Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

[LongtimeAirman]

Lloyd, Thank you for your organizing efforts, prodigious output and gentle persuasion. I'm humbled in being associated with you.

WHAT IS CHARGE?
_1 The idea of attraction is non-mechanical.
_2 This means all attractions must be only apparent--the result of complex motions.
_3 We can now re-define the charge field as a bombarding field only. It is always repulsive; never attractive.
_4 It is caused by radiation of messenger photons, which I am going to re-dub B-photons (for bombarding photons).
_5 The repulsion is caused by an old-fashioned force by contact.
_6 Of course this means that the B-photons are not virtual: they have energy, mass equivalence, and even radius.
_7 We have a small electron and a large proton (to simplify).
_8 Let us say that the radiation from the electron is relatively negligible, so that we can look only at the radiation from the proton.
_9 The proton is emitting a bombarding field that tends to drive off all particles that come near.
*_10 But it will drive off larger particles more successfully than smaller particles, since the smaller particles will encounter a smaller cross-section of the field.
_11 Also remember that any other proton that enters the field of our first proton will also be emitting its own B-field.
_12 What about current in a wire?
*_13a Free electrons travel at high speed in a conducting wire, or any conductor,
*_13b because the B-field is moving in only one direction in that substance.
*_14 The B-field acts as a river, moving the electrons along by direct contact.
*_15 This B-field river can be created in any number of ways, either by having lots of radiating particles at one end of the wire and few or none at the other, or by directionalizing the B-field through the shape of the molecules in the substance.

HOW A BATTERY CIRCUIT WORKS
.16 A reader sent me a link to an article from 2002 by Ian Sefton of University of Sydney, who tries to explain how a circuit works.
.17 However, Sefton's explanation of the circuit is still not mechanical, as I think he would admit.
_18 Can we fill in his field model? Yes, since we now have photons to work with.
_19 In a series of papers, I have resuscitated the old spinning corpuscle of Newton, or the vortex of Maxwell, updating past centuries more fully than anyone thought possible.
_20 If you read the page at Wiki on electrical circuits, you get the impression that electrons travel through the circuit, creating the energy transfer.
_21 Sefton shows us that is false, and I have nothing to say against him. His argument in that regard is convincing.
*_22 The electrons are simply moving too slow.
_23 The flow of electrons isn't causing the lightbulb to light up, and the field doesn't explain it either.
_24 It is thought that the circuit acts as a medium through which charge can pass, but Sefton has already shown that isn't really the case.
_25 Whatever is passing is passing both through the wires and through the space between them directly, so it would appear that charge photons don't require the wires to pass from battery to bulb.
_26 The wires are providing some link, but they are not providing the path.
*_27 We should read the wires as an extension of the battery, not as a path.
_28 If we think of charge as a density difference instead of abstract potential, we can clarify the mechanics here.
*_29 The ionic content of the battery has set up not a separation of charge, but a density difference in the photon field.
_30 The photons are much denser on one side of the battery than the other.
*_31 Why._It could be any number of reasons, but a common reason in normal batteries is that chemical reactions separate large ions from small ones.
_32 In other words, if free protons are pushed to one side and free electrons to the other, the protons will be recycling far more photons.
_33 The photon density will be far higher on one side than the other, and by the rules of entropy or statistics, they will move from high density to low.
_34 Now, if we extend wires to the bulb, we haven't provided the path to the bulb that the photons must take, since the photons need no path of that kind.
*_35 What we have done is prime the field, like what happens in wireless transmission.
_36 The wires allow for an initial induction or matching of the present fields, so that photons leaving the battery can affect the photons in the bulb.

My Comments:
1.,2. Note, positives and negatives do not attract. This will be covered in much greater detail in the overall review. Also note that Gravity is not an attraction. Miles has provided evidence (his Mercury calculation or Jupiter prediction) that all matter behaves as though it is expanding. The Earth effectively doubles its radius every 17 minutes. This may be the most contentious of Miles' ideas.
4, - 6. And spin. B-photons travel up to light speeds, and they may spin at light speed as well. The B- in B-photon is now somewhat confusing. The foward motion of the B-photon is contributing to the electric, or e-field, while the spin is contributing to the magnetic, or h-field.
7.-11. Gravity at the atomic level assures the proximity of eletrons and protons. The charge field bombardments' e component maintain particle separation and h component induce perpendicular (I.e. orbital) motion. Note that the angular size of moon and sun are roughly equal. This is no coincidence. It is actually proof of charge field bombardment separation.
*_13, - *_15. Free electrons move through a wire with a given voltage differential, at a speed proportional to the voltage. The free electrons are driven by the charge field. The majority of b-photon motion will be in the direction of the wire. The total of the e components (generally alligned with the wire) contribute directly to the current flow, while the h components (aligned perpendicular to the e components - the wire's radial directions) tend to resist current, generate a magnetic field around the wire, and heat the wire.
*_22 The electrons are simply moving too slow. This does not contradict 13a, which referred to current flow of the wire. Here I think we are describing the voltage differential which is sensed at light speed.
_23 Miles has more to say later, but here he is saying that the lightbulb doesn't light due to electrons, it lights due to the filament temperature. Electrons don't heat the filament, h components do.
_24,- _26. In my opinion, the wire provides a relatively low resistance path that greatly facilitates charge field channeling.
*_27. "We should read the wires as an extension of the battery, not as a path" This is my favorite reviewed sentence.
_28. Charge density differentials rather than voltage potential differences. Key.
_32. Separating protons from electrons, or large ions from smaller ions, in order to create a charge density differential begins to sound really inefficient.

