Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

[Rosemary Ainslie]

"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)

You were quite right fritznien.  Referenced above.  Apologies. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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?

Hi shruggedatlas.  Yes.  I do think they work on principles that have NOTHING to do with a flow of electrons.  But I am absolutely not that anxious to convert anyone at all to my thinking.  I've simply explained why I think what I do.  No-one's under any pressure or obligation to 'buy in'.  And you're right.  I reference it everywhere.  No single branch of physics is better developed or advanced than that related to quantum electromagnetics.  And - to date - there is no substitute for the electron as the 'carrier' of this energy.  It's just a badly flawed concept that is nonetheless - very effective as a concept.  It works - and it's used.  It's just wrong - is all. 

You must remember that dark energy and dark matter are now entirely proven - yet there are renowned academics who absolutely reject that proof.  Michio Kaku is on record.  He says words to the effect "All the text books that have ever been written.  They're all wrong."  It's just that the 'change over' to new concepts is having a harder time of it than ever before precisely because so many really clever people have bought into ideas that will be entirely outdated within the very near future. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Omnibus]

Rosemary, just for the record, Michio Kaku is not a renowned academic. He's just a writer of books written to amuse readers at large who think science is that kind of amusement. Not that there are no renowned academics writing stupid things too.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Don't forget that current (allegedly electron flow) and magnetism are
opposite sides of the same coin.

Hi Paul.  One must bear in mind that changing electric fields induce magnetic fields and changing magnetic fields induce electric fields.  That concept was proved by Farraday and mathematically refined by Maxwell.  An electric field cannot be measured without a magnetic field associated with it.  But there is NO electric field that has EVER been measured in a magnet on magnet interaction.  It is ASSUMED to be extant within the material structure of those magnets.  It has NEVER been empirically proved.

This means, effectively, that electromagnetic force has been proved.  What has not been disproved is the existence of an independent magnetic force.  But it is not identified as an independent force in any definition of the forces.  There is only recognition of the electromagnetic force.  To my way of thinking - our greats - notwithstanding their extraordinary achievements - have missed out on at least 50% of the eletromagnetic interaction.  And, that they called it 'electricity' at all is based on their early understanding that it was due to electron flow.  That early concept is flawed. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

EDITED

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary, just for the record, Michio Kaku is not a renowned academic. He's just a writer of books written to amuse readers at large who think science is that kind of amusement. Not that there are no renowned academics writing stupid things too.

Hi Omnibus.  I can't comment on how well renowned is Michio Kaku.  I do know he enjoys his publicity.  But he's indeed highly respected amongst academics.  Very much so in fact.  Personally I think he's just so brave.  He speaks things exactly as he sees them.  I don't think he depends on an academic salary though.  Else perhaps he'd be less outspoken. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary