Does The Load Consume The Energy?

jbignes5

Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #100,  »Last edited
Quote from ~Russ on October 12th, 2017, 05:57 PM
Here is your example.

Question.

Why dose the high voltage spike happen before the current starts to flow.

This is NOT BEMF. This is BEFORE it.

Green trace is ground on system
Blue trace is BEMF current
And purple is voltage on BEMF output

This is the 10 coiler
~Russ
Ok my thought on this is this.
 Even though you are seeing it before it is actually from a previous impulse and is reflecting into the next snapshot. It is from my point of view that it still is slightly off in timing. If it was on time then it would merge with the oncoming impulse perfectly and either null part of the incoming or add to it constructively. But I could be wrong...
Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #101,  »
Quote from Matt Watts on October 12th, 2017, 07:21 PM
I'm beginning to suspect y'all are avoiding my question.

Is it possible to transfer energy back-n-forth between two (or more) storage devices by way of some load (which is performing useful work), and recoup enough extra energy (from the load) to keep these transfers going in perpetuity ?

Yes or no?

Why or why not?
Ok lets answer then.
 Using the water pong analogy and a difference in potential between to ponds (height).
 Would you get anything into your generator if the hoses or channels were leaky? The pond or in has to be open to the environment and the channels need to be whole and not leaking.

 Now lets look at the system in question. You have the batteries (pond) open to the environment but every wire that is not shielded statically will act line a transmitting antenna. You are leaking any gain right out the wires. Without suitable shielding in the areas you want pressure it will leak any gains back out to the environment that it could hold around the wires.

sonnet

Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #102,  »Last edited
@Russ
Thank you thank you thank you....The information gleaned so far has been through different pockets of learning the videos on mri prove i am on the right track.
I will no longer say "my take" or "how I see it" and speak with more confidence. The vids especially no 6 'spin echoes' should be watched again and again till It hits you hard.
I said the resonance from our circuit of two capacitors not seeing the load will fade out. as you saw on scopes and the likes you can reuse or pass the energy back and forth only so many times. and the way I mentioned quite a few times is 'we don't want to slow the electron spin down' or 'we need to keep the spin going' The 'spin echo' shows how by not having a homogeneous coil we start our spins off on the wrong foot, some of the spins have more angular momentum than others.
ok now translate that into layman's terms...here goes.
because our coil inductor does not have a uniform magnetic field along its length it gives some electrons more spin and more spin is more energy. we are in a sense getting a number of people (electrons) of different strengths to push our swing.  this difference in strengths means, as the swing is pushed or as the current goes back and forth in out two capacitor circuit. the electrons are not working as a team. some can give a good push on the swing others just don't put anywhere near enough momentum. so gradually the swing slows down prematurely...(remember matt the swing was only ever going to swing a set amount of times because we gave it a pulse(a fixed amount of energy) but because we put this electron handicap in we only got a limited amount of a much bigger amount of cycles will could have had if we had distributed the angular moment more evenly. as I said we need to keep the spin going or going for as long as possible.hope this gives you the picture.
He uses the phrase runners in a race which is good to help you see that the guys (electrons) running around our circuit are not running all at the same pace.
The answer would be to top the slow runners up but this will take another pulse. in the case of the mri this is what they do but the trick they use is to control the length of time the pulse is turned on for.
so if we know the presession time of a electron we need to pulse at 90degree intervals or a pulse sync with time it takes to precess. e.g. if it has a precession time of .3ms we need to pulse at divisions of .3 divided by 4 then in multiples of that figure, only if the coil has a homogeneous magnetic field or else we need to pulse at 90degrees then at 180 degrees to correct the spin so we get the most resonance in the capacitor circuit.
or laymans terms.....we have timing issues if we want to achieve long resonance of the energy between the capacitors.




Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #103,  »
Quote from jbignes5 on October 13th, 2017, 11:28 AM
Ok my thought on this is this.
 Even though you are seeing it before it is actually from a previous impulse and is reflecting into the next snapshot. It is from my point of view that it still is slightly off in timing. If it was on time then it would merge with the oncoming impulse perfectly and either null part of the incoming or add to it constructively. But I could be wrong...
we could easily prove this on a scope because your first opening of contacts will show the spike and at this point no reflection has happened.....but it still shows a spike..sorry

onepower

Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #104,  »Last edited
Matt
Quote
Is it possible to transfer energy back-n-forth between two (or more) storage devices by way of some load (which is performing useful work), and recoup enough extra energy (from the load) to keep these transfers going in perpetuity ?
Yes or no?
Why or why not?
A long time ago I read the literature of some very intelligent men with names like Ampere, Faraday and Maxwell. While most know these names they know almost nothing about the thoughts these men who were very open minded.

