*Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post new topic   Reply to topic

View previous topic View next topic Go down

*Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by LloydK on Mon Oct 31, 2016 7:21 pm

Triboelectric Effect
When g1, a pieces of glass, and r1, a piece of resin, are rubbed together and then separated, and likewise with g2 and r2, these phenomena occur:
- The two pieces of glass, g1 & g2, repel each other.
- Either piece of glass, g1 or g2, attracts either piece of resin, r1 or r2.
- The two pieces of resin, r1 & r2, repel each other.

This was apparently an early observation that led to the theory of positive and negative charges.

How is this effect explained by MM's model?

- Isn't it reasonable that rubbing the glass on the resin transfers electrons from one to the other?
- And haven't other experiments proven the attraction and amount of attraction between opposite charges?
- So how can emissions from both positive and negative charges produce such attraction?

If these questions were answered mechanically by MM's model, it seems the model would be recognized as a breakthrough.

So does anyone have ideas on this?
If the ionic charges pushed air away parallel to the surfaces, that could reduce the air pressure between the charged objects, which would allow air pressure on the far sides to push the objects together. But that wouldn't work in a vacuum, unless there's an aether which the charged objects can push aside in the same way.

Got better ideas?


Last edited by LloydK on Wed Nov 02, 2016 12:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

LloydK

Posts : 402
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:38 pm

Lloyd,  In my opinion, the best source of info that Miles seems to agree with is Ken Shoulders. I'd need to search for specific links. Ken Shoulders exotic vacuum objects are electron clusters - in my opinion. Electron clusters can amass easily with mechanical motion, but they eventually sort themselves out from charge field photon imbalances caused by electron displacements.
Those imbalances cause increased charge flow until equilibrium is reached. I'd hate to get into a longer description of apparent attraction right now.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 583
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:40 pm

.
Ken Shoulders doc list: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Note, EVO - Exotic vacuum object

I also have a nice paper:

EPL, 83 (2008) 24004 www.epljournal.org doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/83/24004
Spontaneous tribocharging of similar materials
T. Shinbrot1,2(a), T. S. Komatsu 3 and Q. Zhao4
1 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Rutgers University - Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA 2 Institut fu¨r Baustoffe, ETH-Zu¨rich - Schafmattstrasse 6, CH-8093 Z¨urich, Switzerland 3 Department of Physics, Gakushuin University - Mejiro 1-5-1, Tokyo, 171-8588, Japan 4 Department of Chemical Engineering, Princeton University - Princeton, NJ, USA
received 11 March 2008; accepted in final form 6 June 2008 published online 9 July 2008
PACS 45.70.Mg – Granular flow: mixing, segregation and stratification PACS 05.45.Df – Fractals PACS 65.40.gp – Surface energy
Abstract – We investigate the spontaneous triboelectrification of similar materials. This effect, first reported in 1927, has been little studied but is easily reproduced. We find in two separate experimental systems, where materials are prepared in the same way and rubbed symmetrically, that symmetry breaking occurs so that one material becomes positive and the other negative. Curiously, the distribution of charges on the materials appears to be self-similar, with different charge patterns on the positive and the negative surface. We propose a mechanism in which an initial localized charge may spawn the production of smaller localized charges of the same polarity.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 583
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by Nevyn on Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:28 pm

Just working off the top of my head:

You need to rub two different materials together. Not all materials work and not all materials that do work, work with all other materials. Only certain combinations work.

The act of rubbing them together causes the outer layer of atoms to be exposed. Other atoms and molecules, such as dirt, oxides, etc, are removed so the actual material is exposed.

For the 2 objects to produce electric effects, they need to be opposites, in a way. This is the same thing as the two elements in a battery. One is charge rich and the other is charge poor, in some way. By rubbing them together you are allowing them to exchange charge. When you separate them, they keep most of the charge they they have accumulated or keep the deficit of charge that they lost, for a little time.

This can explain the attraction between them as they still want to transfer charge since the channels are still open.

It can explain the resins repelling each other because they have more charge than normal, so they are emitting it when in the ambient field (instead of near the glass rod which is emitting more). This gives them a +ve charge compared to the ambient field but still a -ve charge with respect to the glass rod.

