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 May 2016
    ssd510 said:

    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!

    Ivor Catt is one of the pioneers of fast logic design . He may be better able to connect with your problem than I can.
    Ivor and I do not draw the same conclusions from his data but we do agree the data is real and profound
    Note the tab entitled "digital hardware design "
  • ssd510 said:

    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?

    Electrons, protons,positrons( holes) are all descriptors of different concepts derived in different materials! So yes this does make sense and highlights the eclectic origins of current practice for specialists like yourself!

    In the scheme of things you are a low level cog in the machine( no disrespect intended), and you work under a need to know structure. So you are trained in what you need to know to do your job.
    If you want to become a guild master you will need to engage in the kind of thinking and training you need to demonstrate you can go to the next level!

    Certain people have the ability to innovate in their field . Providing they can demonstrate a product that is Marketable And worth investing in they can attract funds to do that. Along with this ay come fame and fortune as well as intense rivalry!

    On the other hand you may become an important behind the scenes innovator, valued by how much you impact the bottom line and who you know in the corporate structure . Either way continuing to learn your craft can advance your prospects if you can show how to monetise your skills .

    I only am interested in the Doctrinal aspects of this type of expertise and Knowledge . If I can make sense of the data and suggest practical expertises then I am happy!
    I know Marconi made a fortune on the back of gentlemen scientists, and philosophers, but money is not everything xxx

  • edited May 2016
    ssd510 said:

    Mr Bill Beaty has a nice explanation clarifying the trouble I'm having.

    It is a good "particle " exposition of the doctrinal practice, and the perpetration of constraining paradigms .
    The trouble everyone has, not just you is believing their teachers rather than engaging in natural philosophy for themselves, as co equal with any other philosopher who constructs models on empirical, observable data.
    The Catt Questions and the resultant "Anomalous Replies" from the professors or experts on Electromagnetism, make interesting reading.
    For me, my involvement with Ivor has only lead to clarity of thought! We may disagree as to conclusions and interpretations but we agree that empirical data undermines classical electromagnetisms fundamentals.

    It is worse than that;0: it reveals an all too human struggle for power dominance and financial Tenure
    Catts first question focuses on the concept of charge itself.
    From this flows questions about current including displacement current. The concept of field and field lines are also then undermined . Finally the sine wave propagation of an electromagnetic wave is undermined.
    So the conception of charge is key!

    However theoreticians are now shifting their ground.Charge is less fundamental than the concept of field!
    Modern theories propose fields which cause charge to materialise on particulate matter. However they also say that charge is the source of the electric field !, so it is both a cause and an effect.
    We see a similar situation between the Higgs field and mass!
    The point is the fields are " observable" whereas both charge and mass are not.
    The case is that the field is observable by its effect called charge and mass . The so called electrostatic field creates charged matter then moves apart or together!

    The field could be compared tomVoltas atmospheres around bodies or 2 fluids upon or within bodies .
    However the Archetypal field concept is due to Galileo and refined by Newton it is an absolute volume permeated by accelerative influences that motivate bodies individually and in ensemble.
    The absolute volume is usually a sphere, and the absolute influence is principally radial.
    An extensive system can be constructed but only fractally,

    This is the prior concept from which charge was drawn and developed and applied to magnetic behaviours eventually.
  • edited May 2016

    Imagine these shock waves travelling between the wires of a transmission line .
    The bounded waves produce diamond like patterns which because of the rotation have curved edges."
    Maxwell drew these foms as olutions to differential equations for conductors. They are found in the middle chapters of his work on electro agnetism
  • Gravity is a magnetic current effect. Magnetic and Eletro is two classical static. But magnetic current is made by dielectric medium.
  • Gravity is a magnetic current effect. Magnetic and Eletro is two classical static. But magnetic current is made by dielectric medium.

    When you see the size of many magnetic filaments in the sins corona it is very easy to accept gravity as a magnetic phenomena . The 2 currents then become optimal to explain the apparent lack of Levity.
    Gravity and Levity( often called anti gravity) are inseparable distinctions in a descriptive continuum.

  • The creation of the Force region by Tribo magnetic transfer is usually explained by an ill defined notion of charge .
    We see induction as it is called in the presence of the force region but we typically exclude the tribomagnetic cause of the force region..

    Volta called this region an atmosphere in keeping with the ancient description of this region observed around bodies, the tribomagnetic cause was not always apparent, nor the material generality.
    Volta after extensive painstaking research concluded that a relationship existed between materials in tribological contact and this is often called the triboelectric relationship.
    He also pointed out that a third material, liquid in nature enhanced the effect of a ' charge' into his tongue, body or muscles.
    Thus the feeling of induction in nervous flesh came o be called a charge, or a sudden explosive or shocking event or material.
    Many properties of this force regions charge induction due to tribomagnetic causality can be explained by vorticular or rotational behaviour in the induction/ conduction topology..
    Tribo magnetic action typically involves a cyclical or rotational action and where such an action is not apparent the assumption of a Pre existing rotational phenomenon is entirely reasonable theoretically.
    So the force region is very likely trochoidal in natural action, and thus material geometry as well as material characteristics guide the observed induction and the dynamic behaviours demonstrated.

    It is apparent that whereas gravity is no slows in astronomical observations, magnetic behaviour is universally observed and attributable
    Magnetic or vorticular dynamic is inherent in space, ans wires and materials guide its expression

  • Call them CME's, call them magnetic bubbles, they look like giant sparks to me!
  • Bernoulli's principle for fluid flowsbinnsmall bore pipes has to be explained by the Orkney principle. In doing so the conservation of matter( volume) is employed. Because water is barely elastic at normal pressures it works well as a description of certain behaviours of attractionnandvrepulsion in a fluid medium.
    However the more fundamental principle is trochoidal force surfaces in dynamic action.
    When such surfaces are restricted in a cross sectional manner as in a pipe, we should expect reflection at this boundary which sums to an increase of action in the axial direction.
    Thus measured cross sectional pressures will be lower within these flowing regions while axial pressure or stopping pressure will be greater.
    In addition flows within a closedbcrossbsectionalmboundar willmtendnto rotate. This is because a rotationl flow is more dynamically stable than a parallel one.
    In many fluid dynamic scenarios these rotational stabilities are minamedbasbturbulnce, while laminar steady state flow is presented as well behaved. In fact laminar flow is unphysical in most cases, but it does exist in certain regions where the conditions are just right , turbulent or rotationl flow is the norm.

    Bearing this in mind the way turbulent flow exhibits itself in a magnetic current induced in a wire should exhibit these characteristics of otational, a pressure gradient orthogonal to the flow and a higher activity at the ends of the wire.
    All thesebeffectsvare consistent withnMASER action too.
    That there is no flow of current in a wire is hardly disputable, since even Eddington knew that electrical actionnhatever it was happened at or near the surface of an inductor/ conductor. Cvordingly he used hollow copper pipes filled ith tar as his power distribution grid for direct current,
    Tesla's insight into he rotationl ndbthusvltetnating nature of this phenomenon enabled him to transmit a signal along a wire ith greater efficiency, but lo through ny medium including the air. He adduced a finer medium called the aether as being a carrier of the signal as a rotationl vortex phenomenon, that is a complex system of wheel works.

    In addition I now realise that centrifugal and centripetal force are not opposing forces as I was misled to believe but complementary actions for explaining circular motion in a push universe, centripetal force properly exists as tension inna rope or elastic medium. However tension acts in both directions like pressure in a pipe of flowing liquid but instead of pushing at both ends it seems to pull at both ends. This at heart was the problem of action at a distance. What medium which was aetherial could provide such a centripetal force? The easiest to grasp was a centrifugal force, that is an Inwardly hitting( fugal) pressure or pressure gradient . What could provide the Pull of gravity and the pull of electricity and the pull of magnetism?
    Of course the Archimrdian Screw was Descartes intuitive answer .

  • How magnetic current and the PMH are used on a phone!
  • Hey that's a pretty neat trick! The whole world could probably be made more more efficient with a little modification like this.
  • Hey that's a pretty neat trick! The whole world could probably be made more more efficient with a little modification like this.

    The cells we use today emphasise the chemical reaction over the capacitative function( Leyden jar behaviour) of the system. Volta explained his battery in terms of the interaction of 3 atmospheres one of which was " moist" or a liquid medium. Of course Galvano made sure Volta's ideas did not dominate his bodily liquids idea , and the demonstration of liquid Alchemy was remarkable enough to divert the attention away from fluid atmospheres.

    The Leyden jar demonstrates the capacitative power of liquids but capacitance research demonstrates the capacitative power of fluids. . The chemical or material nature of fluids clearly is a factor in capacitance and energy release behaviour.
    The idea of a glow , a circuit etc is so powerful that we easily see the battery as causative in an electrolytic systm . It is the vortex behaviour of the magnetic current that is a better model than chemical reaction, per se. . We need only replace the battery by a generator to see that clearly!
    Doing this little trick induces the capacitance of the cell directly from the magnetic current( vortex). The reversible chemistry is one of those factors that make this effect more efficient like reversing electrolysis or the Leyden jar charge regime
  • @Jehovajah "What could provide the Pull of gravity and the pull of electricity and the pull of magnetism? Of course the Archimrdian Screw was Descartes intuitive answer ."

    A gentleman sent this and other stills to me years ago. He was fascinated by the helical or screw-like sparks he caught with his video camera and knew I would be too...
  • edited July 2016
    On his travels as a youth in 1801 Ōrsted saw some pictures of so-called sound figures. They were advanced geometrical patterns which the German EFF Chladini could create using a violin bow as he played different tones against a glass plate with sand on it.

    Örsted originally became interested in the figures when he found that he could both generate patterns and make a fine powder completely electric by playing the bow against the plate. In that way he could see the connection between the mechanical and the electrical forces.
    This remarkable observation has many Implications, not the least being that electric charge is a phenomena of certain tonal vibrations in metallic conductors/ inductors! That the pitch of these tones is Inaudible to our ears is a distinct possibility that intriguingly connects with Daniel Nunez and Marko Rodins groundbreaking architectural circuitry and experimentation.
    Imagine if you will a Chladini plate curled into a cylinder .....
    The vibrations would not only be rotational but indeed vorticular along the axial length.

Sign In or Register to comment.