Kicks explained

[sparks]

   The pulse energy does not have to navigate the atomic lattice.  The MOLECULAR structuring of the conductor allows for overlap of the valence orbitals with the conduction band.  This overlap creates an electron cloud.  The pulse potential can travel through this cloud much faster than if it had to travel from atom to atom.  This electron cloud may have some sticky electron pairing due to magnetic dipole moment relations,  Snowflakes.   I believe that the electrons in this conduction band are influenced by the ambient magnetic field.  Their lack of an electric dipole moment causes them to align their magnetic dipole moment with the ambient magnetic field.  When a voltage gradient is applied to this magnetically structered ELECTRON lattice there is a scalar wave produced.  The electrons travel in a response to the applied voltage with aligned magnetic dipole moments.  The magnetic and electric fields surrounding the conductor are changing in a unified manner.
   It can be seen that this is only going to go on until the electron cloud is depleted and the voltage starts to go to work on the sub-valence energy shells.  This is the ordinary response of a conductor to impressed voltage. The atomic lattice itself will be responding to the impressed voltage with all sorts of electric dipole  and magnetic dipole moments of the neucleus and electrons getting into the play.
   I don't believe this kick phenomenon is the scource of OU.  It is just the production of a scalar wave energy field.

[poynt99]

So, you really think electrons move at a speed of 0.00024 m/sec in copper (for about 1.5A, 0.5mm2)? Unfortunately, this is a deduction from a model, there is no real measured electron speeds in copper available to my knowledge.

electron sharing is the basis for chemical reactions, it works, and makes perfect sense in metallic conductors as well. how can you throw this out so quickly when there have been no other explanations to cover how electron flow behaves? Tom Bearden subscribes to this and he's a nuclear physicist, and proponent of free energy.

[aleks]

electron sharing is the basis for chemical reactions, it works, and makes perfect sense in metallic conductors as well. how can you throw this out so quickly when there have been no other explanations to cover how electron flow behaves? Tom Bearden subscribes to this and he's a nuclear physicist, and proponent of free energy.

Well, let's forget about it. I have collision theory, electron sharing has nothing to do with electric current in my opinion since electric current is based on free electrons where as electron sharing is based on ions with ions being something 'stable'. There is of course ionic electric current available, but then again - why not see moving ions interacting with free electrons? This will be also leading to collisions, and ions themselves will react on potentials hence working as charged particles.

Let's not beat a dead horse if you will. So, continuing, what are you objections about EM waves in this scenario?

[poynt99]

the idea of electron sharing is the exchange of electrons.

electrons are given up and gained in a daisy-chain fashion. these are the free electrons, the conduction electrons I am talking about.

electrons boiled off a hot filament are a different story, and so in this case they do travel quite fast, depending on the voltage gradient. particle acceleration.

what you mean by changing electrons to EM waves, in what context?

[aleks]

what you mean by changing electrons to EM waves, in what context?

In context of phonon excitation. Fast EM waves, slow phonons -> a lot of powerful phonon non-equilibriums.

Well, you probably know much and you will by all means try to prove there is no such thing as DC acoustic wave possible and you are talking that TPUs are no overunity, so your words in this context may not be of much value after all. Just be warned - there is no need to spend your valuable time proving I'm fool knowing nothing.