electricity – The Library of Atlantis

Voltage: pressure vs flow

Electrical voltage is commonly thought of by analogy with water in a pipe as a sort of electrical pressure that pumps electrons through a wire. This page puts the argument that a better explanation is to be found by imagining a river flowing downstream pulled by the force of gravity.

Water can be made to flow in at least two ways:

Pressure ‘pushes’ the water from behind. Energy is transferred along the pipe from some source to each section of water which is pushed along by a physical force. Water moves down the pressure gradient from high to low pressure. Removal of the pressure source causes all the flow to stop, with the effect moving at the speed of sound.
Gravity pulls water downstream. In this case each section of water is moved by local forces only and the behaviour of upstream water is irrelevant to the downstream flow. Flow can be stopped by damming up the river but the ‘effect’ here travels downstream at the speed of the flow as opposed to the speed of sound.

There are subtle differences between these two, but which is more appropriate for the flow of electricity? The first is the commonly described mechanism but the second is more consistent with reality.

The pressure analogy

A search for “what is voltage Harvard science” gets me the following results:

“The force that makes electricity flow; the unit of measure of electric potential” – Harvard Electricity Policy Group – voltage is a force?
“Voltage is the force that makes electrons flow, or the difference in potential energy between two points in a circuit.” – ambiguous: is it a local force or a global difference?
“Voltage is measured in volts with a voltmeter.” – voltmeters actually measure current; voltage is calculated not measured.
“Voltage is the pressure from a power source that pushes charged electrons through a conducting loop.” – No, see here: What is electricity?
“The force of an electrical current that is measured in volts” – Encyclopaedia Brittanica

This is about as confused as it gets. Is voltage a local ‘force’ that pushes electrons around or is it some pressure difference between two distant points? Does a local force arise from a pressure difference and if so, how?

Voltage is not measured in the same units as force and is hence not a force.

The last in the list reads: “Voltage is the pressure from a power source..” which implies that there is such a thing as (electrical) ‘pressure’ which originates from a ‘source’ and can presumably be transmitted along a wire to affect distant particles. This really needs some justification.

Such statements are easily accepted as true whilst we have in our minds the analogy of water pressure, but such an analogy is simply not valid. In the case of water we know that there is such a thing as ‘pressure’ as we can measure such a thing; a small balloon can be inserted into a pipe and the pressure measured at any place in the flow to give a local pressure reading.

The same procedure cannot be carried out with voltage and this is reinforced by many sources describing voltage as a potential difference between two points. Voltage cannot be measured and isn’t even defined at a single point, only as a difference between two points.

Again, this sounds reasonable until you try to think about it: if voltage is always expressed as a difference then what are the quantities that give rise to such a difference and how do we know they exist? After all we only ever measure one quantity and we conclude the existence of two!

A voltmeter only ever gives one reading and only ever measures what happens inside the voltmeter anyhow; everything else is inferred via the theory.

The flow analogy

In the case of a river flowing downstream, there is no pressure pushing the water from behind, no impact of upstream water on downstream flow. Instead the water moves according to only local (gravitational forces) with each segment having its own ‘power supply’. Local pressure is actually measurable here and remains uniform, close to atmospheric pressure and has little influence on the flow.

Imagine, then, if we did not know about gravity but merely observed ‘flow’ with no apparent driving force; what a tangled web of reasoning we would weave!

The default view of the universe is one of stasis or maybe uniform movement until some force perturbs this and causes a change in such a state. This view has been applied to electricity and the idea adopted that there can be no energy transfer without a motivational force. The resulting framework is a muddled mess.

Hypothesis: Electricity is the flow of electrical field vortices as described by Konstantin Meyl. They have their own intrinsic energy and are hence capable of self-propulsion through a conductive medium. Movement is according to local forces only. They are shaped like ring vortices in electrical wires with most energy carried in the insulating cable. What is electricity?

The vortices carry their energy from A to B and it is the same energy that is used to self-propel along the wire. ‘Resistance’ leads to a loss of energy transmitted and this is dissipated as ‘heat’.

Voltmeters only measure current (flow) and a loss of vortex energy along a wire will be interpreted as a voltage gradient.

Moving electrons have nothing to do with this and are never measured.

Resistors in series

Placing a resistor in a circuit is akin to placing a dam in a stream. Pressure builds up and some water is lost through evaporation or heat in the case of electricity. Overall flow is thus reduced in proportion to energy loss. Electric vortices build up an analogous pressure when entering a resistive material.

