Electron gone? update


I wired the circuit above a couple of days ago. The battery holder wires give the polarity red/black. Both motors ran in the way they should. There was no cancelling of the current. The batteries read around 1.5v on the meter as did the motors whilst running. Everything appeared normal apart from the fact that the two circuits had a common wire “A” to “B” with current apparently running both ways. The wire voltage at A and B read zero as would be expected.
The circuit according to mainstream theory is impossible but it works, so mainstream theory is wrong.


Above we have an alternative configuration for the sceptics among us. The reader will note that we now have four circuits using the same wires with current moving in opposite directions. I intend to build a real-time working circuit of this with four filament lightbulbs at different battery voltages and therefore at different brightness. This will prove (to me at least) they are all working independently. Don’t have the time right now.

itsaliveeevblog.com: Can current flow in opposite directions simultaneously through same wire?
The answer to your question is yes, but currents flowing in opposite directions will cancel each other out with the wire carrying the difference between the two.

The advice above is based upon argument from authority a logical fallacy.


If the two current sources cancel then how did the motors manage to run?
How do electrons behave in such a circuit?
How do they bypass electrons travelling in the opposite direction, surely they would repel each other in all directions? No flow, no motor, but it runs.
What’s going-on in the wire AB?
What is the theory for this?

reddit.com. Why can’t electricity flow both ways down a wire?
It can, just not at the same time. Imagine water running through a pipe. It can flow one way, or it can flow the other, but if it tried to go both ways at the same time it’d just cancel out and not go anywhere.

The first wiring diagram above is not new, there were one or two just like it on the internet for some time. You would think that by now someone would have wired it up and tried it to see what happens? You can find the original here

reddit.com: Electrons flow from an area where there are more electrons, to an area where there are less electrons. If you wanted to make an electric circuit with only one wire going to the battery, and current flowing both to and from the battery in that one wire (which I think is what you’re asking), then you’d have to make it so that each end of the wire had both more and less electrons than the other end. Clearly this doesn’t make sense, and is impossible.
Brilliant, thanks.

No it’s not brilliant. The wrong headed arguments above have a common factor – they assume electron theory to be correct because they were told it is correct. No one ever checks the facts.

Electrons in two conductors according to push theory.

The wrong-headed push-electron theory
answers.com Electrical current doesn’t work quite the way that you would think.
A simple way to describe electrical current is to imagine a straw filled with marbles. Each marble represents an electron. If you push an electron in one end of the straw, and the straw was full, a marble would exit the other end of the straw.

The electrons in the straw are (according to theory) all negatively charged and as such repel each other strongly. The straw cannot be full because the electrons are pushing in opposite directions. Now try to imagine what is happening in the graphic at the top of the page with marbles moving in both directions in the same straw (wire)? It’s not going to work is it?

The pull-electron theory even worse
answers.com: However, while that example gives an idea of what is going on, electricity is actually exactly the opposite of that. An electron is “pulled” out of one end of a conductor, which crates an electron “hole”. An electron next to the hole moves into that empty spot, and so on and so on. So, even though you could visualize the electricity moving through the conductor as “pushing a marble”, it’s really “pulling one out” and marbles are moving to “fill the gap”. (This is known as hole movement in electricity).

How do you get this to happen in a single conductor?
This is where we are required to forget that electrons are negatively charged. “marbles are moving to “fill the gap” They are all repelling each other whilst moving in the opposite direction to the repulsion – pushing each other. Again, this cannot happen in a single two-way conductor and what follows is an argument via unproven and unprovable theory, quantum mechanics and even neutron stars (any port in a storm) all based upon electron theory: click for reddit.com answer

A current can flow both ways through a single conductor without loss or increased resistance because electrons do not exist.

Electrons don’t move quickly enough to fill the holes.

Wiki: Electrons are the charge carriers in most metals and they follow an erratic path, bouncing from atom to atom, but generally drifting in the opposite direction of the electric field… …Typically, electric charges in solids flow slowly. For example, in a copper wire of cross-section 0.5 mm2, carrying a current of 5 A, the drift velocity of the electrons is on the order of a millimetre per second.