For example Maxwell believed thermodynamics had some very serious flaws because in every square inch of air we find some atoms have a temperature near freezing, some are near the boiling point and some in between. In fact what we actually measure is the "average" velocity of the particles which we mistakenly label as temperature... the "average temperature". Thus Maxwell suggested that if a very small yet intelligent thing, "Maxwell's Demon" could filter or separate the moving atoms near boiling from the one's near freezing a great temperature differential representing Energy would evolve. Personally I find it a little odd that so many would judge Maxwell harshly when in fact he gave everyone the basic working concept for a free energy device on a silver platter. This is why real facts are so important and there is Energy present everywhere in everything. Think about it... this notion of an "average" particle velocity or average energy state only exists in your head and it is not found anywhere in nature. It is a false man made construct which has no basis in reality.

Interesting isn't it?, everyone has it in their head that they need to create or destroy energy which would violate the conservation of energy when in fact we are swimming in a Sea of Energy. Maxwell gave us the solution in that we cannot create or destroy energy however we can filter out the high energy particles already present from the low energy particles due to their own motion to create a differential which is Energy. The fact remains that everything is already in perpetual motion at the particle/field level everywhere in the universe, perpetual motion is the norm.

Can anyone give me even one example of anything in the universe which is not in perpetual motion?... nobody can thus we may want to re-examine why anyone would believe perpetual motion is not the normal state of everything.

jbignes5

Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #105,  »Last edited
After reading more Tesla. I saw some clues to what he saw.

"The steps to be taken which I recognized then as absolutely necessary were, first, that I had to produce electric oscillations of the required character.

 Now, granted that I had them, it still remained to be shown how these oscillations could be transformed into some sort of vibratory energy capable of penetrating into the distance.

 Therefore, the second step was the transformation of these oscillations into such form of energy as would go to a distance.

 To develop methods of and apparatus for reception, to collect the energy at any point, was the third step.

 The fourth step was to isolate the energy. If I simply transmitted energy in all directions without regard to its use, then that energy would be simply lost in space, and it would be no economical system. Consequently, I had to devise means to isolate that energy, and this problem again presented itself in two aspects, active and passive; that is, I had to make the transmitter non-interfering, and I had to make it non-interferable. Those are not two identical problems, but both had to be solved.

 Finally, as to the fifth step, I found that we could never transmit energy, or construct our machines and apply them with understanding, unless we discovered the laws according to which this energy ****flows through the planet****, laws which would enable us to calculate accurately the energy we are to receive at any point, and to design our machines to suit the work."

 Now I understand he is talking about his power system but it gives me some information that oscillations by them selves is not what he was transmitting. He had to transform the oscillation into something that could go to the furthest reaches.


 As a note:

 " I insisted on the very largest capacity that could be attained because, according to my theory, which has since, of course, been confirmed, the amount of current that flows through such a system is proportionate to that capacity."

 Remember this was a voltage current and the capacitor uses such a current so to speak. The capacitor is the transformer in this case.

 "I had an adjustable condenser that I used in series with an inductance coil and the secondary I was then operating exhibited all the phenomena which have been described in the lecture."

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US454622-0.png

"The condenser has the effect of magnifying very much the current, this magnification being proportionate to the ratio of the inductance to the resistance of the circuit, and that rate was very great."