The glass rods repelling each other is a little harder to explain but I think we can just fall back to the fact that they are emitting more than normal since they have been cleaned and their outer layer of atoms are still exposed.

Attraction and repulsion can be the net motion resulting from the amount of ambient charge between them (which acts as a resistance to motion). A charge rich object is going to add more charge to the field between them and a charge poor object is going to take it out. When one comes near the other, we get a nice flow between them so there is no build up of charge. These charge channels may even help keep out the ambient field a little bit, but not quite the same as two magnets coming together.

Another thing to think about is that rubbing them together may cause the outer layers of atoms to get charge saturated (or more than normal, anyway) which would cause the protons in those atoms to be spun-up. Not that they gain a new stacked spin, but their top level spin, which may degrade over time, may be rejuvenated. This causes them to be more active and is part of what we call heat. The main point is that the atoms have a denser charge profile than normal and this takes time to dissipate.

Well, that's just some ideas, anyway. It is probably wrong in some ways and may be right in some ways but I'm sure there is a more complex explanation.

I don't think this will be the smoking gun that gets Miles work noticed. I don't think there is a smoking gun. His work may be absorbed by the mainstream but it will never be accepted as a whole. They have eliminated that possibility with all of their name calling. I'm sure that most scientists are good, honest people, who are open to good arguments, if they are allowed to analyze them without ridicule. But those at the top care more about their reputations (and funding) than truth or the open search for it.

In my opinion, we don't need to be accepted by anyone. We just continue working on our own understanding, build tools to help others understand it, build places for them to find it and if we are on the right track then we will just replace them without even trying to. We become a force to be reckoned with, not by banging our fists on our chests, but by being more sensible, more understandable, more concise and more accurate than they can be.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by LloydK on Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:41 pm

Thanks, you guys, for offering good ideas. Have you/s or MM determined how the mainstream concluded that the charge of both protons and electrons is 1e? It seems that MM originally accepted that, when he said the electron emits something like 30 thousand times its own mass in charge every second, which amounts to the same amount emitted by a proton, i.e. 19 proton masses. But didn't he later change his mind about that, greatly reducing how much the electron emits?

LloydK

Posts : 402
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by Nevyn on Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:01 pm

They had the +ve and -ve concept first. Then wanted to find particles responsible for it. They found the electron and wanted to give it a job, I think they already had the proton, so they just assigned them. Pure theory, no experiment to show it.

I'm not sure if Miles ever explicitly said that the proton and electron had equal charge. If you can find where you think he has, have a good look around that text to get some context for his statement. It might not be saying what you think it is. I know I've read things before that I thought I understood, but a re-read many moons later showed me that I didn't understand it at all.

But he might have, too. Miles doesn't just disagree for the sake of it. He is happy to disagree if he has a reason to, though.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:02 pm

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-do-electrons-and-protons-have-the-same-amount-of-charge.761036/

I have never interpreted any Miles statement to the effect that the charge fields of electrons and protons are equal. Since their respective charge fields are determined by mass I would say they most certainly do not share the same charge field masses.

Ignoring quarks, the best answer I saw went something like - If the proton and electron charges didn't balance, then atoms wouldn't have a zero charge.

OK, the hydrogen atom proves electrons are charged the same as protons.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 583
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by Nevyn on Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:18 pm

Well, it may be seen as proof when you have not concept of what charge is. When all you have is +ve and -ve and you have arbitrarily assigned one to the electron and one to the proton, then you come to the conclusion that they must be equal.

A better theory would define charge, in a meaningful way, first.

Of course, we know that atoms do not have zero charge. Nothing above the photon has zero charge. There was never any need to cancel out the charge. This just shows a prejudice towards neutrality, without even defining what it means to be neutral.

To be clear, I don't blame people 1 to 2 hundred years ago making these assumptions since they didn't know any better. It takes time to build knowledge. But I do blame contemporary scientists for not wanting a better theory. I do blame them for accepting rather than questioning.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by LloydK on Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:35 pm

I didn't realize you guys posted again already, so the following is kind of off-track.

