Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Powered by leedskalnin.com & buzzdev.net
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
The image shows the "spark" generators designed to produce a laser at a certain frequency in a gas discharge tube or a crystal lattice. The industrial secret is that the anode and cathode are open allowing the cathode canal rays and the anode canal rays to pass through the anode and cathode region and bounce back and forth.
The same arrangement is used in a maser where the frequency is set at a lower level.
In both cases we can demonstrate a plasma discharge effect, which radiates within the confines of the gas tube or crystal.
This design was protected as an industrial trademark design for many decades, but essentially it is like a fluorescent light strip!
Ok that's the set up. Take a step back to the plasmas, and then back to Eds individual north and south magnets if you will. Then take a further step back to the phenomenon of a fluorescent light strip and so called discharge of " electrons and positive ions".
Forget those words and lets describe what we are observing in these versions of the Crookes ray tubes where both anode and cathode are open .
I need to research a radio oscillator circuitry.
All transformers are basic masers!
This circuit manipulates the plasmas
The counterpoint idea is a coil within a capacitor.
Because Ivor Catt has demonstrated a phenomenon that makes " current" in a wire obsolete, replacing it by a TEM step wave, it is just a short conceptual step to a spin gyre ( gyroscopic sin) model in which high and low pressure vortices play a major role.
The confusion in the circuit picture is due to assuming the magnetic current flows in the wire as a bar magnet / dipole . As Ampère suggested the magnetic / Hertzian oscillator mode is at right angles to the wire direction/ orientation and rotating around the wire cross section .mthus as Ed shows north and south plasmas spin out around the wire in opposing gyres , expanding out wards as a rotational" pressure" deformation " . It is these deforming pressure waves that spiral along the length of the wire conductor expanding out as they go., and reflecting at the battery teminals .
At the same time as they spin out , reflecting back with the reverse but much weaker spin at each terminal , the environment is impressing a spin vortex onto the deformation creating a superposition rotating wave( destructive and constructive rotational deformation) which travels around the wire as part of this deformation.
The effect of the environment is to create a Maser set up that is wave guided by the wire and reflected at the terminal. This Masing effect is powerful enough to destroy a short circuited thin wire. Placing a resistor in a circuit alters the chemical constitution of the circuit which thereby " controls" the MASING behaviour.Placing a capacitor creates a Masing cavity which eventually builds enough of a coherent spin deformation to send a pulse through the dielectric. Placing a coil in the circuit amplifies the spin gyre within the circuit enhancing the base magnetic current spin . Putting all 3 in a circuit recreates a fundamental Hertzian/ Tesla oscillator that enhances the radiative behaviour of the spin gyre.
The 2 experiments I suggest above should access the MASER wave deformation of the spin gyres and exhibit powerful radiative outbursts.
Ken Wherlers fundamental model incorporates all the necessary geometry/ spaciometric deformation data that is needed to explain the radiative phenomenon we name magnetism , and is an Ampèrian model of a " current" loop that generates a magnetic radiation " loop", only that loop is in fact a radiative patio deformation resulting from the high intensity orations of the plasmas, with both high snd low pressure centres, that is expanding and contracting gyres.
While it is clear that these are Fractal regional models , it is not helpful to identify them with the Electron concept. But it is worth noting that JJThompon was not a believer in the electron and advanced a corpuscular theory of his discoveries. Earnshaws mathematical proof of instability of the electron concept lead Thompson to propose his sticky plum pudding model.
Earnshaws argument is still valid today , but the solution is simple: rotation both gyres : inward and outward I the missing concept in his argument.
Lorentz put a gyration TEM in his crazy theoretical model , but of course nobody wanted to adopt his theory despite it predicting, after Poincare corrected it, the observed energy ratios of the Thompson plasma ratios.
Ever since Hamilton and a student of His McCullagh proposed the spin or vortex nature of the observed phenomena Theoreticl physicists have done there best to obscure it, just as they did with Ampères theory.
I can recommend Ken Wherlers concept, but be anned he suffers from pollulogia: too many words!
http://amasci.com/elect/vwatt1.html
by William Beaty
What are the myths describing? What is the phenomenon or are the phenomena the myths are attaching to?
Ultimately all our attempts to describe these phenomena create a mythical rhetoric, but the one I am looking for is the one that attaches to observable phenomena the best.
