The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: the universe as a ten dimensional binary system  (Read 82030 times)

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #350 on: 02/07/2009 15:12:35 »
6 TRUANTS, ANTITRUANTS AND VIRTUAL PARTICLES

The proposal is that a string from the field has broken.  Zipons have become disassociated from the field and they cluster in a visible amalgam seen as a nebulus in space.

I've proposed that a primary particle, the zipon, has now manifested as a truant.  For symmetry and for every manifest truant there must also therefore be an antitruant.  The truant is proposed as the zipon that has gained mass at a corresponding forfeiture of its velocity in the field.  They are visible precisely because they are within the boundary constraints of light speed and light, therefore can detect them.  Equally therefore, an equal number of those zipons would have gained velocity at the fofeiture of mass.  They, however, would be the antitruant and would not be evident within the boundary constraints of light speed.  So light would not be able to detect them.

Given that the disappearing truant is the truant's antiparticle then where, in space does that anti truant go?  The proposal is that in losing it's mass it actually moves towards a point in space that is precisely where it first decayed as a zipon.  In other words it does not occupy space in the sense that the truant occupies space.  In effect it has the properties of velocity at the entire forfeit of its mass.  The antitruant, therefore, does not share the same dimensions of volume in space.  In point of fact it only retains the properties of charge and velocity in the same but opposite way that truants only retain the properties of charge and mass.  Then, like the manifest truant, it will 'hang' in a fixed position in space, two different manifestations of the same zipon, but both outside of the magnetic field itself.  And the zipons in the field can find neither truant.  The one is too big and the other too small.  Therefore there is no interaction with the field.

The proposal is that some of the truants will decay back into the field.  These are virtual particles and, in effect, they will simply regain that velocity and lose mass and then, eventually, slot back into one of the strings in the field.

But the truants are only really very small magnets.  Magnets have the overriding requirement to structure themselves into orderly fields where their charge is most perfectly balanced. Over time, therefore, as the truants and the anti truants expend their energy from the force of the singularity, then they will again collect into some structure that expresses this magnetic requirement.  They eventually  move to structure themselves into fields and they do this in small steps.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #351 on: 20/07/2009 19:00:11 »
Everyone - I've copied these 6 posts to the energetic forum.  Please go there if you're following this.  BenV - thanks very much for the space allowed by the Naked Scientists and for your indulgence in these posts.  Much appreciated.
 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #352 on: 20/07/2009 21:52:07 »
witsend
I seem to remember you saying that your hypothesis stands or falls entirely on the fact that Magnetism is, somehow, fundamental.
Did you miss my post pointing out that the magnetic force can be accounted for completely as a combination of the Coulomb Force and Relativistic effects?

I wonder whether you will find this link interesting.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=24017.0
You should look at the links within - showing that it's not just something I made up.
Will you dismiss it all as being too mathematical, too complicated, too boring or just an attack on your ideas?
« Last Edit: 20/07/2009 22:18:11 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #353 on: 30/07/2009 13:16:57 »
Hi SophieCentaur

I dip in and out of this forum - and have just noted your comment here.  That the magnetic field is accounted for in terms of anything at all - does not refute my argument.  The argument is that there is no evident electric field in a magnet on magnet interaction.

 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #354 on: 30/07/2009 13:54:08 »
But there is.
Did you not understand the link? Electrons moving around a circuit or electrons in the atoms of a 'magnet' are still doing the same thing.
It's just an alternative way of looking at it. Magnetism is no more fundamental than anything else. Moreover, the theory I quote from has a track record and agrees with measurement. I don't think yours does.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #355 on: 30/07/2009 14:55:19 »
SC - I have found your contributions on this thread and elsewhere in this 'new theories' section of the forum to be so persistently discouraging that I simply do not want to post here any more.  My personal opinion is that you bully people into regretting that they share their thoughts or bare their souls as you ride over all such intellectual efforts with the sensitivity of bulldozer on full throttle, a dinosaur with an appetite, a troll on a mission. 

I do not want to know about your opinion on anything, personally.  Let me see how many other contributors you frighten away.  But I predict that all will eventually fall victim to your delight in discouraging innovative thought - thinly disguised as a scientist's preferred requirement for exactitude.