Cr6 had a good thread on the TB forum in May 2014 called Static Electricity Defies Simple Explanation at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15057 which CC and I participated in. Cr6 brought up some MM ideas (where I briefly mentioned MM's explanation of formation of sodium chloride) and Ken Shoulders' ideas and then CC gave his views and doubted that some effects were really triboelectricity. CC showed illustrations of his view, such as atmospheric charging at http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Images/177.%20Charge%20Separation.png . He has developed his views more since then and this is probably his most current overview: Atoms, Stars, & Galaxies at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6630 .

LloydK

Posts : 402
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by LloydK on Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:14 pm

MM Says Electron & Proton Charges Are Equal

In at least the 3 papers below MM said clearly that the electron emits 35,000 times its own mass per second. If an electron is 1/1821 times the mass of a proton, then 35,000 is also equivalent to about 19.19 proton masses, which I think is the more precise amount that MM determined protons emit per second. So that's saying that the emission or charge of electrons and protons are the same. It may be that he changed that later, but usually when he changes things much, he makes notes in previous papers.

THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT AND PLANCK'S CONSTANT
http://milesmathis.com/fine.html

The Heliospheric Current Sheet
http://milesmathis.com/helio.pdf

How my Unified Field solves the Galactic Rotation Problem
http://milesmathis.com/mond.html

LloydK

Posts : 402
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by LloydK on Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:27 pm

Nevyn wrote:Of course, we know that atoms do not have zero charge. Nothing above the photon has zero charge. There was never any need to cancel out the charge. This just shows a prejudice towards neutrality, without even defining what it means to be neutral.
MM gave a definition of neutrality in the paper, ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE AND THE CHARGE FIELD at http://milesmathis.com/atmo.html
Ions are charged. What does that mean? It means that they are radiating photons. Molecules do not radiate many photons, and this is because the electrons in the shells are blocking radiation from the nuclei. Molecules are mostly neutral, as we know, so few photons are escaping the electron/proton exchange. But with ions, this is not the case. I have shown that electrons also emit the charge field, so negative ions will be creating a charge field, not just positive ions. Both negative and positive ions are emitting a positive, real, bombarding field of photons.

Regarding Neutron Neutrality MM said in the paper, Robert Hofstadter and Nuclear Bombardment, at http://www.milesmathis.com/hof.pdf :
As the elements get larger, they channel charge at more nearly full strength.  The proton begins to channel at more nearly 1 and the neutron begins to channel at more nearly .667.  In smaller elements, this was not the case, because the 4th level wasn't pulling in charge at anywhere near what the core could take.

I'll read this again to see if it may provide clues for the force of attraction: Blackbody Radiation as an Attraction at http://milesmathis.com/bb2.pdf

UPDATE: In that paper MM said if the effect is an attraction and is not gravitational, it
couldn't be anything but magnetic
, so I wonder if that could be the case with the triboelectric effect. Is that plausible?

LloydK

Posts : 402
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by Nevyn on Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:59 pm

LloydK wrote:MM Says Electron & Proton Charges Are Equal

In at least the 3 papers below MM said clearly that the electron emits 35,000 times its own mass per second. If an electron is 1/1821 times the mass of a proton, then 35,000 is also equivalent to about 19.19 proton masses, which I think is the more precise amount that MM determined protons emit per second. So that's saying that the emission or charge of electrons and protons are the same. It may be that he changed that later, but usually when he changes things much, he makes notes in previous papers.

THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT AND PLANCK'S CONSTANT
http://milesmathis.com/fine.html

The Heliospheric Current Sheet
http://milesmathis.com/helio.pdf

How my Unified Field solves the Galactic Rotation Problem
http://milesmathis.com/mond.html

You're cherry picking your quotes to show something that isn't applicable. I've shown you before that this is not Miles current theory about the charge of the electron. I have given you quotes that explicitly say so. I've even shown you the full extent of your own quotes to show that they do not say what you imply. So what if Miles once thought that they were the same? That is what the mainstream still says, but Miles does not. Miles doesn't go over his old papers and fix them up to reflect his newer theory. That would be cheating. But for some reason, you expect him to do so. He published those papers long ago and has refined his position since. Get over it.

