The Way Electricity Runs In A Wire

1356724

Comments

  • edited November 2015
    @Jehovajah, who correctly pointed out: This is an important model, but it is inaccurate. The spirals must dynamically contract and or expand. That is, as they spin against each other, they also expand or contract, thus spraying out or contracting into the conductor.

    However, it seems that that is not the main problem of the model presented at the top of this discussion. This model cannot explain the attraction-repulsion behavior of magnets simply because the presented model is absolutely symmetrical in both horizontal and vertical directions. Such a dynamic cannot result in a magnet with two differing poles. The problem with the model is that the blue and red spirals rotate in opposite directions. What I mean by that is that (seeing with an eye looking in the direction from the left to the right) blue spiral rotates clockwise while the red one rotates anticlockwise.

    To fix the model, all one needs to do is rotate both spirals in the same direction while keeping the spirals moving translationally in opposing directions. Then everything falls in place beautifully (see diagrams explaining attraction-repulsion behavioral pattern of magnets on pages 10, 11 and 13 in Joseph Newman’s book: The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman).
  • edited November 2015
    - What is electricity? - professor asked a student.
    - I knew, but I have forgotten - the student replied.
    - What a loss, - said the professor, - One person in the world knew, and he has forgotten! When you recall, please let us know for we also want to know.


    In retrospect it is perhaps safe to assert that only three people born in the 19th century gained a deep intuitive understanding of what electricity and magnetism are. Michael Faraday was not one of them, neither was James Clerk Maxwell.

    The first one was Hans Christian Ørsted, the other – Nikola Tesla, and the third one – Ed Leedskalnin. The 20th century added at least two more to the list – Joseph Newman and John Searl.

    Ørsted is usually credited with the discovery of the connection between electricity and magnetism. It would be more accurate to say, though, that he understood electricity and magnetism to be one and the same phenomenon; he coined the name “electromagnetism” for it. Here is a long quote from an interesting book “Weber’s Planetary Model of the Atom” by Andre Assis et al., that collaborates my statement:

    Hans Christian Ørsted (1777 – 1851) was greatly influenced by the romantic culture of Germanic Naturphilosophie. This was a philosophical tradition of German idealism in the XIX century. According to these ideas, there was a unity in nature, with all phenomena being all connected as a whole. Ørsted, in particular, looked for effects indicating the unity in different realms: heat, light, electricity, magnetism, chemistry etc… Instead of a “current of electricity”, Ørsted utilized the expression “conflict of electricity”. He defined it as follows:

    The opposite ends of the galvanic battery were joined by a metallic wire, which, for shortness sake, we shall call the uniting conductor or the uniting wire. To the effect which takes place in this conductor and in the surrounding space, we shall give the name of the conflict or electricity.

    His explanation for the deviation of the magnetic needle from its normal orientation when close to a current carrying wire went as follows:

    We may now make a few observations towards explaining these phenomena. The electric conflict acts only on the magnetic particles of matter. All non-magnetic bodies, or rather their magnetic particles, resist the passage of this conflict. Hence they can be moved by the impetus of the contending powers.

    It is sufficiently evident from the preceding facts that the electric conflict is not confined to the conductor, but dispersed pretty widely in the circumjacent space.

    From the preceding facts we may likewise infer that this conflict performs circles; for without this condition it seems impossible that the one part of the uniting wire, when placed below the magnetic pole, should drive it towards the east, and when placed above it towards the west; for it is the nature of a circle that the motions in opposite parts should have an opposite direction. Besides, a motion in circles, joined with a progressive motion, according to the length of the conductor, ought to form a conchoidal or spiral line; but this, unless I am mistaken, contributes nothing to explain the phenomena hitherto observed.

    All the effects on the north pole above-mentioned are easily understood by supposing that negative electricity moves in a spiral line bent towards the right, and propels the north pole, but does not act on the south pole. The effects on the south pole are explained in a similar manner, if we ascribe to the positive electricity a contrary motion and power of acting on the south pole, but not upon the north
    (end of quote).