~Russ

Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #106,  »
Quote from sonnet on October 13th, 2017, 12:26 PM
@Russ
Thank you thank you thank you....The information gleaned so far has been through different pockets of learning the videos on mri prove i am on the right track.
I will no longer say "my take" or "how I see it" and speak with more confidence. The vids especially no 6 'spin echoes' should be watched again and again till It hits you hard.
I said the resonance from our circuit of two capacitors not seeing the load will fade out. as you saw on scopes and the likes you can reuse or pass the energy back and forth only so many times. and the way I mentioned quite a few times is 'we don't want to slow the electron spin down' or 'we need to keep the spin going' The 'spin echo' shows how by not having a homogeneous coil we start our spins off on the wrong foot, some of the spins have more angular momentum than others.
ok now translate that into layman's terms...here goes.
because our coil inductor does not have a uniform magnetic field along its length it gives some electrons more spin and more spin is more energy. we are in a sense getting a number of people (electrons) of different strengths to push our swing.  this difference in strengths means, as the swing is pushed or as the current goes back and forth in out two capacitor circuit. the electrons are not working as a team. some can give a good push on the swing others just don't put anywhere near enough momentum. so gradually the swing slows down prematurely...(remember matt the swing was only ever going to swing a set amount of times because we gave it a pulse(a fixed amount of energy) but because we put this electron handicap in we only got a limited amount of a much bigger amount of cycles will could have had if we had distributed the angular moment more evenly. as I said we need to keep the spin going or going for as long as possible.hope this gives you the picture.
He uses the phrase runners in a race which is good to help you see that the guys (electrons) running around our circuit are not running all at the same pace.
The answer would be to top the slow runners up but this will take another pulse. in the case of the mri this is what they do but the trick they use is to control the length of time the pulse is turned on for.
so if we know the presession time of a electron we need to pulse at 90degree intervals or a pulse sync with time it takes to precess. e.g. if it has a precession time of .3ms we need to pulse at divisions of .3 divided by 4 then in multiples of that figure, only if the coil has a homogeneous magnetic field or else we need to pulse at 90degrees then at 180 degrees to correct the spin so we get the most resonance in the capacitor circuit.
or laymans terms.....we have timing issues if we want to achieve long resonance of the energy between the capacitors.
Your welcome. ;)

So have been thinking about spin. I will post on this soon.

Un till then.

Your idea makes me thing of this 1/4 wave input I have heard before. ;)   have a look around. Search for 1/4 wave input....

Let's see what you find! 

Thanks for Being here!

~Russ
Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #107,  »
@ one power.

;)

~Russ
Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #108,  »Last edited
Ok well. More to say but for now...

A magnetic feild is due to spin. Not photon like I was describing.

How to define the 2?

If it dose not propagate out.(like light for infinite distance)   Its not photon EM feild.  And not photons.

What dose this mean? 

This means the generation of a magnetic feild is not photon energy. (As I described it before)  instead its spin alignment.

And spin takes time to align to make the magnetic feild. So its not as fast as light like some think it is. Instead it takes time. Also spin down. As Matt describes it.

What dose this mean. Well a superconducting  magnet has close to zero losses.... 

Massive magnetic feild with no losses you say? 

Sounds like a good pulse motor to build. Any rotation would harvest 100% "free" work.

Infact if we can say a magnetic feild is a storage device we should be able to use it like a battery.

In fact you can. I'll attach that doc in the next post.

So...  What's the deal. Well cooling in this one...  That sucks.

But what dose this tell us. Physics agrees that the load dose not "consume" the energy.

Well we still need to figure out what's the difference.

Its ohmic resistance. Friction as I like to say.

Not all loads are created equal. Personialy I still think that even a ohmic  load is generating its own isolated output. But it is due to the photons (EM radiation) 

I still cant answer if the electron going out a ring takes energy from the system. Its the fallback that creates the photon.
Now not all rings are equal. So it may jump out 2 rings and only back 1 ring leaving it at a higher energy state then it was orgnaily.

Lots to think about.

Hope this is helpfull.

"Ohmic Resistance"
More to think about..  this is not a constant.. 

It changes with temp. (Think. More frection the higher it gose. Less coherant...)

~Russ
Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #109,  »
Magnetic storage device.
Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #110,  »
Hummm.

A changing magnetic feild can do work.

A supper conducting magnet dose not consume the energy...

Sounds good to me. ;)

~Russ

jbignes5

Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #111,  »
 Great Russ,

 But spin of what?