REMCB

[LongtimeAirman]

Chromium6, Oh, (duh) that Dr. K! I guess I would interpret Koertvelyessy's Filament Theory as the way nature equalizes charge density differentials. (It definitely gets easier with repetition).

I think you're right. Filaments are built from EVOs. EVOs are high density charges. I imagine that they they seek to discharge, and decay over time. They are probably more stable when they are in motion.

Plasma, ionized gas, represents the fourth state of matter, where the elemental ions are still identifiable. I think that adding more energy to break down the protons can result in EVOs.

I really like the slow motion lightning shows.
http://www.svn.net/krscfs/Lightning%20P ... eo%208.wmv

REMCB

[Lloyd]

Airman, thanks for the comments on my previous list of Mathis' statements on Electric Current. They're likely to be helpful before long, but I think now that I should have asked for comments only on the asterisked statements, because too many comments leads to "paralysis of analysis", i.e. paralysis due to having too much to analyze.

So now I ask everyone to comment just on the following statements from the previous list. Comment as to whether you disagree with, or don't understand a statement, or if you want to restate it to help clarity.

WHAT IS CHARGE?
_3 We can now re-define the charge field as a bombarding field only. It is always repulsive; never attractive.
_4 It is caused by radiation of messenger photons, which I am going to re-dub B-photons (for bombarding photons).
_9 The proton is emitting a bombarding field that tends to drive off all particles that come near.
_10 But it will drive off larger particles more successfully than smaller particles, since the smaller particles will encounter a smaller cross-section of the field.
_15 This B-field river can be created in any number of ways, either by having lots of radiating particles at one end of the wire and few or none at the other, or by directionalizing the B-field through the shape of the molecules in the substance.
HOW A BATTERY CIRCUIT WORKS
_20 If you read the page at Wiki on electrical circuits, you get the impression that electrons travel through the circuit, creating the energy transfer.
_21 Sefton shows us that is false, and I have nothing to say against him. His argument in that regard is convincing.
_22 The electrons are simply moving too slow.
_27 We should read the wires as an extension of the battery, not as a path.
_29 The ionic content of the battery has set up not a separation of charge, but a density difference in the photon field.
_31 Why._It could be any number of reasons, but a common reason in normal batteries is that chemical reactions separate large ions from small ones.
_35 What we have done is prime the field, like what happens in wireless transmission.

Note: #35 will be the theme for my next list of statements from the Battery Circuit paper.

[LongtimeAirman]

_3 Agree.
_4 Agree.
_9 Agree.
_10 Agree.
_15 Agree.
_20 Agree.
_21 Agree. I read the Sefton explanation.
_22 Agree. Free electron current flow is too slow to explain the apparent instantaneous lighting of the bulb.
_27 Agree.
_29 Agree.
_31 Agree.
_35 Disagree. Perhaps semantics. I see the switch is open, and the circuit is ready, not, the field is primed.

Well that looks way too easy to analyze. I would be thrown out of a random sample set.

REMCB

[Chromium6]

I'd take a look at Mathis' description of the Compton Effect for 7-11:


---------------

http://milesmathis.com/comp2.html

What the equation needs is a way to relate the wavelength of the electron to the wavelength of the photon. The only way to do that is with motions. We need to know how fast the electron is going and how fast it is spinning. Only then can we compare the energy of these spins. We need to compare energies, not measured wavelengths.

But how can we do this? It appears very difficult or impossible, which would explain why the standard model doesn't bother with it. However, using my new numbers, we can solve this one. The current Compton wavelength belongs to the photon, not the electron, as I said. The form of the equation alone tells us that. So to find the wavelength of the electron, we must compare the velocities of the two particles.

λe = λcv2/c2
λe/v2 = 2.7 x 10-29

In this way we see the two unknowns, and their relation. Only if v = c will the electron wavelength be the same as the Compton wavelength.

[Lloyd]

Okay, I'll try to get the next section out of the way quickly, since it all seems to be elaborating on the #35 statement. I don't understand this part yet, but maybe you all can help explain it. Again, I'd like to have comments on just the statements with asterisks. I'm thinking of showing just those statements in a separate post after this. Leaving the non-asterisks statements in the first time here may help explain the ones with asterisks.