Electromagnetic waves

Wiki: The speed of this flow has multiple meanings. In everyday electrical and electronic devices, the signals or energy travel as electromagnetic waves typically on the order of 50%–99% of the speed of light, while the electrons themselves move (drift) much more slowly. The speed at which energy or signals travel down a cable is actually the speed of the electromagnetic wave travelling along (guided by) the cable. i.e. a cable is a form of a waveguide. The propagation of the wave is affected by the interaction with the material(s) in and surrounding the cable, caused by the presence of electric charge carriers (interacting with the electric field component) and magnetic dipoles (interacting with the magnetic field component)… …The energy/signal usually flows overwhelmingly outside the electric conductor of a cable; the purpose of the conductor is thus not to conduct energy, but to guide the energy-carrying wave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity

So why do we need the electron?

We need the electron because the electron gave birth to particle physics. If we take away the first born child then the whole of particle physics becomes questionable!

It gets even more confusing:

Conventional Flow versus Electron Current

Subject : Science Topic : Physics Posted By : Jasonhttps://www.tutapoint.com/knowledge-center/view/coventional-flow-vs-eletron-flow

So electrical engineering current flow is opposite to the physicists current flow and it doesn’t matter?
Why do we need electrons and plus and minus?


It gets even worse when we look at transistors:

Transistor marble in a tube analogy: (a) Electrons move right in the conduction band as electrons enter tube. (b) Hole moves right in the valence band as electrons move left.

It appears the electron needs a hole (with no marble) to move into.

physics.stackexchange.com: What are “electron holes” in semiconductors?
No one at stack exchange above agrees if holes are real or just a metaphor to explain moving positive charge. This is what happens in education when the teacher is confused. This confusion was imposed by science and benefits no one but the empire of science. It is meant to be confusing

If the reader wants maximum confusion see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole
And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_effect neither of which work in a single conductor like the circuits at the top of this page.


What is required here is for someone to wire-up two simple transistor circuits with a common conductor! But even this is unproductive as it will motivate physicists to support existing theory. Someone will come-up with an unprovable answer based on unprovable theories above and debunk it. Most people believe everything scientists tell them.

Electricity is an energy field and both words ‘energy’ and ‘field’ are undefined by mainstream science. Science gives the properties but not a description of what they are.

Electricity flows from more to less energy (discharge). My advice to experimenters is to ignore all theory. Ignore positive and negative polarity and just think discharge. Ignore electrons and think fields and energy. Finally ignore anyone who says it cannot be done. Think for yourself.

The Digging Dog



25 thoughts on “Electron gone? update

  1. I think the confusion arises from considering electric charge as “particles” (or objects) moving in a specific direction. But if electricity is/are EM waves, will this model explain more of the circuit (EM waves operating in plasma dark mode). But for now I don’t know.


    1. Hi Louis
      It was as far back as the later 1800s it was decided by vested interests that a spanner needed to be thrown in the electrical works. It was well known by many pioneers and physicists of the day that electricity was to be had for free. So today we have it, deliberate misinformation was and is fed to students in the form of particles quanta and Einsteinian trivia. The deck is now stacked against anyone ever learning about nature as everything is electric.
      I hope my experiment helps to solve your problem of two-way currents in stratospheric electricity? The current in the AB wire is moving in counter space, the square root of minus one. See Dollard
      There is also no plus or minus – just discharge and simplicity. A current moves to a place were there is low or no current just like water running downhill. Electricity is energy and energy is undefined by the mainstream, it’s all about fields also undefined. Energy and fields do not exist in the materialistic world of science.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Pingback: Electron | nextexx
  3. Pingback: Electron | nextexx
  4. I’m glad you mentioned J J Thomson’s quote on electrons
    “may it never be of any use to anybody”.

    I’ve always suspected something in electricity education
    and it’s only in the past 15 years that I came to think
    fieldwise, partly through personal feelings and thanks to
    dedicated characters like you!

