You're right Jesus.  I waste way too much time on this subject probably.  But it scares me that this work will all just eventually get buried. I'll write this out to better explain things - in due course.  Right now I'm still smarting. 

It's not a question of forgiving.  It's the rank connning of the general public that gets me.  If their readers knew one half of what goes on behind the scenes there they'd be rather surprised.  And that sanctimous facade!  That needs to be shown for what it is.  Both by the forum administrators and by both Glen and Harvey.  But I get it that our members and readers are actually not that easily fooled.  Certainly I'm beginning to see a 'sea change' here and there in the attitudes of their posters.  EDIT.  The downside here is that they're then banned and no reference to their banning.  Very strange.  It's the ultimate censorship.  Say what we want to hear and NOTHING else - else we won't let you post.  LOL.  If they made an open admission to banning me or - indeed - anyone - then that would be some kind of guide.   

Kindest regards
Rosemary

Hello Omnibus.  Rather intimidated by such a veteran poster.  Crowding 4000 posts.  That's hefty. 

Forgive me for the strong words (I mean no offense) but this is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of electric current and that's very easy to demonstrate. You only need to consider, say, copper deposition from CuSO4 solution to find out your understanding is incorrect. You can carry out an experiment and you will inevitably determine (provided you do the experiment correctly) that Faraday's first law of electrolysis holds without a doubt. You will always have one mole of Cu deposited by passing of two moles of electrons. That's a law of Nature, written in stone, testable anytime and anywhere.

I'm not sure that electrolysis has anything at all to do with this argument.  Take your average motorised generator and - with absolutely NO chemical interactions one can generate the flow of current. 

Notice, the above proof that electricity is due to flow of electrons is an experimental fact and has nothing to do with Pauli's exclusion principle.

I suggest - with the utmost respect, that you have only proved that electrolysis results in a variation of molecular and atomic arrangement in a chemical mix.  Therefore, indeed it has nothing to do with Pauli's exclusion principle. 

If it had anything to do with that Principle then the principle in question (not the experiment) would be overthrown.

Not sure what you mean by this.  Pauli's exclusion principle determines that NO TWO ELECTRONS CAN SHARE THE SAME ORBIT.  It refers to the atomic arrangement of electrons in their different energy levels.  It was one of those miraculous insights that eventually enabled the unfolding of the periodic table.  But the principle holds true.  Electrons have a 'like charge' and they are therefore inherently repulsive.

The experiment above, however, like I said, has nothing to do with the Pauli's exclusion principle because that principle is only applicable for bound electrons, that is, electrons in an atom. The electrons flowing in a conductor are not bound electrons and current is certainly due to flow of these electrons.

I'd be happier with this assertion if you could also prove this.  There are two classical explanations for current flow - as determined by WIKI which are mutually exclusive.  I've referenced them both. If it's the 'domino effect' of transfer - then it would take about 10 minutes for the average current to reach your average light bulb to light it.  That's assuming a distance of about 1 meter between the plug source and the light itself.  If it were the result of 'free electrons' extrapolated from the 'air' around the circuit - then there's a problem of ingress and egress through the wire's insulation.  And if it were the transfer of electrons from the source - then there are not enough electrons from your average generator to fire up all the appliances in your average household from your average supply grid.  Just statistically impossible.  It is simply impossible.  Which is why the purist will only refer to current as the flow of charge.  Definitely avoids reference to electrons.

I should mention also, that there had been extensive legitimate attempts to reduce the electromagnetic field to just one type of phenomenon -- electric. That's the attempt by Weber as opposed to Maxwell. To put it simply, Weber denied the existence of magnetism altogether and attributed all the electromagnetic phenomena solely to electricity. There may be something rational in Weber's theory but I don't think we should get into that esoteric fine print at this point.

I'm aware of this development especially as it relates to EU theories.  But THAT is definitely unproven.

Much more important is to see as to whether or not there really is a basis to claim experimental evidence for OU. Never mind scaling it up. Never mind its practical application. This will come later and it's inevitable once the reality of OU is established.

Again, with the utmost respect, may I impose on you to read the link hereunder and advise me where you still require that OU still needs to be established?  I rather suggest that we'll need establish our own time lines here for the practical applications of this technology - lest we be held up for any time at all while you familiarise yourself with these results. 

You probably would like to know what my answer to that is. I do think I have definitive proof that there is OU in electrical systems and that OU is inherent in these phenomena under certain circumstances. This can be proved purely theoretically and has been missed so far. As for the experiments, I've determined that the accuracy of determination of the current-voltage phase shift is of dramatic importance and it is very likely that some of the OU seen experimentally is only seeming, due to subtle errors in measuring the said phase shift. That notwithstanding, I reconfirm that OU is inherent in the electric phenomena under certain circumstances and that can be determined also experimentally provided one uses not only high-end (14 bit) scopes but also the current and especially voltage probes are of high-end quality.

