So, an analogy would be, water vapor has the same properties as ice.......?mjv1121 wrote:Sparky,
Yes.Is rf E/M, in a waveguide, equal to dc electric current in a low voltage circuit?
Michael
What is electricity?
-
- Posts: 3517
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm
Re: What is electricity?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
-
- Guest
Re: What is electricity?
Sparky,
No analogy needed - it is low voltage DC, it's just pulsed. Just the same as a telephone and a loud-speaker converts between sound and an electrical signal. It is not E/M radiation (photons) travelling down the cable - it is an electrical signal - so no analogy needed.
Michael
No analogy needed - it is low voltage DC, it's just pulsed. Just the same as a telephone and a loud-speaker converts between sound and an electrical signal. It is not E/M radiation (photons) travelling down the cable - it is an electrical signal - so no analogy needed.
Michael
- Jarvamundo
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: What is electricity?
It's sad to see the TB forum turn to this.mjv1121 wrote:Solar,
I have checked and 2+2 does not equal 5, nor does equal 3, nor does equal 3.5 or 4.5What are normally and customarily referred to as “conductors” are actually ‘Reflectors’, these are the “waveguides.” What are normally and customarily referred to as “insulators” (the dielectric) are the actual “conductors” and have the ability to ‘store’ electric energy within their physical form such as with the “capacitor.” Thus:
“We reverse this; the current in the wire is set up by the energy transmitted through the medium around it.” --Oliver Heaviside, 1850-1925
The "observation" is basically correct, but the conclusion is nonsense. That crap about "reflectors" and "waveguides" is particularly misleading.
Heaviside defined first these terms permeability and permittivity; they begin from "the vaccum" "aether". Best read his book, to see how he defined his terms so you can correct your 'logic'.mjv1121 wrote:By that logic a conductor would not work in a vacuum, although perhaps we should consider the permeability and permittivity of vacuum.
See "Oliver Heaviside - Electro Magnetic theory - Ch II - Outline of The ElectroMagnetic Connections"
Today (since Einstein) we call this "Permittivity of Free Space" or "The Vacuum"Oliver Heaviside - EMVol1CH2 wrote:All space must be filled with a medium which can support displacement and induction. We can call this medium the "ether" where u(Inductivity) and c (Permittivity) are constants.
Assigning properties to nothing
No they give precise physical meaning the the problem you wish to discuss. The skin effect demonstrates Heaviside's correct approach to electricity.Sparky wrote:Skin effect and other hf phenomenon are causing the confusion.
It's just something physicists sweep under the carpet to maintain their drain pipes.
For your DC requirement of the single wire circuit (which is the same electrically as a ground return ) You may reduce the HF to DC by narrowing your time observation, it will still be found "electricity" enters the conductor from the surface
The Characteristic Impedance for a coaxial lead is one of relationship of the OUTER diameter of a central metallic and the INNER diameter of the outer "sheild", and the dielectric constants of the inner insulator. (ie they define the waveguide and supporting medium, the dielectric)Sparky wrote:Your description of a coax is not a very good one. It seems you are confusing the "shield"/ground with the center conductor, which in the case of RG59, is a solid wire. I think you really know better.
Go check the equations look for big d little d
The VOP is a property (dielectric inductivity) of the 'insulator'.
(note to mjv: yes the vacuum also has this property, otherwise 'light' wouldn't 'work' )
-
- Posts: 3517
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm
Re: What is electricity?
jarva-,
For hf and 3phase it gets complicated...i was taught that skin effect comes in to play with hf...if it is a factor in dc, then that is something new to me....i am not saying i have a correct approach to electricity,, just that i was shown what works for the job i had to do....my questioning of electricity not being in the wires i s because no one has shown me a theory that ties everything that i have been taught together, ie., P=IE
Are you implying that understanding hf will help in understanding dc?
i'll try to read up on Heaviside's theories.....thanks
I can accept that...thanks, but doubt that i will have the energy to read much of OLIVER HEAVISIDE's "ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY".The Characteristic Impedance for a coaxial lead is one of relationship of the OUTER diameter of a central metallic and the INNER diameter of the outer "sheild", and the dielectric constants of the inner insulator. (ie they define the waveguide and supporting medium, the dielectric)
Go check the equations look for big d little d
Yes, that i found also, but have not had a good explanation as to why. .... ie., why does inductivity slow vop? I can see heat changing resistance....LC would create impedance problems, but why would that diminish vop?...this is way beyond my pay grade.The VOP is a property (dielectric inductivity) of the 'insulator'.
