Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84249
  • *Latest: not2late

  • *Total Posts: 898026
  • *Total Topics: 15837
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 15
  • *Total: 17

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 271528 times)

Offline Bubba1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
I don't get your point.  Why can't the electrons be flowing through the battery like they flow through a light bulb filament?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
I don't get your point.  Why can't the electrons be flowing through the battery like they flow through a light bulb filament?

Hi again.  Simply because if the battery mix were assailed with a supply of electrons it would interfere with the electrolytic process which is required to exactly account for ALL the transactions associated with that process.

The concept of electron current flow is partially supported with the the AC supply source as there's the general impression given that what comes out then goes back. 

The only reasonable explanation for electron current flow is the displacement of valence electrons in the outer energy levels of atoms.  This is indeed feasible and acceptable.  However, the rate of that displacement is so slow that one would have to wait between 10 minutes to an hour for the current to then reach the lights dispersed around the average household.  Effectively you switch on.  Then wait.  And over a long period of time you will see the one light turn on and then the other and then the other - as the current reaches those lights.

It is theoretically flawed to assume electron current flow.  It is merely a 'convention' or 'concept' used by electrical engineers and very efficiently used, I might add.  Quantum electromagnetic dynamics is the most efficient and progressive of all branches of physics.  Yet it is profoundly and fundamentally flawed where it is based on the concept of electron current flow.

I, today, had a conversation with academic engineers and there is - in fact - a consensus that the use of the 'electron' current flow is a convention rather than a correct interpretation of the fact.  But it's the first time I've had this admission.

Purists among theoretical physicists refer to 'charge' as they are well aware of the impossibility of electrons forming the basis of current flow. Electrons are negatively charged.  They can no more share a path than can two north poles of a permanent magnet share a path.  The Laws of Charge require two like charged particles to move away from each other at an angle of 180 degrees.  How then can two like charged electrons move together?

Offline fritznien

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
lets see electrons in a vacuum tube, cathod ray tube, X-ray tube......
electricity is the flow of electric charge, electrons protons or ions.
in a wire its electrons in a batterry its ions.
to discharge a batterry undergoes chemical reactions that move positive ions to one electrode and negative to the other.
to charge a voltage is applied which moves charge in the opposite direction and reverses the process.
all this is only 200 years old.
google it electrons have been measured for charge mass and size for many decades.
fritznien

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
lets see electrons in a vacuum tube, cathod ray tube, X-ray tube......
Hello  fritznien.  Electrons can indeed be dispersed as you mention here.  But this has nothing to do with the flow of current.  We're talking the actual transfer of energy through a circuit for purposes of work at a load.

electricity is the flow of electric charge, electrons protons or ions. in a wire its electrons in a batterry its ions.
to discharge a batterry undergoes chemical reactions that move positive ions to one electrode and negative to the other.
If you could generate current flow with protons then you will indeed have performed a miracle.  You would need to strip your inductive atoms down to a level that has not be managed under any process devised thus far.  No-one, not even those more adventurous electrical engineers has ever proposed that ions can be the material of current flow.  And electrons simply cannot share a path - not under any circumstances at all.  They can be energised to disperse and that dispersion has uses.  But they simply cannot 'share' any path, anywhere at all in the sense that current flow requires this.  Current flow effectively implies the transfer of a 'field'.  Electrons cannot generate the smoothness required by a field. 

to charge a voltage is applied which moves charge in the opposite direction and reverses the process.
all this is only 200 years old.
Not even.  Farraday was only born in 1860's or thereby.  But the age of the science is certainly not proof of the science.  But you are certainly correct in referring to the current flow as a flow of charge.  I don't think anyone can argue that.

google it electrons have been measured for charge mass and size for many decades.

Again.  Not sure what argument you are using here fritznien.  The actual mass and charge of the electron is precisely what precludes it from being a canditate to generate a 'field' effect. 

Regards,
Rosemary
EDITED

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Rosemary, I guess this is at the basis of your misunderstanding:

Quote
No-one, not even those more adventurous electrical engineers has ever proposed that ions can be the cause of current flow.

On the contrary. It is exactly the formation of the ions due to the negative value of the change in Gibbs free energy of the chemical reaction leading to the formation of these ions that is the very cause for the follow-up directed flow of electrons along the solid conductors connecting the anode and the cathode. While in a redox reaction taking place in the bulk of a vessel the direction of the electron flow is random, the separation of the anodic from the cathodic compartment in an electrolytic cell causes the electrons to flow in concert in a given direction which is exactly what electric current is. That's the basis of electrochemistry. I don't know what these electrical engineers are that you're talking to but that's basic stuff well recognized by anyone versed in the subject.

Also, as I said before, it is not true that:

Quote
And electrons simply cannot share a path - not under any circumstances at all.

