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
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.
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
behavior.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
right.
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 ?
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.
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..
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 ?
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.
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.
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!
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.