It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rapid destruction of electrons equals high flow of current (UFO tech explained)

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Devino

However the question was whether there is electric current in the human brain, you claim there is not. Electric potential (volts) seem to indicate that there is current.


This would be so much easier if you had a background (even a little) in Electrical Engineering, but I'll try.

Okay, so firstly; I did not say there was no current flow in the Human Brain. I said there was "no significant" current flow.



From my previous link;

(EEG) is the measurement of the electrical activity of the brain
What do the words "electrical activity" mean? I wouldn't think it means potential.


Actually, that is exactly what it means. An EEG can only detect and amplify voltage, it cannot "see" current flow.



Does the human brain produce electricity?

Your brain generates enough electricity to power a lightbulb.
kids.nationalgeographic.com...
How much electricity does the human brain consume?


Actually, the brain does not generate electricity. It is called electrical activity, but, it really is more like there are changes in the ion concentrations on the outside and insides of neurons. This allows for electron exchange, but, does not constitute significant current flow.




posted on May, 24 2018 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: majickJimi

This would be so much easier if you had a background (even a little) in Electrical Engineering, but I'll try.
I do appreciate your patience.

I did not say there was no current flow in the Human Brain. I said there was "no significant" current flow.

That's strange. You didn't post this?

You do understand that there is NO electrical current flow in our brains, Right??!
At any rate, define "significant current flow".


An EEG can only detect and amplify voltage, it cannot "see" current flow.
I understand that an electrical potential, volts, is detected yet electrical activity I took as a change in volts over time. Does this not indicate electric current?


Actually, the brain does not generate electricity. It is called electrical activity, but, it really is more like there are changes in the ion concentrations on the outside and insides of neurons. This allows for electron exchange, but, does not constitute significant current flow.
I don't know if the brain produces electricity but some of the articles I linked claim that it does.

According to several articles that I have posted and linked the human body does in fact generate electricity and the current does flow through the nervous system including the brain.

Your body is capable of generating electricity, and this ability is actually a key part of your achieving health. Electricity allows your nervous system to send signals to your brain. These signals are actually electrical charges that are delivered from cell to cell, allowing for nearly instantaneous communication.
The messages conducted via electrical signals in your body are responsible for controlling the rhythm of your heartbeat, the movement of blood around your body, and much more.
Your biological clock even uses electrical activity in order to help keep your circadian rhythms in order. You are, quite simply, an electrical being. If electrical activity stops in your body, you cannot survive
articles.mercola.com...
I would say that the human body's electric current flow is quite significant.


A flow of electrons is the definition of electric current. I'm not sure what you mean by "no significant current flow".

I enjoy reading and learning about electromagnetism and, specifically, plasma physics yet I find little time for that as I am not yet retired, working full time, and I have more hobbies than I can shake a stick at. I envy you retired guys. I hope you are collecting a wonderful pension.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: majickJimi

This would be so much easier if you had a background (even a little) in Electrical Engineering, but I'll try.
I do appreciate your patience.

I did not say there was no current flow in the Human Brain. I said there was "no significant" current flow.

That's strange. You didn't post this?

You do understand that there is NO electrical current flow in our brains, Right??!
At any rate, define "significant current flow".



I'm sorry, I was a bit ambiguous there. I originally stated "NO" current, when I actually meant "no significant" current flow.
Now to answer your question; what is significant current flow. Please understand that I spent a life time working with microelectronics, as contrasted with the "other side" which is more concerned with power distribution. Our respective ideas of "significant" current flow are different. Anyway, my idea of significant current flow: anything over 100 nanoamps...I could say anything greater than the gate leakage in a Field effect transistor, but we'll leave it 100 nanoamps.


An EEG can only detect and amplify voltage, it cannot "see" current flow.
I understand that an electrical potential, volts, is detected yet electrical activity I took as a change in volts over time. Does this not indicate electric current?



Not necessarily. Think of electricity as "water"; volts becomes the water pressure, amps (current) is the actual flow of water. Water pressure (volts) can change without requiring current flow.


I don't know if the brain produces electricity but some of the articles I linked claim that it does.