 See that is what set me on my quest. What is the electric and subsequent magnetic field made of? What is spinning. What allows induction across space? Space itself is a conductor. when matter is displacing the space it becomes less conductive. Take for instance the Earth. Our atmosphere is layered due to matter and it's density. The closer to the ground the more matter there is and less conductive. The higher you go the more conductive the air becomes. This is exactly the fair weather voltage they see when in reference to the ground. But as you can see every minute of every day the matter can be pushed aside and a pure conduction channel is formed. We call this lightning. We found out that we can create this situation as well with high voltage emissions. It attracts the conductor of space down to our level and are from around us towards the high potential emitter.
 All wires that are not statically shielded are emitters.

 That is my thinking about that.

~Russ

Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #112,  »
Oh I need to note when I say spin up and spin down.

I'm talking about spin alignment. This takes time.
And spin unalighnmemt. As seen in the MRI video. Those take time to align due to the angular momentum.

So random > alignment with current flow > back to random.

Again this is the EMF to BEMF (there opiset polarity...  Keep this in mined! ) 

But..  That high voltage spike is NOT apart of that. Its like a consequence. Because it is so fast. Unless it is somthig else. (Photon,  excition,  ect... ) 

Still thinking about that. ~Russ

~Russ
Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #113,  »Last edited
Yeah John. For sure. spin... of what ever for the moment... lol will get there soon enugh.

I was thinking to my self. " why dose the electron not Jump out of the wire "

And the answer is. It will if the voltage is highenugh.

But the resistance of the air is to greate. But make a channel and your good...  (Or a vacuum ) 

A void!!!  Make a void and you can get conduction! 

More to think about.
... 
~Russ
Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #114,  »

conservation  efficiency...

Now that is a saying I really like!!!! 
Thats the way I would word what the efficiency of a system is. ;) 
~Russ
Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #115,  »
Oh by the way. This is what I was talking about. This is friction . (Resistance) 

But not all resistance has this effect. However if the wire gives off EM (like heat from friction)  then it is due to this.

~Russ

jbignes5

Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #116,  »Last edited
Well ok,

 Until we actually see an electron I would not bet it is so. As far as we can see atm it is a shell like the ionosphere. and the layers in our atmosphere are more shells or density layers either going up or down in density. The reason for any movement between the layers is the density and buoyancy due to a density change. Now the one last remaining question is the density of what exactly?
 Remember that Tesla believed that the medium of space was a conductor of space and that all energy came from that medium and imparted to the matter energy. In fact all of the matters energy was external. His teleforce theory worked on such a premise.

 Lets take this example.

 In my examination of potentials I put two plates of dissimilar materials. Each plate was chosen for it's standing electro-negative potential. So one aluminum and one graphite. Al=-1.61 and C=-2.55 = +.94 spread between the two materials. Negating all corrosive matter between them and you can draw from that potential difference of just the standing potential. My experiment put out a voltage difference that could be used in a joule thief for a pretty long time. But as the two potentials became closer the spread would get smaller and you needed to let the plates re-normalize or re-gauge back to it's normal potentials from the environment. Usually half a day was sufficient. Now most pointed out that the galvanic response was the reason for the output and I called BS on that because all of the plates showed no signs of degradation. Due to aluminum's self healing oxidation layer. I used Borax to increase the self healing properties of the aluminum and potassium as the electrolyte conductor with some water. The aluminum stayed pristine and shinny through all of the tests I did with it and I was having an issue with where this energy was coming from. Since both were negative we had a split the negative situation there.
 That is what led me to the split the positive theory that only a few figured out. Gray being the best example.

 As for physical electrons well they just don't exists but for a fudge factor in math. This is why they are arguing back and forth weather it acts like a wave or particle. It is neither. It is simply a result of math and their inability to balance that math.

 Check out Tesla's teleforce topic and you will start to understand how this works.

 But again what is separating all matter then? What allows induction to happen? That was my quest, because if we understood that concept then we could devise a way to benefit from it.

 All wires must radiate it's potential into the space surrounding it no matter how small that radiant part is. This is the reason we can monitor the current around a wire with a clamp type meter. But could you meter around a shielded wire? My suspicion is no.

