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



  • edited January 2015
    It just occurred to me that we do not actually need two shells in our experimental setting - we need only one ... if the attempt to detect magnetic field is done inside the rotating shell of electric charge. Indeed, since there can be no electric field inside a closed conducting shell, all we need is: take a closed cylindrical shell, charge the shell with an arbitrary amount of electricity, rotate it, and check whether a magnetic field is generated inside it or not.

    If the cylindrical shell is long enough, it doesn't even have to be closed at the ends because the electric field inside the shell, far from the open ends, would be nearly zero anyways. With these dramatic simplifications, perhaps I might be able to run this experiment myself.
  • edited November 2014
    In order to get some clue about the origin of the so-called "Electric charge" I would go back
    to Ed's test with rubbing the piece of rubber, spraying salt grains and push them with a toothpick,
    watch how they behave and expand this experiment (not because I agree with Ed on that,
    especially that he said very little about static electricity).

    This test is one step before the electric charge was born or Vitreous and Resinous Electricity
    cause the first confusion about electricity and magnetism. At this point we don't even know that
    there are two types of charges..... all we see are salt grains jumping, attracted, polarizing,
    deflecting, sometimes even hovering in mid air and performing all kind of acrobatic maneuvering
    due to some type of force or another phenomena which cause them this strange and unfamiliar

    I think this phenomena was overlooked and skipped too easy in order to jump straight into
    the fascinated electricity. From here I would invent new tests to get better understating of
    this phenomena, without falling to the trap of taking it for granted and that we already have
    all the answers for it.
  • edited January 2015
    In order to get some clue about the origin of the so-called "Electric charge" I would go back to Ed's test with rubbing the piece of rubber, spraying salt grains and push them with a toothpick, watch how they behave and expand this experiment
    First I would check out what is already done in this field in the course of the last few hundred years. And what is done in this field long before Ed was born is enormous. Everyone here would be well advised to check out The Experimental and Historical Foundations of Electricity by Andre Koch Assis.
  • I have tried to find footage of the anode ray and this is the best I can find on YouTube.

    It would seem the anode ray has been subsumed into the X-ray technology without further commentary. Canal rays and Goldsteins experiments have been pushed to one side.
  • edited November 2014
    Thanks Barau for the link,
    I still read it very thoroughly. One thing I can say right away is that William Gilbert skipped
    some important questions while establishing the concept of "electricity". For instance :
    why this attraction happened in the first place ? How come this "power" stays on ?
    What keeps it on even after attracting an object ? The fact that he could not turn natural
    Loadstone into and "electrified object" might give him a clue ? Is this attraction by friction
    comes from outside of the object or part of it comes from within ? Is this new feature
    spread over the surface of the rubbed object or it's also inside of it ?

    And for the researchers that followed : why you're adding another dimension to this
    experiment and adding + and - charges while you did not even figured out exactly what had
    happened in your first and most basic experiment ?

    In any case I'm keep reading it, even though it's a book made for physics teachers as a
    guide line for the history of physics experiments and it's even a bit childish book I enjoying
    it a lot.
  • edited November 2015
    André Assis in the Introduction to his book Experimental and Historical Foundations of Electricity:
    Another important motivation we had in mind before writing this book was to offer teachers and students the main tools to achieve scientific autonomy. To do this, we quote sections of the most important works by the scientists who made great and fundamental discoveries in electricity. We also show how to perform experiments illustrating their findings utilizing low cost instrumentation. In this way we hope the readers will attain a scientific independence in several respects: how to build instruments, how to perform measurements, how to formulate concepts and theories to clarify or explain their findings, etc.
    In this age of multi-million dollar budget laboratories and multi-billion dollar colliders plus the prevailed straitjacketed mode of scientific thinking, it seems next to impossible to achieve scientific autonomy and to attain a scientific independence. You may come up with some great ideas, but how in the hell are you going even to convince anyone that your ideas worth of experimental checking, especially when those ideas are in direct confrontation with orthodoxy. Words are cheap, and experiments are expensive. We seem in a catch 22 situation here. But don't lose your heart. After all, Michael Faraday, Nikola Tesla, Ed Leedskalnin and many other great thinkers did not need someone's permission, or multi-million dollar equipment, to make groundbreaking discoveries.