I enjoy reading and learning about electromagnetism and, specifically, plasma physics yet I find little time for that as I am not yet retired, working full time, and I have more hobbies than I can shake a stick at. I envy you retired guys. I hope you are collecting a wonderful pension.


In the sense that the body is actually "generating" an electric potential, I don't think that works in the traditional manner. The body produces ions, that create potential differences, allowing for the control/operation of the overall system. However, the body does not produce any "new" electrons...like an electric alternator would.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: majickJimi

Explain to me what constitutes as current flow, which doesn't require electron exchange between atoms.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: majickJimi

If you were an actual electrical engineer, and not a guy claiming to be one:

You would never argue that two pieces of Ohm's Law can be present, without the third.

Sorry. You are wrong. You are wrong if you are, or are not an electrical engineer. I don't care about your credentials, you could be Dr. Strange and Tony Starks' genius love child, and you would still be wrong.

"Water pressure (volts) can change without requiring current flow."

No. If an atom "moves" it's nuclei and valence shells move with it.

You can't increase or decrease "pressure" of a water system nor an electrical system without atomic movement.

If an atom moves, it's electrons move.

#1 An electron moves. Current flow.
#2 An atom moves. Still, technically current flow. Electrons in transit act relatively on all others involved.


Pardon me, if your argument relies on local system abstractions and points of reference for measurement. Honestly, that's a straw grasp in the context of this discussion.

If I told you I had a beam that could stop all electron current flow 100% and I could shoot it in a helmet, that you put on your head... Would you gladly put the helmet on and take the beam for 5 minutes?
^ If your answer to that is no, then you see a risk of inherent harm, even though, in your opinion, this device should have zero affect on you.

((Edit: Based on your desire to be "right" and your obvious aversion to admitting a mistake of interpretation, I can already tell this discussion is only going downhill from here. I am pre-emptively putting you on ignore now, I will not discuss these facts against your opinion any longer. If your school's engineering program was allegedly accredited by ABET, you should demand a refund.))




edit on 25-5-2018 by Archivalist because: Actual logic

edit on 25-5-2018 by Archivalist because: My last input on this thread.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: majickJimi

Explain to me what constitutes as current flow, which doesn't require electron exchange between atoms.


The human body doesn't rely on electron flow like say a wire or an electrical device. The human body uses chemical process to generate an electron. This is why for example Gatorade contains electrolytes. The human body cells use charge differential to create an electron. In cells a membrane gate opens, sodium and potassium ions move freely into and out of the cell. Negatively charged potassium ions leave the cell, while positively charged sodium ions enter it, moving toward the negative charge. The result is a switch in the concentrations of the two types of ions -- and rapid switch in charge. This switch in charge creates an electron which opens the next gate starting thr process over again.

Now the energy it produces is so low as to be almost undetectable. This charge differentials produce about 1 nanoamp, or 0.000000001 amps. Meaning you cant detect 1 axion firing but in the brain we have millions that fire at once and that we can see. And electrons dont travel down a path in humans so this isn't an electrical charge in the normal sense. And if electricity enters the body it wreaks havoc on our nervous system. This is why a taser causes you to drop to the floor it causes all the cells to fire at once.
edit on 5/25/18 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: majickJimi

If you were an actual electrical engineer, and not a guy claiming to be one:

You would never argue that two pieces of Ohm's Law can be present, without the third.



LOL!!!

I didn't argue anything concerning Ohm's Law. And, I most certainly did not argue as you suggest...I'm not even sure IF it possible "Mathematically" to argue as you suggest (and, I'm not going to consider it)

It would seem sir, that you have some serious misconceptions about physics.



Sorry. You are wrong. You are wrong if you are, or are not an electrical engineer. I don't care about your credentials, you could be Dr. Strange and Tony Starks' genius love child, and you would still be wrong.

"Water pressure (volts) can change without requiring current flow."

No. If an atom "moves" it's nuclei and valence shells move with it.

You can't increase or decrease "pressure" of a water system nor an electrical system without atomic movement.

If an atom moves, it's electrons move.

