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
The two fluids you suggesting can simulate a closed loop circulation like the one happen around
a bar magnet with two poles ? Or can they pass one through another like in the magnetic model
do ? (which is a bit problematic by itself since if the currents attracted to each other how come
they pass "one through the other" ? they suppose to merge and become a reservoir ?).
Ed's magnetic model require lots of answers and math. It's far from completion and between
the clever experiments and his elegant conclusion there are many unanswered "air gaps",
which needs to be explored and settled.
By the way Ed model explaining Amper law in a very elegant way, but you have to extract
it. Same with Len'z law and Eddy currents.
I guess neither of the "side models" have a free pass. They all needs further exploration,
new math and formulation, many remodeling of the prototype raw model.
The primer fields experiments places bowl shaped magnets in a vacuum chamber and then sets up a potential difference between 2 electrodes. In this case we see that the plasma generated has both the cathode plasma and the anode plasma passing through each other.
Now simply, let us set up the cathode ray gun opposing an anode ray gun. Within a sealed chamber place an iron object. Arrange so that the cathode ray and the anode ray fire through or at the metal object .
Does the metal object behave like a magnet, before, after and or during the process?
Compare this with how powerful magnets are actually made.
In one sense the only way to separate the 2 magnetic substances is via this so called electrode in a vacuum set up, usually called a plasma reactor.
So this is not a way to prove that even static electricity is accompanied by magnetism.
But here is the outline of an experiment that has a potential to prove the fallacy of the notion that magnetic field is nothing but a derivative of electric current a.k.a. slowly drifting electrons.
Take two conducting spherical shells of different diameter - one shell inside the other. Charge the outer shell with negative electricity (-Q) and the inner with equal but positive electricity (+Q) so that no electric field would exist outside the shells. In other words, we are talking a spherical capacitor here.
Let's say that the capacitor is made in such a way that the outer shell can be rotated while the the inner is at rest. Now, by rotating the outer shell, we effectively get a drift of electrons that comprise the charge -Q, i.e. we basically simulate electric current. Therefore, according to orthodox electrodynamics, we will get also a magnetic field around the capacitor, which then we could detect by observing a compass needle.
But will we? That's a big question. For some reason, I highly doubt it. Could somebody out there to actually perform such an experiment and see whether a magnetic field in fact arises or not? boxerlego?
P.S. The experimenter shall keep in mind that the total amount of negative charge -Q, that can be put on the outer shell without causing electrical breakdown of the capacitor, will necessarily be much smaller than the total charge of all electrons of the shell in electrically neutral state. Therefore, the speed of rotation that would be required for simulating electric current in sufficient amounts will be rather high. It is not too difficult though to estimate how high the speed of rotation should be.
Eds states that the 2 fluids whirl around and thus through or by one another.
Certainly in a fluorescent lamp we do not see the plasmas annihilating each other. It is time to study this in detail. The primer fields videos give you a clue . My suggestion simply removes the internal magnets to see what the rays do to a good inductor like iron or steel, and a poor inductor like copper or aluminium.
Canal rays and Cathide rays are intermingled!
My experiment is still doable but the theory I was working from is flawed.
It suggests immediately that current or ray is a misleading analogy. The events happen in the rarefied environment. Around the cathode something happens and atound the Anode something happens. The cathode and anode produce 2 effects which both pass through the anode , suggesting we need to see if anything passes through the cathode. If so what?
Still not a discussion of the " pass through" discharge.
What I see is a wave interaction . The wave however is a rotational one not merely an up and down oscillation. The pass through wave or discharge would confirm the material reflection of the wave at both ends .
When an anode is provided without holes the cathode discharges or establishes a plasma rope to it. The anode plasma then emits into the surrounding environment only visibly vanishing in a region contacting the cathode plasma. Goldsteins experiments demonstrate this.
to say that it attracted to the electrified pen regardless the matter it is made of.
In regard to your experiments with the two metallic spheres one inside another
that you charged them with -Q & +Q and simulate a capacitor. I have to clarify
with you several questions :
1. When you charge an object' who told you you charge it with positively electric
charges ?