Here is a quote from the Heliospheric Current Sheet paper, which is exactly where I extended your quote on this before to show that it didn't say what you implied.

Miles Mathis wrote:That means that if the electron had a charge of e it would be recycling 35,000* times its own mass every second as charge, and the proton is recycling 19 times its own mass.

The key part is if the electron had a charge of e...

You seem to miss that if every time.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by Nevyn on Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:13 pm

Nevyn wrote:Of course, we know that atoms do not have zero charge. Nothing above the photon has zero charge. There was never any need to cancel out the charge. This just shows a prejudice towards neutrality, without even defining what it means to be neutral.

In that statement, I was referring to the mainstreams use of neutrality, not Miles definition of it.

LloydK wrote:
MM gave a definition of neutrality in the paper, ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE AND THE CHARGE FIELD at http://milesmathis.com/atmo.html
Ions are charged. What does that mean? It means that they are radiating photons. Molecules do not radiate many photons, and this is because the electrons in the shells are blocking radiation from the nuclei. Molecules are mostly neutral, as we know, so few photons are escaping the electron/proton exchange. But with ions, this is not the case. I have shown that electrons also emit the charge field, so negative ions will be creating a charge field, not just positive ions. Both negative and positive ions are emitting a positive, real, bombarding field of photons.

Atoms are definitely emitting charge. Look at my Atomic Viewer, turn on charge emission as particles and tell me they aren't emitting. You have to be blind to think that they aren't. And they are emitting a lot of charge, not just a little bit. We only have to look at Hydrogen. You agree that a proton is emitting charge? Well, Hydrogen is just a proton.

However, what Miles is getting at in the part you have quoted above is that the electrons limit the amount of charge that goes in to the atom, so they will have less charge to emit. Less in, less out. The difference between the two is what we call an ion.

LloydK wrote:
Regarding Neutron Neutrality MM said in the paper, Robert Hofstadter and Nuclear Bombardment, at http://www.milesmathis.com/hof.pdf :
As the elements get larger, they channel charge at more nearly full strength.  The proton begins to channel at more nearly 1 and the neutron begins to channel at more nearly .667.  In smaller elements, this was not the case, because the 4th level wasn't pulling in charge at anywhere near what the core could take.

This is showing that smaller elements are not channeling at full strength, so they are less likely to emit as much charge since they keep it inside of themselves. Larger elements have more pull on the charge, so they have more to emit.

LloydK wrote:
I'll read this again to see if it may provide clues for the force of attraction: Blackbody Radiation as an Attraction at http://milesmathis.com/bb2.pdf

UPDATE: In that paper MM said if the effect is an attraction and is not gravitational, it
couldn't be anything but magnetic
, so I wonder if that could be the case with the triboelectric effect. Is that plausible?

Yes, magnetism could be involved. If each material used emits charge that spins a certain way, then it will interact with charge of the same type (we are looking at 2 charge particles with velocities toward each other and how their spins appear to each other) and they will repel. The other material will emit charge that is spinning the opposite way so when 2 charge photons collide, they don't feel their spins because they are complimentary, so we get attraction, or I should say no resistance.

I should have thought about magnetism in my post above. Well spotted.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by LloydK on Wed Nov 02, 2016 12:22 pm

Nevyn wrote: ... You're cherry picking your quotes to show something that isn't applicable. I've shown you before that this is not Miles current theory about the charge of the electron. I have given you quotes that explicitly say so. I've even shown you the full extent of your own quotes to show that they do not say what you imply. So what if Miles once thought that they were the same? That is what the mainstream still says, but Miles does not. Miles doesn't go over his old papers and fix them up to reflect his newer theory. That would be cheating. But for some reason, you expect him to do so. He published those papers long ago and has refined his position since. Get over it.

Here is a quote from the Heliospheric Current Sheet paper, which is exactly where I extended your quote on this before to show that it didn't say what you implied.

Miles Mathis wrote:That means that if the electron had a charge of e it would be recycling 35,000* times its own mass every second as charge, and the proton is recycling 19 times its own mass.

The key part is if the electron had a charge of e...