#1 An electron moves. Current flow.
#2 An atom moves. Still, technically current flow. Electrons in transit act relatively on all others involved.



If I increase water pressure there is no atomic movement, just increased pressure. If I increase voltage, there is NO atomic movement. I don't know where you might have gotten that misconception.

And no, if a single electron moves from one atom to another it is only electron exchange.



Pardon me, if your argument relies on local system abstractions and points of reference for measurement. Honestly, that's a straw grasp in the context of this discussion.

If I told you I had a beam that could stop all electron current flow 100% and I could shoot it in a helmet, that you put on your head... Would you gladly put the helmet on and take the beam for 5 minutes?
^ If your answer to that is no, then you see a risk of inherent harm, even though, in your opinion, this device should have zero affect on you.


Actually, son; I'd laugh in your face! Mostly because what you describe has an extremely low probability of working, or even existing. And, in any case; your science is broken.

So...IF you continued with you fantasy, I'd just put the helmet on, and IF stylish enough I'd wear it all damn day.



((Edit: Based on your desire to be "right" and your obvious aversion to admitting a mistake of interpretation, I can already tell this discussion is only going downhill from here. I am pre-emptively putting you on ignore now, I will not discuss these facts against your opinion any longer. If your school's engineering program was allegedly accredited by ABET, you should demand a refund.))



I don't think either Cal Poly, or Stanford give refunds, sorry...although, you might want to check out you local community college, try taking a class in DC Circuits...its only a semester...do ya some good.

It could be that my education is antique! After all I went to school in the very early 1970's, maybe they used different language then. BUT, I do believe that Holes still flow from positive to negative.
edit on 25-5-2018 by majickJimi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: majickJimi

Explain to me what constitutes as current flow, which doesn't require electron exchange between atoms.


The beam of an electron gun. This beam is a measurable amount of current and does not involve the exchange of electrons along a conductor.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: TrueBrit

Doesn't even need a decade.

2 years at a community college learning about electronics theory would be enough.

But that requires effort.

For the OP's erroneous ideas, one semester in the high school physics course I teach would do the trick.

Harte



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Pretty good point.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: majickJimi

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: majickJimi

Explain to me what constitutes as current flow, which doesn't require electron exchange between atoms.


The beam of an electron gun. This beam is a measurable amount of current and does not involve the exchange of electrons along a conductor.



What your descibing is a cathode ray and not an electrical current. It isn't a current and I can tell physics means nothing to you. And yes even a cathode ray needs to hit something to exchange electrons.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: majickJimi

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: majickJimi

Explain to me what constitutes as current flow, which doesn't require electron exchange between atoms.


The beam of an electron gun. This beam is a measurable amount of current and does not involve the exchange of electrons along a conductor.



What your descibing is a cathode ray and not an electrical current. It isn't a current and I can tell physics means nothing to you. And yes even a cathode ray needs to hit something to exchange electrons.


I once built an electron beam device, although the beam wasn't very well focused. I could use it to charge objects several feet away to a few thousand volts, though that did take several minutes.

Cathode Ray is an old school term for a low level electron beam.

Electron Beam Technology


edit on 26-5-2018 by majickJimi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: majickJimi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: majickJimi

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: majickJimi

Explain to me what constitutes as current flow, which doesn't require electron exchange between atoms.


The beam of an electron gun. This beam is a measurable amount of current and does not involve the exchange of electrons along a conductor.



What your descibing is a cathode ray and not an electrical current. It isn't a current and I can tell physics means nothing to you. And yes even a cathode ray needs to hit something to exchange electrons.


I once built an electron beam device, although the beam wasn't very well focused. I could use it to charge objects several feet away to a few thousand volts, though that did take several minutes.

Cathode Ray is an old school term for electron beam.



Your also a liar you aren't going to get thousands of volts charge. In fact it's very inefficient. To get thousands you would need hundreds of thousands. Your electric bill would have been thousands though.