    If you are convinced that your ideas worth something, do not expect them to be carried out to fruition by someone else. Inventive experimenting with simple and readily available means, suggested by bold ideas, seems the only way out of the rot.
  • Cheers Barau for your words.
    Science world of today is quit a fortress, sometimes for good reasons but definitely not always.
    Many private researchers wants to come up with new ideas and get the blessing of the academic
    world but unfortunately their ideas does not hold water or were not thoroughly checked by their
    inventors. So sometimes it's good that someone stand on guard and most of the times - they are

    But in a few times private researchers w/o academic degree come up with unbaked good ideas
    that worth re-checking or require answers that are not to be found in the textbook theories and in
    this cases you really in head-on collision with the multi head monster of the academic world.
    Basically the more you will push or promote your idea or question the more you'll get humiliating
    responses that will make you think again whether you wants to deal with or go underground.
    In a way it is like dealing with a mafia.

    In reality and most likely even if you have a brilliant idea you need to :
    1. Show experiments that support your idea / new explanation.
    2. Show mathematical formulation and how it interact with the already "known" forces / laws /
    observations / particles, Etc.
    3. Show the phenomena in nature.
    4. Predict how certain natural phenomena will work / man-made experiments will react.

    It is not an easy task and most likely you will have to go through via dolorosa before you will
    get any attention which most likely will never occur to anyone here and I'm saying it with some
    sadness since some people here at least deserve a scientific answer to their questions which
    instead of an answer they will face ignoring them at best.

    But who knows ?
  • edited November 2014
    Mr Angus Wangus presents Tesla hairpin capacitor to reveal Dielectric electricity.

    Ed does not discuss capacitors to my knowledge, but essentially a battery is a capacitor that gives a " steady " charge. Dielectricity is this steady charge in the battery which is not static or stationary.
    Ivor Catt s Wakefield experiment demonstrates the death of the electric current.

    How this relates to Eds Cosmic force is directly ! The magnetic current is derived from this cosmic force coming in and out of a wire creating a whirling magnetic current. But outside the wire the 2 plasmas are everywhere and in everything. This circuit shows that a bar magnet is an inadequate model for this cosmic force or it's components.
  • You guys still don't get it. You are thinking in "school taught terms".

    There is a Plus, Minus, and a third power yet to be harnessed.. I'd call it "G" for gravity, or (G)ods force? That the energy harnessed in the PMH. Imagine not just (+)left and (-)right, but a "triangulation" of forces, one unseen or measured as of yet. THE (G)lue that holds atoms together?

    You can force energy "down the path of least resistance and draw work from it" but it does not like it, always restrictive and wanting to escape. (perhaps seeking that other directional force) As a electrician I have experienced this first hand.

    My additional comments are: crazy people, stupid people who "think" they know what they are doing should not be given atomic bombs to experiment with. People who worship a "Babylonian god" Molech, sacrifice babies and other innocents should not be allowed to breathe and waste good air. That is my opinion of the Leedskalin knowledge he didn't share.. he hinted for people of equal reserve and control to discover it, they should also be required to keep it from irresponsible ones..

    Imagine a lunatic with great power sinking a whole Island of Atlantis? or our earth rolling over on it's side..
  • Jehovajah,
    Ed discussed static electricity as part of gravity, so you are right about him never talking about
    capacitors. The common between a battery and a capacitor is that they both accumulate magnets
    but in a different form. Think for instance that you can have water in a cloud that their only way
    to be taken apart is by rain down or a lake that have a stream of water down to the sea and it
    slowly empty it. In other words because they accumulate differently they decomposes differently.

    Also in a battery the magnets are part of the matter which makes the battery and in a cap the
    magnets are not part of the matter they are already circulating through the cap's plates under
    a high pressure. Their circulation is unknown to anyone.....yet. That's why the whole branch of
    "electric charge" started for if not William Gilbert or someone after him would realize that this
    phenomena is pure magnetic.


    With Ed's cosmic force you can build a breathing human being, build a private galaxy or
    run the so called electricity (which is not very important !!!) in a wire.

    I have no clue how you brought in your plasma ? or why do you think that there is an aether
    that made of plasma ? maybe you can explain where I can see this plasma ?
  • edited January 2015
    Nowadays the majority of physicists accept Einstein’s theories as correct. We show this is untenable and present an alternative theory which is much clearer and more reasonable than the previous ones. We know that these are strong statements, but we are sure that anyone with a basic understanding of physics will accept this fact after reading this book with impartiality and without prejudice. With an understanding of relational mechanics, we enter a new world, viewing the same phenomena with different eyes and from a new perspective. It is a change of paradigm, considering this word with the meaning given to it by Kuhn in his important work. This new formulation will help put physics on new rational foundations, moving it away from the mystifications of this century...

    We believe the better way to create critical minds and to motivate the students is to present to them different approaches for the solution of the same problems, showing how the concepts have been growing and changing throughout history and how great scientists viewed equivalent subjects from different perspectives.

    Relational Mechanics and Implementation of Mach’s Principle with Weber’s Gravitational Force by André Koch Torres Assis
  • edited November 2015
    Please check out the section 8.4.2 titled "Charge and Current Configurations Generating an Uniform Magnetic Field" in the quoted above book: Relational Mechanics and Implementation of Mach’s Principle with Weber’s Gravitational Force.

    This section has direct relevance to the experiment I have suggested. Assis states without shadow of a doubt that a charged sphere - while spinning with a constant angular velocity around the axis passing through its center - will generate a uniform magnetic field inside it. His conclusion is based on calculations carried out in the framework of classical electrodynamics - nothing else.

    I was wondering whether such an experiment has ever been actually performed in the entire history of Ampere's electrodynamics. Calculations are calculations - it would be nice to have an experimental proof.
  • edited November 2014
    One day you will not test a static electric field around point charge (or for that matter, with
    a charged object) with a surface detector or another charged or neutral object (like did the Greeks
    with the Amber or Coulomb or William Gilbert) BUT with a point detector and from that day on you
    will notice something else.

    And your question about the spinning charged sphere will be answered, but you have to take
    a few steps back for that (like to take the motion away for instance and some other reductions
    that will give you a more direct glance), but probably you will not do it.

    Good luck.
  • Jehovajah,
    I have no clue how you brought in your plasma ? or why do you think that there is an aether
    that made of plasma ? maybe you can explain where I can see this plasma ?
    Words are confusing or confusingly used. They are basically labels or handles for experiences shared or private. I could use the words individual north magnet and individual south magnet if that helps you. For my own thinking I have retasked the word plasma. This helps me if not you to take another perspective on the phenomenon and to search for unexpected experimental data that may or may not be relevant.

    Aether is an old scientific a term, religious clerics prefer spirit or Ousia. Again there is much information that is direct empirical observation cloaked by this reference word. There is also a lot of superstitious mythology which contains the grains of direct observation.

    I do not know where I will find what I am looking for and when, so I stay loose! Guarded, but loose. Lol!

  • @Dawai
    Thanks for your contribution. Can you suggest experiments or demonstrable phenomena that can clarify these issues for us. That would be great!
    If we all cooperate and bring evidence or demonstrations to the table we may just recreate the old school gentleman's natural philosophy club! No stone should be left unturned.

    As I posted above much direct observation is hidden away in myths or mystical teachings, so while I prefer empirical data I do not discount or disrespect alternative views. At the end of the dat fact and technology have their counterparts in myth and magic, and all of them are human creations from the " around" in my opinion.
Sign In or Register to comment.