Measuring voltage across different resistors gives the expected result. A voltmeter has a large resistance and current will prefer to flow through a bare wire, but place a voltmeter across a resistor and the current will develop a preference for flowing through the voltmeter, leading to increased current within the meter and a consequent increase in the measured voltage.

The voltage has actually been created by the resistance. The voltage is not driving the current but is a consequence of its impedance, much as the pressure behind a dam is the consequence of the flow and not the cause of it.

So which is it?

Tricky. The two theories give similar predictions for different reasons but there are some differences:

Flow geometry. The idea that energy flows in ring vortices predicts certain preferential flow geometries with the magnetic component of the flow thriving in the insulator surrounding a wire and the electrical component moving within the copper core.

This is supported (What is electricity?) by the observations that under-sea cables with too thin an insulating sheath did not perform well at all and by the discovery that the conduction of nerve signals improves with the thickness the myelin sheath surrounding the nerve.

Circular currents. Circular or toroidal currents are reported in living systems (e.g. around the red blood cells) and also in space where they can span distances of many light years (Thunderbolts Project).

This is consistent and natural with vortex theory where the laws of electromagnetism mandate movement of electric fields at right angles to the magnetic component. The field moves under its own steam with helices and toruses being the order of the day.

But how does this happen where a voltage is required to move the electrons and where there is no copper conductor to guide the current? What is the voltage measured from start to finish of this current? On the one hand it must be fairy large to push the current all the way around but on the other the start point is the same as the end point and so the start and end voltages are the same! There is therefore zero voltage drop!

Wikipedia

Wikipedia gives a slightly different definition of voltage. We have:

“Voltage, also known as (electrical) potential difference, electric pressure, or electric tension is the difference in electric potential between two points“

“Electric potential is defined as the amount of work/energy needed per unit of electric charge to move the charge from a reference point to a specific point in an electric field.”

So the idea of ‘pressure’ is preserved but is somewhat contradicted by the second sentence which introduces the idea of movement between two points and the energy required to accomplish this. Electrical ‘pressure’ is not defined at a single point as with water but only by some movement between two points , one of which is arbitrary.

The idea of an electric field has been introduced and voltage is ‘work’ needed to move a charge within that field. This is interesting because previous definitions have defined voltage as the motivational force for moving the charge (electrons) in the first place whereas here it seems to be defined by some other external (hypothetical) force moving the charge against the field gradient.

A charge will move within an electric field anyhow because of electric forces but this does not seem to constitute ‘voltage’.

So which is it? Is voltage a motivational electric field or is it the effort to move charge against such a field.

Further reading does nothing to clarify matters and only adds to the confusion. The Talk Page makes matters even worse with everybody having different opinions on what is going on but with some agreement on the following statement:

“This article is excessively technical. While all the math is relevant in a higher-level mathematical context, to the everyday reader, this article is almost completely useless.“

The river flow analogy revisited

Consider the idea of moving a wooden log upstream as an analogy of moving a charged particle. It requires a degree of ‘work’, of ‘energy’ as the movement opposes the flow and resistance is encountered.

The resistance and the energy required depend almost entirely on the flow characteristics, i.e. the current. In a lowland river, the work required is hardly a reflection of the height difference and nothing to do with any pressure drop.

Try to drag a log through water in a pipe with pressure driven flow and the resistance met is again entirely dependent upon current and has little to do with moving against the pressure.

Try reading Wikipedia again and it seems obvious now that they are using an inconsistent model and have needed to resort to increasingly abstract and unfalsifiable concepts (potential difference, reference points at infinity) to try to patch things together.

‘Potential’ at a point isn’t directly measurable in principle or practice; it has no absolute value at any point in space and cannot therefore be said to represent anything ‘real’. It only exists between separated points and so any real effect attributed to such a quantity is really a case of action at a distance.

So what is voltage?

If we start with something measurable and observable then we should begin by saying:

“Voltage is a measurement of current when a high resistance meter (voltmeter) is placed in parallel to a section of circuit”

This makes it absolutely clear that what is being measured is current, not ‘potential’ and raise the important question as to why different amounts of current will be captured at different parts of the circuit.

For an answer, imagine drawing some current out of a stream by a piece of pipe. The wider the pipe the more current flows through it.