    It is interesting to hear what Faraday had to say about Ørsted’s explanation of the deflection of a magnetic needle by a current of electricity (see Historical sketch of electro-magnetism. In: Annals of Philosophy 2 (1821), p.107): “[…] I have very little to say on Ørsted’s theory, for I must confess I do not quite understand it.”
  • Prepare to Paradigm Shift!

  • @Jehovajah, who correctly pointed out: This is an important model, but it is inaccurate. The spirals must dynamically contract and or expand. That is, as they spin against each other, they also expand or contract, thus spraying out or contracting into the conductor.

    However, it seems that that is not the main problem of the model presented at the top of this discussion. This model cannot explain the attraction-repulsion behavior of magnets simply because the presented model is absolutely symmetrical horizontally (as well as vertically). Such a dynamic cannot result in a magnet with two differing poles. The problem with the model is that the blue and red spirals rotate in opposite directions (blue spiral rotates clockwise when viewed from left to right, while the red one rotates anticlockwise).

    To fix the model, all one needs to do is to rotate both spirals in the same direction; spirals should keep moving in opposite directions, but they must rotate in the same direction. Then everything falls in place beautifully (see diagrams explaining attraction-repulsion behavioral pattern of magnets on pages 10, 11 and 13 in Joseph Newman’s book: The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman).
    I appreciate what you are explaining.

    In my view there is only one gyre in space. It is a relativistic view and so one observer may see a clockwise gyre and another an anti clockwise gyre. In addition the same observer may se a gyre flip from clockwise to anti clockwise.

    The spring or helix is a special example of a constant radial gyre, but the general gyre I believe will be perceived as a SpaceMatter bubble. It may have several axes of gyration or rotation.

    The second aspect of magnetic behaviour is that it is radial in all directions. Particular crystalline formations tend to accentuate the total gyre complex. Thus I recommend the lodestone as a model of magnetism rather than the bar magnet. Indeed the earth itself is an adequate foundational model. Thus the concept of2 opposite poles is again a special case, because lodestones are known to be multipolar.

    Bearing that in mind I take into account the general crystalline structures formed by spherical regions, typically exhibited in Sacred Geometry treatises and articles, and any articles to do with sphere packing.
    In such a system I can envisage a gear chain operating between the elements of the gyre complex. The gear chain will set a dynamic form for the gyre complex with distinct surface behaviours.

    In a free gear chain system, ie a set of spinning ball bearings, the regions will move relative to each other in opposite directions or grind against each other creating strain. The strain will repel regions in this configuration, while the anti parallel configuration of the gyres will permit an assisted by pass.

    The natural summation of these types of systems will be regions in dynamic equilibrium ultimately showing no net force, and very little " polar" congregation.

    The introduction of radial variation changes the whole dynamic.
    The result is vortices that do not form the dynamically stable equilibrium regions but which move relative to each other in opposing directions with regional or polar congregations in crystalline structures with this former regular structure.

    Thus the radially active regions form a " plasma" amongst the radially constant regions, and move through these regions as a magnetic plasma, both internally and on the surface.

    Attraction is observed where the vortices are able to slide past each other. It is the result of the strain of those vortices that oppose each other forcing the crystalline structures together. It is to be noted that this is always a rotational force toward equilibrium.
    Repulsion is explained as the strain of vortices that oppose each other. It typically manifests as the magnets are pushed closer together and constrained in a certain attitude to each other.

    Set free the same force rotates the structures into equilibrium and reveals itself to be a powerful force .

    Typically crystals with regular lattices are the best conductors of this magnetic force.

    Of course this plasma is free to roam, but it is in a sea of plasma called the earths magnetic field, and so it is replaced by external plasma, but the gear effect of the regular lattice structures provide a powerful magnetic current in the plasma that surrounds making for vortex behaviours around these forms which are themselves vorticular structures.

    The above post gives some inight into the current thinking about these vorticular Plasmoids , but I think there is much more to discover.

    I regard the spirals in this model at the head as plasma vortex paths not the underlying vortex bubble structures.