They in fact can. There's no theoretical reason preventing them from flowing in concert and that can very easily be demonstrated experimentally. Electrons can and do share a path, despite being of the same charge, as do the like-charged cations on the one hand and the anions on the other in an electrolytic cell.

Many of us here are quite open minded, some even to the extreme, but there are limits especially when the question concerns well established experimental facts.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Rosemary, I guess this is at the basis of your misunderstanding:

On the contrary. It is exactly the formation of the ions due to the negative value of the change in Gibbs free energy of the chemical reaction leading to the formation of these ions that is the very cause for the follow-up directed flow of electrons along the solid conductors connecting the anode and the cathode.
LOL Omnibus - you were too quick.  I modified my post within 10 minutes of posting to address this very point and you posted your reply about an hour after that.  Check it out.  I changed the wording from 'cause' to the 'material of'.  So indeed you are right and indeed I know this.   ;D

Also, as I said before, it is not true that:

They in fact can. There's no theoretical reason preventing them from flowing in concert and that can very easily be demonstrated experimentally. Electrons can and do share a path, despite being of the same charge, as do the like-charged cations on the one hand and the anions on the other in an electrolytic cell.
The little electrolysis that I understand is courtesy the explanations offered by Farrah.  And unless I'm doing her teaching a gross injustice - I understand that the cation and anion separation is into atomic and/or molecular structures that 'divide' the burden of charge equally into localised areas of the cell mix - wherever that locality is required.  Therefore, in a lead/acid battery example, one gets the lead surfaces sulphated, for instance as the liquid itself turns into pure water.   After all - the negative current flow - during the recharge of the battery - does not result in a redistribution of those sulphates.  It actually just recongregates the previous sulphuric mix.  So.  There is no proof of electron current flow here - only of 'charged' current flow.  I'm still being obtuse.  What I'm trying to point to is that the number of electrons in that mix is 'fixed' and relates to the cation and anion state of the atoms and molecules.  No surplus is ever evident.  For your concept of current flow to be valid would REQUIRE the introduction of a stream of electrons - thereby representing a surplus to the mix - which would then move through that cell - somehow - to come out the other side.  When there is ever experimental evidence of this then, indeed, I will be happy to be convinced. 

Many of us here are quite open minded, some even to the extreme, but there are limits especially when the question concerns well established experimental facts.

 ;D  Omnibut - far be it from me to disturb the thinking of you chemists.  The fact is that those of you who are 'open minded' are asking us who also 'open minded' to buy into two mutually exclusive definitions of current flow as per WIKI when both rely on the flow of electrons.  Electrons would unequivocally first need to defy the Laws of Charge to shape themselves into a field - and they would need to be remarkably versatile to introduce both a positive and a negative property into any element in a circuit to manage all that you assume.  The electrons in an atom are indeed a measure of the atomic charge which is reflected in the condition of those valence electrons.  The fact is that Pauli's exclusion principle relies on the fact that particles obey the laws of charge.  His conclusion being that no two elctrons can share the same path in an atom.  This observation was the genius insight that resulted in the systematic unfolding of the atom.  Particles unequivocally obey the Laws of Charge.  Why do you all suppose that - under circumstances of current flow - they suddenly get a mind of their own and then move in a way that it entirely impossible under all circumstances?  Those Laws of Charge - they're not a 'rule' - they're a LAW. 

This argument is not an eccentric philosophy as you here imply.  It is a deeply held conviction on the part of all theoretical purists.  The problem is that there is nothing 'known' or 'accepted' to substitute the concept of a flow of electrons.  Hopefully when this is uncovered then the broad 'misconception' of electron current flow can be put right.

 ;D
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Omnibus - if my argument is still not clear - let me try this.  Let us say that for the electrolytic process in a battery to be initiated it first requires the accumulation of electrons at one terminal of the battery.  This way one can keep to the concept of a 'fixed number' of electrons.  So.  They charge through the circuit from one terminal to the other.  Then a switching process comes into play and the current flow is reversed.  Then those same electrons charge through the wire in the opposite direction and do what?  Do they then undo what they previously did?  Do they restructure the electrolytic mix back to its original state?  And if so, then how do they do this?  Surely - under such circumstances they would simply continue their work and sulphate more of the lead while they neutralised more of the liquid?  They presumably are still negatively charged?  They cannot now introduce a positive charge.  They're negative particles.  How do they now undo what you have assumed that they first did. 