Odd effects will be had when placing the pipe parallel to a dam (resistance); some pressure has indeed built up and this will lead to an increased measurement of current within the pipe, but again, the pressure has been created by the flow, not the flow by the pressure.

Voltage is therefore not at all fundamental but an emergent property of flow characteristics, conductive properties, circuit geometry and voltmeters.

Electricians

Electricians will say that volts is what is measured by a voltmeter and that it is related to current and resistance via the following equation:

Voltage = Current x Resistance

This is fine and will give good results in practice because voltmeters, resistors and ammeters are calibrated in a way so as to give the required answer. All that is ever measured is current within a meter of some sort with voltage and resistance being inferred (calculated) but never directly measured.

The practicality of the equation gives no indication as to the underlying physical mechanism; it does not prove that voltage is fundamental or even pressure-like in nature. The fact that the equation is so reliable means that there is ‘some’ interesting phenomenon at work. The properties emerging from the fundamental physical laws have characteristic behaviours that are repeatable and measurable and it is these which give the impression of being themselves fundamental.

There is no concept of ‘pressure’ at all in the above equation; the whole idea is a matter of interpretation only.

Relevance to blood flow

Popular imagination has it that the blood is pumped around the body by a vast pressure difference created by the heart, but anyone who researches this seriously comes to the conclusion that this is simply not true and that the blood moves around ‘by some other means’ or ‘by means of its own energy’.

The nature of this energy is hitherto unknown but we can take a good guess now that it involves energised ring vortices which move the blood through the arteries according to their own power. Se here: Blood flow and scalar waves

Several researchers have noted that the blood will consistently flow from low to high pressure in the aorta. This is inconsistent with being moved by external pressure (as with ‘voltage’) but entirely consistent with the flow being created by the blood itself in a similar manner to electric currents described above.

Blood propels itself down the aorta before encountering the smaller arterioles. These provide a greater impedance to the blood and so some pressure will build up as with a resistance in an electric circuit.

Again we find that the pressure is caused by the dynamics of the flow and not the other way around.

Summary

A coherent definition of voltage is not easy to find.

The idea of electric current flowing under its own energy seems a likely explanation for the observed phenomena and is supported by the Field Theory of Konstantin Meyl. (Scalar Waves: a first Tesla physics handbook)

Without this electrical ‘vitalism’, there is no originating force in electromagnetic theory and everything must derive from essentially static entities. Electrons are stationary unless moved by the gradients of static fields, but static fields themselves are the product of .. electrons!

Something else must be in play to organise these first charges into a field but the only thing to organise electrons is .. another field! We are in a closed loop without any originating cause or fundamental organising principle.

The idea of an ever moving electric vortex field solves these philosophical problems. It gives a primal cause as consisting of field movement which is distributed throughout the universe and a basic organising principle of vortex flow mandated by internal forces.

Field vortices prefer to move through conductive materials and will self-organise according to local conditions to provide the illusions of electrical pressure, potential, field gradient, current and voltage.

‘Resistance’ is created by local field variations which destabilise the vortices to result in either heat exchange or photon emission with a concomitant loss of energy.

Related pages:

Static electricity

There is no such thing as static electricity as commonly imagined and even descriptions from mainstream science are self-contradictory. All electromagnetic fields are composed of ‘living’ filaments of spiral field vortices which propagate at the speed of light and contain their own ‘energy’.

‘Movement’, i.e. field movement is intrinsic to electromagnetic fields, the vortices want to go somewhere, meaning nothing is ever truly static and the field itself can act as an energy source.

Field propagation is at the speed of light as with photons, but the propagation speed of a field vortex will depend upon the pitch of the vortex or the exact characteristics of the ring structure.

A conventional static field is a conglomeration of moving vortices. However, this fine grained structure has been missed owing to the crude nature of the measuring instruments and the unquestioning acceptance of an over simplified and inconsistent theory.

Classical theory

The classical model of an electrostatic field is based upon the idea of a ‘charge’ (an electron) and an associated ‘force field’ which adopts a radial configuration (right) and obeys an inverse square law out to an infinite distance: Coulomb’s law

For most practical purposes this seems to work but consider what happens if a shield of lead (Pb) is applied to eliminate the field and then removed; the field disappears immediately and is then instantly renewed. Coulomb’s law should still hold but this means that the field should come into existence again all the way to infinity in no time at all!

