Thunderbolts Forum

'13-04-26, 01:32 Daniel	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun Hmmmm. Judging by the lack of response it would seem I am either incorrect, or people are unable to keep up with the descriptions. Perhaps my time here is wasted?
'13-05-01, 12:27 Daniel	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun CharlesChandler wrote: Daniel wrote: I am a newbie here, but would like someone to describe the difference btween an Anode and a Cathode please. The way we're using the terms here, an anode is positively charged, and emits +ions (or more probably, accepts electrons, but that isn't what the "anode model" states), while a cathode is negatively charged, and emits electrons. Ahh. I see. So basically, the model you are using is one of flow of energy from one point, the anode, emitting + charges, presumably the "holes"? as you are talking electron flow, and these fictitious packets travel through some inverse time region to the cathode, which is negatively charged, and emitting electrons. Ok. So. Please explain how these two charges do not instantly combine and anihialate one another, to produce no net work through the circuit. As we all know, like forces repel and opposites attract. Why would there be any exchange of energy to the surrounding environment at all, if +ions are a particle with a missing electron? Would not the electrons simply fall onto the +ion to bring balance before any work could be done, or energy could flow? Or is this "quantum magic"??
'13-05-01, 18:35 CharlesChandler	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun Daniel wrote: Ahh. I see. So basically, the model you are using is one of flow of energy from one point, the anode, emitting + charges, presumably the "holes"? as you are talking electron flow, and these fictitious packets travel through some inverse time region to the cathode, which is negatively charged, and emitting electrons. Ok. So. Please explain how these two charges do not instantly combine and anihialate one another, to produce no net work through the circuit. As we all know, like forces repel and opposites attract. Why would there be any exchange of energy to the surrounding environment at all, if +ions are a particle with a missing electron? Would not the electrons simply fall onto the +ion to bring balance before any work could be done, or energy could flow? Or is this "quantum magic"?? First, I'm going with the "cathode" model, but the flavor I'm using is complex, and arguably asserts the existence of both anode & cathode currents. The anodic current is episodic, while the resulting cathodic current (if I'm using those terms correctly?) is sustained, and thus the Sun is "characterized" as a cathode. Second, my model has the topmost layer of the Sun being positively charged, with a negative layer something like 20 Mm below. Solar flares that eject plasma are near the surface, which is inside the positive layer. Thus the CME represents a net loss of positive charge for the Sun (anodic current?), creating a charge imbalance. In response to this, there is a net drift of electrons (cathodic current?) through the positive layer, attracted by the electric field to the expelled +ions. Ohmic heating from the electrons moving through the positive layer does the work.
'13-05-02, 01:11 Daniel	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun CharlesChandler wrote: Daniel wrote: Ahh. I see. So basically, the model you are using is one of flow of energy from one point, the anode, emitting + charges, presumably the "holes"? as you are talking electron flow, and these fictitious packets travel through some inverse time region to the cathode, which is negatively charged, and emitting electrons. Ok. So. Please explain how these two charges do not instantly combine and anihialate one another, to produce no net work through the circuit. As we all know, like forces repel and opposites attract. Why would there be any exchange of energy to the surrounding environment at all, if +ions are a particle with a missing electron? Would not the electrons simply fall onto the +ion to bring balance before any work could be done, or energy could flow? Or is this "quantum magic"?? First, I'm going with the "cathode" model, but the flavor I'm using is complex, and arguably asserts the existence of both anode & cathode currents. The anodic current is episodic, while the resulting cathodic current (if I'm using those terms correctly?) is sustained, and thus the Sun is "characterized" as a cathode. Second, my model has the topmost layer of the Sun being positively charged, with a negative layer something like 20 Mm below. Solar flares that eject plasma are near the surface, which is inside the positive layer. Thus the CME represents a net loss of positive charge for the Sun (anodic current?), creating a charge imbalance. In response to this, there is a net drift of electrons (cathodic current?) through the positive layer, attracted by the electric field to the expelled +ions. Ohmic heating from the electrons moving through the positive layer does the work. Well done Charles. You have succeeded in completely obfiscating my question with your response. Honestly, if you don't know the answer, just say so. I will pose the question within your "model" in the hope that this will provide you with a contextual understanding as you seem to be unable to engage with the basics. So, why would the "net drift of electrons" not simply latch onto the "charge imballance" within the "positive layer" producing no net work, ie; NO "OHMIC HEATING"???? Why would these "electrons" be drawn to the "expelled +ions" at all? Would not the charge imballanced "positive layer" be the "sink"? Or, like I said, is there some sort of quantum magic going on to explain this "model"? Also, would you be kind enough to respond to my other questions or do I have to pose them in a context you understand as well? I really don't mind, you just have to let me know what it actually is you are or are not understanding. I will pose them again for referance. "I would like someone to describe the difference between an Anode and a Cathode please?" Use references if you could, to the original observations, made by Faraday. (I think it was Faraday). Describe what effect these two currents have on a conductor wound into a coil and the electrical connection configurations". "I asked, if anyone here actually knew what Anodic current and Cathodic current was, and the distinction between them. Could you expand on the "model" you mentioned please"?? (This being the ORIGINAL, actual, scientific observations and explanations of these two currents and NOT an imaginary theory of the sun's operation). Then, there is this from you Charles,....."The way we're using the terms here, an anode is positively charged, and emits +ions (or more probably, accepts electrons, but that isn't what the "anode model" states), while a cathode is negatively charged, and emits electrons". Now. I would like for someone to tell me how an Anode, which is "positive" due to a "lack of electrons" can "emit +ions" while acting as a sink for the Cathode which is "emitting electrons". These "electrons" require a source and sink for there to be a "current flow", yet, mysteriously, the Anode is both a source of +ions (which are missing an electron apparently) AND a sink for electrons??? Or is it just a sink for electrons, while not emitting anything at all?? If the latter, where then is the sink for the electrons? Or are the electrons simply moved in a constant one way passage from source to sink, returning to ground as the conventional model states?? Then, where is the ground circuit for the sun?? Perhaps that is why it said to be "using fuel"?? If this latter is the case, then where, oh where is the observed dual aspect of electric charge as noted by the likes of Faraday, Lord Kelvin and all the others? Or did that science simply get magiced away? There is something screwy here, or is it some sort of "quantum magic" Thanks.