All i know is that P=IE...that is what i was taught and it works.The skin effect demonstrates Heaviside's correct approach to electricity.
For hf and 3phase it gets complicated...i was taught that skin effect comes in to play with hf...if it is a factor in dc, then that is something new to me....i am not saying i have a correct approach to electricity,, just that i was shown what works for the job i had to do....my questioning of electricity not being in the wires i s because no one has shown me a theory that ties everything that i have been taught together, ie., P=IE
Are you implying that understanding hf will help in understanding dc?
i'll try to read up on Heaviside's theories.....thanks
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
- Solar
- Posts: 1372
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am
Re: What is electricity?
Jarvamundo wrote:It's sad to see the TB forum turn to this.mjv1121 wrote:Solar,
I have checked and 2+2 does not equal 5, nor does equal 3, nor does equal 3.5 or 4.5What are normally and customarily referred to as “conductors” are actually ‘Reflectors’, these are the “waveguides.” What are normally and customarily referred to as “insulators” (the dielectric) are the actual “conductors” and have the ability to ‘store’ electric energy within their physical form such as with the “capacitor.” Thus:
“We reverse this; the current in the wire is set up by the energy transmitted through the medium around it.” --Oliver Heaviside, 1850-1925
The "observation" is basically correct, but the conclusion is nonsense. That crap about "reflectors" and "waveguides" is particularly misleading.
Aye, it is. Not only do I not understand the ad hominem characterizations but also look at this:
That is peculiar. It negates the very same answers that it subsequently provides. Yes, perhaps you should consider the permeability and permittivity of the "vacuum." An obvious oxymoron as it is now named.mjv1121 wrote:The "observation" is basically correct, but the conclusion is nonsense. That crap about "reflectors" and "waveguides" is particularly misleading. By that logic a conductor would not work in a vacuum, although perhaps we should consider the permeability and permittivity of vacuum.
Gentleman, is it at all possible to act as such? Whatever happened to being cordial and respectful on the forum? It is fine to agree to disagree but the not so subtle mudslinging needs to stop.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
-
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm
Re: What is electricity?
oracle,
jarva~mundo is handling the nuts & bolts quite nicely, so going out on a limb may i ask you to comment por esos:
Does one field actually precede the other in the order of emergence ?
s
jarva~mundo is handling the nuts & bolts quite nicely, so going out on a limb may i ask you to comment por esos:
What is the difference between "counterparts" and "phenomenon" ?What is an electric field?
The field where is the balance between counterparts broken.
What is a magnetic field?
A phenomenon which is created by a moving imbalance in aether (if is it a charge carrier or a standing wave is in this case irrelevant).
Does one field actually precede the other in the order of emergence ?
Are you implying that one "field" in an imbalance, and the other an imbalance in motion ? Another order of light coherence (symmetry) ?Asymmetrical EM wave in aether (light is symmetrical wave
Could you map that as you please ?by nubian » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:19 pm
Electricity is motion. Its the effect of tension, resistance and strain, acting simultaneously in a polarized manner.
s
- Jarvamundo
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: What is electricity?
It aint easy, mainly cos you need to "undo" some parts of your schooling, and it needs to be studied. Study in the times of Heaviside and Faraday was defined by a great book "Improvement of the Mind", study was explicitly defined as meditation. Mr Faraday carried this book with him at all times.can accept that...thanks, but doubt that i will have the energy to read much of OLIVER HEAVISIDE's "ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY".