Physicists know this and know that it is impossible but seem to think that when the shield is removed, what happens is that the field somehow repairs itself from the charge outwards, radiating to infinity at the speed of light, whereupon it knows to stop and stabilise in order to re-establish Coulomb’s Law.

So the field has ‘moved’ outwards (i.e. it is not static) and it has originated from a small charge which never seems to run out of ‘field substance’, never runs out of energy to renew an infinite field in an instant and maintain it indefinitely.

Similar concerns apply to what happens if an electron is moved. In this case, in order for Coulomb’s law to hold, the entire field all the way out to infinity must also move with it.

This is inconceivable to sane people and Newton had similar concerns about the nature of gravity. Any instantaneous action at a distance is in any case a contradiction of the principles of special relativity and so classical physics and relativity are at odds with each other. They cannot both be true at once and the absurdity of the standard description means that classical electrostatic theory at least is flawed and even inconsistent with Newton:

“This form of solutions need not obey Newton’s third law as is the case in the framework of special relativity (yet without violating relativistic-energy momentum conservation)” – Wikipedia

No charge!

Classical theory relies heavily upon the idea of ‘charge’ as being the source of electric fields, but charge as such does not exist and attachment to this concept has proved to have a stifling effect upon improving electrostatic theory.

How is charge measured? How do we know it exists? It has not been described directly but we ‘know’ it exists because we can measure the forces exerted by it and then use Coulomb’s law to calculate the amount of charge that must have created such force.

This is very obviously a circular argument: “Charge creates force so any observation of a force is proof of the existence of charge”. Clear bunk.

Vortex theory: the electron

According to the vortex theory of Konstantin Meyl, an electron is merely the ‘vortex radius’ of a spherical-toroidal shaped electromagnetic field. The vortex was created from an extended field of an arbitrarily large size which continues to morph, mutate and expand throughout the cosmos.

The field has energy of its own and is self-maintaining by itself but in practice will interact with the local field structure, whether this be within an atom or in the ‘void’ of space. Measurements of the field around a particle will imply a spherical structure and lead physicists to infer the existence of ‘charge’ because that is what their theory says.

Within this framework, the whole of ‘matter’ is described as field structures and the only ‘forces’ available are electromagnetic forces. Therefore, the only way to move an electron is by the application of a motivational field. Such field will interact with the field surrounding the electron and the effects will spiral inwards towards the vortex centre of the little ‘particle’ thereby causing movement of the vortex.

So here it is the deformation of the field that leads to the movement of the ‘charge’ and not the other way around.

In vortex physics, the field is the primal cause and the illusion of matter is a downstream effect. Classical physics tries to have all this inverted, with ‘matter’ or the ‘properties of matter’ (charge) as the origin of force . This just leads to confusion.

Charged objects

A single electron takes the form of a single spherical vortex structure but a charged object such as a balloon or a charged metal sphere is a different matter.

The top of a Van de Graaff generator is a conductive ‘sphere’ filled with electrical eddy currents. These are field vortices that are not stabilised into electrons or positrons and are free to mutate into different configurations as conditions allow.

Vortices move and propagate, they move to the surface of the metal via mutual repulsion and form a ‘layer’ owing to the difference in conductivity between the metal and the surrounding air. The fields act as accumulators and gather sufficient energy to propagate into the atmosphere, possibly taking on a slightly different configuration appropriate to the ambient conditions.

A radial field of electrical filaments emanates from the sphere and propagates outwards to infinity. Measuring devices will take an average over a relatively large area of this field and conclude a ‘potential’ that diminishes according to an inverse square law.

The sphere is distributing energy and so the field is diminishing accordingly. This is interpreted in the mainstream as ‘charge loss’ i.e. the loss of actual matter (electrons or ions) from the object! A pattern to look for in physics is the offhand dismissal of ‘losses’ and ‘noise’ as if these things need no explanation, as if the laws of physics do not apply here. By ignoring inconveniences, the impression is created of a consistent theoretical framework when nothing of the sort exists.

Coulomb’s law (vortex interpretation)

So measurement of field strength (electrical potential) is really an average of the effects of field vortices and this will approximate an inverse square law according to geometric considerations alone; the filaments spread out over a greater volume of space and this is sufficient to produce the law.

Now consider shielding with a lead cage and then removing it suddenly. The eddy currents propagate outwards at close to the speed of light depending upon helical pitch and the field is renewed in due course.