One can then get obscurely technical and say that when they accumulate at one or other surface of the terminal then the other is postively charged by comparision.  But that would first require that all are either at one or other terminal.  The entire concept of current flow is that it is a continuous stream through that circuit material.  If electrons are streaming through and as electrons are negatively charged then both terminals would need to be negatively charged.  I can see it argued that eventually the charge distribution may be more apparent as the plates become sulphated.  But that positive and negative condition is actually only apparent through our voltmeters when the process is initiated.  At it's conclusion the voltmeter shows little if any voltage imbalance.

Or presumably one can say that charge is determined by the direction of movement - which is correct.  But that would attribute a variable charge to an electron - assuming first that it indeed can flow in a path.  Because, what is also known is that current flow can vary it's directional flow depending on voltage potential.  It seems to possess the properties of both a negative and positive charge.  Electrons do not have this advantage.  The only thing that is known to be bipolar is a magnetic field and that's it.  All else is charged or neutral.   

Again, with utmost repect to your own thinking.  I must admit you're in very good company.  I've said it often.  Purists may argue electron current flow  - but never very loudly.  There are no accepted alternative concepts - as yet.

Best regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Rsemary,

Quote
For your concept of current flow to be valid would REQUIRE the introduction of a stream of electrons - thereby representing a surplus to the mix - which would then move through that cell - somehow - to come out the other side.  When there is ever experimental evidence of this then, indeed, I will be happy to be convinced.


In fact, this is exactly what happens in an electrolytic cell. There is surplus of electrons and that surplus is contained in the electrode which has the tendency to produce the electrons. There are ample sources in the net explaining how this happens. For instance, in a Cu-Zn galvanic cell the Zn electrode is the supplier of the electrons due to the reaction Zn - 2e -> Zn2+ The Zn electrode will be the source of these electeons flowing through the wire shorting the anode and cathode until its (of the Zn) complete diappearance. So, yes, there is a surplus of electrons in an electrolytic cell if you want to call this way the supply of the electrons and that's the very essence of what an electrolytic cell is. That surplus of electrons is contained in the Zn piece and it only waits to be connected in a proper system so that is can be delivered. The delivery will continue until the full disappearance of the Zn piece.

Once you understand the above which is an experimental fact also, there will be no need to imagine that electrons cannot chare the same path because they, as experiment shows, actually do. Let alone that the Pauli exclusion principle, the basis of a speculation they don't, does not pertain to electrons that aren't bound as is the case at hand. Not to say that the electrons in a galvanic cell do obey the law of charge because all the generated electrons originating from the Zn electrode in our example do end up converting the equivalent amount of Cu2+ ions at the cathode into Cu. All of them. Charge balance is obeyed in full and it is indeed eccentric to deny it.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Rsemary,
 
In fact, this is exactly what happens in an electrolytic cell. There is surplus of electrons and that surplus is contained in the electrode which has the tendency to produce the electrons.
  Omnibus.  From WHERE does the electrode produce electrons? This 'tendancy' as you put it...how do you explain this?  Are you talking about the electrons within the anode itself? Those electrons that belong to the material of the anode or the cathode?  Or are you talking about electrons that have been moved there as a function of the electrolytic process from within the electrolytic mix of the cell?

If the former then there are no 'free electrons' in that material.  They only belong to the atoms and molecules of either the anode or the cathode.  No free electrons there that I know you're all looking for.  If the latter - then those electrons belonging to the cell go nowhere other than in the reconstitution of the electrolytic mix.  So far there are NO extra electrons.

There are ample sources in the net explaining how this happens. For instance, in a Cu-Zn galvanic cell the Zn electrode is the supplier of the electrons due to the reaction Zn - 2e -> Zn2+ The Zn electrode will be the source of these electrons flowing through the wire shorting the anode and cathode until its (of the Zn) complete diappearance.
I'm well aware that the zinc will be oxidised as a direct transfer of its electron to the copper.  But that says nothing about current flow.  It only explains the electrolytic process.  But current can be generated without any chemical process.  It can be generated from a motor where there is NO EVIDENCE of change in the material either of circuit components nor the material of the motor generating that current.  NO galvanic - voltaic involvement - anywhere.  Where then do those 'electrons' come from if electric current flow is the flow of electrons?  And in the simple copper/zinc example that you gave - you show NO extra electrons.  The zinc sheds its electron - the copper gains it.  Both occur within the battery cell through the salt bridge.  How does that constitute electron current flow?  Now.  Reverse the current flow through that battery.  What happens now?  Do those electrons suddenly become positive that they reverse that process so that the copper then loses its electron back to the zinc?

On the question of recharging a battery.  We KNOW that the battery can be recharged.  We KNOW that this can be done by hooking the battery to a utility supply source.  The assumption you reference is that the supply source is delivering electrons - God alone knows where they would come from. But - if so, if there's this unknown source of 'free floating' electrons - then we also KNOW that the supply source has a battery hooked up in series that current MUST be routed through that recharging battery.  NOW. How does it go from anode back to the cathode?  Through the battery?  That's NEVER been experimentally evident - never been verified.