    I have a question:
    Bacteria are known to thrive off electric current and to
    colonize electric wires. Should I say these bacteria are
    feeding off electric fields?
    Plasma things are doing just that by the way…



    1. Hi Yry
      Electricity has been a taboo subject for science ever since the invention of the telegraph 1840s that was powered by free (teluric) electricity. Even so far back in history there were those who somehow foresaw the money to be made from utilities that did not exist. (See my page on the electric telegraph) It’s all about scientific funding and those who pay for it, an easy route for corruption. If you want more on this subject I recommend Eric P Dollard on Youtube.
      J J Thomson’s research was more along the lines of Nikola Tesla but mainstream history remembers him for the electron that ‘never did anyone any good’. He often questioned his own electron. People are now so brainwashed with the idea that the electron drives electricity that they are incapable of imagining electricity without it. The electron was the first sub-atomic particle and a whole science has grown-up around it. If you do some honest research you will find that there is no technological discovery that required the electron for its invention. Also that much of today’s technology was required to discover the electron. It’s just one of many scientific paradoxes.
      I need to do another picture on “Electron Gone” because my brother (an electrician) thinks the motors are switching! I’ll do one with two light bulbs.

      I’m not really into biology because it includes medical and people get very emotional about doctors. I tend to get my computer destroyed by those who disagree, not that this is a problem! But I will certainly look into this thanks. The closest thing I have is a paper on metallic whiskers growing on electrical equipment – probably part of the same thing?


      1. Thank you for your reply and the tips!
        The general unrest and sometimes turmoil in the West
        at large should eventually prove to be a bonus for
        the re-introduction of these “past” techs.
        I’m surprised this didn’t happen in Venezuela or
        maybe they keep it quiet.
        There are cycles would say Armstrong’s Socrates…

        I’ll tip you off on bacteria in the coming days.

        Gratefully, Yry.


  5. Hello cadxx

    As promised:

    Earthly bacteria breathing electrons (aka electricity) and CO2.
    From “The Thunderbolts Project” copyright video at:

    Bacteria discovered that exist on pure energy
    SciTech, Science, USA – Published time: July 19, 2014 18:24 on RT.com
    Electric bacteria connect to form wires, take energy from rocks and metal by
    feasting directly on their electrons. The hair-like filaments the bacteria produce
    carry electrons between the cells and their environment.
    Biologists from the University of Southern California (USC) found that the new
    discovery joins more than ten other different specific type of bacteria that also
    feed on electricity.
    Nealson compared their method of survival to a human attempting to power up by
    sticking their finger in a DC electrical socket instead of eating. – Kenneth Nealson
    of USC. Results were presented at the Goldschmidt geoscience conference in
    Sacramento, California, 2014.

    Another source (couldn’t trace it so far) gave the following tip to recognize
    bacterial colonies “breathing” electrons along electric wires:
    – look for a gleam on the wire as long as you know that current is always
    “circulating” day & night in that wire.
    – The gleam betrays the presence of colonies just as those colonies found in caves.
    As it were, these cave bacteria are feeding off telluric currents!

    My question remains: are these bacteria absorbing FIELDS?

    Cheers, Yry.


    1. Thanks Yry
      This is very interesting “The hair-like filaments the bacteria produce
      carry electrons between the cells and their environment.”
      See: Spontaneous Growth of Metal Whiskers on Surfaces of Solids: A
      I have to admit I’ve not got round to looking at this yet.

      To answer your question: Wiki says “Typically, electric charges in solids flow slowly. For example, in a copper wire of cross-section 0.5 mm2, carrying a current of 5 A, the drift velocity of the electrons is on the order of a millimetre per second… …any changing electric current, gives rise to an electromagnetic wave that propagates at very high speed outside the surface of the conductor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current
      It is admitted that electrons don’t move much and I asked on another page why the cathode of a cathode ray tube does not run out of electrons.
      So all we have to feed the bacteria is the electric and magnetic fields (dielectric). At the end of the day everything in the universe is energy fields.
      See also : https://nextexx.com/spontaneous-life-1-andrew-crosse-and-acari/


  6. Great! and thanks for the researchgate link which I’ll read very soon.
    I’d read up your nice Crosse-Acari paper some time ago, it was fascinating.
    Part of my activity has to do with remote sensing and strangely enough it
    helps to know about these topics (and others!).
    I was stunned to see that TB picture appear after my last comment,
    how did you do that????

