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

[Omnibus]

Rosemary, what I claim is not what you have understood:

You claim that the reconstitution of copper in a zinc/copper battery is proof of the electron current flow.

When I used the Faraday generator as the source (you required a generator, right) that generator was applied to an electrolysis cell, not to a zinc/copper battery. Hope you understand the difference. If you do you'll convince yourself that such an experiment, among many others, is a conclusive proof that electric current is indeed a directed flow of electrons.

[Omnibus]

Rosemary, regarding the experimental issue, no new experiments let alone such based on transients taken with oscilloscopes which can be questioned on so many levels as was discussed in the Steorn thread, can serve to overthrow the conclusive fact that electric current is due to directed flow of electrons demonstrable in so many quite simple unquestionable experiments. It isn't even worth to argue about that. What would be interesting is whether or not your experiment indeed shows OU but, like I said, that still remains to be seen in view of the so many levels of problems in such experiment.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary, what I claim is not what you have understood:

When I inferred the Faraday generator as the source (you required a generator, right) which I applied to an electrolysis cell, not to a zinc/copper battery. Hope you understand the difference. If you do you'll convince yourself that such an experiment, among many others, is a conclusive proof that electric current is indeed a directed flow of electrons.

Omnibus  - As it is I had to read up on the zinc copper batteries to argue your previous example for 'proof'.  I have NO idea what a Farraday generator is.  If - as you say - this proves the flow of electrons in that current - then I'll take it that's what you believe.  But I cannot subscribe to current as the flow of electrons.  It's physically impossible.  If electrons are responsible for the current then I would NOT be able to exceed unity even once, let alone 17 times.  NO surplus electrons have ever been found inside a copper wire - EVER.  Neither with nor without the applied potential difference.  Just NOT EVER.  It has NEVER been quantifiably evidenced.  But I don't mind if you dispute this.  Let's take it as read.  You understand that it's experimentally demonstrated.  I refute that evidence.  How's that?  Otherwise this argument is going to get really repetitive.

I know one thing.  My arguments have NEVER resonated with chemists.  Clearly the argument therefore is not sufficient.  And to correct this I'd need to learn a lot more about chemistry.  What I do know however, is the physical properties of electric circuitry.  And I also know enough about the atom to know that if it 'gives up' an electron - then it needs to 'find a home' so to speak somewhere and at speed.  There is no 'home' for it inside the wire of conductive and inductive circuitry.  And in using your average motorised generator - you only have 'metal' for it to find a new home.  Then to compound the evidence, your atoms in your average resitor wire ALSO never change.  The only thing that may change in copper is the bound condition of that wire - and that bound condition can be heavily compromised in your average resistive wire.  But the atomic structure of these materials remains exactly as they were first forged and manufactured.  It is only their bound condition that varies.

In any event.  That's just my take.

Kindest as ever, Omnibus.
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary, regarding the experimental issue, no new experiments let alone such based on transients taken with oscilloscopes which can be questioned on so many levels as was discussed in the Steorn thread, can serve to overthrow the conclusive fact that electric current is due to directed flow of electrons demonstrable in so many quite simple unquestionable experiments. It isn't even worth to argue about that. What would be interesting is whether or not your experiment indeed shows OU but, like I said, that still remains to be seen in view of the so many levels of problems in such experiment.

This is a different issue.  If I based my measurements of proof on transients then I would not have sufficient proof.  Our measurements were empirical and the protocols stipulated by experts in the art.  The problem was that those same experts would NOT attend a demonstration - lest they were then required to accredit those results.  I really don't AGAIN want to detail that protocol.  It's all clearly defined in two papers.  This is EXHAUSTING me Omnibus.  Have pity.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Omnibus]

Rosemary,

Our measurements were empirical and the protocols stipulated by experts in the art.

I'd like to talk to these experts in the art. Name some.