Theoretically the propagation is out to infinity, but it doesn’t ever stop as infinity is never reached and in any case the field in this case is emphatically not static but in a state of continuous radiation with continual concomitant ‘losses’ from the charged sphere.

If the sphere is moved suddenly, then field effects will propagate outwards similar to the way that waves and eddies spread from a stone tossed into a whirlpool. Field propagation itself is at the speed of light but emergent effects will move at different speeds according to their dynamic geometry. The field ‘travels’ it is never static.

Friction

If two substances are rubbed against each other, the atoms do not actually ‘touch’ each other as such an idea does not make sense in either classical or vortex physics. Do atoms ‘touch’?

Instead what happens is that the vortex radii of many electrons will come very close together, creating very strong field interference. The kinetic energy of rubbing is converted to vortex energy in the atomic structure and the associated ‘field drag’ is experienced as a resistance to movement, i.e. ‘friction’.

We now have an excess of vortex energy over baseline and eventual destabilisation will lead to several phenomena:

Transfer of vortex energy throughout the medium is known as heat diffusion
The reconfiguring of a vortex into a plain old photon in the infrared range
The dissipation of electric eddy currents away from the material

The third of these being what is called the triboelectric effect . A ‘static’ electric field has been created without the need to rip an atom apart by stripping electrons from the outer shell.

The Van de Graaff generator

We are now ready to tackle this complex subject. This is simply not understood by the mainstream even according to their own account.

In their version, positive ‘charge’ is created either by extracting protons from the centre of atoms or by stripping off electrons to leave a positive ion. Both these are ‘matter’ and they move obligingly around the circuit, are recreated at (2) by field induction and gather on the outside of the metal shell where they create the infinite field in an instant and then leak away to the surrounding air. The metal dome is continually losing material substances but never seems to shrink, run out of ions or develop an sort of film at the surface. Very suspicious.

Eventual spark discharge is via ionisation of the surrounding air in accordance with an enormous ‘voltage’; yet another breaking down of atomic structure.

The explanation from vortex physics is still not simple but really only involves a single process, which is to say the transformation of field vortices from one semi-stable structure to another depending upon the local conditions.

The rubber band is an insulator and so favours, (via the triboelectric effect) a vortex of magnetic potential over a vortex of electrical movement. Movement is intrinsic to field vortices which aids in self-organisation of self-similar structures.

The field structures from the band will form particularly around the top of the wheel where there is elastic deformation of the rubber. They will transmute into positive electrical vortices at the surface and propagate through the air to the graphite brushes.

More propagation is guided by the strong conductivity of the metal dome and eventually field propagation occurs from the dome to the outside atmosphere as described above. No flying matter is needed and no ‘field induction’.

Spark discharge may well be accompanied by ionisation but this may not necessarily be the cause. If the field is uniform then why is the discharge so localised and why does it often take on a vortex shape (right). Discharge is via field vortex and the centre of the vortex increases field intensity which leads to ionisation.

So it is the field vortex that precedes and therefore causes the ionisation and not the ionisation that somehow forms vortices as it breaks down the air molecules.

The huge voltages claimed therefore may not be real but may be local effects combined with measurement artefacts. In any case, a ‘voltage’ is the result of averaging over millions of smaller field phenomena. It may even be that vortex filaments are attracted towards the measurement instrument!

The Earth’s electric field

The Earth’s electric field is likewise not static nor uniform. Discharge from the ionosphere is in the form of field vortices and it is these that can affect the electromagnetic bio-field of organic life forms, having some beneficial effects in maintaining bio-rhythms and some detrimental effects in promoting disease. See: Influenza and weather

Wikipedia

Coulomb’s law is described by Wikipedia both as ’empirical’ and as ‘fundamental’ at the same time which does rather highlight the confusion over the whole idea.

Concluding remarks

The idea of a static field and the requirement that it must come from ‘charge’, that it is inextricably dependent upon ‘matter’ may be good enough for many practical purposes, but is not theoretically tenable and therefore unsuitable as a foundational concept in physics.

It may be framed as merely ’empirical’ but is invariably regarded as ‘fundamental’ and immutable in the absence of anything better. This attitude has proved quite crippling in terms of making any sort of advancement in a wide area of theoretical physics and has resulted in the workings of biological systems seeming utterly incomprehensible.