Again - while I'm delighted to see you intend to verify this - we are. nonetheless, satisfied with our own verification - again with the utmost respect.   Our proof is based on the accurate measure of energy delivered by a battery compared to the amount of energy dissipated at the load.  The dissipated energy far exceeds the energy delivered.  And indeed there's a theoretical reason for this.  It's explained in my own magnetic field model and is required.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33988924/DARK-MATTER-MFM

Regarding the experimental proof, I see you're insisting you have such but my experience shows that experiments with even the high end Tektronix 7000 scopes and up may still not be enough to guarantee that what is being measured is the true voltage and current through the studied circuit even with a simple sine wave let alone a complex wave form. Thus, purely experimental evidence isn't enough at this stage. No one would believe it, the least the honest critics would. You probably know of the superb replication of eOrbo of Steorn by @Omega_0. He is the first to have replicated Steorn's claims. Unfortunately both in his results and in the results of the originators from Steorn the tricky question of accurately measuring the I-V phase shift may be the culprit and that's very difficult to sort out even with the best equipment there is nowadays. I'm, of course, talking about purely electrical measurements which should be sufficient to resolve the problem if done right. Calorimetry brings in incredible additional mess and should be avoided altogether. So, something additional is needed, alongside the electrical measurements but calorimetry isn't it. What one can do is analyze the situation purely theoretically, based on the nature of the phenomena, and demonstrate that OU is inherent in the very essence of these phenomena under certain circu7mstances. Those who have followed the Steorn thread know my argument to that effect.

Regarding the experimental proof, I see you're insisting you have such but my experience shows that experiments with even the high end Tektronix 7000 scopes and up may still not be enough to guarantee that what is being measured is the true voltage and current through the studied circuit even with a simple sine wave let alone a complex wave form. Thus, purely experimental evidence isn't enough at this stage.

Golly Omnibus.  Experimental evidence NOT ENOUGH?  Then what?  You're now arguing that experimental evidence is irrelevant.  I have NO argument against that - any more than Sir Walter Raleigh would have been able to argue with the flat earthers.  This is getting absurd - with respect.

No one would believe it, the least the honest critics would. You probably know of the superb replication of eOrbo of Steorn by @Omega_0. He is the first to have replicated Steorn's claims. Unfortunately both in his results and in the results of the originators from Steorn the tricky question of accurately measuring the I-V phase shift may be the culprit and that's very difficult to sort out even with the best equipment there is nowadays.

I have never presumed to comment on the Steorn devices.  All I can comment on is my own experiments.  We measure a heat dissipation that is up to 17 times greater than the energy delivered by the battery.  The results are conclusive.

I'm, of course, talking about purely electrical measurements which should be sufficient to resolve the problem if done right. Calorimetry brings in incredible additional mess and should be avoided altogether.

Actually this is lapsing into a bit of nonsense - with respect.  Calorimetric measurements are absolutely UNARGUABLE.  And our protocol was determined by academics with a far more strongly vested interest in disproving these results than your own.  And possibly a little more authority.

So, something additional is needed, alongside the electrical measurements but calorimetry isn't it. What one can do is analyze the situation purely theoretically, based on the nature of the phenomena, and demonstrate that OU is inherent in the very essence of these phenomena under certain circumstances. Those who have followed the Steorn thread know my argument to that effect.

I absolutely agree.  It is a result that calls for a re-evaluation of the properties of current flow.  This argument is definitely getting circular.  Like I say, Omnibus - I would recommend that you read our experimental evidence - or that you read my thesis - or you provide some explanation for these results that are somehow justified as the flow of electrons.  I'd be happy with any of these options.

Regards,
Rosemary

Hi Omnibus,

I absolutely agree with you.  Current flow is best described as the 'flow of charge'.  In fact those purists among our mainstream theorists actually do use this term.  My own grounding in physics was based on the writing of Dyson and Zukov - and they neither of them mentioned the flow of electrons as the cause.  So, two years down the line and already knee deep in experiments it came as a shock to see that anyone at all thought of current flow in terms of the flow of electrons. Then the second suprise was that electrical engineers rather relied on this concept.  Since my experiments were really designed to prove the thesis - then I was hoping to speak to theoretical physicists.  So I never really addressed this concern with our engineering fraternity.  There was quite enough contention in claiming the numbers that we were claiming without also confronting them with an explanation.  That is, until I came to these forums.     Again.  Anyone who holds to the flow of electrons as a cause is in REALLY good company.  Those of us who confront this are in a really small minority.  Fortunately that number is rising.  People, regardless of their training, are thankfully, very much open to logical argument and evidence.

