A new model is only useful if it explains things the previous model did not, and at the same time only predicts things that actually do happen, and only precludes things that do not.

Anything else is an inferior model to the current one.


I am not clear of any such advantage associated with this model.

 

It was thought until recently that electricity was created by the movement of electrons around a circuit.

No. It is the action at a distance of one charged particle upon another, this we can model either as a field, or as you have tried to,  as  a particle exchange (photons, phonons gluons etc ).

 

This worked fine for batteries but AC required a way to transfer energy across an isolation transformer where the primary electrons never touch the secondary winding electrons. 

If by 'touch' you mean 'create fields that exert forces on other charged particles', that is exactly what we do mean.  When my backside touches the chair, it is the repulsion between the outer parts of the atoms in one influencing the other that hold me up . Both I and the chair are mostly comprised of vaccuum hence the Geiger Marsden results. Only in a neutron star or a black hole does anything with a physical extent 'touch' as you seem to mean it.

 

We also know that electricity moves at nearly the speed of light,

The action at  distance field moves at the speed of light - light is an example of just such a field, just reversing polarity at a few hundred tera Herz. The particles or individual electrons move at a speed determined by any voltage they have been accelerated through since last collision.




 

and as electrons are particles they would need a massive amount of energy to achieve this.

Sure , to get an electron to  a reasonable fraction of the speed of light requires a few hundred kilovolts of un-obstructed acceleration, as the mass is 500 odd keV. So what point are you making ?


Are you aware of how traveling wave tubes work ?  They are a delightful example of how the transit time  of a particle relates to its kinetic energy, but the fields that particle generates (the action at a distance other charged particle experience because of it) move at c.

Try and design a traveling wave device or a simple particle accelerator using your magnon theory, and see if it is easier or harder to do.

So we need to rethink how we can transmit electric light energy using magnons rather than electrons.

non-sequetuer

As domestic electricity is alternating current [AC] it is really just a low frequency electromagnetic energy but subject to the same laws and restrictions as radio waves and sunlight rays.   

Agree, and that is exactly how it behaves, no new model is needed.

To try and reconcile these requirements it is much easier to consider that magnons are at the inside heart of all types of electromagnetic vibrational energy which when introduced into matter molecules vibrates the inner nuclear magnetic moment and thus increase its temperature/pressure characteristics. To this end I wrote a blog on magnoflux 

There is nothing to reconcile, there has been no paradox at the heart of EM theory to be solved.

See above. Magnons add complexity but no further value to the model.

 

   http://electricmagnofluxuniverse.blogspot.com/

Would benefit from a re-write.

I am not intending to be personally confrontational, but I do intend to be very clear, if you wish to challenge existing scientific principles that are well established and both support, and are supported by, a lot of very successful engineering, you must be prepared to engage and justify your position scientifically, and you must be rigorous about it, i.e. able to do all the stuff we can do with the current model and more, and ideally to have an experimental result or two that actually show some effects your new model predicts that the old one does not.

I'm not seeing that.

A new model is only useful if it explains things the previous model did not, and at the same time only predicts things that actually do happen, and only precludes things that do not.

Anything else is an inferior model to the current one.


I am not clear of any such advantage associated with this model.

 

It was thought until recently that electricity was created by the movement of electrons around a circuit.

No. It is the action at a distance of one charged particle upon another, this we can model either as a field, or as you have tried to,  as  a particle exchange (photons, phonons gluons etc ).

 

This worked fine for batteries but AC required a way to transfer energy across an isolation transformer where the primary electrons never touch the secondary winding electrons. 

If by 'touch' you mean 'create fields that exert forces on other charged particles', that is exactly what we do mean.  When my backside touches the chair, it is the repulsion between the outer parts of the atoms in one influencing the other that hold me up . Both I and the chair are mostly comprised of vaccuum hence the Geiger Marsden results. Only in a neutron star or a black hole does anything with a physical extent 'touch' as you seem to mean it.

 

We also know that electricity moves at nearly the speed of light,

The action at  distance field moves at the speed of light - light is an example of just such a field, just reversing polarity at a few hundred tera Herz. The particles or individual electrons move at a speed determined by any voltage they have been accelerated through since last collision.




 

and as electrons are particles they would need a massive amount of energy to achieve this.

Sure , to get an electron to  a reasonable fraction of the speed of light requires a few hundred kilovolts of un-obstructed acceleration, as the mass is 500 odd keV. So what point are you making ?


Are you aware of how traveling wave tubes work ?  They are a delightful example of how the transit time  of a particle relates to its kinetic energy, but the fields that particle generates (the action at a distance other charged particle experience because of it) move at c.

Try and design a traveling wave device or a simple particle accelerator using your magnon theory, and see if it is easier or harder to do.

So we need to rethink how we can transmit electric light energy using magnons rather than electrons.

non-sequetuer

As domestic electricity is alternating current [AC] it is really just a low frequency electromagnetic energy but subject to the same laws and restrictions as radio waves and sunlight rays.   

Agree, and that is exactly how it behaves, no new model is needed.

To try and reconcile these requirements it is much easier to consider that magnons are at the inside heart of all types of electromagnetic vibrational energy which when introduced into matter molecules vibrates the inner nuclear magnetic moment and thus increase its temperature/pressure characteristics. To this end I wrote a blog on magnoflux 

There is nothing to reconcile, there has been no paradox at the heart of EM theory to be solved.

See above. Magnons add complexity but no further value to the model.

 

   http://electricmagnofluxuniverse.blogspot.com/

Would benefit from a re-write.

I am not intending to be personally confrontational, but I do intend to be very clear, if you wish to challenge existing scientific principles that are well established and both support, and are supported by, a lot of very successful engineering, you must be prepared to engage and justify your position scientifically, and you must be rigorous about it, i.e. able to do all the stuff we can do with the current model and more, and ideally to have an experimental result or two that actually show some effects your new model predicts that the old one does not.

I'm not seeing that.