_34 Now, if we extend wires to the bulb, we haven't provided the path to the bulb that the photons must take, since the photons need no path of that kind.
*_35 What we have done is prime the field, like what happens in wireless transmission.
_36 The wires allow for an initial induction or matching of the present fields, so that photons leaving the battery can affect the photons in the bulb.
_37 You can't build a path by multiplying E times B, since B is a spin.
_38 Linear motions make paths; but spins do not make linear paths.
_39 If we define S as the statistical motion of the photons of the battery, then a better equation is S + E the path to the bulb.
*_40 From it we can see that it is not photons or electrons traveling from battery to bulb that creates the energy rise in the bulb and its lighting.
*_41 It is actually photons moving across the bulb, just as they moved across the battery.
_42 Because the photons are denser at the bottom of the battery, they will also be denser at the bottom of the bulb, in Sefton's diagram.
_43 Remember, the top wire is positive [higher photon density?] all the way to the bulb, and the bottom wire is negative [lower photon density?] all the way to the bulb.
_44 To understand why this is, imagine that the bulb is more negative than any part of the battery.
_45 That doesn't have to be the case, but we will use it as the first example (and it does help).
*_46 Statistics tells us that all the photons in the battery will be attracted to all parts of the bulb.
*_47 But since density is spatial, it matters where the terminals are located in space.
*_48 As the photons move over to the bulb, they naturally “drag” their old densities with them, simply because more photons will be coming from the denser areas.
_49 If the negative terminal is low, for instance, the density will remain lower a few feet away.
_50 Unless the circuit is gigantic, we wouldn't expect the density differences to dissipate much.
_51 Distances don't mean much to photons, remember, since they are moving so fast.
_52 But if you check the latest theories, S is more strictly defined as the change of energy density .
*_53 You should find it interesting that current theory uses density here, since I am defining the entire circuit, at the fundamental level, as an outcome of photon density variation.
_54 If you say you have a field, that implies a field of some things.
_55 To remain mechanical, the field must contain something, either atoms or molecules or electrons or asteriods.
_56 Asking what is in the field is a mechanical question, and mechanics is physics, not metaphysics.
_57 In addition, we can't have equal energy entering the wires from all directions.
_58 That would create zero potential in the wire, wouldn't it.
_59 There is no impulse to motion in the field between two numbers that are the same.
_60 Therefore, saying that energy follows lines of equal potential is like saying that water flows up. _It is a contradiction.
_61 But the current theory does not tell us what is setting up any of these fields of potentials, or why a charged particle placed at any point in the triple field moves one way instead of another.
_62 He takes E as given, when it is what we are trying to explain. _That is called begging the question.
_63 IF E is moving along the wire, WHY is it doing so.
_64 In my theory, there is no S, so I don't have to explain it.
_65 There is only E, and E is the linear motion of the photons.
_66 In my theory, neither S nor E are moving through the wire.
*_67 As we will see below, some photons are initially moving in the wire to prime the field, but this movement isn't either S or E.
_68 It is a precursor to E, just as priming the field is a precursor to transmission in wireless.
*_69 And yes, electrons may be caused to drift by collisions with these passing photons, but, as Sefton just proved, E cannot be this movement of the electrons, since it is too slow.
*_70 The drift of electrons is just a side effect.
_71 The drift of electrons doesn't light the bulb, so it isn't what we are concerned with.
_72 If we had a true circuit, then both wires would be hot.
_73 But even in Sefton's field model, nothing is completing the circuit.
*_74 If this is the case, we must explain why we even need to complete the loop with the second wire.
_75 We know that we do, since if we don't, the bulb doesn't light up. _Why.
*_76 A related question is why we need the wires at all.
_77 My photon densities should be moving over there regardless, since photons are not contained.
_78 Therefore, if we are asking why we need the wires here, it may help to look at how wireless transmission works, to see why it isn't working here.
*_79 In a nutshell, in wireless transmission source and receiver have to be coupled, which means the field in the receiver has to be primed to match the source.
_80 This priming is done via the E/M field between the source and receiver.
_81 Since the Earth's atmosphere is already an E/M field, it can easily be used for this purpose, as Tesla discovered.
*_82 The problem is, in normal conditions, the field is not coherent in any way. _It is scrambled, relative to source and receiver. _Charge photons are rushing around in every direction.
*_83 But by sending out a pre-signal, as it were, a path is created for the photons. _A coherence in the field is created.
*_84 When this field reaches the receiver, the E/M field surrounding the atoms there is also made coherent.
*_85 This coherence can be a coherence of frequency or it can be a coherence of spin (magnetism), or both.
_86 This means that the charge emitted by particles in the receiver will be as like as possible in type to the charge emitted by the source.
_87 Like charge couples most easily. _Charge that is directionalized, frequency matched, and spin matched will maximize the coupling.
_88 With this in mind, we see that the reason there is no wireless transmission between a battery and a bulb is that there is no pre-signal. _The field hasn't been primed.
*_89 The photons at the source don't match the photons at the receiver in any way, so there isn't any appreciable coupling.
*_90 And this means that the wires in a wire circuit aren't really carrying charge, they are simply priming the field. _The wires supply the pre-signal.
_91 They mirror the function of the conductor in wireless.
_92 Some amount of photons pass through the wires, and they cohere the E/M field inside the bulb.
_93 This causes a sort of mutual induction, although most of the effect is going from battery to bulb (since most the photons are being recycled in the battery).
_94 And since the heaviest photon traffic is from battery to bulb, this traffic will cause the electrons in the wire to move toward the bulb, by direct bombardment.
_95 This is what has fooled everyone. _They see that electron movement toward the bulb and mistake it for the mechanism. _It isn't the mechanism, it is just a by-product.
*_96 But why must we have two wires then. _Why doesn't one wire work to prime the field. _Because one wire doesn't allow for induction.
*_97 Induction is caused by photon modulation of some sort, and you can't have this modulation without some appreciable width of influence.
*_98 If you had a really wide wire and a perfectly directionalized connection, you could create the induction with one wire, since in that case you would be mirroring the wireless set-up.
_99 In wireless, the atmosphere works like a really wide single wire with a pre-existing field.
_100 But a normal copper wire is too small in cross section to allow the photons to arrive at the source with the proper information.
_101 You can send information through a single wire, but you can't prime the E/M field through a small single wire (under normal circumstances).