2. If negatively charged particle called Electron and there are only
negative electrons in the world, so who is the positively electric particle that you
are talking about ? Protons maybe ? But protons are completely different animal
than electrons so you cannot use them one against another.
3. When you charge a plate what type of charge will be on one side of it and what
type of charge will be on the other side of.
Sorry I have to go to work
Have a good day.
The " current is supposedly DC, the arc is supposedly outlining the current, the "electrons" are supposedly travelling from cathode to anode, the initial rope is supposedly controlled by the magnet.
Let us examine it carefully and see what we see.
Move a certain amount of electrons from the inner spherical shell to the outer one - that's all what you need to get the said -Q/+Q configuration.
If you charge an isolated conducting plate (i.e. a plate with no objects anywhere near it) you won't get different types of charge on different sides of it; the charge, it does not matter whether it is positive or negative, will be distributed on its entire surface with density which is determined unambiguously by its geometry.
The reason I believe that we won't get a magnetic field around the capacitor when we start rotating the outer shell is the following. Obviously, we won't detect any magnetic field in static position, i.e. when neither of the shells is rotating, because the charges position themselves on the shells in such a way that we get "hedgehog" configuration that "hides" magnetic field everywhere, i.e. individual magnetic fields, associated with each one of those tiny "electron-magnets", kill each other in superposition so to speak.
Now, since the electric field of the capacitor has spherical symmetry, rotation of one of the shells (inner, or outer, or both in opposite directions - it does not matter which one we rotate) most probably will not upset the "hedgehog" arrangement of "electron-magnets" on the shells.
That's why I expect that we won't detect any magnetic field around the capacitor, regardless how big the charge Q is, or how fast we rotate either of the charged shells.
With all the respect your experiments is too complicated to perform and have too many
very basic question prior to build such a setting.
My very simple point, which I don't have the complete answer is that static electricity or
capacitor does not show clear magnetic polarities as in electric current is because there
are both (mixture) of South and North pole individual magnets that are circulating in a way
that is unknown to science.
I would be glad to hear from you or from someone else about an experiment that will clearly
prove the answer and whatever will be the answer I could accept it.
Another important point is before you think of an experiment try the most simple setting
for them, even without names (electrons, magnets, static electricity, +/-, charges etc.).
The more complicated is your setting, the more you will have to take for granted as "Truth"
and the more answers you will have to give before you even started the test.
Thank you randomind and Barau.
Your respectfulness is appreciated and that is what allows this discussion to progress.
Randomind your point it's absolutely crucial. It is hard to look at these phenomena with fresh eyes if you have been trained in any of our institutions. That is why I go back to the earliest researchers who were philosophers. It is not for their Philodophy, but for there phenomenology.
Gradually I have to replace embedded concepts by those freer and more natural and observable. I use the word empirical as it starts it's etymological journey , that is as it means observable and perceivable by the direct senses.
This is sometimes called simple phenomenology, but it is far from " simple". Perhaps " direct" phenomenology may convey what I mean more directly! Lol!
So we have the issue of witnessing the same phenomena. Then follows the issue of accounting for the different perceptions, usually agreeing on Isabel's as words for a complex of position and sensory data.
Then action words are agreed. That step is often overlooked. Thus we have the same phenomenon described by a word phrase "action at a distance" and the word phrase " wave deformation of the aether". The argument here is which one is actually the simplest descriptor?
Using Occams razor one would perhaps choose action at a distance, but using not so common sense one would say " something is missing" in that description because when I gather together all my sensory data I can say something connects the subject and object of the labeled action within that visually defined distance, and I sense it Kinaesthetically!
Thus using Occams razor in that context to my mind makes the second action descriptor the " simplest"!
So after accepting our a priori description the next question is about true or Truth. Again Truth is not what it seems, but true is to me a more fundamentally observable descriptor
This is all before we even properly analyse the phenomena! So you can perhaps see why many are reluctant to do the work of proper reasoning or having done it to redo it again the light of new data not originally accounted for!
My quest, however hard is to do that work again, in the light of modern phenomenology and records, both video and Audio along with my own local and kinaesthetically replete data that I can establish by my own set ups.
It is not easy, but it is fun! One of the fun things is you get to make your own labels! However the frustrating thing about that is nobody knows what on earth you are referring to! Lol!
It must be great to have a friend or a brother who shares the same interest and mind set. This is why I like the Iwaszko brothers. The shared experiences they have must be remarkably confirming and assuring. The problem of course is communicating that to others.
Most importantly, the potential implications of this experiment make it worthwhile of the labors of a professional experimenter. If my expectation turns out to be true, the notion of magnetic field as a necessary attribute of moving electric charges, as well as the notion of electron as a point charge with spherically symmetrical electric field around it, would become highly questionable thereby undermining the very foundations of the orthodox electrodynamics.
Here are some thoughts as of how to simplify the experimental setting. A thin sphere cannot be rotated rapidly without causing significant deformations which would enormously complicate the experiment. Therefore, in place of the inner sphere, it is better to have a solid ball made of wood, or any other non-conductive material. The ball is mounted on a spindle (made of nonmagnetic material!) that can be rapidly rotated by an electric motor. In other words, we'll keep the outer sphere at rest and rotate the ball inside it. The surface of the ball, as well as the outer surface of a thin outer sphere (also made of non-conductive material), will be lined up by a foil (or better yet - spray coating) made of readily available, highly conductive, nonmagnetic material, like aluminum for example.
Charging the foil linings (spray coatings) with an equal and opposite charges should not present much difficulty either - even for an amateur experimenter.
P.S. The importance of having exactly equal and opposite charges on outer and inner shells is obvious: we want to make sure that electric field outside the capacitor (where we are trying to detect the presence of magnetic field by watching the compass needle) is zero all the time thereby excluding the possibility of deflection of the compass needle by electric polarization, which would make unambiguous interpretation of experimental observations difficult or even impossible.
One more thing. Don't worry that the electric current feeding the electric motor would generate magnetic field that could contaminate our experiment - it won't ... unless your are using a single wire that makes a loop covering none zero area. You can convince yourself of this by placing a compass near the wire of the reading lamp on your table and watching the compass needle while turning the lamp on - the needle is not affected at all .
Jehovajah,
You are right about the terminology of "direct observation" rather than "simple".
I think philosophy should be part of physics because the first should lead the second
and not vise versa. Philosophy for instance can see that human consist of linear thinking
and that I can't ask you to watch me eating ice cream in Moscow, NY, Jerusalem and Paris
at the same time, while theoretically it is possible if you freeze time and materializing the
4 options simultaneously. Physics is limited to the capacity of the human brain and that's
limiting up to how far we can go and understand our universe.
Barau,
I understand your enthusiasm from the experiment you suggesting but I can't see why you
expect to get magnetic field by rotating the outer charge shell around the inner one ?
I think you will get no current, no waves, no magnetic field or CNN broadcast...lol
Now if you really wants to shake electrodynamics your only chances is to get a fresh start
like Jehovaiah suggest to start and explore electricity and magnetism from it's infancy and
definitely don't adopt their names for particles, forces and the Sound Base for their physics
because sooner than later you'll find yourself claiming exactly their conclusions.
Now about refining your experiment.... I suggest at least for the beginning not to work
with a metallic sphere since it is a complex shape to start with, that may yield results which
mislead you since you did not know that the upper part of the sphere is rotating around it's
axis slower than it's equator and some other characteristics. Instead, start with a flat
plane, not rotating and continue from there...
A wire of a reading lamp is an AC current that switch 50-60 times a second it's polarity
of the magnetic field around it.....how do you expect a compass needle to react to such
an alternating magnetic field ?
(1) if we intend to detect the presence of magnetic field outside the the outer shell, then the diameters of shells must be much bigger than the height of the shells (D1,D2 >> H), because we wouldn't expect a magnetic field of detectable intensity outside a long coil anyways (that's what basically our cylindrical capacitor with one rotating shell amounts to);
(2) if we intend to detect the presence of magnetic field inside the the inner shell, then it does not matter how the diameters of cylindrical shells relate to their height. Again, I do not expect a compass needle to react, but not because the magnetic field around AC current is alternating rapidly (even though that would be, of course, enough reason for us not to be able to detect it with a compass needle): the intensity of magnetic field around double wire even with DC is nearly zero.