This has led to many serious researchers concluding the existence some sort of vitalistic force in living systems. They are not wrong. The élan vital is nothing more or less than the organised movement of field vortices as they impact upon biological tissue. The tissue guides the field movement and the field energy ‘enlivens’ the tissue.

The idea of a field that is static, uniform and dependent upon charge should be cast aside in favour of a field that is moving, vortex-like and independent of a material source.

The vortex theories of Konstantin Meyl are not just a speculative adjunct to contemporary science but a necessary replacement for many areas.

Vortex physics volume 1: https://meyl.eu/go/indexcbbc.html

Related pages:

What is electricity?

“These are the lies you were taught about electricity: That the electrons themselves have potential energy, that they are pushed or pulled through a continuous conducting loop and that they dissipate their energy in the device. My claim is that all of this is false.” – Derek Muller (Veritasium)

The quotation above is taken from the video below from the Veritasium YouTube channel. This, and the follow up video are proof that electricity does not consist of a flow of electrons. Moreover, they give some clues at least as to what is actually happening. Ideas from the vortex physics of Konstantin Meyl will complete the picture to give a credible explanation for the phenomenon.

At 2:12 we have: “There is no continuous conducting wire that runs all the way from a power station to your house. No, there are physical gaps, there are breaks in the line such as in transformers [..] Electrons cannot possibly flow from one to the other.“

Furthermore, with respect to alternating current: “If the electron flow is in two directions then why does the energy only flow in one direction?“

At 8:20: “People seem to think that you are pumping electrons and that you are ‘buying electrons‘ (from a power company) which is just so wrong. [..] It’s quite counter-intuitive to think that the energy is flowing in the space around the conductor, but the energy which is travelling through the field is going quite fast” – Dr. Bruce Hunt

“It’s the fields and not the electrons that carry the energy” – Muller

11:07 – Under-sea cables that were coated in an insulator and then encased in an iron sheath (for protection) did not perform well.

A transformer (right) consists of two coils of wire separated by a gap. Electricity (whatever it may be) flows through the coil on the left and radiates a field shown as two straight(!) lines which then induces a current by somehow interacting with the wire on the right.

Well the only thing a ‘field’ can interact with is another field. People will say that an electric field can set a charge in motion but a charge is only characterised by its own field and any interaction is totally dependent upon that field.

Assertion: Electricity is some sort of ‘field movement’ within the wire and surrounding insulator. This field extends beyond the wire in some form or other and is able to induce similar movements in the other half of the transformer.

Vortex physics

In the vortex physics of Konstantin Meyl, field movement is described by some slightly modified versions of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations and can adopt several interesting shapes. Helical fields (right) are common, as are ring vortices (smoke rings) and spherical vortices (electrons).

Electric and magnetic fields are inextricably entwined via ‘movement’ at right angles and ‘movement’ is innate to both types of field; ‘static’ fields are an illusion.

Electric fields will propagate easily within a conductor and insulating material will favour the movement of the magnetic component, leading to characteristic patterns of field movement.

The image below is from Viktor Schauberger and depicts the flow of water in a wooden pipe but will serve to illustrate the flow of an electromagnetic field in an insulated wire.

The wire is conductive and favours a helical flow of an electric field whereas the insulating cable favours the construction of magnetic ring vortices. The field vectors for the electric and magnetic fields are at right angles to each other as required.

Similar patterns are observed in the flow of blood (a partially ionised fluid) in the arteries, in vast ‘plasma’ clouds in space (Thunderbolts project) and in weather patterns in our atmosphere (Birkeland currents). These currents are self organising along the lines of a least energy principle and highly efficient, losing very little energy.

So what is electric current?

Forget about electrons for minute and imagine all manner of field turbulence within a battery as various chemicals react. All this activity amounts to a sort of electromagnetic ‘pressure’ the energy wants to go somewhere.

Now attach an insulated wire and an inviting conduit has appeared. The turbulence enters the wire and begins to self-organise according to local conditions. A helical electrical component forms down the conductor and a magnetic ring vortex proceeds down the insulating sheath.

When these formations get to the light bulb, the ambient conditions have changed and are less favourable for the maintenance of the structures that have been hitherto so stable. The lack of a proper insulator and a less conductive filament cause the whole structure to break up and reformat as an altered field geometry, releasing, in the process field structures that are interpreted as ‘energy’.