[Lloyd]

Now here are just the main statements, with asterisks now removed.
_35 What we have done (by connecting wires) is prime the field, like what happens in wireless transmission.
_40 From it (equation S + E) we can see that it is not photons or electrons traveling from battery to bulb that creates the energy rise in the bulb and its lighting.
_41 It is actually photons moving across the bulb, just as they moved across the battery.
_46 Statistics tells us that all the photons in the battery will be attracted to all parts of the bulb.
_47 But since density is spatial, it matters where the terminals are located in space.
_48 As the photons move over to the bulb, they naturally “drag” their old densities with them, simply because more photons will be coming from the denser areas.
_53 You should find it interesting that current theory uses density here, since I am defining the entire circuit, at the fundamental level, as an outcome of photon density variation.
_67 As we will see below, some photons are initially moving in the wire to prime the field, but this movement isn't either S or E.
_69 And yes, electrons may be caused to drift by collisions with these passing photons, but, as Sefton just proved, E cannot be this movement of the electrons, since it is too slow.
_70 The drift of electrons is just a side effect.
_74 If this is the case, we must explain why we even need to complete the loop with the second wire.
_76 A related question is why we need the wires at all.
_79 In a nutshell, in wireless transmission source and receiver have to be coupled, which means the field in the receiver has to be primed to match the source.
_82 The problem is, in normal conditions, the field is not coherent in any way. _It is scrambled, relative to source and receiver. _Charge photons are rushing around in every direction.
_83 But by sending out a pre-signal, as it were, a path is created for the photons. _A coherence in the field is created.
_84 When this field reaches the receiver, the E/M field surrounding the atoms there is also made coherent.
_85 This coherence can be a coherence of frequency or it can be a coherence of spin (magnetism), or both.
_89 The photons at the source don't match the photons at the receiver in any way, so there isn't any appreciable coupling.
_90 And this means that the wires in a wire circuit aren't really carrying charge, they are simply priming the field. _96 But why must we have two wires then. _Why doesn't one wire work to prime the field. _Because one wire doesn't allow for induction.
_97 Induction is caused by photon modulation of some sort, and you can't have this modulation without some appreciable width of influence.
_98 If you had a really wide wire and a perfectly directionalized connection, you could create the induction with one wire, since in that case you would be mirroring the wireless set-up.

[Lloyd]

Comparing MM's and Airman's Explanations

- MM: _15 This B-field river can be created in any number of ways, either by having lots of radiating particles at one end of the wire and few or none at the other, or by directionalizing the B-field through the shape of the molecules in the substance.
_23 The flow of electrons isn't causing the lightbulb to light up, and the field doesn't explain it either.
_24 It is thought that the circuit acts as a medium through which charge can pass, but Sefton has already shown that isn't really the case.
_27 We should read the wires as an extension of the battery, not as a path.
_82 The problem is, in normal conditions, the field is not coherent in any way. _It is scrambled, relative to source and receiver. _Charge photons are rushing around in every direction.
_83 But by sending out a pre-signal, as it were, a path is created for the photons. _A coherence in the field is created.
_84 When this field reaches the receiver, the E/M field surrounding the atoms there is also made coherent.
_85 This coherence can be a coherence of frequency or it can be a coherence of spin (magnetism), or both.

- Airman: _13-15. The total of the e components (generally alligned with the wire) contribute directly to the current flow, while the h components (aligned perpendicular to the e components - the wire's radial directions) tend to resist current, generate a magnetic field around the wire, and heat the wire.
_23 here he is saying that the lightbulb doesn't light due to electrons, it lights due to the filament temperature. Electrons don't heat the filament, h components do.

My Questions
Electric Current
- Airman, by e and h components, did you mean those components of photons, where e is the forward motion and h is the outer spin?
- By current flow, did you mean the flow of photons?
- Can you guys explain what Mathis' statements mean in the first paragraph here?
Wires
- In #27, what did he mean by the wires being extensions of the battery? If the battery is large ions separated from small ions, are the wires supposed to be ionized with large and small ions too? If so, what are the ions and where are they?
Pre-signal
- In #83, what did he mean by "sending out a pre-signal"? Is the pre-signal a stream of photons? And are they moving through the wire as explained in his statement #15?
Light Bulb
- Does his #84-85 allude to Airman's comment on #23? In #84 what is the E/M field surrounding the atoms of the receiver? Is it photons or ions? Can someone diagram the "current" in a light-emitting filament? I'd like to see how the photons flow through the wires or through the air etc, how the photon spins become coherent and heat the filament, how the filament emits photons and where the emitted photons come from. Standard theory says that electrons emit photons. What does Mathis say? And what do you guys say?