The truth is that you get your kicks in life by putting people down.  It's sad.  But it's a sad outlook for the Naked Scientists forum generally as your attentions only ever manage to diminish contributors while you vicariously or actively dictate what may or may not be considered for evaluation.  I wish BenV would wake up to the fact.  It is my humble opinion that you should be banned from the New Theories section - entirely, until such time as you show us whether you, yourself are capable of a unique thought or an innovative idea let alone sharing it.  It takes a certain amount of courage and a certain amount of vulnerability.  You have neither.

By the way - your motto - are you suggesting that to behave like a pig does not mean that you also are a pig?  I can't understand it.
 
« Last Edit: 30/07/2009 20:04:16 by witsend »
 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #356 on: 30/07/2009 23:42:07 »
If you think that it's putting you down when I disagree with you then that is up to you. If you want to have a Science based on fantasy, then that is fine. But you can't call it Science, I'm afraid.
The one thing about Science which applies over the whole field is that it aims at consistency wherever possible. If I point out an inconsistency, is that a 'put-down'?  Do you not have any comment on 'that' thread? The sources quoted in it were not aimed to 'put you down'; they were arrived at rigorously in an attempt to understand things a bit better. Try reading them. You may take offense at me but you can hardly take offense at them.

Many of the self-styled 'new theories' on this forum are not, in fact theories - they are hypotheses and many of them are clearly not consistent with the body of Scientific evidence. When I see that, I tend to point it out. Isn't this supposed to be a Science Forum? Let's conduct it that way, then.
You will notice that I very seldom comment in the 'Just Chat' section because the contributors to that have the sense to acknowledge that the contributions are exactly that. Good fun, very often and sometimes stimulating.

You seem to have your own way of being purposely offensive and it is aimed at a more personal level than anything I have ever written. Not really appropriate, I think.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #357 on: 31/07/2009 07:46:17 »
Following quotes from SC
If you think that it's putting you down when I disagree with you then that is up to you.
Are you trying to usurp or confer a right for me to draw my own conclusions?  I can't work it out.  Either way it's grossly inappropriate and disgustingly arrogant, as it is not,in fact, your right to confer or usurp. As you are clearly conflicted here, let me remind you.  You are not God.

If you want to have a Science based on fantasy, then that is fine.
As you cannot understand the subtleties of inductive or deductive logic I would suggest you defer your opinion.  Fantasy is your brand of physics where subtleties of logic and concept entirely elude you.  To follow this reasoning one also requires a reasonably adequate intelligence quotient.

But you can't call it Science, I'm afraid.
I can call it whatever I like.  Who made you an arbiter of science and its definitions? 

The one thing about Science which applies over the whole field is that it aims at consistency wherever possible.
What nonsense is this?  Where is there consistency in science as an explanation of current flow from induced fields on a switching circuit.  I have never in my life seen such an absurd parade of 'scientific' explanations to account for the second phase of a switching cycle.  It will go down in history as being a real scar on the otherwise proud face of scientific history. It's logic progressively cascades into total absurdity.  My posts regarding this refer.

If I point out an inconsistency, is that a 'put-down'?
Indeed - the more so as there is no insconsistency.  Your attention and efforts would be better spent in pointing out the inconsistencies in known physics.  Pretend to an impartiality.  It would make your sad attacks more plausible.

Do you not have any comment on 'that' thread? The sources quoted in it were not aimed to 'put you down'; they were arrived at rigorously in an attempt to understand things a bit better. Try reading them. You may take offense at me but you can hardly take offense at them.
Somewhat cryptic here I'm afraid.  If you're referring to the thread that describes my circuit - then that is, indeed, another example of the paraded idiocies of egocentric opinionated armchair scientists - fighting their corner LOUDLY rather than reasonably.  I have read it.  Many times.  It's a scar on this forum and it's there for the record.
 
Many of the self-styled 'new theories' on this forum are not, in fact theories - they are hypotheses and many of them are clearly not consistent with the body of Scientific evidence.
How can conflicting evidence be considered if it is not allowed to be presented?  It may not come to the table?  What is that?  Science?

When I see that, I tend to point it out.
Indeed - you point it out with a repetitive and dreary monotony which is the inevitable consequence of a boring and dull witted mind.

Isn't this supposed to be a Science Forum?
Again.  Who made you the arbiter here?  God?  The global body of our learned and revered?  Let me assure you that the strength of our academies lies not with the bigot but with those who quest for the truth.  And there are many especially in the hallowed halls of our Ivy League institutions.  Michio Kaku is on record as recommending that the entire body of physics be upturned and ALL its text books rewritten.   