  • Hans Christian Ørsted (1777 – 1851) was greatly influenced by the romantic culture of Germanic Naturphilosophie. This was a philosophical tradition of German idealism in the XIX century. According to these ideas, there was a unity in nature, with all phenomena being all connected as a whole. Ørsted, in particular, looked for effects indicating the unity in different realms: heat, light, electricity, magnetism, chemistry etc… Instead of a “current of electricity”, Ørsted utilized the expression “conflict of electricity”. He defined it as follows:

    The opposite ends of the galvanic battery were joined by a metallic wire, which, for shortness sake, we shall call the uniting conductor or the uniting wire. To the effect which takes place in this conductor and in the surrounding space, we shall give the name of the conflict or electricity.

    His explanation for the deviation of the magnetic needle from its normal orientation when close to a current carrying wire went as follows:

    We may now make a few observations towards explaining these phenomena. The electric conflict acts only on the magnetic particles of matter. All non-magnetic bodies, or rather their magnetic particles, resist the passage of this conflict. Hence they can be moved by the impetus of the contending powers.

    It is sufficiently evident from the preceding facts that the electric conflict is not confined to the conductor, but dispersed pretty widely in the circumjacent space.

    From the preceding facts we may likewise infer that this conflict performs circles; for without this condition it seems impossible that the one part of the uniting wire, when placed below the magnetic pole, should drive it towards the east, and when placed above it towards the west; for it is the nature of a circle that the motions in opposite parts should have an opposite direction. Besides, a motion in circles, joined with a progressive motion, according to the length of the conductor, ought to form a conchoidal or spiral line; but this, unless I am mistaken, contributes nothing to explain the phenomena hitherto observed.

    All the effects on the north pole above-mentioned are easily understood by supposing that negative electricity moves in a spiral line bent towards the right, and propels the north pole, but does not act on the south pole. The effects on the south pole are explained in a similar manner, if we ascribe to the positive electricity a contrary motion and power of acting on the south pole, but not upon the north
    (end of quote).

    It is interesting to hear what Faraday had to say about Ørsted’s explanation of the deflection of a magnetic needle by a current of electricity (see Historical sketch of electro-magnetism. In: Annals of Philosophy 2 (1821), p.107): “[…] I have very little to say on Ørsted’s theory, for I must confess I do not quite understand it.”
    Thanks for this post and correction on Øersteds views.
    Conflict is perhaps similar to Faradays Tension or Strain, as Maxwell interpreted it. Current derives from this strain running along a conductor to its end point in the phenomena of induction. At the time the concept of charge was used liberally for these active regions. It was Franklin who insisted on + and – and this eventually won the day.

    As you say, early investigators were mystified and early engineers even more so. They could just about manage + and –!

    The sophisticated space curves described by ôersted reveal he was mathematically trained. Faraday was self taught and in many ways ignorant of geometrical models. This is not to say he was ignorant of what he was studying; far from it, but he lacked the mathematical and theoretical sophistication of Maxwell.

    Maxwell did intuitively understand electricity, as did Faraday, who accepted Maxwell's vortex model and proposed his own sphere of influence model.

    So while he may not of understood Øersteds theory he virtually came up with similar ideas.

    Where it all goes wrong is when commercial interest began to take precedence. Then, not only was research deliberately obscured, but patents kept vital information sharing from continuing.

    I have argued that Arago's disc would have confirmed magnetism and rotation as indissolubly linked, but that powerful commercial and social interests pushed electric magnetism to the fore and diminished Gilbert's Philosophy of magnetism into obscurity.

    The nail in the coffin was the manufacture of the notion of the electron, an idea Lorentz and Lamar were chiefly responsible for, but not for it's physicality or principal role. That was decided by a committee who had many axes to grind and faces to sharpen!

    It is clear then, that all early researchers saw magnetism as creating this spatial tension around a conductor . This spatial tension was called electric magnetism, after Gilbert's description of it. It was only much later that the electron divorced electricity from electric magnetism!

    The electron is one of the scientific fictions we have been saddled with by a commercially driven science wanting engineerable ideas!