You seem to miss that if every time.
Are we enemies now? I'm trying to understand things, not trying to be difficult. If we had a FAQ section or a Glossary or a list of major MM findings, maybe it would be easier to sort things out. I don't remember the previous discussion of electron charge very well and I don't know if anyone showed what MM's current view is on it. The above quote doesn't say the charge is NOT 35,000 times its own mass, so I don't know what MM's estimate is now. Do you? And, by the way, MM does update his papers sometimes. Do you want me to show you? I'd have to check. I think the Superposition paper is one that he updated. Sometimes he updates more than once. This seems to be a good place to find many of the updates: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amilesmathis.com+%22update%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

LloydK

Posts : 402
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Nov 02, 2016 2:50 pm

Hey Lloyd, I just caught up.

I thought Nevyn and I responded to your "Very Important" request. I assumed you had a separate discussion, most likely before a publishing suspense, no problem.

You were provocative yourself, presenting us with apparently contradictory MM statements to show what? That our replies are wrong? That Miles is wrong? You should understand Miles' work as well as anyone at TB and it didn't sound like a discussion.
 
Enemies? You asked for help and got it. I agree with Nevyn's points above. Try not to read any emotion into any of the answers. I hope I don't sound as stern as you guys.  

I also agree with Nevyn that the mainstream would never - let alone in our lifetimes - accept Miles' findings; it's far too embarrassing for them to do so. Individuals will adopt his findings, and quickly too. The dam is breaking in too many places not too. If CC wants to pick and choose, let him.  

And you're welcome to work on that glossary. I would certainly appreciate it. Only problem is most people use word searches which makes it a much lower priority.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 583
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by Nevyn on Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:01 pm

I apologize for my harshness. No, we are not enemies, it's just that we've been over this before. I can understand people getting confused on this issue since there are contradictory, or less than clear, statements in Miles papers. Sometimes you have to read between the lines to figure it all out. You have to be careful of what Miles is discussing at certain points in his papers as half of each paper is usually pulling apart the mainstream theory and the other half is his own work to correct it. Quoting a single sentence is often less than useful and sometimes just plain wrong.

You are correct that Miles does update his papers sometimes, but he does that by adding to them, not re-writing sections. He published them at some time with his understanding at that time and to change them directly would be dishonest. Miles likes to lead his readers through his thought processes and part of that is taking wrong turns or assuming things from the mainstream are correct until he knows better.

I don't know what the charge emission of an electron is off the top of my head but I would assume it is closely related to the mass difference so it is likely to be around 1/1820 of the protons emission. I do know that in our previous discussion of this topic I did provide you with a quote from one of his papers where it explicitly stated that the electron did not emit as much charge as the proton (I think it was a footnote of the paper). So I expect more from you than just asking the same questions again and again. We are all here to understand Miles work, but ignoring what we don't want to hear is not going to help anyone's understanding, especially your own.

This site is not just about us. It is a record of our discussions. Others are going to come here to find answers long after we've forgotten what we wrote and we should try to be as clear and precise as possible because of that. There are plenty of people out there misrepresenting Miles work so I think we should strive to avoid that. Question it, certainly, but accept the answers you are given unless you have some argument against them and if you do, then lay it out on the table for us all to discuss and learn. I am not always right and I welcome anyone showing me my errors because that helps me to learn and understand. To me, there is no greater gift than clearing up a misunderstanding.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by Nevyn on Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:54 pm

After some reflection, I think I have found a distinction that needs to be made with respect to my comment saying:

Nevyn wrote:However, what Miles is getting at in the part you have quoted above is that the electrons limit the amount of charge that goes in to the atom, so they will have less charge to emit. Less in, less out. The difference between the two is what we call an ion.

There are 2 types of charge in an atom. When you boil it all down there is no difference between the charge photons at all, just what they are doing when inside of the atom but I think it might help to differentiate them.

The first type of charge is what we are all familiar with. Charge photons coming from the ambient field that are being used by each proton, neutron and electron in the atom. This charge is used to create the charge emission of these particles. This creates the general structure of the atom.

The second type of charge, which still comes from the ambient field, mostly, it can also come from other atoms when in a molecule but it did originally come from the ambient field regardless, is the through-charge. This is the charge that doesn't get used by the protons and just goes through them, through the proton stack and sometimes straight through the atom and other times it goes out the carousel.