So, yes, there is a surplus of electrons in an electrolytic cell if you want to call this way the supply of the electrons and that's the very essence of what an electrolytic cell is. That surplus of electrons is contained in the Zn piece and it only waits to be connected in a proper system so that is can be delivered. The delivery will continue until the full disappearance of the Zn piece. 
I am NOT arguing extra electrons.  My advise is that there are NO FREE FLOATING ELECTRONS.  If there were we would be very aware of them. 

Once you understand the above which is an experimental fact
If any of your claims were experimentally verifiable I would not have an argument.  I have spent many years trying to find evidence of this 'electron' current flow.  It is neither logically nor experimentally evident.  Yes they can be transferred from one atom to another, from one molecule to another.  But they CANNOT become a field.  The CANNOT flow as current.

also, there will be no need to imagine that electrons cannot chare the same path because they, as experiment shows, actually do.
  Where do they share the same path?  Are you talking about the fact that there's a consistency in their drift as they reconstitute in a mix?  That is NOT an electric current path.  That is a chemical or an electrolytic process. 

Let alone that the Pauli exclusion principle, the basis of a speculation they don't, does not pertain to electrons that aren't bound as is the case at hand. Not to say that the electrons in a galvanic cell do obey the law of charge because all the generated electrons originating from the Zn electrode in our example do end up converting the equivalent amount of Cu2+ ions at the cathode into Cu. All of them. Charge balance is obeyed in full and it is indeed eccentric to deny it.
I agree.  Finally.  Charge balance is obeyed in full as it's based on the laws of charge.  But you are not arguing electron current flow here.  It would indeed be eccentric to deny the validity of chemical experiments that can prove the reconstitution of a mix from an acid or alkaline base to a neutral condition of charge.  What I'm arguing here is that current flow has NOTHING to do with the flow of electrons - free floating or otherwise.  They simply CANNOT share a path.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Rosemary, I don't know what that mix you're referring to is. The turning of Zn into Zn2+ and 2e-, however, is undeniable. That's the first thing you have to understand. Second, it is undeniable that the thus produced electrons share the same path along the solid conductor connecting the Zn with the Cu. This can be measured, it is demonstrable.

The mentioned flow of e- along the common path is driven by a potential difference. It is immaterial how you create this potential difference as long as the electrons sense it forcing them to share the undeniable, experimentally observable, common path. It can be due, as I said, to the natural chemical tendency, expressed by the negative change of the Gibbs free energy (a natural property) or it can be due to some other source of energy (say, spending energy when turning the crank of a dynamo). In any event, electrons are available and one only needs to spend energy in order to force them along an observable common path. Simple as that.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Rosemary, if you're interested in my opinion the only thing worth pursuing in your project is the experiment because the ruminations about the nature of electric current are obviously untenable. Insisting on such view may harm an otherwise probably very promising pursuit.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline spinn_MP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Hi, Rosemary!
Either bozons, zipons,  or fuckons.... OOops, sorry.
Why don't you read at least a basic books about "whatever" you're preaching here?
Is this charade really necessary?
Of course, Stefan made you an Admin (lol)...  Why do you insist to spread all this nonsence of yours, without any kind of a proof?

BTW, why did you abandoned the knitting?

Offline Bubba1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Just for the record:  Michael Faraday  22 September 1791 – 25 August 1867

Offline fritznien

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
"a battery is a collection of multiple electrochemical cells, but in popular usage battery often refers to a single cell.[1] The first electrochemical cell was developed by by the Italian physicist Alessandro Volta in 1792,"
i stand corrected 218 years
 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(electricity)

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
That's NEVER been experimentally evident - never been verified.
I am NOT arguing extra electrons.  My advise is that there are NO FREE FLOATING ELECTRONS.  If there were we would be very aware of them. 
If any of your claims were experimentally verifiable I would not have an argument.  I have spent many years trying to find evidence of this 'electron' current flow.  It is neither logically nor experimentally evident.  Yes they can be transferred from one atom to another, from one molecule to another.  But they CANNOT become a field.  The CANNOT flow as current.

First of all, electrons share shell paths in atoms, so there is an example of sharing a path.  Second, why can't they flow as current?  Since electrons do not want to be near other electrons, they can push each other forward?

Furthermore, there has been a ton of science about this.  Think about microelectronics, like the microprocessor. These are designed to conduct the flow of electrons through many very tiny paths, and with as much science and progress as has been done here, and as complex as microelectronics are, do you really think microchip manufacturers got it wrong, and their devices work for reasons completely unknown to them?

Lastly, if electricity is not the flow of electrons, what is it?

 

OneLink