    I will admit, Faraday dud have a separated notion of electric tension, and eventually electric current in and around a wire and in an electrolyte. The voltaic cell cused him to think chemically rather than purely mechanically. Volta believed in a " magnetic" atmosphere around metals that interacted to produce the spark his cells were capable of achieving. Thus the committee separated the Wilmhurst machine from the voltaic cell in the way electric current was generated. But it was clear to all that electric magnetic tension was what was generated by both devices.
    Few realised then and now the incredible tribomagnetic effect of chemicals in solution, as elements whizz past each other.
    Few realise the dynamic nature of these fields, and thst there is no such thing as statics in electricity or magnetism.
  • edited January 2014
    I know it is hard to visualise a 3d vortex system of bubbles but the following videos may help.



  • edited November 2015
    @Jehovajah
    I have to ask myself, where do we go wrong! These observations are empirical testable and deducible. When did we lose this common sense approach? The answer I am afraid is when we let mathematicians and greed loose on these fundamental apprehensions.
    I believe we went wrong long before that. To find the root of the staggering and increasing body of scientific problems, unexplainable in the framework of scientific paradigm that prevailed today, we have to go back to the dawn of the scientific era, i.e. to Galileo and Newton, and reexamine everything from there on – all the way to Maxwell’s and Einstein’s blunders.

    This process of reexamination has already been initiated: Newtonian mechanics: An implication of extended relativity

    Click HERE to get the full text of the article.

    In a nutshell, the crux of the problem has been identified by Eric Laithwaite, a brilliant engineer with open mind who pointing out that Newton has nothing to say on what really takes place when mass accelerates ... with acceleration. That’s why Newtonian mechanics is helpless when it comes to the phenomena of turbulence in the liquid or gaseous medium, or gyrodynamics in general. That explains also why Newtonian mechanics is not applicable to electromagnetic phenomena for electromagnetism is nothing but gyrodynamics.

    History wasn't kind to Professor Laithwaite (it rarely is to the true pioneers) after his groundbreaking gyro experiments in 1974. His claims were ridiculed, his views rejected with resentment, and he himself was ostracized for daring to question the sacred cow of Newtonism. I firmly believe though he will ultimately get the credit he deserves.

    For those of you who have the eyes to see and the mind to comprehend, the following large gyro wheel experiment tells it all:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRPC7a_AcQo
  • I was a child when Laithwaite gave his thrilling lectures!
    At the time we believed that science would solve all problems and uncover the secrets of the universe! That is what the populist scientists preached, and we scientific minded children believed them!

    But now I am an adult, I put to one side childish belief systems and examine all things! Note I write childish and not childlike! For the mysteries of this universe delight and entertain the child in me!
    I am careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. As a long time admirer of Newton I take criticism of him with a pinch of salt. Not I nor I warrant 99% of all humanity has ever read what he actually wrote! Instead we have been fed a pile of propaganda poo!

    Newton was well aware of gyroscope and gyrodynamics. The fact that he never published much of what he knew is an indication of his attitude of apprenticeship.
    He was in my opinion a genius, inspired by his god, as he believed, but he tackled only a few of the deepest problems in his Principia. His notes show a much greater range of researches and conjectures.

    Many are taught to see force and mass and acceleration in his formulary. But Newton himself expressly warned against this interpretation of his principles. His principles go back to the Pythagoreans and his treatise is not a mathematical or scientific text but an astrological one.

    For all his effort he was justly rewarded, but his treatise became the bible of a select few who had a mind to shape the destiny of mankind in a philosophical enquiry that should lead to commercial gain.

    While he was alive he suffered detractors and when dead he suffered redactors. Few understood his concepts and his philosophy, and they received it as divine revelation! But Newton was more modest, he was a child at play on the beach, a Lilliputian on Gulliver's shoulders. Nor yet still was he infallible in his pronouncements.
  • This video demonstrates the way magnetism runs in a wire or wave guide!
    Electric Magnetism is thus the surface effect of a core magnetic induction that flows through the conductor usually renamed an inductor for magnetic flux.

    The term current can be seen in the first few pages of Maxwells theory as he describes induction in terms of electric strain or tension acting on a conductor.

    You have to go to the second half of his book to find his analysis of magnetic phenomena. Typically this is not as thorough a treatment , but mainly because Gilbert's De Magnete was still seen as the classical text on the subject!

    Kelvin and others had attempted a redaction of magnetic theory , but apparently this work had little impact on the prevailing magnetic philosophy.