[moses]

If charge photons are heat and this is the movement of atoms, then perhaps a moving nucleus generates a different frequency photon to a still nucleus, not that a nucleus is ever still. If each moment a charge photon is generated then that photon in it's spin and direction gives the speed and direction of the nucleus that generated it.

In the next moment the incoming charge photons alter the speed and direction of the nucleus and a new photon is generated that is somewhat different to the previous one. So it is the interaction of charge photons and nuclei that determine the speed and direction of an object. So if one generates charge photons of a particular type then one should be able to determine the motion of an object.

If the direction of charge photons in an object was suddenly aligned, instead of being in all directions, then that object would accelerate markedly. It seems that the only way to do this is by generating an extremely concentrated charge photon stream. However I think that resonance could do it. Unfortunately the practicality of doing this would be weaponising.

Cheers,
Mo

[Chromium6]

As for #27, here's another minor distraction. Keep in mind these apocryphal accounts on "wire" and Ground Radio with the Charge Field:
---------

In truth, the art of wired and wireless communication began in a reawakened appreciation of geomancy and geomantic energies. This remarkable reminder came about with the replacement of the original 2-wire telegraph line (Reusser, 1794) by the 1-wire method (Aldini, 1803), the latter requiring far less wire and several ground plate terminations. The telegraph stations of Morse used grounded plates, a means by which engineers imagined the "necessary return current...through the ground". Wired code on a single overhead wire was thus "matched" by an opposed ground return of charge, a condition which fulfilled the prevalent model of electrical closure.
...
Hoping to save the finance of excessive wire line, many telegraph systems implemented the discovery that code could easily "pass through water". To this end, engineers experimented with the use of widely separated groundplates, a means which proved strangely successful. Experiments with ground-conduction established telegraphic contact through an isthmus (Morse, 1842), through streams (Vail, 1843), wide rivers (Lindsay, 1843), canals (Highton, 1852), across a bay (Meucci, 1846), through the earth (Stubblefield, 1872), and between distant islands (Preece, 1880). An accidental discovery proved that one long line system continued operating with great strength of signal, despite the fact that the line had been literally broken in several places. The realization that code signals could actually enter and traverse the ground for several hundred yards, and then reenter a grounded line, triggered a new revolution.
...

The very first vocal radio broadcast was engaged by Nathan B. Stubblefield (1872). Mr. Stubblefield employed special "earth cells" and long iron rods to transmit strong vocal signals "with great clarity". These signals traversed a mile or more of ground, a coordinated conduction wireless system providing telephone service for a hardworking farm community. The Stubblefield Radio Method represents an essential technological mystery. His "earth cells" never wore out, never produced heat in their telephonic components, and provided "signal ready" power at any given instant of the day. Being neither activated or assisted by additional battery power, the system was fully operational around the clock.

http://www.icehouse.net/john1/groundradio.html

[Lloyd]

Energy Transfer
Considering all that on telegraphy and induction etc, I decided to look up info on Tesla. Here's some interesting info from http://home.earthlink.net/~drestinblack/wireless.htm.

The Wireless Electricity Of Nikola Tesla, by Melvin D. Saunders
- Tesla [] culminated his efforts in a major breakthrough in 1899 at Colorado Springs by transmitting 100 million volts of high-frequency electric power wirelessly over a distance of 26 miles at which he lit up a bank of 200 light bulbs and ran one electric motor! With this souped up version of his Tesla coil, Tesla claimed that only 5% of the transmitted energy was lost in the process. []
- A Tesla coil is a special transformer that takes a small amount of power and boosts it rapidly to a great deal of power. The high-frequency output of even a small Tesla coil can light up fluorescent tubes held several feet away without any wire connections. Even a large number of spent or discarded fluorescent tubes (their burned out cathodes are irrelevant) will light up if hung near a long wire running from a Tesla coil while using less than 100 watts drawn by the coil itself when plugged into an electrical outlet! Since the Tesla coil steps up the voltage to such a high degree, the alternating oscillations achieve sufficient excitations within the tubes of gases to produce lighting at a minimal expense of original power! Fluorescent tubes can be held under high-tension wires to produce the same lighting up effect. Remember the farmer a few years ago who was caught with an adaptive transformer under a set of high tension lines that ran over his property? Through the air, he pulled down all the power he needed to run his farm without using any connecting apparatus to the lines overhead! Any[one] with the proper materials can do the same thing.
- Incandescent bulbs burn high resistance filaments that gobble up energy. Fluorescent tubes burn filaments (cathodes) to create an electrical flow that sets their internal phosphorus coatings aglow. Using a Tesla coil, high voltage AC can light up glass-enclosed vacuum bulbs coolly without any gases inside them at all! Any number of cold light bulbs can be lit using only one Tesla coil, and since there is nothing inside them to burn out, they can last indefinitely.
- [] [Other] inventors (H. Grindell-Matthews, Guglielmo Marconi, et al) thereafter announced their own means for transmitting electrical energy without wires.