This is not a clear distinction because charge emitted by a proton can then turn into through-charge in the next proton stack. It is complicated and a given charge photon can change from random to through to random to random to through, etc, before it leaves the atom.

I think Miles is referring to through-charge when discussing ions. The electrons will only limit the through-charge because they block some of it from getting through the proton that they are attached to (for want of a better word). Therefore, an ion is an atom that allows more through-charge which can be interpreted as a stronger charge stream through the atom (whether straight through or emitted out the carousel).

My statements above, such as "Atoms are definitely emitting charge." were more about the random charge being used by each proton to create its own charge field. That is what I meant by each atom emits a lot of charge, but I don't think that is what Miles meant when he said they do not emit a lot of charge. I think he is referring to through-charge (or carousel charge).

If you look at my Atomic Viewer, with charge particles turned on, the random charge is colored to match the proton stack that it is coming from and the through-charge is white.

I hope that clears up my statements. It has helped me understand ions a bit better.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:01 pm

.
1) Lloyd, Above, I recommended you consider electron clusters to try to explain tribocharging (or static electricity). But I see electron clusters aren't really necessary here. I see the two balloons rubbing together resulting in swaths of electrons being stripped from the latex molecules of both balloons' surfaces. They are displaced. Some are clustered, but that isn't important. The exposed molecules are ions. Exposed ions present a greater amount of photon charge - current to and from the surfaces. Electrons in the streams begin to clog all the high current molecular polar charge flows and the molecules de-ionize. Static electricity has nothing to do with +/- charge, but it does depend on charge current. Aside from my description being too simple, would you agree? Discussion?
Cr6 turned me onto Ron Shoulders long before Miles' paper:
NEW PAPER, 4/18/2014. EVO's and the Charge Field. http://milesmathis.com/evo.pdf I analyze a short paper by the late Ken Shoulders.
   
Nevyn, Lloyd,
2) We have Lloyd's directions for doing word searches. We should post it prominently somewhere. Re: Collaborate to Promote Mathis' Ideas Better
http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t140-collaborate-to-promote-mathis-ideas-better#1009
by Lloydd on Wed Nov 11, 2015 9:45 pm
How to Word Search MM's Papers
Lloydd wrote:
LTA wrote:  Since Miles has a lot of pdf and some html files, I don’t know how to do a word search of the papers on his site.
To do that you can use Google or Bing etc and type: site:milesmathis.com word1
Then hit the Enter key, or click the circle thing at the end of the text box.
To do a phrase search type: site:milesmathis.com "word1 word2"
If you don't use the quotes, it'll search for each of the two words individually.
See?

3) Nevyn, I just looked at http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis (See also http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t141-miles-mathis-fun-house-mirror). Wow, great job. How can we use it? Any special instructions? Again we need to post important information. How can that best be done? Shall I repost this there?
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:22 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Replaced bad link)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 583
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by Nevyn on Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:08 pm

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
3) Nevyn, I just looked at http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/mm-list.php. (See also http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t141-miles-mathis-fun-house-mirror). Wow, great job. How can we use it? Any special instructions? Again we need to post important information. How can that best be done? Shall I repost this there?
.

I'd forgotten about that stuff. It is way out of date now. I was meant to get it working on a cron schedule so that it would update itself once a day or something like that but I never got that far. I'm not sure how close it is but I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to get it updating.

The link you provided to http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/mm-list.php has the full stop included in the URL so it doesn't work. I thought my site had disappeared for a second. There is a page before that one that has links to the different pages related to this. It can be accessed at http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis.

Any special instructions? No, it is just a different view of Miles main page rather than a big long list that you have to scroll through, you can click on the sections to go straight to them.

The keywords page can be useful, but I think Lloyd's searching method is way more useful.