Some structures are transmuted directly to photons and emitted with a characteristic spectrum whilst others are caught up in existing field vortices and will manifest as ‘heat’ (vortex gains and losses) . Some of the energy in ‘hot’ vortices will reconfigure as infra-red photons and fly away at the speed of light.

Note that within this formulation, there is no transmutation from electron to charge to force to matter and back to energy as all of energy, charge and matter are really the same thing, namely field activity.

The video comments explained

Transformers

There is no need for electrons here. Field movement travels along a wire and its surroundings. Vortices are discharged from the wire and travel towards the receptor coils. They enter these structures and begin to self-organise in a way that is encouraged by the geometry of the coil.

Movement is intrinsic to electromagnetic fields and somehow a ‘current’ is formed.

The structure of the field in between the transformer coils is almost irrelevant as the flow will reformat within the wires anyhow. This ‘must’ happen as the laws of physics must be obeyed and the current must flow according to local conditions.

Think of pumping water into a hose pipe and waving it around. Whatever the state of the water when it was outside the hose and whatever the nature of the waving, the water will form its own flow profile and can really only go one way or the other along the pipe.

Mainstream physics will talk about the field ‘inducing’ a current in the receptor coil but here the field literally flows from one wire to another. Like water.

How do fields carry energy?

They are not static but literally flow from one place to another.

Watch videos of ring vortices in water to see that they can clearly carry a lot of energy. Similarly a magnetic ring vortex will contain a great deal of electrical energy and this will be made available for use at the other end of the wire somehow.

So it is very likely true that the bulk of the energy is carried in the insulating cable as speculated in the video.

The imagining that fields are either static or vibrating entities does make it hard to consider that energy is transmitted and that it is transmitted in one direction only but the image of a moving ring vortex is surely compelling.

Electrons cannot possibly flow..

No, but field vortices can as they are not tied to ‘matter’.

Undersea cables

The magnetic ring vortices are an integral part of the flow geometry and they perform better in an insulator.

A big current needs a big cable and proportionally sized vortices are required which means a proportionally larger insulator sheath. It is no good just spraying a coating on the cables. The insulation isn’t to stop the electrons falling out but to allow an enclosing vortex structure to form which lends stability and efficiency to the whole flow.

A thin insulator does not allow the rings to form properly; the signal is distorted and the flow starts to break up and dissipate into the salt water.

“If the electron flow is in two directions (alternating current) then why does the energy only flow in one direction?“

Conjecture: With alternating current, the ring vortices are of alternating polarity (direction of spin) but still travel in the same direction. The electrical field vector within the conductor alternates between the forward and backward direction but this is not where most of the energy is held.

The ‘energy’ is contained within the vortex and not in it’s speed of travel or the direction of spin. For most purposes, the transmutation from vortex to energy is a crude breakdown of structure and is agnostic of the spin direction.

Why is alternating current more efficient than direct current?

It is claimed that this is because it is transmitted at a higher voltage and that this voltage is created via transformers.

Guessing now: The transformer somehow translates between a high rate of low energy vortices to a lower rate of high energy vortices. Energy transmission is related to energy content of vortices whilst energy loss is proportional to the number of vortices. Energy loss is via ‘surface loss’ from the rings.

The idea of ‘voltage’ is of limited use here.

What is discharge?

Several mentions of discharge (of electrons) or charge loss are made along with suggestions of field induction (the capacity to move electrons); these are a standard part of the vocabulary of physics and electronics and all no doubt have different laws to help quantify their behaviour.

Within the framework of vortex physics, however, these are all the same phenomenon, that is to say, the movement of field vortices:

Discharge: Field Vortices going where you don’t want them to.
Charge loss: Electrons cannot disappear completely but vortex structures can
Induction: The change in geometry of a field structure caused by a different conductive environment

None of this has anything to do with electrons.

The second video

The diagram shows part of the experimental setup. A battery (capacitor) is placed in a circuit with a light bulb and the connecting wires stretch out to a distance of one light-second (actually much smaller) so that the ‘electricity’ is assumed to take one second to complete the circuit. See here: How electricity actually works

When the experiment is performed and the current switched on however the light comes on almost immediately and at least much sooner than it takes for light to travel around the circuit.

How does this happen? The answer is that as field currents start to flow around the circuit they will discharge into the air around the wire and form a de facto field which expands radially at close to the speed of light and eventually impacts upon the supply wire to the light bulb.

These vortices enter the wire and start to flow according to local conditions thereby creating a ‘current’, that is to say a structured flow of field energy.

