ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

[jbignes5]

Uncle JB ! Thanks , now you opened yourself up and shared good knowledge. Sorry I had to make you a bit uncomfortable to dig. You make sense to me. Uncle, the only problem remains is that whether charge comes first or voltage. Egg or chichen first ??

I still believe there can be no voltage without electrical Efield due to charge. Charge comes from atomic particles. So voltage is ultimately an atomic phenomenon.

Its the atomic forces running the universe.

A sustained voltage is needed for current to flow. If voltage dies after current flow, no more work can be done. Like I have 10,000 volts static in my comb on dry days but it cant kill me.

We are actually looking for a sustainable HV field to do overunity meaningful work.

With due respect to your age, I am a 15.5 year old student of M.Phil Chemistry and not a troll. I do respect your age Uncle JB.

If overunity happens it should be simple to understand. One should not be forced to learn a new set of rules again. Oh no. Not again !

Keep up the good work. 

Thank you for saying such but there is no conundrum in this. There is no chicken or egg there is only the chicken. The egg is rebirth or the continuation of the chicken from a code. You could say a fractal of it's constituent parents. 


The medium is responsible for all voltages. The medium is the voltage field. All objects in that field exist because the medium is there. Every effect in the known universe is because of the medium. Matter is only displacing the medium which gives it a standing voltage or potential pressure. Without other effects like heat it would still have a voltage potential and that is well proven by all scientific methods we use today. Yet the scientists still sit there and scratch their heads about why an object that has zero heat still has a potential.


The problem is exactly how I put it they are sooo concentrated on the internal current flow that anything outside is beyond IDEAL. Ideal models only work with perfect components. As you should know an ideal situation will never exist. We all live in environments. On this planet it is everything above or below our feet. Everything means all matter in the Universe. No matter what they tell you remember we as matter are all connected to everything. We contribute to the whole even if you do not know what that whole is.


This kinda brings me to the point of this. All of my revelations were drawn from the past. Some further back then most can remember. The Sumerians seem to be the starting point for our race but I reserve the right to amend that statement. From what we can decipher from this early past is that they knew way more about the natural phenomena then we will ever know. How is that possible?


Well I'm sorry that our forefathers were so greedy to only focus on one half of the whole. This means we will indeed need to change a few things but not as much as you think. They were half right on general theories. Then came the other theories on quantum this and dark matter that or the ever favorite "Electron" that can be a wave and a particle. How absurd. Maybe it is a wave all the time but that wave acts like a particle when it is forced to. Hmmm.. MAybe matter is nothing but fields?? We will never know because we can not use light at that scale to see through the invisible shield of the "Electron" cloud.
By the way did you know the electron is a made up thing? it's only a mathematical construct to explain what we can not see. It is prone to errors in inference to other systems because it was designed for the specific task of explaining the unexplainable.

[Google]

No electrons. Thats a good one. Perhaps you could explain how a CRT monitor works.

If that were true, connecting the positive pole of one battery to the negative pole of another battery would cause current to flow, but in the real world it doesn't.

E = E0(y,z)cosωt sin βxj

The energy in an electric field is defined as the potential energy of the charge configuration which is equal to the work done to construct the charge configuration from charges which start out at infinity. But a point charge is not something which is assembled. Consider the derivation of the relation for energy and energy density in such a field. One starts out with the discrete case and takes a limit. The discrete case starts off with a single charge and the energy of the configuration is taken to be zero - by definition. One then brings charges in from infinity to finite distances from each other charge already there. One then obtains a relationship for a number of charges etc. One then assumes that the value of each charge goes to zero while the number of each charge goes to infinity - an unreal assumption with finite point charges.

I bet you'd love the book There Are No Electrons by Kenn Amdahl.

Don't forget about the results of Millikan's oil-drop experiment. How would he explain the observation that every single amount of charge ever observed is a multiple of 1.6 x 10^-19 C.

I'll leave you with the following two examples that you may google at your convenience :

1) SETs : single electron transistors
2) MRFM detection of single electron spin by Rugar, et al at IBM-Almaden

What creates chemical bonding and what creates Photons. This may be cliché but what ever; Can you see the wind ?

Whatever this "something else" is that has all the properties of the electron - that's the thing we call an electron.Single electron spins have been measured:
http://domino.watson.ibm.com/comm/pr...nanoscale.html
Single electron transistors have been around for a while: 
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/11/9/7/1
Single electronic orbitals in a molecule were recently imaged by high speed lasers:
http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/7020-3.html
A single electron trapped in a quantum dot was detected:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AIPC..772..775S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005cond.mat.10269G

There is no such thing as "what it looks like". It is smaller than the sense we use to see things. So, the manner in which it interacts with the world around it is what defines its identity - and "what it looks like" is both irrelevant and non-existent.

Whatever this "something else" is that has all the properties of the electron - that's the thing we call an electron.

Believe it or not!The act of believing (or deciding not to) is proof that electrons exist. Without electrons you wouldn't believe (or not believe) anything because your neurons would be dead-wood in your skull. None of the electron activity which is evoked by the actions of the sodium/potassium pump (an attribute of the physiology of neurons) would take place. Praised be the almighty electron !

Stick your finger in a light socket and then try that statement again.... [Note: do not stick your finger in a light socket]

Why does that matter? You don't need to be able to see individual water molecules to know water exists.