Goal: Explain This?
If we're lucky the summary paper will explain all such energy transfers. How much do you guys think you understand about these wired and wireless energy transfers? It seems like the best observation to explain may be Tesla's Colorado Springs experiment in which he started an electric motor wirelessly from a power source 26 miles away. Do you agree? Can you paraphrase MM's explanation to apply to all of these types of energy transfer in a way that many of us could understand?

[Lloyd]

Here's my present understanding of
MM's Model for Wired Electric Currents
with my understanding of Airman's explanation added at the end.
(Note: I still have a number of questions, but first, I'd like to see if everyone is generally in agreement with this, or not.)
_15a A stream of B-photons flows through the wire.
_15b The wire photon stream may be caused by having more radiating particles, i.e. protons(?), at one end of the wire than the other.
_15c Or it may be caused or directed by the shapes of the molecules in the substance of the wire.
_27 The wires are an extension of the battery.
_32 Free protons are pushed to one side in the battery and free electrons to the other.
_30 The photon emissions are much denser on the proton side of the battery.
_82 In normal conditions the photon stream from source to receiver is not coherent in any way.
_85 There can be a coherence of frequency or a coherence of spin (magnetism), or both.
_83 By sending out a pre-signal (of coherent photons?), a path is created for the photons and coherence in the field of photons (or ions?) is created.
_84 When this field reaches the receiver, the E/M field (of photons or ions?) surrounding the atoms there is also made coherent.
_A15a. Photon current has e (electric) and h (magnetic) field components. The e field component (generally aligned with the wire) is the forward photon current flow.
_A15b. The h component (coherently spinning photons or ions[?] aligned perpendicular in a radial direction to the e component) tend to resist photon current, generate a magnetic field around the wire, and heat the wire.
_A23. The h component raises the filament temperature, heating the filament and lighting the lightbulb.
(A15 & A23 means Airman's comments on MM's #15 & #23.)

[LongtimeAirman]

Lloyd,

This exercise was more difficult than I expected. I'm not happy being so judgemental. Learning sometimes involves the suspension of disbelief.

_35. Agree somewhat. I've worked with RF, but I haven't heard of "priming". I can easily believe that the circuit passes photons more in the manner of waveguides.
_40 Agree.
_41 Agree. Photons also move across the wires. The photons are recycling through the atomic matter of the circuit. Discreet photons are not likely to make it all the way around the circuit.
_46 Disagree. The bulb is not more negative than any part of the battery. In conventional terms, the bulb is just a high-resistance discontinuity in the overall circuit. The bulb is no more “attractive” than any other part of the circuit.
_47 Disagree somewhat. Do terminals in line with a bulb interfere with circuit performance? I find the "wireless" aspect difficult to accept.
_48 Disagree. Photons are physically excluded from high density areas by other photons, and must therefore tend to the lower density areas. I accept that light-speed photons are slowed and herded through the cattle chutes of the circuit’s atomic matter – channeling. In this case photons can only occupy the spaces available behind the forward moving photons ahead. The word Drag is misleading.
_53 Agree.
_67 Disagree. I still believe that most photons will be channeling with the circuit.
_69 Agree. Electrons are a resistance to photon flow.
_70 Agree.
_74 Disagree. I don’t see how only one wire should be able to do the job.
_76 Disagree.
_79 Both Agree and Disagree. In wireless transmission, I thought “coupling” was accomplished by: choosing physical dimensions to optimize the desired working frequencies, matching terminations and monitoring/adjusting phase angles and voltages. .
_82 Agree.
_83 Agree.
_84 Agree.
_85 Agree.
_89 Agree.
_90 Agree. I guess I can accept circuits as a transmission coupling device.
_96 Agree.
_97 Agree. I understand modulation, but “width of influence” is a new term for me.
_98 Agree. Based on what I think I know about ground planes.

I still owe you some answers.

REMCB

[Lloyd]

Summary Paper Goals: Consider These:
Mo's Comments on Inductance, Resonance, etc;
Cr6's Comments on Telegraphy Findings, K's Filaments etc;
Tesla's 26 mile Wireless Operation of Electric Motor etc;
Airman's Comments on MM's Statements on Electric Current.

Airman's Last Comments along with MM's Statements
Airman's Agreements and Comments
_35 What we have done (by connecting wires) is prime the field, like what happens in wireless transmission.
_A35. Agree somewhat. I've worked with RF, but I haven't heard of "priming". I can easily believe that the circuit passes photons more in the manner of waveguides.
_41 It is actually photons moving across the bulb, just as they moved across the battery.
_A41 Agree. Photons also move across the wires. The photons are recycling through the atomic matter of the circuit. Discreet photons are not likely to make it all the way around the circuit.
_69 And yes, electrons may be caused to drift by collisions with these passing photons, but, as Sefton just proved, E cannot be this movement of the electrons, since it is too slow.
_A69 Agree. Electrons are a resistance to photon flow.
_90 And this means that the wires in a wire circuit aren't really carrying charge, they are simply priming the field.
_A90 Agree. I guess I can accept circuits as a transmission coupling device.
_97 Induction is caused by photon modulation of some sort, and you can't have this modulation without some appreciable width of influence.
_A97 Agree. I understand modulation, but “width of influence” is a new term for me.
_98 If you had a really wide wire and a perfectly directionalized connection, you could create the induction with one wire, since in that case you would be mirroring the wireless set-up.
_A98 Agree. Based on what I think I know about ground planes.

