Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Way Electricity Runs In A Wire

1161719212225

Comments

  • Another great post. I don't understand that dialectic material stores the reciprocating energy (or e field as per standard theory). It seems to me that the energy is stored in the surrounding space.
  • @ssd510
    Sorry. A dielectric is any space that is not an inductor/ conductor.
    It means any material that separates " charge" or supports a " double layer" that is positive separated from negative charge.

    As you can see the idea is steeped in notions of charge . So a dielectric can be an insulator, an air gap a vacuum etc.
    Yes space / material stores energy as rotating aether/space-time as well as vibrating deformations of the same in superposition, in my opinion .

  • In part of this video the author discusses the fluid dynamics of jet exhaust the relevance to magnetic current is that the initial magnetic current flow is a hyper flow. There are 2 hyper flows that derive from a voltaic cell but once they interact the standing wave patterns recreate these vibrations discussed. The wire heats up . The effect is mitigated by the material it interacts with .
  • http://magneticuniverse.com/discussion/329/magnetic-field-of-rotating-cunductors#latest
    This link to another thread on the forum reflects my opinion that it is of great significance in understanding the work of Gilbert, Ōrsted,Ampère and finally Ed. ken Wheelers work, though profuse also deserves a mention.
    When Ivor Catt posed his 3 Catt Questions and his revision of Heavisides ideas on transmission lines, in tandem with Eric Dollards lifelong study he launched an attack on electron theory. As a label for a ratio JJ Thompson found experimentally, like the Planck length, the concept of gravity and corpuscular physics it is a reeificayion of our ignorance!
    These are the fundamental we o not know but which are here we had to start from to build a geometrical model for measurement.
    The magnetron is a label for a Gilbertian inductive basic atomic individual magnetic particles that congregate at the poles of a bar magnet.. The electron as a ratio was a quantised measure of plasma deposition per quantity of Electra magnetism discharged.
    But Electra magnetism is discharged in a dual opposing discharge, so Thompsons results reflect that observed fact. In the accepted results this opposing discharge is normalised away . The model thus created is serviceable but misleading. The electron is thus misleading . The Gilbert " magnetron" is a theoretical concept that retains these distinctions for further research. Over the years this further research has been buried or ignored or twisted to support the prevailing opinion .
    We have more and new data with which to construct new models from the ground up.
    No scientist is willing to do that work .
    Ed set out the simplicity of that work for us to study. His simple exposition of a sound base for developing models stands the tests of time .
  • I'm curious about the dual opposing discharge thing. It isn't so apparent to me. We can easily demonstrate a high potential sinking into low in any circuit. In extreme cases this looks like a breakdown of material into 'plasma'. Whatever all of that means. Never the less, the breakdown is apparently unidirectional... the spark jumps from A to B, not A to B and B to A. Ed L and much of this forum references two currents but how is this justified? Where is the experimental evidence?
  • edited May 2016
    ssd510 said:

    I'm curious about the dual opposing discharge thing. It isn't so apparent to me. We can easily demonstrate a high potential sinking into low in any circuit. In extreme cases this looks like a breakdown of material into 'plasma'. Whatever all of that means. Never the less, the breakdown is apparently unidirectional... the spark jumps from A to B, not A to B and B to A. Ed L and much of this forum references two currents but how is this justified? Where is the experimental evidence?

    It is justified by careful observation
    In the cathode ray set up for example ones attention is directed to the plasma that flows' apparently and by mass accumulation) from the cathode to the anode. In the Anode ray experiment a similar observation can be made but the characteristic of the ray is apparently different.
    So both rays are in transit at the same time.
    Similarly in many ordinary circuits back emf is exhibited as dominant in a phased cycle , thus demonstrating that equilibrium emf is a sum of two opposing emfs.


    The dual nature of current is not disputed, just ignored in most theoretical discussions. It is ignored to favour the " electron" plasma cloud description of current, but this was shown even in Kelvins day to be an I adequate description of current due to diffusion problems.
    Current is theoretically considered to be a wave phenomenon , with electron oscillation contributing to to that wave . Thus Alternating Current is theoretically an oscillating electron behaviour.
    The electron, which we cannot see blinds us to what we can see, two counter rotating spark trails when battery poles are shorted by connecting 2 wires briefly and pulling them apart.
    Although Plasma is often associated with high temperatures it in fact exists at all temperatures if you adopt a fluid dynamic perspective.
  • Thanks for that! I'm not sure what I'm looking at there in the canal tube demo.
  • edited May 2016
    You are looking at the dual discharge event.


    The reddish tinge is the Kanal or anode ray and the greenish tinge the cathode ray.
    There is an electron explanation which invokes an electron plasma . This is said to be accelerated by a potential difference and collimated by a material positively charged with a small hole in it . The beam through the hole is then interrupted by a fluorescent target.
    In this case the anode is set at the other end of the tube and a large number of holes designed to allow the positive ion plasma to be visible are made in the cathode
    The electron plasma is diverted to minimise obscuration by mixing of the discharge plasmas.
    As explained a large electric field separates out the anode rays from the mixed plasmas in the lower tube .
    As you can see this is a sophisticated variation with anode on the right and 2 Cathodes on left, providing discharge and diverting potentials.
    The vorticular fluid dynamic explanation involves a more omplexity frequency and amplitude and phase explanation , if you like a string theoretical one .

  • Magnetsvcannlsonseparate the 2 discharges, and provide the baIs for a magnetic explanation of the two discharge behaviours, and the vorticular exposition .

  • Another fluid dynamic exposition of magnetic behaviour.. The blue cathode plasma is attracted the white is repelled by the magnetic vortices . Contraction and expansion of the plasmas are evident, providing additional insight into the vorticularity of the of the magnetic behaviour.
  • A sustained version of what ed saw with his eyes in his spark gap experiments .


    The word plasma really does not advance us descriptively beyond I divi dual north and south magnets which are not magnets but produce the observed magnetic behaviour! However we should not let words chain us to one way of thinking or describing the SAME phenomenon or behaviour.
  • Thanks for that! Very cool! I agree, words are hard to deal with. It would be nice to develop a new vocabulary, or somehow unlearn old concepts. I'm in a funny situation, I lay out PCB for consumer electronics for a living. I can design a board just fine but I actually can't claim to know how this energy works or what it is. What is the voltage that my multimeter measures? The multimeter doesn't tell me, it just gives me a number... A number of a quantity that is referenced against itself, there is very little insight that I see and yet I'm dealing with the very thing daily. My point is, thanks for the insight!
  • I understand that standard theory supports bi directional currents in non metals. In metals, as we know, electrons are said to be free while positrons are fixed in the crystal matricies. But I think that what I read here contradicts this. Perhaps this is a difference of particle currents and energy currents. Where energy currents produce electron or positron currents, they are not supported in all materials. Does this make sense?
  • Mr Bill Beaty has a nice explanation clarifying the trouble I'm having. http://amasci.com/amateur/elecdir.html
Sign In or Register to comment.