    Fields then… Cheers, Yry.


    1. Hi again Yry
      I was into remote viewing and astral travel myself some time ago but my ability has changed into something else – something like insight but hard to explain. I don’t fight it. What is the TB picture? Have I missed something, it’s not me! Let me know?
      Have a good one


  7. Hello cadxx,

    – TB pic:
    2 posts back here I gave the links in writing only, so what surprised me was to see
    the TB video pic ready for viewing as a video below my post lines.

    – Remote sensing (or teledetection) is a technological branch whereby more prosaically
    one can use a number of tech tools to detect at a distance (in miles, hundreds of miles or
    even light years) suspected resources, configurations, forms and processes in the making
    or just ancient traces.

    – Don’t fight this sense you are developing, maybe it’ll turn into a “soft” technology much the
    same way as Reichenbach’s.

    Cheers, Yry.


    1. Thanks Yry “Mindfulness of Microbial Electronics | Electricity of Life”
      I tend not to use Thunderbolts or any other philosophy as my number one source, I just let it roll. Thunderbolts although important uses mainstream electrons to attract a wider audience, basically because most people out there are brainwashed with electrons. Personally I think you either get it or you don’t.
      I read the paper on whiskers and there was nothing of much interest, guess you found the same but you never know when joining the dots. There seems to be a connection here but I’m not sure what it is: https://nextexx.com/new-technology-is-old-loose-contact-devices/
      By the way, I found a problem with the circuit on electron gone. I’ll tell you about it when I’ve fixed it.
      have a good day


  8. Ref. your test circuit at the top.

    Here is the error in your logic:

    “Everything appeared normal apart from the fact that the two circuits had a common wire “A” to “B” with current apparently running both ways. The wire voltage at A and B read zero.”

    First you make the ASSUMPTION that current runs in both directions, then you measure the voltage difference between A and B which reads ZERO.

    In electric theory, if the potential difference is ZERO it means simply there is NO CURRENT running between A and B. By logic, this alone should tell you that your assumption is wrong.

    What you are dealing with here is two circuits, not one – both sharing one wire (A to B). Any imbalance between the two circuits e.g. difference in batteries, motor and wires will manifest it self as a proportional NET current in ONE direction in the wire (A to B). In your case the imbalance is so small you can not register it with your equipment, you would probably need a professional 6.5 digit desktop multi-meter to register it.

    With the above information you can probably deduct that both motors are driven by the current flowing from left battery negative terminal to right battery positive terminal through both motors. and an equal current directly from right battery negative terminal to left battery positive terminal.

    What you basically have is two batteries in series driving two motors in series, nothing mysterious about that.


    1. You say: “What you basically have is two batteries in series driving two motors in series, nothing mysterious about that.”

      Yes, I’ve been expecting someone else to say that, my brother who is an electrician beat you to it. If you draw the circuit out you will see that both circuits have a common short circuit which prevents current flowing in the way you suggest.

      What reading would you expect in a wire with an equal current flowing both ways?

      You say: “In electric theory, if the potential difference is ZERO it means simply there is NO CURRENT running between A and B. By logic, this alone should tell you that your assumption is wrong.”

      Electricity flows, not in the conductor but in a field outside of the conductor. A (di)electric field and a magnetic field – at 90 degree angles to each other, follows a spiral path along the conductor. It is this fact that allows two currents to flow in opposite directions.
      There’s a Wiki graphic here of parallel currents in space:

      Like in the CRT electricity is a field not a particle.
      There is no positive or negative just discharge.

      A scientific education does not include or require logic. If it did there would be awkward questions about induction – which is what science uses. Logic is about common sense science is not.

