STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM

[Omnibus]

This is a text which summarizes in a more succinct form the gist of the finding which is at the basis of showing that standard theory of electricity contains OU. The text is for everyone in the forum to respond -- @teslaalset and @Omega_0 please look at this because I'd especially like to hear your thoughts.

[Omega_0]

Well I'm not a math guru, but since this is interesting, I studied it a bit.

First thing I noticed is that you are saying tau = (T/n + (i-1)T/(n-1)) , after (4), I guess it should be with a minus sign as it is an interval. Thats minor point.

Second, wolform says something else about the solution (3). I've attached its output. wolform is really cool thing, it makes you lazy though.

In spite of these minor things, your approach is valid. The energy equations involving V and I are derived from Maxwell's equations, which are more fundamental. E=V*I is engineer's "it works, lets use it" thing. So it may not always match with reality, for example in case of superconductors, QED analysis is needed and even maxwell's eq don't work. So I place more weight on experiment, less on theory.

[Omega_0]

Putting w = 2Pi/T , it gives ABcos(theta)/2, so its correct.
I did not do that in above post.

[Omega_0]

The summation is difficult to do, wolfarm could do the first term only, which sums to 0. The second term involving sin(x)*sin(y) product is not getting evaluated. May be I'm making some mistake. But it would be nice to know the output.

[Omnibus]

@Omega_0,

Thanks for looking into it. I do agree the experiments are important but I think finding the standard theory itself contains the possibility for OU is the ultimate. Look what difficulties Rosemary Ainslie is experiencing with her experiments. I haven't followed her work, unfortunately, but now I'm reading her thread and I'm appalled. It appears she or her associates (can't figure out yet who did what) have carried out careful experiments but not only journals refuse to publish her work but she's been banned from forums, as I understand. Did you read, someone in her thread claiming that instruments capable of verifying her claims have not yet been invented? So, this is an uphill battle even if you present careful experiments and a theoretical finding can be a breakthrough because then claims that there are "too many sources of error etc. etc. to justify experiments" will be moot.