    Were it not for commercial interests the subject area would have remained intact and intelligible as a description of material behaviours based on magnetism.

  • edited April 2014
    Note the gyrodynamics not elaborated in ths explanation:
    Electro Thermo magneto complexes are ignored in this purely mechanical explanation, because the scientists did not choose to include them, but also because they did not know how to include them.

    The kelvin water generator explains shear thinning in terms of " electrostatics!"


    The implications for how magnetism flows in a wire and electricity ( electric magnetism) around the surface of a wire are visible in the gyro dynamic heap that forms.

    Reflection and refraction and diffraction of magnetic gyre is alo illustrated.
  • edited January 2015
    One can come up with unlimited amount of effects like Kaye's. The essence of all such "effects" boils down basically to the same process: transformation of the energy of a rapid spin motion to the energy of a fast translational motion. I believe that the mechanism for this process lies beyond the grasp of Newtonian mechanics. The following Zero Gravity Water Bubble experiments demonstrate the process I am talking about very nicely. Make sure to stop the video @ 1:38 and @ 2:10, and watch afterwards carefully for the following 10 seconds.

    In the final analysis, this process of energy transfer from rotational motion to translational one is the root of a phenomenon which, at the level of 'elementary' particles, is known as radiation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXsvy2tBJlU


  • I have corrected a previous post on Arago's disc and convection vortices in a smectic fluid under shear rotation, because it was electrically induced vorticity.

    The above videos show what I was looking to compare.

    The difference in energy in the rotations is indicative of the energy density and conductivity/ inductivity of te material., but the same structure eventually emerges.
  • edited January 2014
    Sometimes we lay people get cut out of the loop by terminology.
    Surface waves and body waves are a new distinction to me. Mostly I have heard of surface waves and pressure systems including seismic waves etc.

    Because of these terminological distinctions we often talk at cross purposes not realising we are discussing the same phenomena or phenomenon.

    I have critiqued the current understanding of conservation of momentum here.

    http://www.fractalforums.com/complex-numbers/twistor/15/
  • edited September 2015
    For those of you who speak Russian here is a video where (@ 31:31 into the video) yours truly is conducting an experiment with a neodymium magnet falling through a copper tube in front of electrical engineers and scientists in Moscow. It has been demonstrated clearly that the effect of slowing down of the magnet is pronounced even with a tube which is cut along the axial direction. This experiment presents, in my view, some evidence that the classical Lenz's law coupled with the ad-hoc device called Foucault currents does not satisfactorily account for the effect.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd47pUu3hjI

    At close distance ( @ 9:50 ):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUlqoJmh9Jw

    I've learned of this effect for the first time (with an intact tube, meaning the tube is not cut along the axial direction) from Boyd Bushman - a retired senior research engineer who worked for Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Texas Instruments and Hughes Aircraft; he is regarded as one of the inventors of the Stinger missile (@ 6:06 into the video):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT0uMo_TmiU
  • edited February 2014
    Thank you for the videos.
    The willingness of non American scientists to consider these phenomenon is breath of fresh air.
    While I do not speak Russian, the interest and willingness of these enquirers to be associated with this topic reveals an underlying agenda in Americn science.

    For me the mechanical explanation of rotating and expanding/ contracting or radially uniform space woks best.

    The material differences in aluminium and copper I did not know, but am not surprised, as I would not expect wood to slow a magnet down.

    The experiment is done usually with closed or open materials to show it is not the geometry that is of interest. The application of a moving dynamic rotation to copper which is a good conductor but a poor inductor reveals this surface interaction is fast enough to cause a reflected magnetic behaviour to return and oppose the magnets motion. At the same time anti rotation induced locally in the copper leads to the magnets being pushed OnIo the copper surface. However, in a closed or axially cut tube the slight gap makes little initial difference to the centring of the magnets.

    In aluminium the magneticor rotating field is not quickly reflected, so aluminium is a poorer conductor but a better inductor.. The magnets fall through with little resistance .

    http://www.tpub.com/neets/book4/11e.htm

    http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_15/1.html

    Section 7
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect#Skin_effect_reduction_of_the_self_inductance_of_a_conductor
Sign In or Register to comment.