Electrons don't quite exist the same way chairs and tables can be said to exist. Fundamental 'particles' likely hold the ultimate truth about existence and reality. They are a kind of bridge between something and nothing(e.g. superpositional states).

[jbignes5]

Think man... Electrons are in shells. Thats the best we can detect them. Think about the shell around our planet, it is the very same thing. So many particles that we already capitulate are not whole but are in fact smaller wholes which i bet are even smaller wholes forever. We will always find smaller and smaller as long as we are willing to look for them. Nothing is solid. Nothing. And the only limit is the math we design to look that small. Remember there is no direct looking at even an atom. We must rely on math and simulations to chart what is reflected back to the detector.


Now there is some work being done on mapping the patterns they see on our shell of our atmosphere. This shell is very much like the shell of the atom. And it might lead us to a very different conclusion about what a fractal is and how it applies to our scale and to different scales to boot.


In this case lets do another thought experiment. Given the scale differences, if our planet collided with another planet how many pieces would you expect to find? My bet is more than you would want to count. Care to count the particles of gas in our outer shell? Should we call this shell an electron? I think not. It's all about scales and the viewpoint at which we look at them.

[Google]

Think man... Electrons are in shells. Thats the best we can detect them. Think about the shell around our planet, it is the very same thing. So many particles that we already capitulate are not whole but are in fact smaller wholes which i bet are even smaller wholes forever. We will always find smaller and smaller as long as we are willing to look for them. Nothing is solid. Nothing. And the only limit is the math we design to look that small. Remember there is no direct looking at even an atom. We must rely on math and simulations to chart what is reflected back to the detector.


Now there is some work being done on mapping the patterns they see on our shell of our atmosphere. This shell is very much like the shell of the atom. And it might lead us to a very different conclusion about what a fractal is and how it applies to our scale and to different scales to boot.


In this case lets do another thought experiment. Given the scale differences, if our planet collided with another planet how many pieces would you expect to find? My bet is more than you would want to count. Care to count the particles of gas in our outer shell? Should we call this shell an electron? I think not. It's all about scales and the viewpoint at which we look at them.

The atom consists of the nucleus and the electrons, therefore electrons exist inside atoms, in fact, most of the atom is space occupied by the electron cloud.

As a wavefunction, which describes the probability distribution of finding the electron at any given point in space. This probability distribution is what gives rise to the orbital geometry of the s, p, d, and f orbitals. 

Until observed, the electron is said to be in a superposition of states, meaning, for all intents and purposes, it occupies every point in the orbital until it is observed and the wavefunction collapses. 

Electrons do exist outside the atom also.

1. Beta decay. A beta particle (which is essentially an electron) is emitted from the nucleus of an atom of a radionuclide. This is not part of the atom any longer and thus exists outside any atom. 

2. Vacuum tubes that use either a high voltage potential alone or a combination of high voltage and heated cathode to cause the emission of electrons from their atoms. Examples would include, CRT's, Crookes tubes, and X-ray tubes. 

Additionally, materials can be made to emit electrons by the addition of certain compounds, usually radioactive, in a process called thermionic emission. While thermions refers to any particle emitted as a result of high temperature, with or without a doping agent, the emission of an electron would count.

Examples: Aluminum is sometimes alloyed or sintered with thorium compounds to enhance it's thermionic properties. 

Just as an electron is a part of an atom, so are neutrons and protons, all three of which can exist outside of the atom. These three particles are building blocks that take place in many other reactions. However, it is not necessary for them to only exist inside or as a part of the atom. Electrons can actually jump from atom to atom to move charge (this is how electricity works) or be transferred back and forth (this is how a chemical bond works).

Ionized atoms liberate at least one electron, which can be used, beamed, etc. The cathode ray tube used in television use an electron beam, those are electrons that are gathered, and accelerated using a potential difference, through a vacuum tube, towards a target that contains a phosphor, a chemical that will glow when hit by electrons.

The nucleus contains protons and neutrons. Protons have positive charge and neutrons are neutral. Electrons have a negative charge, so the electrons are attracted toward the nucleus. This is similar to a satellite orbiting the earth. The satellite is attracted toward the earth by the force of gravity. The satellite must orbit the earth at a specific velocity and altitude, so it does not fall to the surface of the earth. The electrons must orbit the nucleus at a specific velocity and distance from the nucleus to prevent the electrons from moving toward the nucleus. The electrons are involved in bonding. The electrons must be a specific distance outside the nucleus so 2 atoms can transfer electrons in an ionic bond or share electrons in a covalent bond. The outer shell of the atom is composed the valence electrons orbiting around the nucleus.

Electrons 'move' in an orbital (they do not orbit the nucleus but rather appear in certain spots around it). It is not possible to predict where the electron would go but it normally stays within its shell (can be oddly shaped) and near the nucleus. They are usually repelled by other electrons. The electron do not orbit but movement can be explained by an orbital. 


Einstein deceived the world. Where is our common sense gone ?

Google.

[Google]

Discovery of lost secret of moray radiant energy system.

Moray generated 50 KW by using a 30 yard antenna supported on two tent poles five feet high. He only used crystal radio era electronic parts.

Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHTCZu8OZtI