Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Radioactive Source: Electric Charge Displacement & Definition of Electric Current by Sorin Cosofret

Sorin Cosofret from sent over a few of his theories on the subject of EM and mentioned that he will be available to answer any questions.

Pertaining to the title, this experiment schematic is to demonstrate that electric charge movement does not behave as modern EM theory suggests conceptually as electric current.


Read the experiment details and results here:



  • edited March 2016
    "As far in my experiments a small source of beta radiation was used, we have to use the same special microelectrodes chambers for electrolysis as described in Cathode ray tube experiment."

    "For the experiment the most common sources to be used are those of alpha and beta radiation; or a proton source for those who have one in their laboratory."

    "The electrodes, made by platinum metal are gloved in two pipettes"

    No problem , I'm sure I've got most of those , just laying around in my garage. My wife got plenty of aluminum foil and can make a yellow cake hard as a rock .
  • charlie said:

    Thanks for the link!
  • edited August 2016
    Below is an excerpt from Sorin's latest newsletter: Exoplanets statistics and Big Bang, covalent bond and electrode potential
    Read or download the entire newsletter here:
    The discovery of exoplanets around stars is a hot topic in astronomy. Have someone ever made a simple statistics how many alien solar systems should be found based on the Big Bang theory prediction?

    Admitting that a supernova pop un in our galaxy twice a century, and supposing that a single supernova generates other ten stars and subsequently ten alien solar systems – which is more than exaggerated-, only a tiny 1% of stars in our galaxy should have its own solar system.

    The Kepler telescope brings supplementary evidence that depart the experimental reality from theoretical prediction. As far the field of view of Kepler is a cone toward constellations Lyra and Cygnus, and this field extends for 3000 Ly, in order to explain the number and distribution of observed exoplanets, someone should have been planted a supernova at every 20 Ly for this entire distance (3000 Ly). A simple question should be answered though… What is happen if the Kepler telescope is turn at 180 degree or it is orientated in any other direction?

    The Big Bang theory fails to explain even other more restrictive statistics. Red dwarf which are the most common stars in our galaxy (75-80% of total), and have a life time greater than our universe should have fewer solar systems around them by comparison with Sun like stars. Most of the red dwarfs are still toddlers and few of them have been formed from supernova explosions. How is possible to have around such red dwarf stars billions of solar systems?

    The last topic in astronomy is an analysis of a video presentation of dr. John Mulchaey, from Carnegie Observatory, entitled ,,The multiwavelength Universe” about NGC 2276 and pulses in radio domain without any apparent source.

    This newsletter is going to present only two items which are of paramount importance and form the core of chemistry as science.

    A cornerstone for the quantum mechanic and for the entire chemistry is represented by the proposed model for chemical bonds formation. Even before the quantum theory epoch, it has been accepted that covalent bonds are formed as a result of the sharing of one or more electrons between atoms. There has not been a conceptual explanation, how the electrons involved in the chemical bound are moving around or between atoms. As usual, quantum mechanic, in its variants, Valence theory and Orbital Molecular theory, predict a certain probability for electrons to be in certain region of space, without any intuitive or logical explanation.

    In the new proposed model, a covalent bound is formed as result of coupling between electron magnetic moments. Of course electron magnetic moments are represented by continous functions in the new theory and not by operators. No sharing of electrons is allowed and each nucleus maintains control and ownership even for electron(s) involved in chemical bond(s); there is no increased density of electrons in the space between atoms participating at bound formation too. Quantum mechanic is ruled out and an analogy with an interaction between two macroscopic magnetic moments can be made. This kind of magnetic moments interaction is able to explain in a consistent way the covalent bound and even other types of bounds formation.

    The spatial orientation of these magnetic moments can also explain the orientation of formed covalent bounds in space. The text is not updated because first a new theory of magneticity (former electromagnetism) is necessary. The estimation made in the newsletter is based on actual electromagnetism, and therefore for the the future, the model will be preserved but the mathematical approach could suffer adjustments.

    No experiment was ever performed in order to investigate how and why an electrode potential appears when a metal is immersed into a solution of its salt. For this task, stable or radioactive isotopes can help elucidating this problem and an simple experiment was proposed and performed. Other more sophisticated experiments are planned.

    A radioactive enriched Zr metal electrode was dipped into a non radioactive salt of Zr(NO3)2 and the radioactivity of the solution was measured at certain times intervals. Before electrode immersion the radioactivity of the solutions was checked in order to avoid a false positive error. After that the measurements of solution radioactivity were performed four times in the first day (once after six hours), once in a day for an entire month and once a week for another 4 months.

    Figure 2 Isotopic experiment

    Having a metal electrode dipped into a solution that contains ions of that metal, a potential difference between the metal and the solution appears according to actual interpretation.

    Consequently, when the metal strip contain only one isotope (radioisotope) or is enriched in such radioactive isotope and the solution of its salt contain another isotope, after a period of time there will be a process of isotopic change between metal and solution.

    Actual orthodox theory admits as real this isotopic change between metal and its salt solution but the experimental results contradicts this supposition. In proposed theory there will be no isotopic change between metal and its solution.

    A new perspective is offered in proposed theory for the specific comportment of a metal and its salt solution component. When no reaction takes place between metal strip and solvent (usually water), no isotopic change takes place at the interface solid solution. When metal piece react with solvent (water), there is a mass transfer between metal piece and solution, so the isotopic pattern of solution is changed. But there is no change of isotopic pattern for remaining metal part, because no metals atoms are deposited back on the metal piece.

    This simple experiment rule out the accepted interpretation for the electrode potential and a new explanation is necessary.
    The Multiwavelength Universe by Dr. John Mulchaey, Director of The Carnegie Observatories:

  • Dr. Cosofret's latest newsletter:


    A cornerstone of any theory of science is represented by the ,,electric and magnetic’’ phenomena and especially by how an ,,electric current” is defined. In this fields experiments are easy to be performed and at an affordable cost.

    The newsletter starts with a theoretical approach: what are the effects of an electric current around a gas tube discharge in the frame of classical electromagnetism.

    As far in such device, at local level, an exceeding ,,electric charge” is generated and the magnetic contribution of cations add to the electrons contribution, the magnetic field created around gas tube discharge has to be higher than magnetic field around metallic portion of the circuit.

    New cut off experiments are proposed in Section 2.

    The first experiment makes a comparison between a falling magnet inside a metallic tube and a ionic tube. The results are a bit disastrous for classical electromagnetism. Using a saturated NaCl solution, the magnet does not care about these charge carriers and it has the same falling time like in free fall.

    Supplementary there is no correlation between the concentration of electric charges in solution and the time of falling for considered magnet.
    The second experiment tries to measure directly the strength of a magnetic field around a gas tube. The preliminary data for this experiment performed years ago show that magnetic field around a gas tube do not deviate in the same manner like for the metallic portion of the circuit. The experiment will be soon updated with quantitative data.

    The third experiment proposes to build an ,,electromagnet” with a gas tube in form of a coil. Classical electromagnetism allows this device to work, but in the new theory this fact is not possible.

    In the forth experiment, which is a variation of the first experiment, the case of a falling magnet through such a gas tube discharge coil and a normal coil is analyzed.

    Some older experiments related to electric current definition are shortly described in section 3. Probably the most relevant experiment which rule out the present definition of an electric current as a charge movement was performed with cathode tubes from old TVs or monitors. The experiment was performed for the first time around 2000 and replicated many times in the last two decades.

    A flow of electrons extracted from a cathode tube has a completely different comportment by comparison with a simple chemical source. The link:

    The experiment was performed with a beta radioactive source too, having the same negative results. If a flow of electrons has nothing to do with an electric current, even a layman cannot assimilate a flow of alfa particle or other bigger species with an electric current. The link:

    In fact the actual electromagnetism is not able to explain in a consistent way the first ever battery made by Volta few centuries ago. The link:

    O dozen of other cut off experiment have been published on the elkadot site in last decade, so please take a look!

    The concept of magneticity (former electromagnetism) is highly connected with matter structure so a short review of the new concept of metallic bond is necessary.

    In the new theory, a metallic bond has nothing to do with a share of electrons between atoms and a ,,see of electrons” freely to move between nuclei as in present quantum theory is not accepted.

    In the new proposed theory outer electron magnetic moments are linked together into multidimensional arrays and these represent the particularity of metallic structure.

    In order to avoid repeating the same concept each time, i.e. electron magnetic moment, a new word is proposed: magnel (plural magnels). The meaning is self-explanatory...

  • Continued from above...

    Further on a comparison between thermal and ,,electrical’’ conductivity for metals is made. Although in both cases outer magnels are involved, there are also particularities for each case.

    In the new proposed theory, a magnel current (present electric current) is represented by a perturbation of magnels into a circuit.

    The intensity of a magnetic current is given by the number of magnels arrays involved into the magnetic propagation along circuit.

    The magnetic voltage is defined as the difference between magnels configuration under external stress and magnels configuration in absence of this perturbation. In a simplistic and visual approach, the magnetic voltage is correlated with the dealignment of the magnels from their equilibrium state.

    The entire theory of present electromagnetism is going to be reinterpreted according to up presented definitions.

    A new principle of magneticity will be also adopted as follows: States of matter and their chemical bonds condition the observed effects of a magnetic current.
    With other words, the effects of a magnetic current are usually different for solid state by comparison with liquid and gaseous state. In the case of same state, different chemical bonds, i.e. metallic bonds or covalent bonds can generate different effects around those portions of circuit.

    Even in the case of the metallic bond the effects are different from material to material. Take two different metals and they will have a different thermal effect as result of an electric current passing through them. The explanation is very simple. Although all metals have magnels available to allow a magnetic perturbation to pass through, the arrangement of these magnels is different from metal to metal depending on its structure. Different magnels spatial configuration will lead to different effects for magnel current.

    The superconductivity observed a century ago at low temperature has something to do with a transition phase in materials which allow a particular arrangement of mangnels in such manner that thermal interaction is inhibited or disappear completely.

    Later on, some materials were discovered as presenting superconductibility at higher temperature and the oddity is that discovered materials are not metals at all. Peroskovite class of substances presents covalent or ionic bonds between atoms and they do not have at least one free electron to conduct electricity as electromagnetism theory claims.

    The main ideas of the new proposed theory of superconductibility were already developed in Atomic structure book published in 2007. Now it is only the time to refine it and add a mathematical approach. To date, with a bit of support from mainstream science commercial superconductor working at room temperature would have been largely available in domestic applications. But they prefer to do research by shooting in the dark and justify large amount of funds with papers.
    The experiment with falling magnets through a metallic tube and a fluid tube has a simple conceptual interpretation in the new proposed theory.

    Of course in fluid there are a lot of free to move magnels, but they are not interconnected in such manner to get a macroscopic perturbation which can be further measured at the extremities of this circuit; therefore a magnet falls through a fluid cylinder in the same manner like a free falling through air.

    Around a gas tube, the magnetic effects are completely different from the magnetic effects around the metallic portion of the circuit.

    Making a coil from a gas tube do not increase the inductance for this part of circuit and further on one cannot use such a gas tube coil to build a so called ,,electromagnet”.

    All other cut off experiment presented on elkadot site are going to be explained in the frame of new theory...

  • edited January 2017
    Continued...In order to have a simple and intuitive overview of all phenomena, the Magneticity book is going to be structured in following parts:
    1. High Magneticity which includes former Electrostatic, High voltage electricity and Plasma.
    2. Magnetostatic and Low Magneticity which includes magnetism, former DC and AC currents;
    3. Magnel waves which includes former electromagnetic waves - they are different from electric currents and electrostatic,
    4. Magnechemistry or former electrochemistry - interaction of magnetic current with matter (electrolytic cell, electrolysis, polarization, etc).
    5. Supermagneticity – present superconductibility

    Sometimes it is possible to have an overlapping of effects. For example, an electromagnetic wave can induce a current in a circuit, but it is necessary to highlight the impossibility to assume equivalence between these phenomena.
    Let us make an overview for some topics already presented on elkadot site.
    In a previous newsletter it was presented that Van der Graaf device hasn’t get a consistent explanation in classical electromagnetism.

    In the new presented theory, no electron ever moves in the circuit during VDG working. The entire explanation is based on the fact that putting into contact two dissimilar dielectric materials will generate a surface stress over some chemical bonds. This stress will deform the bonds and in this way a surface magnetic interaction between magnels will appear. It is important to highlight that such an interaction remains localized and cannot propagate and get equilibrate by spreading over a large groups of atoms.

    But this surface magnels induced stress can be picked up with a metallic conductor and ,,charge a sphere”.
    In another future article a curios fact will be analyzed: how is possible to have a chemical source able to deliver only a few Volts and by comparison a VDG to deliver a huge voltage?

    In a VDG device the voltage increases constantly when belt rotates and usually the delivered current amounts a few microA. By comparison a chemical source knows exactly what voltage to deliver and only the intensity of current varies. Someone can even guess the explanation: in VDG device as belt rotates, some chemical bonds or some outer magnels not involved in bonds becomes more and more stressed and this stress is picked up by a metallic grill; in a chemical source the chemical reaction can produce a quite constant dealignement for magnels and in this case the voltage will be constant and only the intensity of the magnel current will vary depending on the quantity of reactants transformed into products. There will be a detailed discussion about ,,chemical to electrical” energy conversion later.

    There was a post related to electrode potential and if metal atoms migrates between solid state and solution. The experiments made with isotopes denied such migration, so in the new theory this assumption is ruled out.
    In the new theory, any time a non reactive metal is inserted into a solution, it will arrive to a certain potential given by the interaction between solution magnels and corresponding magnels in metal.