Let's conduct it that way, then.
What way?  Put on dark glasses the better not to see with?  Close your eyes to the evidence lest it conflicts with prejudice?  Block your ears because you cannot learn new physics? Mock new ideas lest they be proved right? 

You will notice that I very seldom comment in the 'Just Chat' section because the contributors to that have the sense to acknowledge that the contributions are exactly that. Good fun, very often and sometimes stimulating.
With respect.  Actually - in truth, without any shred of respect whatsoever - your comments in the 'just chat' would be much more appropriate than any contribution you could possibly make in the 'new ideas' - 'new science' 'new anything'.  To comment here you - at it's least - need intelligence. imagination, courage, sensitivity, concern, kindness, thoughfulness and the need to learn.

You seem to have your own way of being purposely offensive and it is aimed at a more personal level than anything I have ever written. Not really appropriate, I think.
How is it not appropriate - when you offend everything that is creative and sincere? 

And in the final analysis SC - let me point out to you that the concept of 'stored energy' being recirculated on a circuit from a switching cycle - offends every possible reach of logic.  Yet if this second cycle of a switching circuit is seen as regenerated energy - it then conforms to known science with all its pristine logic.  It is just that it also then confronts the constraints of second laws which require efficiencies at 1 or under. That is the point where the bigot actually needs to leave the room.

« Last Edit: 31/07/2009 15:12:28 by witsend »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #358 on: 31/07/2009 08:30:22 »
I'm sorry witsend, but I think you've mis-read sophie's intentions completely.

He would be delighted if a new theory, backed by the appropriate evidence, were to arise on this forum that could topple an accepted theory - that's one of the exciting bits of science.

However, he also knows what it takes to do this, and will put the hard questions to anyone arguing a new hypothesis.  If you feel that this is an attack on you, it's not - it's an attack on your hypothesis.  If any new hypothesis is strong enough to be accepted, it will be able to fend off these attacks with scientific answers.

Bear in mind that it's the science he's talking about - if you could answer his questions, your hypothesis would either be strenghtened or rejected - is this not a good thing?

I would also consider that you have been quite rude about him in the post below.  Try not to take anything personally, and concentrate on the science.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #359 on: 31/07/2009 08:40:31 »
BenV - I hear you.  But know that any attempt at advancing the science is entirely defeated when I have to deal with SC's posts.  He will put his oar in with repetitive monotony always reminding me that I have no right to post or comment here or on this subject.

If, indeed, the entire process of accreditation and validation of my experiment were to go through rigorous questioning - I would not mind.  But when there is the implication that it does not even deserve attention and that the models I've advanced are 'fantasy' then, I'm afraid the subject is not being questioned.  It's being systematically slaughtered. And for all that it may be amateurish - its my hard won efforts over 10 years of my life.

But I hear you.  The post was possibly a little excessive.  Sorry.

I've taken out a couple of comments.  Hopefully that may make it better.  If you want me to delete it I will but then you must get SC to delete his as well.
« Last Edit: 31/07/2009 08:46:00 by witsend »
 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #360 on: 31/07/2009 09:23:00 »
Witsend
The link to which I referred was the last link mentioned. It was the link with which I re entered the thread. I will give it again
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=24017.0

You might find it interesting as an example of some Science which is consistent with evidence in as far as it agrees with measurement. The numbers are all available elsewhere and so are the formulae if you can just do the substitutions.

The content ( mine and others) cannot be construed as a put-down of anyone.
Edit - repair of link
« Last Edit: 31/07/2009 11:45:06 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #361 on: 31/07/2009 12:37:18 »
SC - I strongly recommend that you do not advance examples of your impartiality as I can counter this with scchedules, whole rafts of insults and slights, some of them personal some of them general all of them dismissive and all of them proving a want of objectivity.

« Last Edit: 31/07/2009 14:37:37 by witsend »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #362 on: 31/07/2009 13:36:34 »
Witsend - from now on, please ignore anything you feel is a personal slight, and instead concentrate on tackling any questions about the science that people (including sophie) put forward.

If the perceived 'personal' nature of his comments is what offends you, it might also benefit you to refrain from making personal comments yourself

This, for example:
Quote
Here you go, SophieCentaur.  There's more than enough math here to satisfy the purist. Where's your input?
Was an uncalled for attack in an entirely unconnected thread.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #363 on: 31/07/2009 13:45:50 »

But it's a sad outlook for the Naked Scientists forum generally as your attentions only ever manage to diminish contributors while you vicariously or actively dictate what may or may not be considered for evaluation.  I wish BenV would wake up to the fact.  It is my humble opinion that you should be banned from the New Theories section - entirely, until such time as you show us whether you, yourself are capable of a unique thought or an innovative idea let alone sharing it.  It takes a certain amount of courage and a certain amount of vulnerability.  You have neither.