Several commentators remark that this current should be infinitesimal, however, it turns out in practice to be strong enough to illuminate the light bulb.

What is going on?

Envisaged by classical physics is an electric field such as illustrated here, possibly coupled with an accompanying magnetic field that similarly decreases in field strength in proportion to the distance from the wire. The impact on the receiver wire will be small.

As soon as this field impacts the wire however, current flows in the wire and produces its own field which starts to interact with the first (transmitter) . Ignore the plus and minus signs here, the point is that the two fields are interacting over a region that is much larger than just the second wire itself.

Consider then this possibility: The electric and magnetic fields together form a helical vortex structure around the wires with the transmitter forming an outward spiralling vortex and the receiver hosting an inward spiral.

Energy then flows from one vortex to the other, the inverse square law is not appropriate and sufficient energy flows to light the bulb.

The vortex from the transmitter expands at close to the speed of light and impacts the second conduit. The current is small first but it creates its own vortex which expands at a similar speed, harvesting more and more energy as it does so.

At first, a doubled radius of the second vortex means a rough doubling of the energy gathered and hence a doubling of the current formed.

A unified field forms with a simplified form shown right and the rate of energy transport from one wire to another is .. anybody’s guess! It is likely that ultimately the ‘induced’ current drops off in approximate proportion to the distance purely on geometrical grounds.

This isn’t a ‘law’ though but a general principle as what is measured is always some sort of average which has been interpreted via a measuring instrument.

Note the contra-rotation of the helical fields and imagine what this would look like when extended over the whole circuit. The rotation is always the same way with respect to the current. An extended ring vortex is formed around the whole circuit and this is already known to be a highly stable structure.

Ok, now consider the screenshot from the second video:

The green line shows the current in the transmitter wire and the yellow shows the current in the receiver. The green arrow points to the time that the switch was turned on; the transmitter current shoots up almost instantaneously.

The current in the receiver though shows a linear increase up to the point of the yellow arrow which represents the current that initially drives the light bulb. Thereafter there is a sharp increase as the current completes the entire circuit.

The vortex model can be said to predict the linear increase but the classical model cannot. What would be expected by established theory is a sudden but ‘infinitesimal’ current which would then remain stable at a very low point.

Conduction within nerves

If conduction within wires is largely by means of ring vortices then maybe the same is for the transmission of nerve impulses?

Many papers find that there is a relationship between the speed of propagation of nerve impulses and the thickness of the insulating sheath surrounding a nerve; the thicker the myelin sheath, the faster the signal propagation:

Local modulation of neurofilament phosphorylation, axonal caliber, and slow axonal transport by myelinating Schwann cells – de Waegh, Brady
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1371237/

As with the undersea cables, a thicker sheath allows the free and unconstrained development of ring vortices whilst a thin sheath necessitates a deformation or stretching of the vortex to fit within the sheath, Additional surface area means additional ‘field drag’ (also known as friction) which leads to energy loss and slower propagation.

Summary

Electricity is the continuous flow and transmutation of energy fields from one environment to another. The geometry and conductive properties of that environment in conjunction with the principles of vortex physics characterise the flow.

Within this landscape, various patterns emerge and the simplest of these such as voltage, current and field ‘induction’ have been adopted as standard but none of them have a particularly sound basis in reality, being largely artefacts of the measuring instruments themselves.

Other patterns such as ring or helical vortices on the other hand are theoretical constructs that have not been measured and yet give a greater and more consistent understanding of the phenomena that we actually observe.

Related pages:

References:

The website of Konstantin Meyl – http://meyl.eu

About vortex physics and vortex losses – Konstantin Meyl
https://www.k-meyl.de/go/Primaerliteratur/About_Vortex_Physics_and_Vortex_Losses.pdf

Scalar waves – Konstantin Meyl
https://www.amazon.com/Scalar-Waves-Konstantin-Meyl/dp/3980254240

Interview with Konstantin Meyl – YouTube
https://youtu.be/tKTkpC-DHZ8

The big misconception about electricity – Derek Muller (Veritasium YouTube)
https://youtu.be/bHIhgxav9LY

How electricity actually works – Derek Muller (Veritasium YouTube)
https://youtu.be/oI_X2cMHNe0

Local modulation of neurofilament phosphorylation, axonal caliber, and slow axonal transport by myelinating Schwann cells – de Waegh, Brady
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1371237/