You ask how I explain that 'charge' is not the same thing?  You're right - again.  Charge specifically speaks to some polar property.  But if one proposes a 'bipolar' charged particle - as opposed to a neutral particle - then it would enable the 'shared path' as it would not defy Pauli's exclusion principle.  My own proposal is that we are dealing here with a magnetic dipole that 'binds' amalgams.  This broad definition of the term 'amalgams' includes liquid amalgams. In other words the atoms themselves have a field of magnetic dipoles that are extraneous to the atom and that that binds them together.   But the 'field' is proposed to be extraneous to the atoms that they bind.  The 'holding together' of those amalgams is then easily determined based on the valence condition of those atoms in the amalgam.  Effectively the field can spin to the left or to the right - north or south - on or off - whatever is required to 'balance' that amalgam.  And where they can't find a preferred balance, such as in a strong acid or alkaline mix, then they remain 'restive' or 'energetic' until they can find some medium - some circuit path - to forge a 'realignment' of the atoms.  Then they move to reach that preferred 'balance'.  In the process of electrolysis - I'm proposing that the re-arrangement of those molecules and atoms are determined by these fields that move the atom.  And in an electric circuit - I'm proposing that these same fields literally detatch from the atomic structure - congregate at the terminals - and, at a critical density - they then forge through the circuit material to re-enter the amalgam with an alternate spin or charge - or bias.  That way they can re-establish the required balance.  And that way they also adjust the electrolytic mix to a condition of neutrality.  In effect, current flow may then be seen as the flow of charge and this current flow is then accessed in ALL material.  But electric current flow through standard circuitry relies on the mass or the material from inductive circuit components.  In other words the mass of the resistor comes into the equation as does the mass from the battery or any supply source.

To introduce the concept of these fields is also perhaps justified as an explanation of the Casimir effect.  Here it is known that on a really small scale - material is able to bond.  If these fields simply conjoin atoms then they would - indeed - promote that bonding.

You see.  The explanation is actually not that bizaar.  Our theoreticians are looking for a 'dark' or 'invisible' particle to explain certain anomalies that are apparent related to gravity.  Such a field of 'binding' particles would indeed be 'invisible' provided only that they exceeded light speed and provided that they were smaller than known tachyons.  And we know that in the process of 'current flow' the only thing that is 'stressed' is the bound condition of resistive loads.  They tend to degrade.  So.  The proposal is that they degrade to the extent that these fields are able to move through space thereby compromising that bound condition.  Our filaments break.  Our resistive loads get hot.  And so on. 

That may help in understanding the proposals of the thesis.  I do hope so.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Hi Rosemary,

I still don't get it. What does a picture, right or wrong, as to what electric current is have anything to do with experiments supposedly showing energy disbalance? The problems regarding the reality of the experimental results are of different character than the problems to examine the nature of electric current. In the experiments we measure the values of the current independent of what we think its nature is as we do in measuring voltage. These measurements allow us to judge for the energy spent as well as the energy obtained and the only problem we have is whether or not the values we get are indeed the true values of these parameters for the system at hand. If correct, these measurements leading to finding out what the energy balance is will be unaffected by our ruminations on the nature of current even if these ruminations are wrong.These are two separate sets of activities and I don't see why you seem to think they are interdependent.

Omnibus,  What this entire thread topic is about - whether the thesis or its application - is the simple fact that there is an apparent anomaly in the measurements indicated, precisely because more energy is dissipated than delivered.  The simple art of measuring energy is of very little interest outside it's context of efficiency related to any particular application.  And when there's an equivalence between what is delivered and dissipated, then it simply falls within classical prediction.  If there is an overunity result - one needs an explanation.  We do indeed measure over unity.  I'm going to some lengths to explain that this is NOT an anomaly.  But there is very little point in devoting a thread to the methods and protocols associated with that measurement when it's already been exhaustively referenced in our paper and widely applied in all standard measurement protocols.  What is not so widely understood is that thinking that required for what you euphemistically term energy 'imbalance'.  I see a need to explain this.  You are under no obligation to read that explanation. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Now, again, I still don't understand why do you need experiments in overunity in order to promote your idea of what the nature of current is. One may consider your idea of current in conductors such as copper as being controversial enough to be supplemented by another controversial idea such as the claim for OU. It seems you can choose some well accepted system where current flows and work out your thesis there. Why do you need OU at all for sustaining your thesis?