Airman's Disagreements
_46 Statistics tells us that all the photons in the battery will be attracted to all parts of the bulb.
_A46 Disagree. The bulb is not more negative than any part of the battery. In conventional terms, the bulb is just a high-resistance discontinuity in the overall circuit. The bulb is no more “attractive” than any other part of the circuit.
_48 As the photons move over to the bulb, they naturally “drag” their old densities with them, simply because more photons will be coming from the denser areas.
_A48 Disagree. Photons are physically excluded from high density areas by other photons, and must therefore tend to the lower density areas. I accept that light-speed photons are slowed and herded through the cattle chutes of the circuit’s atomic matter – channeling. In this case photons can only occupy the spaces available behind the forward moving photons ahead. The word Drag is misleading.
_67 As we will see below, some photons are initially moving in the wire to prime the field, but this movement isn't either S or E.
_A67 Disagree. I still believe that most photons will be channeling with the circuit.
_74 If this is the case, we must explain why we even need to complete the loop with the second wire.
_A74 Disagree. I don’t see how only one wire should be able to do the job.
_76 A related question is why we need the wires at all.
_A76 Disagree.
_79 In a nutshell, in wireless transmission source and receiver have to be coupled, which means the field in the receiver has to be primed to match the source.
_A79 Both Agree and Disagree. In wireless transmission, I thought “coupling” was accomplished by: choosing physical dimensions to optimize the desired working frequencies, matching terminations and monitoring/adjusting phase angles and voltages.

Wired Like Wireless?
Airman, thanks for the comments on MM's statements and for apparently intending to answer my recent questions, which I welcome everyone to do as well. MM seemed to suggest that wired and wireless transmission of electric currents must be very similar. Since Tesla did apparently succeed in running an electric motor wirelessly from a great distance, it appears that wired and wireless indeed should be similar, since they can apparently get the same results. So now I've found something else to throw into the mix.

EM Outside of Conductor Surface
I had heard before that electric current travels near the surface of conductors, instead of through them. And I see that Wikipedia agrees. It says the speed of the EM wave depends on the insulator and can range from 66-99% of c. I'll try to incorporate some of the following Wiki info into the summary paper too. I looked at MM's model of copper and images of copper micrographs and figured it looks like there aren't very good channels in conductors for photon transmission. Then I remembered the claim that the current travels outside of the conductor. Conductors are often insulated and photons might travel between wires and insulation like they do in fiber optics, but it would be invisible photons, maybe IR. I'll try to remember to do a web search for IR images of electric currents. I found some already here: http://www.flashbackconstruction.com. And now here: http://www.infraredpsi.com/infraredinsp ... trical.php and here: http://www.infrareddiagnostic.com/infra ... ctric-scan.

Magnetic Field Transmission?
Many overhead transmission lines are not insulated except by the air, so there must be something else that would guide the photons. I wondered if magnetic fields could do the job. The air around high voltage power lines is said to ionize; and MM has said, I think, that magnetic fields can consist of (coherently spinning?) ions as well as spinning photons. I think he said the photons can induce the ions to spin the same way. So I wonder if the magnetic field of ions or photons could guide the electric current photons. And when the current is not strong enough to ionize the air, I wonder if electrons would surround conductors too and contribute to the magnetic field just as ions may.

W: Electric Current (W = Wikipedia)
Now here are some relevant statements from Wikipedia. Note that they seem to hint that the electric current is the EM wave, or photons.
_W1. Any accelerating electric charge, and therefore any changing electric current, gives rise to an electromagnetic wave that propagates at very high speed outside the surface of the conductor.
_W2. This speed is usually a significant fraction of the speed of light, as can be deduced from Maxwell's Equations, and is therefore many times faster than the drift velocity of the electrons.
_W3. For example, in AC power lines, the waves of electromagnetic energy propagate through the space between the wires, moving from a source to a distant load, even though the electrons in the wires only move back and forth over a tiny distance.
W: Velocity Factor
_W4. The velocity factor of a transmission medium is the speed at which a wavefront passes through the medium, relative to the speed of light.
_W5. The speed of radio signals in a vacuum, for example, is the speed of light, and so the velocity factor of a radio wave in a vacuum is unity, or 100%.
_W6. In electrical cables, the velocity factor mainly depends on the insulating material [or dielectric]:
VF: 95-99% in Open-wire "Ladder" Line;
VF: 80% in Belden 9085 twin-lead;
VF: 82% in RG-8X Belden 9258 coaxial cable (foamed polyethylene dielectric);
VF: 66% in RG-213 CXP213 coaxial cable (solid polyethylene dielectric).

Off on Another Tangent
By the way, if photons can follow the contorted paths of electric wires at nearly the speed of light, maybe similar forces can bend the Earth's emissions as MM has stated in a paper maybe from last year. He said the emissions are found to occur mainly around 30 degrees above and below the equator, but by the time they reach the upper ionosphere or so, they are at or very near the equatorial plane. Would the magnetic field do that?