      I intend to replace the picture on my site with one that has two filament light bulbs at different battery voltages so it’s obvious that one is brighter than the other. I can’t use LEDs for obvious reasons.


  9. “energy is undefined by the mainstream”

    In mainstream energy is mass, and mass is energy. when mass materializes it absorbs energy, when mass is annihilated it releases energy.


    1. This is a circular description of (dubious) properties leaving energy undefined, like “field” is undefined. We are told what it does not what it is.


  10. “Yes, I’ve been expecting someone else to say that, my brother who is an electrician beat you to it.”

    What a smart brother you have, maybe you should listen a bit to what he has to offer you.

    “What reading would you expect in a wire with an equal current flowing both ways?”

    Short answer: I don’t know.

    A bit longer answer: Please define “current” the way you understand it. I understand current as number of electrons per second passing a cross section of an conductor.

    You say you own a meter, 99,99% of all meters can also measure current, then why don’t you measure the current in the three wires in question and let me know your results?

    While we are at it, you have measured 1.5 volt, can you please define “volt” the way you understand it? I understand it as a potential difference between two points.

    “I intend to replace the picture on my site with one that has two filament light bulbs at different battery voltages so it’s obvious that one is brighter than the other. ”

    Please do that, but remember also to measure filament resistance, pressure in the vacuum envelope, and losses in the form of heat and light, otherwise your new circuit can not prove your point just by looking at it.

    “Logic is about common sense science is not.”

    There are many types of logic, not only the common one. Everyone uses logic even retarded people.

    “Electricity flows, not in the conductor but in a field outside of the conductor.”

    Please define “field”… I think what you are referring to is the energy (not electricity) that Maxwell observed while conducting his experiments, and it’s the same same energy that Poynting discarded in his overhaul of Maxwells equations. Does that deserve a closer look? sure it does.


    1. Current is a flow or movement of electrical energy, flow is current as with water. We often see electricity described as a “flow of current”. You may as well say a current of current or a flow of flow which leads me to the conclusion the mainstream is confused.
      A volt is pressure as in high pressure low current – think of a large water pipe and a small water pipe.
      A potential difference is more current moving to less current. There is no need for plus and minus when you have an unequal amount of current. Plus and minus are contentious between engineers and scientists – it’s all explained on the same page.
      A field is waves in the aether; Ken Weeler explains it in his videos much better than I can. Waves don’t actual exist as entities they are pressure waves using a medium for transmission – like waves in water are not caused by water but wind and tides or a stone dropped into the duck pond.

      All of this was worked-out by the electrical pioneers of the Victorian era and has been corrupted by modern science to deliberately confuse. Science does not want you to understand electricity in the same way it does not want you to understand relativity or quantum mechanics. The difference being that unlike the latter, electricity is real. You don’t have to take my word for this, it’s all available to read or watch Eric P Dollard’s videos. There is Tesla, Steinmetz, early J. J. Thomson, Water Russell and many others much more knowledgable than me.


  11. “This is a circular description of (dubious) properties leaving energy undefined, like “field” is undefined. We are told what it does not what it is.”

    If you are told that, then you should stop listen to those people claiming that, and start thinking for yourself.

    Energy is defined in some contexts and undefined or unknown in some contexts. In which context do you believe it is undefined?

    Before you can define a “field” you have to set the field boundaries first. The term “field” is meaningless without context and boundaries. E.g. a “corn field” is immediately apparent and gives context.


  12. Gösta we are now descending into the realms of Mickey Mouse fantasy and I get the impression you are taking the piss. You know perfectly well that I mean an electric field and an electric field is a complete mystery to physics because physics thinks in terms of particles. Energy is also undefined in any context because again everything has to made of something material. However physics is inconsistent in this respect because it cannot exist without TIME that is also non-material and undefined. We also have mind, again non-material and a complete mystery to the extent physics denies its existence.

    You appear to be confused with words like Defined and Undefined.
    And what is important to know – the word Property compared to the word Attribute.
    “We must get words right”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.