Maybe we need a topic for "Tips and Tricks" which could contain this type of stuff without being bloated with discussions. It can be very hard to find something someone wrote a year or two ago when it is just in some random topic that is unrelated to the content you want to find.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by LloydK on Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:51 pm

Nevyn, this paper confirms the 1821 figure.
EVO's and the Charge Field
http://milesmathis.com/evo.pdf
The electron is obviously in a stream composed of something else, since that stream reverses in ways the electron couldn't on its own.  It is this stream that all of Shoulders' machines are measuring, not the electrons in it.  A stronger field of charge photons is moving in this experiment, simply carrying the electrons along with it.  The electron is like a bullet, but in this case the “air” around the bullet is more powerful than the bullet itself.  The electron is special only in that it can further focus the photon energy around it, giving us traveling areas of higher density.  Shoulders then shows that electrons travel easily together, contradicting what we are taught about repulsing charges.  He provides data proving that although electrons have some repulsion, they have nothing like a repulsion of -1.  I have shown that this is because electrons have a smaller charge profile than the proton.  We do not have equal and opposite charges, and never have.  The mainstream's own experiments and equations have long indicated the electron has a charge of 1/1821 that of the proton, but as with the charge field itself, that data is ignored to suit old standing theories.

I expect I won't forget this time. These may be all of the papers in which MM discusses that figure: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Amilesmathis.com+%221821%22&t=ffsb&atb=v36-4__&ia=web

Oh, and here are some of the times we've discussed 1821 on this forum:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fmilesmathis.the-talk.net+%221821%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=site:http://milesmathis.the-talk.net+%221821%22&start=10

I wasn't trying to criticize regarding neutrality or anything. Just looking for clarity. It seems that MM was discriminating between molecules and ions because ions behave like triboelectric objects. Neutral objects don't attract or repel much, while charged objects do. If magnetism is the only option to explain attraction, aside from gravity, then I'm hoping to see if I can understand how ions can attract via magnetic effects. I plan to reread the magnetism paper soon.

LloydK

Posts : 402
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by Nevyn on Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:02 am

I think it is important to realise that the mainstream uses terms like positive, negative and neutral in ways that don't really correspond to Miles way of seeing things. We can still use those terms, but we have to realise that a word like neutral does not mean it has no charge. It just means that it is in equilibrium with the ambient field. Positive means emitting more than, or more dense than, the ambient field. Negative means emitting less dense than the ambient field or the field that you choose to compare to (it is often the proton that sets the field, hence the electron is negative compared to it but if you think about it, that would make the proton neutral since it has no charge compared to itself). They are all relative terms, not absolute. Miles provides us with a baseline so that the relative values mean something but the mainstream does not, so they sound absolute.

In chemistry, neutral means 'does not react with' and an ion is something that does react with something that the neutral version does not. Miles is suggesting that an ion is channeling a more dense charge stream because the electrons are not getting in the way. This can allow it to bond with other elements because the dense charge stream can penetrate the general emission of the other element in order to combine their charge channels. A molecule is just a collection of atoms that have combined their charge channels.

So I don't think you should think in terms of attraction but instead think of it as penetration. The stronger element has to overcome the charge channel of the weaker element so that they can work together in a new way. If that happens, then the elements have bonded.

But magnetism could be involved as well, I don't mean to imply that it isn't and it is worth studying either way.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by Cr6 on Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:39 am

Just wanted to add this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-to-charge_ratio

I think Mathis has said that the 1821 is a dalton cubed in the hubb.html paper and "255. Unifying the Photon with other quanta" paper (which incidentally mentions "1821 apart in levels" due to spin stacks. If there is an "1821" paper this is it.




Cr6
Admin

Posts : 656
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by Cr6 on Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:01 am

Just wanted to plug this old link as well with this topic.

Static Electricity Defies Simple Explanation
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15057

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 656
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: *Triboelectric Effect: Very Important

Post by LloydK on Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:58 am

I started a FAQ thread last night in the top section, i.e. the Attention Please section. I listed a bunch of MM model terms and invited suggestions for other terms to complete the list. For charge I'll see if I can combine MM's statement with Nevyn's modifier in previous post. I might ask MM for comments too.

I'm still planning to reread the magnetism paper.

Cr6, I quoted from that TB forum thread you linked to either in this thread or another thread here in recent days. Indeed, that TB forum thread had a pretty good discussion.

LloydK

Posts : 402
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum