Theory of electron motion inside a virus

[Guest guest]

The nucleus or capsid of HIV is electron dense. That means it is

negatively charged. Bombarding it with free electrons would tend to

repel these extra electrons and leave the capsid electrically neutral,

but only if the motion of the electrons is not quickly reversed.

If the electron flow is quickly reversed, then some of the electrons

would return to the capsid and leave it essentially unchanged. The

distance from the center of the capsid to the edge would be the least

distance these electrons would need to travel to be free of the capsid

and to leave it electrically neutral.

A neutral capsid would probably be incapable of performing any viral

replication. Furthermore, the attractive charge, if any, on the virus

that would lend to its bonding with a host cell would also be reduced

to where it might be impossible or unlikely to bond.

bG

[Guest guest]

Hey b_g, When we have a circuit where just a little

less that 0.2 ma is flowing, that means something

around 1 followed by 15 zeros of electrons are leaving

the negative terminal and going into the positive

terminal every second--and ripping through the region

between where-ever we place our electrodes. That

sounds like a lot of action, but it would all be

relative. Do you have a feel for how many atoms or

molecules or free electrons there may be in some of

the areas that we are treating. I am pretty familiar

with the 'like signs' repel and unlike signs attract

law of nature, but I am having a little difficulty

visualizing what you describe.

--- baby_grand <bobluhrs@...> wrote:

> The nucleus or capsid of HIV is electron dense. That

> means it is

> negatively charged. Bombarding it with free

> electrons would tend to

> repel these extra electrons and leave the capsid

> electrically neutral,

> but only if the motion of the electrons is not

> quickly reversed.

>

> If the electron flow is quickly reversed, then some

> of the electrons

> would return to the capsid and leave it essentially

> unchanged. The

> distance from the center of the capsid to the edge

> would be the least

> distance these electrons would need to travel to be

> free of the capsid

> and to leave it electrically neutral.

>

> A neutral capsid would probably be incapable of

> performing any viral

> replication. Furthermore, the attractive charge, if

> any, on the virus

> that would lend to its bonding with a host cell

> would also be reduced

> to where it might be impossible or unlikely to bond.

>

> bG

>

>

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hey b_g, When we have a circuit where just a little

less that 0.2 ma is flowing, that means something

around 1 followed by 15 zeros of electrons are leaving

the negative terminal and going into the positive

terminal every second--and ripping through the region

between where-ever we place our electrodes. That

sounds like a lot of action, but it would all be

relative. Do you have a feel for how many atoms or

molecules or free electrons there may be in some of

the areas that we are treating. I am pretty familiar

with the 'like signs' repel and unlike signs attract

law of nature, but I am having a little difficulty

visualizing what you describe.

--- baby_grand <bobluhrs@...> wrote:

> The nucleus or capsid of HIV is electron dense. That

> means it is

> negatively charged. Bombarding it with free

> electrons would tend to

> repel these extra electrons and leave the capsid

> electrically neutral,

> but only if the motion of the electrons is not

> quickly reversed.

>

> If the electron flow is quickly reversed, then some

> of the electrons

> would return to the capsid and leave it essentially

> unchanged. The

> distance from the center of the capsid to the edge

> would be the least

> distance these electrons would need to travel to be

> free of the capsid

> and to leave it electrically neutral.

>

> A neutral capsid would probably be incapable of

> performing any viral

> replication. Furthermore, the attractive charge, if

> any, on the virus

> that would lend to its bonding with a host cell

> would also be reduced

> to where it might be impossible or unlikely to bond.

>

> bG

>

>

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

forget quantity for the moment,consider 1 electron. If it sits in the

capside of HIV as an " extra " (meaning not associated with an attracting

proton or other positive charge) then it is not held tightly to its

location. It should be fairly easy to move.

Enter another electron on a collision course. They repel each other,

and likely the one inside would begin to move along with the stream of

electrons " chasing " it.

OK, now numbers, it's likely that many millions will hit each virus in

bloodstream if used to electrify and artery, since the current follows

the blood. That is a narrow tube, with a cross-section of virus in it

that is as deep as the tube is long. Sooner or later there will be

collisions. When you consider millions of virus per cc, and the cc's

are stacked in a row as inside an artery, they offer an easy target.

Which is probably why blood electrification is so easy to do. The

first few times you do it, the dieoffs are amazing from it. Then after

many times you don't get them much if at all. I've not gotten dieoffs

in awhile now despite using wrist electrifier quite intensively with

periods of slack inbetween, even months. Only a mild dieoff and only

at first, if at all.

HIV may be possible to remove from blood this way given enough time,

but it emerges from the organs like lymph, etc to re-infect. So,

electricity is needed at those places to reduce it before it's really

gone. HIV people aren't here testing this right now, which is too bad.

bG

>

> Hey b_g, When we have a circuit where just a little

> less that 0.2 ma is flowing, that means something

> around 1 followed by 15 zeros of electrons are leaving

> the negative terminal and going into the positive

> terminal every second--and ripping through the region

> between where-ever we place our electrodes. That

> sounds like a lot of action, but it would all be

> relative. Do you have a feel for how many atoms or

> molecules or free electrons there may be in some of

> the areas that we are treating. I am pretty familiar

> with the 'like signs' repel and unlike signs attract

> law of nature, but I am having a little difficulty

> visualizing what you describe.

>

>

[Guest guest]

forget quantity for the moment,consider 1 electron. If it sits in the

capside of HIV as an " extra " (meaning not associated with an attracting

proton or other positive charge) then it is not held tightly to its

location. It should be fairly easy to move.

Enter another electron on a collision course. They repel each other,

and likely the one inside would begin to move along with the stream of

electrons " chasing " it.

OK, now numbers, it's likely that many millions will hit each virus in

bloodstream if used to electrify and artery, since the current follows

the blood. That is a narrow tube, with a cross-section of virus in it

that is as deep as the tube is long. Sooner or later there will be

collisions. When you consider millions of virus per cc, and the cc's

are stacked in a row as inside an artery, they offer an easy target.

Which is probably why blood electrification is so easy to do. The

first few times you do it, the dieoffs are amazing from it. Then after

many times you don't get them much if at all. I've not gotten dieoffs

in awhile now despite using wrist electrifier quite intensively with

periods of slack inbetween, even months. Only a mild dieoff and only

at first, if at all.

HIV may be possible to remove from blood this way given enough time,

but it emerges from the organs like lymph, etc to re-infect. So,

electricity is needed at those places to reduce it before it's really

gone. HIV people aren't here testing this right now, which is too bad.

bG

>

> Hey b_g, When we have a circuit where just a little

> less that 0.2 ma is flowing, that means something

> around 1 followed by 15 zeros of electrons are leaving

> the negative terminal and going into the positive

> terminal every second--and ripping through the region

> between where-ever we place our electrodes. That

> sounds like a lot of action, but it would all be

> relative. Do you have a feel for how many atoms or

> molecules or free electrons there may be in some of

> the areas that we are treating. I am pretty familiar

> with the 'like signs' repel and unlike signs attract

> law of nature, but I am having a little difficulty

> visualizing what you describe.

>

>

[Guest guest]

It's easy to understand why the Virus may say

" I think we need a bigger boat " when you figure

6.24150962915265 × 1012 electrons

flow per second, per microamp or

6,24,150,962,915,265,000,000,000,000 (SI Units) Electrons

per second, per microamp, exactly.

Mike

Re: Theory of electron motion inside a

virus

forget quantity for the moment,consider 1 electron. If it sits in the

capside of HIV as an " extra " (meaning not associated with an attracting

proton or other positive charge) then it is not held tightly to its

location. It should be fairly easy to move.

Enter another electron on a collision course. They repel each other,

and likely the one inside would begin to move along with the stream of

electrons " chasing " it.

OK, now numbers, it's likely that many millions will hit each virus in

bloodstream if used to electrify and artery, since the current follows

the blood. That is a narrow tube, with a cross-section of virus in it

that is as deep as the tube is long. Sooner or later there will be

collisions. When you consider millions of virus per cc, and the cc's

are stacked in a row as inside an artery, they offer an easy target.

Which is probably why blood electrification is so easy to do. The

first few times you do it, the dieoffs are amazing from it. Then after

many times you don't get them much if at all. I've not gotten dieoffs

in awhile now despite using wrist electrifier quite intensively with

periods of slack inbetween, even months. Only a mild dieoff and only

at first, if at all.

HIV may be possible to remove from blood this way given enough time,

but it emerges from the organs like lymph, etc to re-infect. So,

electricity is needed at those places to reduce it before it's really

gone. HIV people aren't here testing this right now, which is too bad.

bG

[Guest guest]

It's easy to understand why the Virus may say

" I think we need a bigger boat " when you figure

6.24150962915265 × 1012 electrons

flow per second, per microamp or

6,24,150,962,915,265,000,000,000,000 (SI Units) Electrons

per second, per microamp, exactly.

Mike

Re: Theory of electron motion inside a

virus

forget quantity for the moment,consider 1 electron. If it sits in the

capside of HIV as an " extra " (meaning not associated with an attracting

proton or other positive charge) then it is not held tightly to its

location. It should be fairly easy to move.

Enter another electron on a collision course. They repel each other,

and likely the one inside would begin to move along with the stream of

electrons " chasing " it.

OK, now numbers, it's likely that many millions will hit each virus in

bloodstream if used to electrify and artery, since the current follows

the blood. That is a narrow tube, with a cross-section of virus in it

that is as deep as the tube is long. Sooner or later there will be

collisions. When you consider millions of virus per cc, and the cc's

are stacked in a row as inside an artery, they offer an easy target.

Which is probably why blood electrification is so easy to do. The

first few times you do it, the dieoffs are amazing from it. Then after

many times you don't get them much if at all. I've not gotten dieoffs

in awhile now despite using wrist electrifier quite intensively with

periods of slack inbetween, even months. Only a mild dieoff and only

at first, if at all.

HIV may be possible to remove from blood this way given enough time,

but it emerges from the organs like lymph, etc to re-infect. So,

electricity is needed at those places to reduce it before it's really

gone. HIV people aren't here testing this right now, which is too bad.

bG

[Guest guest]

This is true, but the interesting thing is how short the distance

they move per second, it isn't very far. Instead the potential at

the far end just jumps up fast. If reversal occurs, they can move

back almost exactly into the same spot (I think, it has been years

since I went at this topic). So, you want to let them run for a few

seconds to a few minutes to clear them out. The ideal time of

reversal for me, is 30 seconds per change. Why? It occurs beyond

the attention span. 15 seconds is distracting, while 30 is not

noticed. That is with an auto-switching unit (the deluxe way to

go). But, with manual devices you can't be bothered to switch that

often. So, just change the electrodes every 5-10 minutes and it

will be almost the same effect without having an elaborate device.

Simplicity is absolutely vital. It is tempting to get more complex

devices, but it's not necessary, and after awhile, you tend to want

the simpler one anyway. I know I do. A little wrist device with

extra long electrodes (3 " stainless cotter pins under thick cloth)

and 3 AAA's in a battery holder, and that's my main device. The

longer electrodes stick out an inch past the holder, and can be used

for nasal area more effectively, to ward off colds.

bG

>

> It's easy to understand why the Virus may say

> " I think we need a bigger boat " when you figure

> 6.24150962915265 × 1012 electrons

> flow per second, per microamp or

> 6,24,150,962,915,265,000,000,000,000 (SI Units) Electrons

> per second, per microamp, exactly.

> Mike

> Re: Theory of electron

motion inside a virus

>

>

> forget quantity for the moment,consider 1 electron. If it sits

in the

> capside of HIV as an " extra " (meaning not associated with an

attracting

> proton or other positive charge) then it is not held tightly to

its

> location. It should be fairly easy to move.

>

> Enter another electron on a collision course. They repel each

other,

> and likely the one inside would begin to move along with the

stream of

> electrons " chasing " it.

>

> OK, now numbers, it's likely that many millions will hit each

virus in

> bloodstream if used to electrify and artery, since the current

follows

> the blood. That is a narrow tube, with a cross-section of virus

in it

> that is as deep as the tube is long. Sooner or later there will

be

> collisions. When you consider millions of virus per cc, and the

cc's

> are stacked in a row as inside an artery, they offer an easy

target.

> Which is probably why blood electrification is so easy to do.

The

> first few times you do it, the dieoffs are amazing from it.

Then after

> many times you don't get them much if at all. I've not gotten

dieoffs

> in awhile now despite using wrist electrifier quite intensively

with

> periods of slack inbetween, even months. Only a mild dieoff and

only

> at first, if at all.

>

> HIV may be possible to remove from blood this way given enough

time,

> but it emerges from the organs like lymph, etc to re-infect.

So,

> electricity is needed at those places to reduce it before it's

really

> gone. HIV people aren't here testing this right now, which is

too bad.

>

> bG

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

This is true, but the interesting thing is how short the distance

they move per second, it isn't very far. Instead the potential at

the far end just jumps up fast. If reversal occurs, they can move

back almost exactly into the same spot (I think, it has been years

since I went at this topic). So, you want to let them run for a few

seconds to a few minutes to clear them out. The ideal time of

reversal for me, is 30 seconds per change. Why? It occurs beyond

the attention span. 15 seconds is distracting, while 30 is not

noticed. That is with an auto-switching unit (the deluxe way to

go). But, with manual devices you can't be bothered to switch that

often. So, just change the electrodes every 5-10 minutes and it

will be almost the same effect without having an elaborate device.

Simplicity is absolutely vital. It is tempting to get more complex

devices, but it's not necessary, and after awhile, you tend to want

the simpler one anyway. I know I do. A little wrist device with

extra long electrodes (3 " stainless cotter pins under thick cloth)

and 3 AAA's in a battery holder, and that's my main device. The

longer electrodes stick out an inch past the holder, and can be used

for nasal area more effectively, to ward off colds.

bG

>

> It's easy to understand why the Virus may say

> " I think we need a bigger boat " when you figure

> 6.24150962915265 × 1012 electrons

> flow per second, per microamp or

> 6,24,150,962,915,265,000,000,000,000 (SI Units) Electrons

> per second, per microamp, exactly.

> Mike

> Re: Theory of electron

motion inside a virus

>

>

> forget quantity for the moment,consider 1 electron. If it sits

in the

> capside of HIV as an " extra " (meaning not associated with an

attracting

> proton or other positive charge) then it is not held tightly to

its

> location. It should be fairly easy to move.

>

> Enter another electron on a collision course. They repel each

other,

> and likely the one inside would begin to move along with the

stream of

> electrons " chasing " it.

>

> OK, now numbers, it's likely that many millions will hit each

virus in

> bloodstream if used to electrify and artery, since the current

follows

> the blood. That is a narrow tube, with a cross-section of virus

in it

> that is as deep as the tube is long. Sooner or later there will

be

> collisions. When you consider millions of virus per cc, and the

cc's

> are stacked in a row as inside an artery, they offer an easy

target.

> Which is probably why blood electrification is so easy to do.

The

> first few times you do it, the dieoffs are amazing from it.

Then after

> many times you don't get them much if at all. I've not gotten

dieoffs

> in awhile now despite using wrist electrifier quite intensively

with

> periods of slack inbetween, even months. Only a mild dieoff and

only

> at first, if at all.

>

> HIV may be possible to remove from blood this way given enough

time,

> but it emerges from the organs like lymph, etc to re-infect.

So,

> electricity is needed at those places to reduce it before it's

really

> gone. HIV people aren't here testing this right now, which is

too bad.

>

> bG

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi bG & Mike, Thanks for your info. First I want to

assure that I am in no way being critical. I am very

favorably impressed with the Godzilla and the things

that I am learning on this forum. My question

remains:

How many electrons might be available for action in,

lets say, 1 cubic centimeter of blood (or any other

measure) I am well versed in electrical/electronics,

the Bohr atom model and stuff like that. It has been

my life for the past 70 years or so. But I know very

little about physiology and I would very much like to

get a better feel for it. Thanks for any additional

info.

--- baby_grand <bobluhrs@...> wrote:

> This is true, but the interesting thing is how short

> the distance

> they move per second, it isn't very far. Instead

> the potential at

> the far end just jumps up fast. If reversal occurs,

> they can move

> back almost exactly into the same spot (I think, it

> has been years

> since I went at this topic). So, you want to let

> them run for a few

> seconds to a few minutes to clear them out. The

> ideal time of

> reversal for me, is 30 seconds per change. Why? It

> occurs beyond

> the attention span. 15 seconds is distracting,

> while 30 is not

> noticed. That is with an auto-switching unit (the

> deluxe way to

> go). But, with manual devices you can't be bothered

> to switch that

> often. So, just change the electrodes every 5-10

> minutes and it

> will be almost the same effect without having an

> elaborate device.

> Simplicity is absolutely vital. It is tempting to

> get more complex

> devices, but it's not necessary, and after awhile,

> you tend to want

> the simpler one anyway. I know I do. A little

> wrist device with

> extra long electrodes (3 " stainless cotter pins

> under thick cloth)

> and 3 AAA's in a battery holder, and that's my main

> device. The

> longer electrodes stick out an inch past the holder,

> and can be used

> for nasal area more effectively, to ward off colds.

>

> bG

>

>

> >

> > It's easy to understand why the Virus may say

> > " I think we need a bigger boat " when you figure

> > 6.24150962915265 × 1012 electrons

> > flow per second, per microamp or

> > 6,24,150,962,915,265,000,000,000,000 (SI Units)

> Electrons

> > per second, per microamp, exactly.

> > Mike

> > Re: Theory

> of electron

> motion inside a virus

> >

> >

> > forget quantity for the moment,consider 1

> electron. If it sits

> in the

> > capside of HIV as an " extra " (meaning not

> associated with an

> attracting

> > proton or other positive charge) then it is not

> held tightly to

> its

> > location. It should be fairly easy to move.

> >

> > Enter another electron on a collision course.

> They repel each

> other,

> > and likely the one inside would begin to move

> along with the

> stream of

> > electrons " chasing " it.

> >

> > OK, now numbers, it's likely that many millions

> will hit each

> virus in

> > bloodstream if used to electrify and artery,

> since the current

> follows

> > the blood. That is a narrow tube, with a

> cross-section of virus

> in it

> > that is as deep as the tube is long. Sooner or

> later there will

> be

> > collisions. When you consider millions of virus

> per cc, and the

> cc's

> > are stacked in a row as inside an artery, they

> offer an easy

> target.

> > Which is probably why blood electrification is

> so easy to do.

> The

> > first few times you do it, the dieoffs are

> amazing from it.

> Then after

> > many times you don't get them much if at all.

> I've not gotten

> dieoffs

> > in awhile now despite using wrist electrifier

> quite intensively

> with

> > periods of slack inbetween, even months. Only a

> mild dieoff and

> only

> > at first, if at all.

> >

> > HIV may be possible to remove from blood this

> way given enough

> time,

> > but it emerges from the organs like lymph, etc

> to re-infect.

> So,

> > electricity is needed at those places to reduce

> it before it's

> really

> > gone. HIV people aren't here testing this right

> now, which is

> too bad.

> >

> > bG

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi bG & Mike, Thanks for your info. First I want to

assure that I am in no way being critical. I am very

favorably impressed with the Godzilla and the things

that I am learning on this forum. My question

remains:

How many electrons might be available for action in,

lets say, 1 cubic centimeter of blood (or any other

measure) I am well versed in electrical/electronics,

the Bohr atom model and stuff like that. It has been

my life for the past 70 years or so. But I know very

little about physiology and I would very much like to

get a better feel for it. Thanks for any additional

info.

--- baby_grand <bobluhrs@...> wrote:

> This is true, but the interesting thing is how short

> the distance

> they move per second, it isn't very far. Instead

> the potential at

> the far end just jumps up fast. If reversal occurs,

> they can move

> back almost exactly into the same spot (I think, it

> has been years

> since I went at this topic). So, you want to let

> them run for a few

> seconds to a few minutes to clear them out. The

> ideal time of

> reversal for me, is 30 seconds per change. Why? It

> occurs beyond

> the attention span. 15 seconds is distracting,

> while 30 is not

> noticed. That is with an auto-switching unit (the

> deluxe way to

> go). But, with manual devices you can't be bothered

> to switch that

> often. So, just change the electrodes every 5-10

> minutes and it

> will be almost the same effect without having an

> elaborate device.

> Simplicity is absolutely vital. It is tempting to

> get more complex

> devices, but it's not necessary, and after awhile,

> you tend to want

> the simpler one anyway. I know I do. A little

> wrist device with

> extra long electrodes (3 " stainless cotter pins

> under thick cloth)

> and 3 AAA's in a battery holder, and that's my main

> device. The

> longer electrodes stick out an inch past the holder,

> and can be used

> for nasal area more effectively, to ward off colds.

>

> bG

>

>

> >

> > It's easy to understand why the Virus may say

> > " I think we need a bigger boat " when you figure

> > 6.24150962915265 × 1012 electrons

> > flow per second, per microamp or

> > 6,24,150,962,915,265,000,000,000,000 (SI Units)

> Electrons

> > per second, per microamp, exactly.

> > Mike

> > Re: Theory

> of electron

> motion inside a virus

> >

> >

> > forget quantity for the moment,consider 1

> electron. If it sits

> in the

> > capside of HIV as an " extra " (meaning not

> associated with an

> attracting

> > proton or other positive charge) then it is not

> held tightly to

> its

> > location. It should be fairly easy to move.

> >

> > Enter another electron on a collision course.

> They repel each

> other,

> > and likely the one inside would begin to move

> along with the

> stream of

> > electrons " chasing " it.

> >

> > OK, now numbers, it's likely that many millions

> will hit each

> virus in

> > bloodstream if used to electrify and artery,

> since the current

> follows

> > the blood. That is a narrow tube, with a

> cross-section of virus

> in it

> > that is as deep as the tube is long. Sooner or

> later there will

> be

> > collisions. When you consider millions of virus

> per cc, and the

> cc's

> > are stacked in a row as inside an artery, they

> offer an easy

> target.

> > Which is probably why blood electrification is

> so easy to do.

> The

> > first few times you do it, the dieoffs are

> amazing from it.

> Then after

> > many times you don't get them much if at all.

> I've not gotten

> dieoffs

> > in awhile now despite using wrist electrifier

> quite intensively

> with

> > periods of slack inbetween, even months. Only a

> mild dieoff and

> only

> > at first, if at all.

> >

> > HIV may be possible to remove from blood this

> way given enough

> time,

> > but it emerges from the organs like lymph, etc

> to re-infect.

> So,

> > electricity is needed at those places to reduce

> it before it's

> really

> > gone. HIV people aren't here testing this right

> now, which is

> too bad.

> >

> > bG

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

the quantity of electrons, from a medical application perspective,

would be expressed in current density per sq mm. cubic volume is not

involved: the artery's length is irrelevant, only the cross-section

matters. If an artery has a cross-section of 10 sq mm, then you

divide the electron count by 10 to get the current density per sq mm

in that artery. current moves along the artery much like a moving

plane of charge at right angles to the artery, so you express it as

so many micro-amps per sq mm surface area of this theoretical plane.

the only way the length of an artery would matter is to determine the

resistance due to that length. that expresses the " work done " in all

the collisions and friction along the length and heat loss, etc,

which conspire to reduce the voltage.

So, if you consider your total number of electrons per second as

passing through a plane at some specific point inside an artery, you

can count them up as the previous messages have indicated: 6.24 x

10**12 or whatever you come up with, per sq mm/second.

You will find that the voltage will dictate a mix of ions and free

electrons. Below 2 volts, there will be many free electrons, and

above 4 volts, more ions. Our devices, though nominally 4-6 volts,

under load drop to 2-4 volts. This is nice, because we do see free

electrons in that range, as well as ions, and we don't know which one

is more effective.

bG

> > >

> > > It's easy to understand why the Virus may say

> > > " I think we need a bigger boat " when you figure

> > > 6.24150962915265 × 1012 electrons

> > > flow per second, per microamp or

> > > 6,24,150,962,915,265,000,000,000,000 (SI Units)

> > Electrons

> > > per second, per microamp, exactly.

> > > Mike

> > > Re: Theory

> > of electron

> > motion inside a virus

> > >

> > >

> > > forget quantity for the moment,consider 1

> > electron. If it sits

> > in the

> > > capside of HIV as an " extra " (meaning not

> > associated with an

> > attracting

> > > proton or other positive charge) then it is not

> > held tightly to

> > its

> > > location. It should be fairly easy to move.

> > >

> > > Enter another electron on a collision course.

> > They repel each

> > other,

> > > and likely the one inside would begin to move

> > along with the

> > stream of

> > > electrons " chasing " it.

> > >

> > > OK, now numbers, it's likely that many millions

> > will hit each

> > virus in

> > > bloodstream if used to electrify and artery,

> > since the current

> > follows

> > > the blood. That is a narrow tube, with a

> > cross-section of virus

> > in it

> > > that is as deep as the tube is long. Sooner or

> > later there will

> > be

> > > collisions. When you consider millions of virus

> > per cc, and the

> > cc's

> > > are stacked in a row as inside an artery, they

> > offer an easy

> > target.

> > > Which is probably why blood electrification is

> > so easy to do.

> > The

> > > first few times you do it, the dieoffs are

> > amazing from it.

> > Then after

> > > many times you don't get them much if at all.

> > I've not gotten

> > dieoffs

> > > in awhile now despite using wrist electrifier

> > quite intensively

> > with

> > > periods of slack inbetween, even months. Only a

> > mild dieoff and

> > only

> > > at first, if at all.

> > >

> > > HIV may be possible to remove from blood this

> > way given enough

> > time,

> > > but it emerges from the organs like lymph, etc

> > to re-infect.

> > So,

> > > electricity is needed at those places to reduce

> > it before it's

> > really

> > > gone. HIV people aren't here testing this right

> > now, which is

> > too bad.

> > >

> > > bG

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

the quantity of electrons, from a medical application perspective,

would be expressed in current density per sq mm. cubic volume is not

involved: the artery's length is irrelevant, only the cross-section

matters. If an artery has a cross-section of 10 sq mm, then you

divide the electron count by 10 to get the current density per sq mm

in that artery. current moves along the artery much like a moving

plane of charge at right angles to the artery, so you express it as

so many micro-amps per sq mm surface area of this theoretical plane.

the only way the length of an artery would matter is to determine the

resistance due to that length. that expresses the " work done " in all

the collisions and friction along the length and heat loss, etc,

which conspire to reduce the voltage.

So, if you consider your total number of electrons per second as

passing through a plane at some specific point inside an artery, you

can count them up as the previous messages have indicated: 6.24 x

10**12 or whatever you come up with, per sq mm/second.

You will find that the voltage will dictate a mix of ions and free

electrons. Below 2 volts, there will be many free electrons, and

above 4 volts, more ions. Our devices, though nominally 4-6 volts,

under load drop to 2-4 volts. This is nice, because we do see free

electrons in that range, as well as ions, and we don't know which one

is more effective.

bG

> > >

> > > It's easy to understand why the Virus may say

> > > " I think we need a bigger boat " when you figure

> > > 6.24150962915265 × 1012 electrons

> > > flow per second, per microamp or

> > > 6,24,150,962,915,265,000,000,000,000 (SI Units)

> > Electrons

> > > per second, per microamp, exactly.

> > > Mike

> > > Re: Theory

> > of electron

> > motion inside a virus

> > >

> > >

> > > forget quantity for the moment,consider 1

> > electron. If it sits

> > in the

> > > capside of HIV as an " extra " (meaning not

> > associated with an

> > attracting

> > > proton or other positive charge) then it is not

> > held tightly to

> > its

> > > location. It should be fairly easy to move.

> > >

> > > Enter another electron on a collision course.

> > They repel each

> > other,

> > > and likely the one inside would begin to move

> > along with the

> > stream of

> > > electrons " chasing " it.

> > >

> > > OK, now numbers, it's likely that many millions

> > will hit each

> > virus in

> > > bloodstream if used to electrify and artery,

> > since the current

> > follows

> > > the blood. That is a narrow tube, with a

> > cross-section of virus

> > in it

> > > that is as deep as the tube is long. Sooner or

> > later there will

> > be

> > > collisions. When you consider millions of virus

> > per cc, and the

> > cc's

> > > are stacked in a row as inside an artery, they

> > offer an easy

> > target.

> > > Which is probably why blood electrification is

> > so easy to do.

> > The

> > > first few times you do it, the dieoffs are

> > amazing from it.

> > Then after

> > > many times you don't get them much if at all.

> > I've not gotten

> > dieoffs

> > > in awhile now despite using wrist electrifier

> > quite intensively

> > with

> > > periods of slack inbetween, even months. Only a

> > mild dieoff and

> > only

> > > at first, if at all.

> > >

> > > HIV may be possible to remove from blood this

> > way given enough

> > time,

> > > but it emerges from the organs like lymph, etc

> > to re-infect.

> > So,

> > > electricity is needed at those places to reduce

> > it before it's

> > really

> > > gone. HIV people aren't here testing this right

> > now, which is

> > too bad.

> > >

> > > bG

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

> > > >

> > > > It's easy to understand why the Virus may say

> > > > " I think we need a bigger boat " when you figure

> > > > 6.24150962915265 × 1012 electrons

> > > > flow per second, per microamp or

> > > > 6,24,150,962,915,265,000,000,000,000 (SI Units)

> > > Electrons

> > > > per second, per microamp, exactly.

> > > > Mike

> > > > Re: Theory

> > > of electron

> > > motion inside a virus

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > forget quantity for the moment,consider 1

> > > electron. If it sits

> > > in the

> > > > capside of HIV as an " extra " (meaning not

> > > associated with an

> > > attracting

> > > > proton or other positive charge) then it is not

> > > held tightly to

> > > its

> > > > location. It should be fairly easy to move.

> > > >

> > > > Enter another electron on a collision course.

> > > They repel each

> > > other,

> > > > and likely the one inside would begin to move

> > > along with the

> > > stream of

> > > > electrons " chasing " it.

> > > >

> > > > OK, now numbers, it's likely that many millions

> > > will hit each

> > > virus in

> > > > bloodstream if used to electrify and artery,

> > > since the current

> > > follows

> > > > the blood. That is a narrow tube, with a

> > > cross-section of virus

> > > in it

> > > > that is as deep as the tube is long. Sooner or

> > > later there will

> > > be

> > > > collisions. When you consider millions of virus

> > > per cc, and the

> > > cc's

> > > > are stacked in a row as inside an artery, they

> > > offer an easy

> > > target.

> > > > Which is probably why blood electrification is

> > > so easy to do.

> > > The

> > > > first few times you do it, the dieoffs are

> > > amazing from it.

> > > Then after

> > > > many times you don't get them much if at all.

> > > I've not gotten

> > > dieoffs

> > > > in awhile now despite using wrist electrifier

> > > quite intensively

> > > with

> > > > periods of slack inbetween, even months. Only a

> > > mild dieoff and

> > > only

> > > > at first, if at all.

> > > >

> > > > HIV may be possible to remove from blood this

> > > way given enough

> > > time,

> > > > but it emerges from the organs like lymph, etc

> > > to re-infect.

> > > So,

> > > > electricity is needed at those places to reduce

> > > it before it's

> > > really

> > > > gone. HIV people aren't here testing this right

> > > now, which is

> > > too bad.

> > > >

> > > > bG

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > __________________________________________________

> >

[Guest guest]

> > > >

> > > > It's easy to understand why the Virus may say

> > > > " I think we need a bigger boat " when you figure

> > > > 6.24150962915265 × 1012 electrons

> > > > flow per second, per microamp or

> > > > 6,24,150,962,915,265,000,000,000,000 (SI Units)

> > > Electrons

> > > > per second, per microamp, exactly.

> > > > Mike

> > > > Re: Theory

> > > of electron

> > > motion inside a virus

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > forget quantity for the moment,consider 1

> > > electron. If it sits

> > > in the

> > > > capside of HIV as an " extra " (meaning not

> > > associated with an

> > > attracting

> > > > proton or other positive charge) then it is not

> > > held tightly to

> > > its

> > > > location. It should be fairly easy to move.

> > > >

> > > > Enter another electron on a collision course.

> > > They repel each

> > > other,

> > > > and likely the one inside would begin to move

> > > along with the

> > > stream of

> > > > electrons " chasing " it.

> > > >

> > > > OK, now numbers, it's likely that many millions

> > > will hit each

> > > virus in

> > > > bloodstream if used to electrify and artery,

> > > since the current

> > > follows

> > > > the blood. That is a narrow tube, with a

> > > cross-section of virus

> > > in it

> > > > that is as deep as the tube is long. Sooner or

> > > later there will

> > > be

> > > > collisions. When you consider millions of virus

> > > per cc, and the

> > > cc's

> > > > are stacked in a row as inside an artery, they

> > > offer an easy

> > > target.

> > > > Which is probably why blood electrification is

> > > so easy to do.

> > > The

> > > > first few times you do it, the dieoffs are

> > > amazing from it.

> > > Then after

> > > > many times you don't get them much if at all.

> > > I've not gotten

> > > dieoffs

> > > > in awhile now despite using wrist electrifier

> > > quite intensively

> > > with

> > > > periods of slack inbetween, even months. Only a

> > > mild dieoff and

> > > only

> > > > at first, if at all.

> > > >

> > > > HIV may be possible to remove from blood this

> > > way given enough

> > > time,

> > > > but it emerges from the organs like lymph, etc

> > > to re-infect.

> > > So,

> > > > electricity is needed at those places to reduce

> > > it before it's

> > > really

> > > > gone. HIV people aren't here testing this right

> > > now, which is

> > > too bad.

> > > >

> > > > bG

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > __________________________________________________

> >

[Guest guest]

it's pretty useless numbers anyway, except to indicate the level of

magnitude. The fact that you have millions per virus per second

should tell you it would be remarkable to expect nothing to happen...

of course most people expect nothing to happen, because it suits

their preconceptions.

bG

> >

> > the quantity of electrons, from a medical application

perspective,

> > would be expressed in current density per sq mm. cubic volume is

> not

> > involved: the artery's length is irrelevant, only the cross-

> section

> > matters.

>

> Almost - a 'good enough' approximation in most cases. Just

> keep in mind the arteries [ & veins] taper & branch

along

> their length so you should expect a lower density in

> ankles than you'd have on wrists [same pad areas] which

> allows a larger pad size for ankles.

>

>

[Guest guest]

...and they have 6.24 x 10^12 preconceptions a second.

bG

>

..

> of course most people expect nothing to happen, because it suits

> their preconceptions.

>

> bG

[Guest guest]

...and they have 6.24 x 10^12 preconceptions a second.

bG

>

..

> of course most people expect nothing to happen, because it suits

> their preconceptions.

>

> bG