 Remember you want to think like your water pools analogy. If the channels were leaky you would loose all of the pressure given enough length. This is what is happening in our systems today. The system is designed to make a pressure difference but we are allowing that pressure to bleed off ruining the effect. You only want that pressure to be exposed where it is to be used or collected. The rest of the system should be shielded from loosing it's pressure so that we can make it higher or lower depending on the systems design. The pressure I am talking about is the potential in this analogy and the current is the result of space becoming conductive enough to pass that current via the higher potential and changes it's density as conductive space moves towards that higher potential. This changes the density of the conductive space allowing for current dynamically, as we are starting to understand it today, to flow.
 Somewhere we went wrong. We adopted the electron, which is a measurement and not something physical. This has led us down a road of logical fallacy which has blinded us to the real reason why current flows. All current is electric in my view based on the wave of electric potential down a wire or wave guide. We can compress this medium and that compression is a density change of the medium itself as it reacts to the potential it is attracted to along the wave guide.

 Just my two cents.

onepower

Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #117,  »
jbignes
Quote
As for physical electrons well they just don't exists but for a fudge factor in math. This is why they are arguing back and forth weather it acts like a wave or particle. It is neither. It is simply a result of math and their inability to balance that math.
Real scientists might disagree...   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo

As well the electron current model works and it is easy to understand versus jumping down the quantum rabbit hole head first. Personally I prefer Einsteins theory... "if you cannot explain it simply then you don't understand it well enough".

The fundamental flaw with wave theory seems obvious to me, if a rock thrown into a pond makes waves then obviously everything starts with a moving rock. No rock... no waves and as Einstein said "nothing happens until something moves". While I may not completely agree with Einstein's theories there is no denying his reasoning skills and his awesome quotes. In fact later on Einstein admitted his theories could not be reconciled and it takes a great man to admit they have made mistakes.
Quote
Somewhere we went wrong. We adopted the electron, which is a measurement and not something physical. This has led us down a road of logical fallacy which has blinded us to the real reason why current flows.
The theory is very simple and intuitive, an electron carries a field with it and since like fields repel the excess of electrons at the negative terminal repel one another pushing them forward along the conductor as an electron current. Likewise the positive terminal having a lack of electrons and an opposite field polarity simultaneously pulls the electrons along the conductor. In my opinion the logical fallacy is thinking something having no tangibility can act on something else also having no tangibility because in the end there is nothing tangible to act on.

However I would agree that somewhere we wrong by making everything so complicated it stopped making sense. Nature is simple and if we cannot explain it simply then we don't understand it well enough.


sonnet

Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #118,  »
We can all debate debate and debate. but one thing holds true. Our observations of results. Deep thinking can be a road to no where.

Did our ancestors need to know the radius of the earth to know when it was time to sleep or time to work.
Did they need to know about precession to realize about natures four seasons. so that they could grow crops.
No
They observed.
The universe is simplex, I don't believe the universe does math.
We have to rely on observations when they are repeatable.
We have observed the electron as a particle and a wave why should we dispute that?

Notes
We know inner valences tend to be more stable than outer ones

We can have different potentials between one valence than another

Electrons jump valences when they have increased charge

electrons use quantum superposition to jump valences

so a electron in a outer valence on the atom can have a superposition outside the atom boundary as we see it as a mass.
Just as we can jump into the air off the earth with exertion of energy.(just painting a picture not to be taken literally)
Or if we are given energy like bouncing on a trampoline.

We know the proton spins.(like the earth)

If the electron jumps up a valence through superposition it can also jump down bringing charge from the upper valence or if a particle hits it and knocks it out a upper valence to a lower position.







Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #119,  »
So I mention observations because we have noticed observed a physical spin on the electron and so everyone is up with me this this is what I have been implying.
I plagiarized this from the net as it explains what I think I may not of got over.

Experiments such as the Stern-Gerlach experiment, showed that particles are found to posses angular momentum that can't be accounted for the orbital angular momentum alone...

This led two Dutch scientists, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck, to propose that electrons may have additional motion.

Using a semi-classical model, they suggested the electrons behave as a sphere of charge that spins about its own axis. If so, it would have an additional "spin-angular momentum" (and hence magnetic moment) which if quantized as well, would explain the observed energy level anomalies:

In the Bohr Model, suppose that an electron is not a point charge (i.e- has a finite size), but is a small spinning sphere. Then the electron will not only have orbital angular momentum, but also spin angular momentum associated with the rotation of its mass about an axis.

The sphere carries electric charge , so the spinning motion leads to current loops and thence, to a magnetic moment.

