Thanks Mike,

You have some excellent suggestions for followup experimentation which hopefully will help to explain some of the mystery behind magnons.  Did you know that the Hall effect is in evidence in several FET [field effect transistors] devices which also has not been explained .  These are all areas that PHD students could really explore for us and produce a thesis on the results.

Getting back to the main topic we need a better explanation of a conductors magnetic momentum.  It is difficult to explain how magnons move through an electric conductor because the B/H curve MUr µ characteristics of copper, aluminium and silver are not databased anywhere; all that  is known is the µo,the permeability of free space.

However, I have an old table of isotopes Oliver and Boyd 2000 which shows the nuclear magnetic moment µ for copper as +0.22 , Aluminium as +3.64 and silver as -0.11 which I assume must be relevant to any explanation. 

However, the magnetic moment will probably be affected by a change in frequency of the magnoflux transmission which will need to be investigated and databased.

Good morning Anthony,

The gravitational force on a body with a constant mass m is equal to mg, where g is the acceleration of gravity (equal to 9.8 meters per second squared). The direction of the force towards the center of the earth, that is, down. Its speed will be slowed, provided that another force acting on it will be an upward component. Let us now consider what happens to the conductor under the influence of magnetic field B (for simplicity, suppose the field is uniform in size and direction).


Unlike the electric force acting on a charged body in any situation, the magnetic field does not exert force on stationary charges but only on moving charges. The magnetic field is defined by the force it exerts on a particle with a velocity v and a charge q, called the Lorentz

  force: 



 











 

The hand with a twist is how electricity looks but what is wrong is the units shown in the x,y and z directions are totally misleading. The current i in the x direction is fine but at rightangles to this is the flux and NOT the flux density B.  The flux density is an area of magnetic flux in the x and y directions.  Thus to increase the flux/amp area we can increase the ampere-turns and create more magnoflux.  But this is massless and chargeless magnetic stuff and still has no volume in which to contain the spin energy.  This is provided by the EMF voltage applied in the final z direction.

This is shown in the attached diagram.

The result is that a balanced area of flux-current  will helix forward in the direction of the voltage giving a unit of magnetic power which if maintained for a second is energy


POWER =  x  wbs X  EMFvolts Cos ∅ 
Now if we multiple the two equal square roots together we get an area of flux amps  which is what we call current.  To make a volume the voltage must be at right angles to the current or a Cos ∅reductionwillresultinVARsratherthanWattsbeingproduced. 

.

Have a bit of a problem with the special characters as the symbol for square root is missing so apologise for the messy formula.  So in written text 


Power equals a square area of magnoflux with current movement in x direction and flux in y direction inseparably combined together [ which we measure in amps] with the voltage at right angles in the z direction [measured in volts].  

If the voltage is not exactly at right angles there will be a reduction in power transmitted by Cos Ø . Electric power can move through a vacuum at the speed of light as it magnetic and has no charge or mass.

This is something which is more than a little complex CliveS, and probably not entirely correct from many points of view. I would certainly agree with you about the nature of electricity, in that we have no idea how it works, and the field and electron theories are immediately seen to be incorrect. Someone above suggested tennis balls (touching) in a tube as a model of electrons carrying electric current. This cannot be correct because the current would travel (as the force does) at the acoustic velocity of the string of balls. The force applied to one end is not immediately shown at the other, because this would require the balls to have infinite modulus, and thus infinite acoustic velocity. Replace the balls with steel ones, the same applies each ball must deform somewhat to pass the force to the next ball. A Newtons cradle demonstrates this well, the ball on the collision end sends a force wave through the other balls to push the far end ball away, but certainly not instantly when measured. The same problem applies by saying the electric fields repel one another, to do this they must be infinitely stiff (or very nearly so) whereas we know this is not true. The speed of light varies with the density of the material through which it passes, and the velocity of electricity changes with the velocity factor of surrounding dielectrics, these things therefore must react with the EM (or whatever) waves or particles in ways that are not described or understood, particularly by the ridiculous "ball" type models.


We do seem to have an analogy between the two actions, and sometimes the light one is considered on a dielectric basis, but then we have a problem as to how DC works, because it cannot depend on a wave motion, unless this is something completely separate to the current. Miles Mathis (interesting guy, Milesmathis.com) has a large number of theories on many bits of physics,chemistry and astronomy, and has made a number of predictions on several things which have been found correct by mainstream science. It severely disturbs many people and they troll him to death, but it is all worth a read and consideration. If you want to look at vibrations,you need to define how fast they are and why they occur, with considerations of the energy needed. The ball model fails because whoever thought of it (and I have it in many top textbooks going back a long time) because electrons cannot have any velocity of current flow without serious energy being available, whereas currents of a pA travel at exactly the same speed as ones of kA. The electric and magnetic fields around wires do not seem to be the power carriers either, although we can make components where they can be used, and the EM theory of Maxwell is not useful to design Yagi antennas for example, because it is obviously incomplete.


Please keep thinking for that is where progress is made.

Thanks David for referring me to Miles papers.  Here is a paragragh of his about Orbitons    by Miles Mathis In the May 3, 2012 volume of Nature (485, p. 82), Schlappa et al. present a claim of confirmation of the orbiton. I will analyze that claim here. The authors begin like this: When viewed as an elementary particle, the electron has spin and charge. When binding to the atomic nucleus, it also acquires an angular momentum quantum number corresponding to the quantized atomic orbital it occupies. As a reader, you should be concerned that they would start off this important paper with a falsehood. I remind you that according to current theory, the electron does not have real spin and real charge. As with angular momentum, it has spin and charge quantum numbers. But all these quantum numbers are physically unassigned. They are mathematical only. The top physicists and journals and books have been telling us for decades that the electron spin is not to be understood as an actual spin, because they can't make that work in their equations. The spin is either understood to be a virtual spin, or it is understood to be nothing more than a place-filler in the equations. We can say the same of charge, which has never been defined physically to this day. What does a charged particle have that an uncharged particle does not, beyond different math and a different sign? The current theory has no answer. Rather than charge and spin and orbit, we could call these quantum numbers red and blue and green, and nothing would change in the theory. 

In general he is correct in pointing out inconsistencies in physics which need to be cleared away. Look at this video clip about magnoflux spin effect and let quantum theorists try and explain what is happening in front of their eyes.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_QqJraDxaA&t=30s

After all, until 1600 AD we all were taught and believed that the earth was flat; it was a no brainer; obvious.  But do you think it is flat now???

Lol, .... I remember something about the Flat Earth Society being mentioned here and that there were those who considered it to be real. umm


I'm more of an opinion that electricity is a shock wave of energy transferred on the backs of vibrating electrons. Then there was something about electron spin theory attributed to tthe magnetic effect on certain metals.

Legh