Electron beams will always be inefficient because most of the electrons produced dont actual exit the hole. Next magnetic fields effect it so your charging like you claim would cause the beam to distort. Then there's the fact they hold a charge and I'm sure you would have electricuted yourself with thousands of volts. Just the remain in ng charge would take hours to disappear.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

Your also a liar you aren't going to get thousands of volts charge. In fact it's very inefficient. To get thousands you would need hundreds of thousands. Your electric bill would have been thousands though.

Electron beams will always be inefficient because most of the electrons produced dont actual exit the hole. Next magnetic fields effect it so your charging like you claim would cause the beam to distort. Then there's the fact they hold a charge and I'm sure you would have electricuted yourself with thousands of volts. Just the remain in ng charge would take hours to disappear.


See added link above...

And, the charge that was imparted to down range objects was a static charge. So, while a few thousand volts, it was no more than walking across a carpet...

And, distort? You have no idea, at a relatively short range (say 25 - 30 feet) the output was more like a cloud than a beam. But, that is because I didn't have the requisite focusing magnets, etc.

Read the article I linked above. Electron beams are much more than the beam in a Cathode Ray Tube.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

>Chemical reactions

If you have all electrons locked down and unable to move, no chemical reaction involving standard bonding or valence shell exchange can take place.

Stop electrons is as good as stop protons, stop neutrons, stop entire atoms, etc...



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Your point is tickling the feet of a more important acknowledgement here.

#1 We are not talking about "current flow" (Where a few arguments in this thread are causing disruption.)
#2 We are talking about electron flow (The point, myself, and several others in the thread have been trying to get across without using these exact words.)

Yes, your body doesn't have 1.21 Jiggawatts running through it, but every single atomic interaction relies on movements of electrons, and even the ones that "don't" are inhibited by electrons not moving.

If electrons stop, all stops.

Further explored:

"Electrical Current" is the measure of electrons moving across a system defined as a circuit, where there is a source creating a differential charge between two points and the connection in between being conductive, and may include arbitrary pathing and any arbitrary combination of components. (Parallel conductor paths, series conductor paths, resistors, capacitors, inductors, diodes, etc...)

"Electron Flow" as I have been indicating in this thread, is essentially just a place-holder for an electron moving, spinning, interacting, or otherwise transversing from any point in space-time, to any other given point in space-time. (IE, one atom to another atom)

I'm not implying a "circuit" is being inhibited, all of my arguments are that "electrons" are being locked into place from an absolute reference frame.
There is no "electrical flow" until measured, in the meanwhile, if there are no electrons moving, there is no electrical flow either.

At the end of the day, there is still disagreement about the actual nature of electrons and whether they should ever be described as moving, anyway.
(Some string theory shoot-offs have nuts ideas in them about electrons only being, holographic point differentials of larger atomic systems, or "one-electron" type models.)


If individuals in this thread continue arguing about the pointless semantics then I'm going to just start binge watching Jersey Shore instead.
If I'm going to make myself stupider, I may as well do it in a way that doesn't require typing.

Resistance, Current, Voltage

None of those things can be present from an absolute reference frame, without the other 2 also being present.
So if you concede to voltaic fields being present, it is a concession to resistance and current via transitive formula.

Ohm's Law :
Voltage = Current*Resistance
Current = Voltage/Resistance
Resistance = Voltage/Current

^ If one of those is Zero, they are all zero.

Any material which is not a super conductor, has resistance.
Unless I was absent from my Anatomy and Physiology class, the day they went over it, I'm pretty sure we do not have super conductors in our brains.
(If we do, feel free to tell me about it.)

PS: Anyone that thinks tossing their credentials around helps add any technical, tangible value to their argument, is an ignoramus.
Notice my lack of qualifications? Because it doesn't matter. I could be a literal chimpanzee or a JPL rocket surgeon. The logic is sound and the behavior of electrons doesn't give a damn whether I went to MIT or to the mail-in version of University of American Samoa Law School.


edit on 26-5-2018 by Archivalist because: Why the hell am I even trying?

edit on 26-5-2018 by Archivalist because: sigh

edit on 26-5-2018 by Archivalist because: Yeah, no, I'm done here.



new topics




 
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join