So for example the silvery stuff in metals , is that what flows? No silvery stuff in water is observable but in certain situations the metal deposits on the other electrode, not always silvery , but shiny(?). So why say in a metal one moves and the other stays still ? Are there 2 shiny/ silvery stuffs?
I could continue with this pleasant line of questioning, but at some stage I would become dissatisfied with these myths and create new more general ones. This is how we proceed in our myth and fact making. What drives the variation is technological issues or practical magic. Some stories give us more handles to manipulate the space like things around us, with their silvery stuff!
What happens is we move to unobservables, to charges and polarities and behaviours which they denote. The question then becomes : What is behaving?. Is it the silvery/ shiny stuff or is it something else? If we stick with the silvery stuff and observe more closely we might just see some pattern to the behaviour that fulfills our technological need without having to go into unobservable entities.
work and terms of electricity in a different way than most explanations I've met. Even though
I'm not in agreement with the electric theory, I enjoy this new perspective.
The situation here is somewhat analogous to that of heat current: the notion of caloric substance flowing inside or outside the substance is not sustainable, even though the formulae deduced from that notion, for doing heat exchange calculations, work quite well.
I want to back up my statement by quoting the classical work of Weber and Kohlrausch On the Amount of Electricity which Flows through the Cross-Section of the Circuit in Galvanic Currents.
They start off by defining the notion of movement of electricity in a closed galvanic circuit: Then, after establishing how this movement of electricity is to be measured and how the unit of current intensity is to be defined operationally, they go on to say: The last paragraph of the above quote is extremely important. It basically admits that the measure of current intensity and its operational definition are both completely detached from the formal definition of the notion of electric current itself.
Nothing has changed since then; even today we can repeat after Weber and Kohlrausch: One could object to this and say: “No, that’s not true, today we know exactly the density of free electrons in any conductor and the velocity, with which these free electrons drift along the wire.” But I bet that you won't be able to find any reference where the drift of electrons has actually been measured in a real experiment: the “drift” is always calculated, not measured.
So the “drift” is not an experimental fact – it is nothing but a device for carrying out calculations.
Hence the experiment I have suggested earlier. Since we cannot prove the physical reality of the “drift”, let us turn things around: (a) make the "drift" a reality, (b) do calculations based on that drift, (c) then see whether the predictions of drift-based theory of electrodynamics correspond to the actual experimental observations.
Let’s consider two concentric cylindrical shells separated by an insulator of thickness h. We put charge of density +σ on the inner shell, and –σ on the outer shell. Then we rotate the outer shell with angular velocity Ω. What's the magnitude of magnetic field inside the inner shell, implied by classical electrodynamics of Ampere?
Let the length L of the shells be much higher than the radius R of the inner shell, which in turn be much higher than the thickness h of the insulator between the shells; then we get voltage:
V = σh/εo,
and magnetic field intensity inside the inner shell is:
B = μoRΩσ.
After simple algebra, we have:
B = μoRΩεoV/h.
Here are the borderline values we could realistically hope to have in a garage based experiment:
R = 0.1 m
h = 0.002 m
V = 236 000 V (breakdown voltage of 2 mm thick layer of mica insulator)
Ω = 100 Hz (6000 rpm)
εo = 8.85 x 10^-12 F/m (permittivity of free space)
μo = 1.26 x 10^-6 H/m (permeability of free space)
Substituting these values, we get:
B = 26 x 10^-9 T = 26 nT
Therefore, to carry out this experiment we need a magnetometer capable of detecting magnetic fields in nanotesla range! So, I would say that this experiment is not trivial by any measure, but not beyond the reach of skillful experimenter with moderate physical equipment.
I think though maybe I'm wrong that classical electrodynamics of Ampere have to
do with conductors carrying electricity and not electrostatic setting like you suggested ?
If I understood correctly the "drift" of electrons is already talking about one particle,
while in the article you put up they are talking about two electrical fluids ?
Possibly I missed something. Maybe you can establish what are your basic elementary
particles and how they run and what's the difference between static electricity and
electric current prior to the experiment you suggesting ? That maybe give a clear idea
on the test itself.
Also in your experiment you said you put charge +σ in the inner shell and -σ in the
outer shell....... Can you translate the behavior of these two "fields" ? or explain where
these two charges came from in the first place ? or mechanically how they radiates ?
Then It will be easier to understand your test.