The main point of this forum is to be educational.  Sometimes, this can mean helping people to develop new ideas, or pointing out the faults in a hypothesis.  Getting a new theory accepted is difficult - and rightly so - so if people on this forum challenge new hypotheses with scientific questions, doesn't everyone benefit?

As you know, I won't comment on the validity of your ideas because they're out of my field of expertise, so the following comment is a general one about the kinds of new hypotheses we see on this forum...

What would be the advantage to allowing people to not just believe, but publicise, a hypothesis that doesn't stand up?  Should people be able to visit the Naked Scientists forum and read about a new, possibly flawed, hypothesis without any critisism? If the hypothesis is strong enough, it will stand up to any and all critical comments on this forum.

This especially stands when it comes to issues of health and medicine - it would be simply irresponsible if we were not to allow people to challenge comments that could lead people to make  the wrong decisions.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #364 on: 31/07/2009 14:32:06 »
Sorry BenV.  Sincerely.  I get it.

EDIT - how do you propose that I counter SC's repeated advice that I do not post here.  He's recommended the 'just chat'.  Do I comply with this?
« Last Edit: 31/07/2009 14:36:32 by witsend »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #365 on: 31/07/2009 14:48:54 »
What I think he's asking is that you tackle his science questions specifically - if you were to do that then no-one would be able to complain about you posting here.

Might I suggest that you have a look through the thread and see if there's any outstanding questions you can answer, or would like some clarification of?  Knowing Sophie and others on this forum, if you ask for help in answering these questions (such as where to start with the maths etc), they usually oblige!
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #366 on: 31/07/2009 15:22:46 »
But there is.
Did you not understand the link? Electrons moving around a circuit or electrons in the atoms of a 'magnet' are still doing the same thing.
It's just an alternative way of looking at it. Magnetism is no more fundamental than anything else. Moreover, the theory I quote from has a track record and agrees with measurement. I don't think yours does.

Here's a case in point.  I'm arguing that electrons cannot comprise current flow.  It's never been addressed. Not only is it not addressed but I am now told that electrons are 'free floating' somehow - somewhere - inside a magnet - never been seen, never been proven - but nonetheless there because popular opinion requires it?  And this masquerades as science?  Not only that but preferred science?  It confounds every reasonable or logical faculty that I possess and I am advised that this is a fact.  In truth SC this is an hypothesis - NEVER has it been proven.

And I might add - that with the simple and consistent extension of my argument I am able to show a reconciliation between the mass/size of a proton to an electron which you refute for want of a 0.08% difference in measurement - already acknowledged and accounted for in the volume and shape of the particles involved.  Why was this not answered?
« Last Edit: 31/07/2009 15:35:14 by witsend »
 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #367 on: 31/07/2009 19:55:06 »
witsend
Quote
I'm arguing that electrons cannot comprise current flow.

Are you really not aware of any of the evidence which supports all this?
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #368 on: 31/07/2009 19:58:49 »
What evidence?  You mean classical theory?  It's nonsense.  Please do not point to consensus opionion - or general approved theory.  Just address the question - what happens when your average battery is recharged.  What exactly happens?  And then.  What happens when it discharges?  Nothing else.  Just the bare bones.

The evidence in support of this is amply proven in the paper which was not forwarded for review.

More evidence is en route soon in a replicated test.  If you wish to keep up you must log into energeticforum.com
« Last Edit: 31/07/2009 20:01:07 by witsend »
 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #369 on: 31/07/2009 22:51:39 »
It's not "classical  theory" it is the result of countless measurements, backed up by analysis, involving ACTUAL MEASURED QUANTITIES.
You have clearly not understood the existing theories deeply enough to be in a position to reject them so you just cannot be taken seriously. Science is far, far deeper than you care to acknowledge. Until you know your enemy a lot better than you do, you are in no position to hold any valid opinions one way or another.
You are pedling non scientific froth.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #370 on: 01/08/2009 07:48:33 »
OK - SC - yet again you've ignored my question.  It's there on the table when you want to pick it up.  And tell me, BenV - how I can confuse SC's intentions here?  He does not answer my questions and claims that I'm peddling scientific froth?  I have my experiment on the table, my field model on the table, all. 