In an external magnetic field, this spin magnetic moment has an interaction energy in addition to that due to the orbital magnetic moment. It is this spin magnetic moment that is responsible for the "anomalous" Zeeman shifts.

Precise spectroscopic analysis, as well as a variety of other experimental evidence , has conclusively shown that electron do indeed have a a spin angular momentum (and an associated spin magnetic moment) that do not depend on orbital motion.

But there's a caveat,

No size has been found for electrons, i.e- they appear to be point particles, and by virtue of that, they shouldn't be able to physically spin about their axes (since there's nothing that can actually "spin" here).

Yet electrons do have an additional angular momentum that isn't associated with orbital motion!

The way out of this conundrum?

Based on the above arguments, it was concluded that electrons, being point particles do not physically spin. The origin or the "spin" angular momentum is therefore, fundamentally quantum mechanical in nature and it is intrinsic to the electron.

Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #120,  »
russ wrote
Quote
Your idea makes me thing of this 1/4 wave input I have heard before. ;)   have a look around. Search for 1/4 wave input....
yer I have a lot to learn, but this pricked my attention on another forum

I recently read that a 1/4 wave resonator is equivalent to a series lc circuit but with a much higher q. In a typical resonant LC series circuit voltage magnifications exists, does the same thing occur in a 1/4 resonator since it is equivalent to a series LC circuit? Thanks in advance!

 Yes, it does produce voltage magnification. A quarter wave length of wire placed above a metallic sheet (such as the body of a car) has an impedance of about 39 ohms and can be driven by a radio transmitter at the resonant frequency. The top end of the quarter wave of wire develops a much higher voltage than the drive voltage. Even low powered transmitters can produce voltages of hundreds of volts at the top of a quarter wave antenna. Touching the top of such an antenna can produce painful (but usually not dangerous) RF burns. Transmitters of 100 watts or more can produce corona effects where you can see a blue glow near the tip of the antenna in darkness.


Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/1-4-wave-resonantor-equiv-to-a-series-lc-circuit-and-voltage-magnification.522812/

but i'm no electronics expert but the sound of voltage magnification means i need to understand more on this 1/4 wave...
Thank you again Russ.

jbignes5

Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #121,  »Last edited
 We have not observed the electron.. The closest thing we have seen is hydrogen and it has the shells.

 I'll link it.

https://wordlesstech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Quantum-Microscope-sees-the-Hydrogen-Atom-for-the-first-time-1-640x455.jpg

 This is a hydrogen atom..

 Yeah Tesla talked about harmonics but it basically the same thing but below 1:1

 Tesla said he always liked the 3rd harmonic because it was much stronger.. Now what did he mean there?

 I just read this from an Edison book   " If the frequency is moderate the current penetrates the conductors and may indeed be assumed as uniformly distributed without much error"

 The current penetrates the conductor meaning it was not inside of the conductor.
 Now that doesn't mean there is no current in the conductor?. What it does mean is that the current can flow outside of the conductor like I thought it was in these systems. Frequency does that, also called the skin effect. Your charge pump is sucking charges in and loosing as quickly as it came in through the coils high capacitance. If you contain the charges around the wave guide or wire you could keep the potential and current from the free charges in space. But you need an "in" like a gap or a huge capacitor (condenser) and an exit like a real or virtual ground. Batteries could be considered as a virtual ground to... Lots of surface area on the battery plates.

sonnet

Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #122,  »
Quote
The sphere carries electric charge , so the spinning motion leads to current loops and thence, to a magnetic moment.
Quoting my own reply and pointing to this link because it shows current loops with the 1/4 wave and some weird observations.

http://www.g0cwt.co.uk/magloops/new_page_5.htm
and on that page the vid link of interest

https://youtu.be/SUYI81dkEMA
can this be significant?
regards

jbignes5

Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #123,  »
 But it says 1/10 wavelength. But yeah that is how the signal is broadcasted around the loop. Like a signal traveling down the loop. In this case it is in resonance and there is a standing wave instead of it going around the loop.

sonnet

Re: Does The Load Consume The Energy?
« Reply #124,  »
Quote
We have not observed the electron..
The word observed is in the physics sense.
Through interactions
both in quantum and particle interactions
the energy you call a electron has behaved like a particle and as I write above it even displays a magnetic moment....to do that it has to have particle properties. sorry I cant explain this any clearer.
regards