'13-05-02, 02:27 CharlesChandler	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun I didn't realize that you're not asking about solar theory, but rather, about alternative EM theories. My bad. I have no idea how to answer your questions. I just use conventional EM theory, as applied to astrophysics.
'13-05-02, 03:32 seasmith	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun Daniel wrote:(note quote box,fourth button from left on top) Also, would you be kind enough to respond to my other questions or do I have to pose them in a context you understand as well? I really don't mind, you just have to let me know what it actually is you are or are not understanding. I will pose them again for referance. "I would like someone to describe the difference between an Anode and a Cathode please?" It's a trick question. Anode can become cathode, and cathode anode, depending on chirality of circuit.
'13-05-02, 06:20 Daniel	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun [/quote]It's a trick question. Anode can become cathode, and cathode anode, depending on chirality of circuit.[/quote] Nope, it's not a trick question. The reasoning behind the terminology has nothing to do with chirality, as explained earlier. Perhaps I used too many words.
'13-05-03, 08:55 Daniel	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun CharlesChandler wrote: I didn't realize that you're not asking about solar theory, but rather, about alternative EM theories. My bad. I have no idea how to answer your questions. I just use conventional EM theory, as applied to astrophysics. Ahhh. I see. So, you are happy to continue being wrong, 'cause everyone else is? What does it matter, right? I mean, if this were REAL science, it would matter, but since we are talking about things so far away that they do not effect us, it is of no real consequence anyway. You are trying to describe an EU model with no concept of the first element od the model in it's true terms from a scientific explanation and refuse to be edumicated to consider alternatives as they are just that, "alternative". What you fail to realise is that it is the CONVENTION which you follow that has been missinterpreted from the facts of observational science. There is nothing "alternative in there, just the facts which have been obscured "by convention".
'13-05-04, 02:32 CharlesChandler	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun Daniel wrote: Ahhh. I see. So, you are happy to continue being wrong, 'cause everyone else is? Actually, I'm trying to work my way up to that. Usually I'm wrong all by myself. Daniel wrote: What does it matter, right? Well, can you describe what conclusions I'd draw differently? Nobody is going to adopt a different model, or in this context, go back to an earlier model, just because it seems to make better sense. The proposed model has to make easier work of a larger inventory of conditions. In other words, it has to be simpler, and/or more comprehensive, and/or more accurate. And the benefits need to be demonstrated. If they are not, then it's all just sophistry.
'13-05-04, 14:20 Daniel	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun [/quote] Well, can you describe what conclusions I'd draw differently? Nobody is going to adopt a different model, or in this context, go back to an earlier model, just because it seems to make better sense. The proposed model has to make easier work of a larger inventory of conditions. In other words, it has to be simpler, and/or more comprehensive, and/or more accurate. And the benefits need to be demonstrated. If they are not, then it's all just sophistry.[/quote] Pardon, I thought you just said that the older makes better sense. To bring order to something that is currently dissordered, by relieving the "conventional" false assumptions, and acheiving simpler more comprehendable solutions, to everything in it's state, which is more relevant than is currently possible by being able to map the path of the "electron" via experiment and measurements to render both position and time, to acheive a linking of that capacitance and inertia in a desired load, to deliver amplification of the energy component inherent in the motion of all matter, which is exactly what I have described, and is demonstrated in the videos I have recently posted on youtube in an effort to convey the solution of the problem for the benifit of others is not enough for you, then sorry. If these conclusions do mot make sense to you then I am truly, truly sorry. I have spent enough time here, and if there is no chance of being heard, then I have better things to do.