    The effects of magnetic currents are dependent if the experiment is performed in low or in high magneticity frame. For present science there is no much difference if a so called potential of 4V or 40 KV is applied to a solution. For the new theory, the situation is completely different and with this new approach a lot of curios and sometimes controversial phenomena are going to get a consistent explanation.

    Last but not least, the equivalence principle which forms the core of General Relativity is challenged with a simple experiment. It is not a ,,gedanken experiment” as modern physics promotes today, but it is a simple to be performed experiment having in mind latest technological achievements.

    The experiment proposes to detect the emission of ,,electromagnetic waves” by a mass under gravitational field by comparison with the same mass under an accelerated field.

    Here is the case to toss a coin and chose either top or tail, because irrespective of the result for this experiment, the consequences are catastrophically for General Theory of Relativity and/or today astronomy.

    If the matter accelerated in gravitational field emits photons, than the equivalence principle is nonsense and the entire Generalized Theory of Relativity has to be ruled out.

    If the matter accelerated in gravitational field does not emit photons than a lot of astronomical topics need a new interpretations and an entire scientific literature becomes recycled papers.
    For the new proposed theory this experiment is of secondary importance ….
    There were other experiments posted on the site around 2009 which rule out the General Theory of Relativity, so the main purpose of this experiment is to ascertain once more that matter accelerated in a gravitational field do not release any kind of radiation (electromagnetic waves or photons) as stated in the previous newsletter...

  • ...There are going to be further discussions on this topic. For example, in a future newsletter the case of a two black hole merging will be analyzed. If in center of each galaxy there is a black hole, than merging these galaxies, and implicitly merging their center blackholes will have as consequence the complete dismember of both galaxies. It is not possible to have a new and bigger galaxy after this merging, because those central black holes are going either to precipitate part of the stars on blackholes and to eject the rest of them in outer space.

    Someone can see in internet how nice and artistic are some movies related to black hole merging and how they rotate one around the other with increased speed until they merge and release huge amount of energy and distort the space time. In the new theory, there is a clear difference between Hollywood production and scientific reality. It is a pity that none has added to those simulations at least some stars around those merging black holes.

    Of course dealing with billions of stars it is a bit complicated, therefore I would like to present a simpler model. Imagine that our Solar System is going to collide with another Solar System and the end point of this collision is a merge between stars. How many planets will remains around the final star? A conservative estimate: none.

    As consequence, the new theory rules out the existence of the black holes in the center of each galaxy.

    Some people have asked me what is the purpose of this advertisement and if I am confident to change something in science. Perhaps even fewer people are so perceptive to see another face of reality.

    In front of history, mainstream science has already lost the war. The only problem which remains to be solved is a logistic one: how much money are to be spend for nothing…

    From my point of view, mainstream science is like a bullet train going nowhere, but being well fuelled; soon the railway will finish too ….

    In 2011, after finishing my stage at European Commission, I tried to get support from influential people in my country (Romania) for changing the gears in research. So I made a presentation in front of my colleagues, and a academician (chemist ) and a top university Romanian university chancellor, who was also the head of physics department, were invited too. Not only they disagreed with my simple cut off experiments, but at the end of my presentation, the head of physics department recommended me to read Feynman books and he told me he is willing to lend me those books. Poor man! Before university graduation, I finished reading the entire scientific library of the same university and other thousands of scientific books from other public or universities libraries, but this is another story ….
    Those people could have changed history and with a right decision from those people, my country - Romania, would have avoided spending at least 10 Billions Euro in futile research from 2011 onwards.

    There are wealthy nations which can afford to spend billions for nothing, but I do not think my country is in this situation.

    For the future, it is necessary a single (and even small) country to stop spending money in present direction of research as futile and meaningless and after that the entire crowd will follow. I have enough time to wait that moment!

    The previous newsletter was distributed to 265291 scientists (physicists, astronomers, electrical engineers and chemists). The statistic made by the delivery company showed that 35165 people have read the email; for me, this result is more than satisfactory. There is still some work to do in order to gather the geology people in my database and I hope this task will be finished in first month of 2017. After that, the real spectacle can start.

    Until than, I will give the same advice found on a motivational poster produced by the British government:

    Keep Calm and Carry On!

    And I will like to add further:
    Please try to not start new and expensive research projects following the present line of research. By sure, your nation will not be happy with this endeavor!

    The link for this newsletter:
    Best regards
    Dr. Chem. Sorin Cosofret
Sign In or Register to comment.