[newguy357]

Nobody really cares which way a electron moves in a circuit diagram, because you just need to pick one way or the other to make calculations.

Exactly. That was entirely Physicist's point, which is why your objection made no sense. That was my point.

which is not unusual when I make a statement on the thread that a engineer wants to parse, which is what they do with a BLT sandwich or anything that anyone says.

I'm not an engineer, I'm a physicist. Physics requires clarity in definition, just like any other science. I'm not sure why you oppose that.

You think we know it all

Apparently you are only here to argue. Rather than actually reading my posts and responding to what I wrote you have instead responded to what you wish I wrote. If you reread my first post to you I clearly stated my agreement with your premise that there are many things we do not yet understand. Where I take exception is with your specific examples of what you don't think we know. You have used examples which Physicist and I know are already understood in the physics community. No offense, but as an electrician you probably don't know enough physics to tell two physicists what physics is and is not known.

, yet we have yet to produce efficient conductors without dicking around with gold and copper.

Again, you have confused engineering and physics. Is it hard to build an efficient conductor? Who cares? That is irrelevant to our physical understanding of ideal (and imperfect) conductors. If you want to talk about building something talk to an engineer. Gold and copper are not perfect conductors. So what? That has nothing to do with our understanding of conductors.

We don't yet know a lot of things, like how to transmit raw power wirelessly.

Again you show your misunderstanding. Transmitting power is easy. Microwaves are one way. Theoretically we know exactly how to do it. If you want to implement it though, go talk to an engineer and have him try to build one. Regardless, the theory is all understood just fine.

We cannot even create efficient and safe power economically without putting in more than we take out

Ever hear of a little law called the conservation of energy?

[Cold Heat]

Another load.....

I'm beginning to tire and I don't tire easily.

I was about to go back and reexplain to you what and why I said what I said about the current direction comment, which quite frankly came out of the blue, and then you do more of it.

So I won't.

What you claim to be my misunderstanding has to do with the neat little box that some of you fellows seem to build around your fragile egos.

This for example........Again, you have confused engineering and physics. Is it hard to build an efficient conductor? Who cares? That is irrelevant to our physical understanding of ideal (and imperfect) conductors.

My post was not confined to engineering. You confined it so it would fit in your little box! A tiny box from my perspective. I was addressing current inadequate conductor properties which very well could involve quantum physics or any number of sciences.

I find this highly irritating when I am wide open and you cannot get out of your box for ten friggin seconds to do anything but insult me for what you mistakenly perceive I said.

I don't and never have confined myself to such a narrow scope as to be so arrogant, but I find it common in your field and that of engineering. I don't know what causes it, but it holds us back.

Get out of your box once and while. Think out side. The world may be untidy, but believe me, you will not achieve squat without digging into the pile.

Maybe that analogy is beyond your perception as well. for example this:We cannot even create efficient and safe power economically without putting in more than we take out

To that you said.....Ever hear of a little law called the conservation of energy?

I don't get it. I thought the sentence was perfectly constructed and clear. I indicated that I do understand conservation of energy and that I am aware of the energy losses we suffer daily because of our outmoded transmission abilities. "More than we take out", certainly does not lead anyone to assume I think there is some way to get more than we put in.

To assume that you would have to believe that I am a simpleton! That I believe in the holy grail! A machine that puts out more energy then it consumes.

The truth is, our energy losses due to transmission are very significant. A large part of it goes up in heat.

Now one would assume when talking to a electrician, that he might have some idea of what he is talking ABOUT. You have done this same leap of logic (sarcasm) for everything I have said on this thread.

The purpose of this reply is to let you know, that I don't like it and I won't put up with it for a new york second. I occasionally learn something on this forum. But not today...no sir.

Since your field is physics, I thought maybe I could learn a little about using quantum physics to transmit signal data over vast distances. Maybe tap the cosmic energy that is all around us to create power on the spot. But you definitely cannot get there from here, and no new theories will ever be written when physicists are in a box. Have a nice day.........