I actually find this kind of comment fruitless - counter productive and unmannerly.  I'm off.
 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #371 on: 01/08/2009 10:15:34 »
There is no way to deal with your argument, witsend. I don't need to deal with your question about evidence for the 'classical' ideas. (I think you are actually referring to QM and not classical). You refuse to take on board the huge body of Science on the grounds that you can't get hold of books, that you can't be bothered with Maths (it doesn't "make sense" to you, you say).
AND YET you expect the world to accept you ideas on the basis of one piece of writing with one section containing (integer) numbers, which is the 'Maths' to justify it all. Your evidence is based on a single, barely undertood experiment in which you mis interpret the results.
You still say I'm being unreasonable?
Until you can demonstrate some appreciation of what QM and the rest are actually saying, you can't assume any authority to reject it. If you were to do that, your ideas might have some substance.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #372 on: 01/08/2009 18:39:58 »
SC I'm in no hurry.  The question's still on the table.  In fact - here's a variation.

'How can my accredited results on the experiment described in the paper submitted to the IET be explained in terms of classical concepts of electric current flow and the transfer of energy principles understood by mainstream science?

If you want to argue the results then argue it with my accreditors.  That's not open as an option.  Just the current flow and transfer of energy?  For once - put your beloved classical argument on the table.  I've got results that disprove it.  Now tell me how classical thinking can possibly be right.
 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #373 on: 01/08/2009 23:39:22 »
The problem is that you have not 'disproved' any aspect of the conventional view of conduction. You have not even demonstrated that you understand the theory. You make pointless demands that I must explain a few results which you claim are not explained by conventional Science.

Which actual parts of conventional Science are you actually objecting to? You use all the conventional terms - like proton, electron and field. Why do you deign to use such terms if you object so strongly to the Science which introduced them, describes their behaviour so accurately (measurably)? Which bits do you accept and which bits do you reject? Which Science rules do you know and understand (without the use of textbooks or any formal learning, you say)? Are you OK with Newton, Faraday, Rutherford? Where do your definitions of their terms start to differ from theirs? How do you think 'your electron' would have been detected and characterised if its inherent properties were so different from the electron that JJ Thomson discovered? Do you not accept that 'cathode rays' are, in fact, electrons? Do you not know that the current through a CRT can be measured and that the number of electrons passing through can, in effect, be measured by the deposition of chemicals in an electrolytic cell? Or is all that stuff just irrelevant?

Your ideas hang on some very limited evidence and you claim approval from a few 'professionals' but none of your supposed supporters is visible on these threads. What about your co-author? No sign of opinions from him. I should have expected to see some input from there in defence. Is there actually any evidence that you have any support?

As for the results which you claim to be accredited: where is the accreditation, btw? You have just challenged me / someone to point out what is wrong with your experiment. If you care to read the posts on the thread about your experiment you will find ample valid objections to how you conducted your measurements and a perfectly good analysis of the (incredibly common and well studied) circuit. You did nothing but brush aside the objections on the grounds that they involved Maths and knowledge of Capacitors.
I have already used the expression "word salad" and it still is nothing more.

This paper to the IET; it has been submitted but has it been accepted  / published? Until it has been, it is irrelevant to imply support from that quarter.

Edited to repair what I did on my ipod - should have done all this on a proper keyboard.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2009 23:52:44 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #374 on: 02/08/2009 06:39:05 »
You keep pointing to everyone else's explanation of physics.  I'm still waiting for yours.  Yes.  I want you to imagine this scenario.  I have not been sued by some heavyweights in industry - notwithstanding my inclusion of their name in a paper that is now very much available for public consumption.  Imagnine therefore that I have not misrepresented the facts.  Let's take a really big leap of faith here and assume that I am not actually a liar.

Now - I have a set of results that defy classical prediction.  I don't care if you want to reference classical or quantum physics here. How does 'stored energy' which is allowed by mainstream science - account for these results.  And - for that matter - how does 'stored' energy 'flow' on your standard switching circuit.

You see SC - you scoff at my interpretation, which - in any event you do not understand.  But have you investigated your own theory?  I would be glad to see a 'step by step' explanation of this. Unfortunately it cannot be described mathematically.  You'll need to deal with concepts here.

And as mentioned - I'm in no hurry here.  I just want to get this shoe on the other foot.     
« Last Edit: 04/08/2009 07:30:46 by witsend »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #374 on: 02/08/2009 06:39:05 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums