated with this paper if you also knew - as you now claim - that the concept was fundamentally flawed? Until your posts in my thread and since initiating this thread, I had assumed that you endorsed the zipon current flow. You gave me to understood that you did. And with the utmost respect, I have asked you where is there any published paper that endorses the electron current flow theory. There may be such. But I have only found the contrary, starting with Pauli's exclusion principle. Please do not use CRT as an example of current flow as this is only a description of the CRT's.

I have undertaken not to post in this thread subject only to the omission of zipon references. I am rather concerned now that the entire thread is intended to discount the zipon thesis. Quite apart from which, I am anxious to advance the reality of unity breaches. Electron current flow would - at its least - proscribe this. Are you aware of this fact? And the reasons for this?

[witsend]

Everyone - I again apologise for introducing discord to these threads. I am not sure if it is 'called for' but suspect that it is not. Harvey and all readers here are entitled to develop any models you/he wish. It is quite frankly not my business. I will respect Harvey's wishes to desist from posting because the last thing I want to do is to introduce more contention where none was intended.

For the record, electron current flow is conceptually acceptable provided only that it is not endorsed as a complete model. And also for the record, none of the collaborators to the paper were obliged to 'endorse' the thesis. Their endorsement was not required. Only the thesis was required. My referece to Harvey's additions to the zipon current flow description was simply based on a sense of personal disappointment. He clearly understands the thesis. But his endorsement was only ever implicit.

I will therefore desist from posting here and trust that you enjoy the 'thinking' that relates to electron current flow. But please be aware that this is not endorsed by conventional thinking in mainstream physics. It is a fact, notwithstanding, that quantum electrodynamics is a rarely complete field of study and has taken us to heights as great as probes to mars and even beyond the range of our own galaxy. So who am I to comment? Its just that it needs another kind of current flow to get us to the stars. And that's the reach of aether consciousness - I hope.

[Harvey]

Original File Attached

Attached is the original Introduction Document provided to Donny and I by Rosemary Prior to any improvements. You can check the authorship of it because it is embedded in Microsoft Doc formats. This document is dated 10/27/09 and the content is 100% as it was received from Rosemary. I have only changed the name to keep the original in it's pristine state.

This is my first attempt at attaching a file to a post - I hope it works.

You will see that I am telling the truth in this case.

[witsend]

Attached is the original Introduction Document provided to Donny and I by Rosemary Prior to any improvements. You can check the authorship of it because it is embedded in Microsoft Doc formats. This document is dated 10/27/09 and the content is 100% as it was received from Rosemary. I have only changed the name to keep the original in it's pristine state.

This is my first attempt at attaching a file to a post - I hope it works.

You will see that I am telling the truth in this case.

I opened that file. Absolutely concur it's mine. But I'm not sure of your point. At question was whether or not you wrote that 'introduction' on current flow as per the zipon thesis. I think you claimed that I wrote it and that you corrected it. If you need to bring this subject up - your choice - I think what you then need to show us is my version and how you improved on this. What we're looking at here is the very first very broad 'opening' discussion for the paper.

Here's the pertinent aspects of the post that we're discussing.

Harvey
I would happily swear to it in an affidavit if required - that the description of zipon current flow was entirely your authorship. Not one word of this is mine. It is, obviously, based on the thesis - but it is an impeccable rendition and shows an extraordinary grasp of some elusive thinking. I have nowhere 'lied'. My own contribution was based on the following which was included in the subsequent TIE submission.

INTRODUCTION
THE following tests were designed to evaluate a thesis that predicted anomalous heat signatures on an inductive resistor placed in series with a switching circuit. The thesis is developed from a non classical magnetic field model but a full description of this falls outside the scope of this submission. What is pertinent here is some overview of that thesis as it applies to current flow. The following paragraph is intended as a broad brushstroke description of this and is further clarified as described in the Appendix I.
The model proposes that charge has the property of mass with the material properties of velocities and thermal capacities associated with that mass. These particles do not conform to the standard model and remain hidden within three dimensional solid or liquid objects or amalgams. They are extraneous to the atom itself and only interact with the atomic energy levels that, in turn, comprise independent fields of the same fundamental particle. These extraneous fields are responsible for the bound condition of the amalgam. This interaction between the fields and the atoms’ energy levels results in a balanced distribution of charge throughout the amalgam. Measurable voltage reflects a transitional state of imbalance throughout these binding fields that, subject to circuit conditions, then move that charge through available conductive and inductive paths to reestablish a charge balance. In effect the circuit components that enable the flow of charge from a supply source are, themselves able to generate a flow of current depending on the strength of that applied potential difference and the material properties of the circuit components. Therefore both inductive and conductive circuit components have a potential to generate current flow in line with Inductive Laws.
Classical assumption requires an equivalence in the transfer of electric energy based as it is on the concept of a single supply source. Therefore voltage measured away from the supply on circuit components is seen to be stored energy delivered during closed circuit conditions of a switching cycle. The distinction is drawn that if indeed, the circuit components are themselves able to generate a current flow from potential gradients, then under open circuit conditions, that energy may be added to the sum of the energy on the circuit thereby exceeding the limit of energy available from the supply. Therefore if more energy is measured to be dissipated at a load than is delivered by the supply, then that evidence will be consistent with this thesis. The experimental evidence does indeed, conform to this prediction.


I detailed the logic. You detailed the current flow description. Both were included in that paper. You signed off on both.

May I remind you - lest our readers think I'm petty - I rather congratulated you on putting into words my thesis on current flow. I don't think the question was whether or not I wrote it. I rather insisted that you wrote it.

[Schpankme]

May I remind you - lest our readers think I'm petty

Hey WITSEND, I'm not your reader, at the very least, I'm your victim.

DO YOU INTEND TO FOLLOW HARVEY TO EVERY POST (disturbing)?

DO YOU HAVE YOUR ON THREAD, WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO PUT FORTH YOUR ZIPON THEORY (go there)?

- Schpankme

"I just love low-time story tellers."

[MrMagAmp]

I wanted to reply this thread, but my account was not yet active and I cannot to post until now.

I think, electrical energy is pure potential. With pure potential I mean pure voltage. The spacetime continuous (the vacuum) is composed of a high energetic virtual state (massless) particles. The ether (spacetime, vacuum...) is composed of a ligther than hydrogen elements. For that reason the ether is a massless chemical compound. I think it's like a gas, like a nobel gas or gases. It's like... a chemical compound with Z < 1. So, for that reason it's massless or virtual, because it hasn't mass.

When the proper interaction is done with the spacetime, it gives order to that chaotic virtual energy and transforms it to observable state.

Then, we use it as electromagnetic energy or radiant energy. I think the amperage is the losses of the circuit in form of light and heat. While using radiant energy, the wire acts as a superconductor at room temperature.
Tesla said that the radiant energy is only possible before a reversal of current can appear. So, the radiant effect is a Transient phenomena.

If you switch off before any reversal of current, then you can get more easy the radiant energy. But that time is very very short, so the energy must be pulsed at high frequencies and for very short periods of time.

The entire universe is composed of radiant energy (potential waves).
So, in my opinion (Maybe I'm wrong). The energy is any fluctuation of the spacetime. In those fluctuations, there is a Negative Entropy process (ordering process) in mathematical and geometrical form. Then, depending of the nature of that interaction (the geometrical and mathematical order), we see differents energies in the physical observable state.

As you know, this is the conclusion I got after reading some books.
And I repeat, it's only my version and I can be wrong.
Cheers

[Harvey]

MrMagAmp,

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I find nothing wrong with your conclusions except for that regarding Amperage. We have good evidence to show that Amperage can be measured in systems that incur little or no losses. The definition of Amperage relates to the quantity of charge moving past a measurement point in a given period of time. Therefore, it can be anything that has an electrical charge.

For example, if I have one million Van de Graff capacitors (that is the sphere on the top, the capacitor) all charged to an electric potential of X and they are all in a line on a conveyor belt moving at a speed of Y from point A to point B, then it can be said that X electric current is flowing from A to B in Y time and it really is - especially if the charging is done at A and the discharging is done at B.

Another example, 1 million dead batteries are charged up in Los Angeles and transported to New York and is routed through Kansas City. Again, the fact that electrical charge is moved from one place to another we can say that electric current flowed from LA to NY and was measured as it passed Kansas City.

These examples are very extreme to illustrate the point that it does not matter what holds the electric charge or what the conductor (if any) of that charge is, all that matters is that the charge has moved spatially, and that is electric current.

In our world, electrons are the primary charge carriers but we could measure current flow with positrons just as easily, if we could keep them around long enough and had a good path for them to follow. And that is what this site states:

https://www.llnl.gov/str/Howell.html

. . .Both the moderated positrons and positrons directly emitted from the source are captured and accelerated. They produce a beam with a current of 850,000 positrons per second. . . .

(bold mine)

I think all scientists must agree that energy as we use it today is simply an imbalance within a force. Choose any of the forces you wish, create an imbalance within it and you will have potential energy ready to be applied to do work. This is because all energy seeks equilibrium.

This is precisely what a lead acid battery does. The chemical reaction in the battery creates a depletion of electrons on one set of plates and an excess of electrons on the other. This sets up the electrical imbalance that can be put to work. As the battery is . . . um . . . Earthquake rolling here . . . . Ok, it's over, 6.9 in Baja - As the battery is depleted, the acid is neutralized. In order to put the energy back, the process is reversed and the base is reverted back to an acid. There are some losses however, some of the protons in the acid will join with electrons and make hydrogen. There are 22,000 injuries reported annually due to hydrogen ignition battery explosions. So, it would seem there is some extra energy in there besides just the electron / ion displacements .

[sucahyo]

This thread is about what is electron or what create electricity ?

what is heavy ion?

[Harvey]

This thread is about what is electron or what create electricity ?

what is heavy ion?

Hi Sucahyo,

I saw your PHP for the Battery Reaction - that looked like a good table, sorry it didn't format correctly.

This thread is about Electric Current and has been established to expound the reality that while the majority of Electric Current in use today is from Electron Motion, Electric Current is not confined to only electron motion but can consist of any charge carrier in motion through any medium. Electrons are only one of the many electric charge carriers known to science.

While this knowledge is over a century and a half old it is a fundamental foundation of Electronics, Chemistry and Biology and all aspects of science related to electric charges. When we appreciate that we are not confined to the electron alone for electric current a variety of possibilities open up for energy extraction and conversion into usable electricity.