[Lloyd]

Last Battery Circuit Paper Statements
This is the last set of major statements from MM's Battery Circuit paper. First I'll post the complete set of statements, then just the ones with asterisks, which are the ones that seem most worth discussing.

_102 To simplify the mechanism for this paper, think of the photons arriving at the bulb and speeding out of the wire.
*_103 Following Huygens principle, we can imagine the photons fanning out, as from a point source.
*_104 That fanning out ruins the ability of the photons to cohere the field inside the bulb.
_105 The local field can't read what the new photons are trying to tell them, since the fanning out is changing the information every moment.
*_106 If the field is supposed to be modulated by frequency for instance, that fanning out is changing the frequency.
_107 Photons coming out near the edges of the wire—the ones fanning the most— will be shifted relative to the local field.
_108 The field inside the bulb doesn't know what to make of the new photons.
_109 Very little of the field inside the bulb will be modulated.
*_110 Induction requires a resonance, and a fan can't create this resonance.
*_111 But if we allow even two point sources to enter the bulb simultaneously, with some separation, the local field can read the information in the new photons.
*_112 How. _Because the two new fans will cross. _One new influence won't create a pattern, two will.
*_113 Remember that waves are basically very simple fixed patterns. _It is these waves we are modulating in some fashion to create the induction.
_114 Well, a fan doesn't create a new pattern or wave that will stand.
_115 A Huygens fan just looks like a stirring to the local field.
_116 If anything, it will decohere or mix the field inside the bulb, not modulate it.
_117 But two such fans create crossing points that make a consistent pattern.
_118 This pattern can be read as a wave by the local field, and the local field can therefore be influenced by it in a positive manner.
*_119 The field in the bulb can therefore be made like the field in the battery, and we have induction.
_120 I have said that the wires simply provide the induction.
*_121 But if that is so, then why does the induction cease when the wires are cut.
_122 According to my theory, shouldn't we have wireless transmission after the initial priming, even with a battery. _No, of course not.
*_123 In real wireless, do we continue to have transmission when the conductor is turned off. _No.
*_124 The reason for this is that the ambient field rushes back in in both cases, rescrambling the paths.
_125 The coherence has to be maintained or it will immediately be lost.
_126 We can imagine E/M fields that might maintain this coherence even after the wires were cut or the conductor turned off, but the Earth's atmosphere is not such a field.
_127 In addition, it might seem that by my theory, both wires would be hot.
_128 Since photons are moving from battery to bulb in both wires, why don't we see electrons moving the same in both wires.
_129 Because, again, the two poles aren't the same, as a matter of photon density. _We have a much larger density at one pole.
_130 That is what created the initial energy field in the battery.
_131 The photons moving to the bulb from that pole will be much denser in the wire, and will make it much hotter.
*_132 This means that the neutral wire is not really neutral, it is just relatively neutral.
_133 It is a lot “cooler” than the other wire, because very few photons need to move through it to create the induction.
_134 Therefore, we would expect some motion of electrons toward the bulb, but not much.
_135 The neutral or return wire in a battery is not a ground, so nothing is returning and nothing is neutral.
_136 If electricity was returning to the battery, the wire would be hot in the other direction, right.
_137 But under normal circumstances, we would actually expect the electrons to be moving very slowly toward the bulb, which means we have neither a circuit nor a return nor a ground.
*_138 S is the statistical linear motion of the photons, before we prime the field. _It is the linear motion before the induction and before the “circuit” is created.
*_139 After the mutual induction takes place, and the fields are cohered, then E will be created.
*_140 5) Anytime you have information that moves at the speed of light, you should assume you have photons involved, not electrons.
_141 6) Potential differences in this problem are actually variations in photon densities. _Rather than think of potential, we should think of wind. _But here, we let our wind vary in density, not speed.
*_142 7) Like everything else, electrical induction is a mechanical process. _It is photons colliding with other photons, and informing them via a resonance; just as one river entering a larger river will be informed by that river (as a matter of speed, say).
*_143 8) The wires in a simple circuit perform precisely the same field priming that a conductor does in wireless. _That is, the wires produce the initial induction, and after that, the field of the battery can pass to the receiver with or without the wires.
*_144 And finally, we have learned that different substances actually create different charge. _We can deduce this just from the fact that we need induction. _If all elementary particles and atoms and molecules were emitting the same charge photons, then we wouldn't need induction.
_145 The photons in the battery would already match the photons in the bulb, and we would have wireless connections between everything, without wires and without conductors.
_146 We wouldn't need towers creating paths; everything would be resonating with everything else, and it would be a mess, frankly.
_147 So we have discovered that different substances emit different photons.
*_148 The size and shape of the emitters determine the characteristics of the charge. _This means that we might create induction, or maximize it, by making our receivers out of the same material as our emitters.
_149 In some cases that might be impossible. _For instance, if our source of emission is free protons, it would be hard to make a lightbulb out of free protons. _Even hydrogen wouldn't mimic free protons, since the shape would be different.
_150 But it might be possible to make a battery and a bulb out the same materials, or out of materials that created charge of the same profile. _Just an idea.
_151 It might also facilitate transmission to have the receiver directly above the source, so that the charge field of the Earth will help rather than interfere. _The difference might be small, but it might also be measurable.