I am trying to get at the deeper physical meaning of the establishment of an electric current. This is your single-wire problem. HF vs DC vs AC can be rendered somewhat secondary to the mind, we can approach the same phenomenon with all those current types.Sparky wrote: Are you implying that understanding hf will help in understanding dc?
ie. What happens when the battery is connected. This is the question. Be it AC, DC, HF, Pulse. or better said... "How is the electric current established, what physically happens"
The skin effect demonstrates that "electricity" approaches the conductor from the dielectric. HF can conceptually serve as a "zoom" in on your problem. Or you can use DC pulses, (as ivor cat does on his digital circuits). Either way, the "electricity" approaches the metallic from the dielectric which (as heaviside says) >is the medium< that supports the di-electric and magnetic induction.
Heaviside was a prolific writer. It is his form of equations that we use for nearly all modern coms technology. He invented the Vector Operations. But he was more than that, he was a Natural Philosopher absolutely dogged on maintaining physical sense and developing the engineering language so it can be used in reality. The complete set.Sparky wrote:i'll try to read up on Heaviside's theories.....thanks
There is alot to read. But there is about 2-3 pages that will help you, which i have mentioned here. "Electro Magnetic Induction and it's propagation" find this. read this. Just that series of articles will change your view. Also the introductory chapters of his EM series are worth diving into, if you wish to see how the terms "permittivity" are defined and what they mean.
I understand the pain of "what i was taught", generally our schooling is dumbed down, and you are right we have equations "that work".... but the mess this thread has become, highlights the incomplete physical model, or Natural Philosophy of electricity that we are left with. The "particle" is an idea, it's what algorithms are assigned to, but there is no physical meaning attached to them.
I progressed through digital schooling where piped-trons where the physical reasoning provided initially, it is easy for an hominid to understand. I've found this to be an erroneous view, it is nothing but a clumsy physical attempt to explain, then provide you with equations "that work". Through references from members here (Solar/JL) i was encouraged to pursue the works of Eric Dollard, who then directs you to Maxwell-Heaviside from original source, where these very equations were derived.
Since accessing the original material, a wealth of physical reasoning is revealed. The Maxwellians combination of Heaviside and Fitzgerald will paint you a completely different view of electricity. One of physical consistency.
It IS alot of work. But why are we all here?
imo, i would've saved alot of time and cash if my schooling was from original source. Lesson learnt
-
- Posts: 3517
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm
Re: What is electricity?
Jarva-, thanks for the info and encouragement..
I found the book and did some reading...can't say i understood much....thanks
I found the book and did some reading...can't say i understood much....thanks
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
- Jarvamundo
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: What is electricity?
hah... I've studied a few chapters many times and there is plenty i still don't understand!
TB Forum has been the only civil place on the internet i've found to share these types of insights. Hopefully we can keep it that way so gems like Solar, JJ, web, sea and Bengt can share their ideas. Whether we take em onboard or not, we are the ones who benefit from the respectful exchange. It is a process. It's a quality that a moderator cannot facilitate, it's up to the participants, us.
Anyways... I've got a feeling Ivor Catt's NPA talk tomorrow will follow on this line of investigation, although i'm not confident with his interpretation of displacement current (transmission line side wave of capacitor, to the exclusion of maxwell's interpretation) i still want to hear and be challenged by his insights. These are valuable thorns for your subconscious to mull over and compare with your understandings.
The trend going around, for when these thorns are experienced, is for anger to be expressed as above with Solar... but hey lets reverse it
TB Forum has been the only civil place on the internet i've found to share these types of insights. Hopefully we can keep it that way so gems like Solar, JJ, web, sea and Bengt can share their ideas. Whether we take em onboard or not, we are the ones who benefit from the respectful exchange. It is a process. It's a quality that a moderator cannot facilitate, it's up to the participants, us.
Anyways... I've got a feeling Ivor Catt's NPA talk tomorrow will follow on this line of investigation, although i'm not confident with his interpretation of displacement current (transmission line side wave of capacitor, to the exclusion of maxwell's interpretation) i still want to hear and be challenged by his insights. These are valuable thorns for your subconscious to mull over and compare with your understandings.
The trend going around, for when these thorns are experienced, is for anger to be expressed as above with Solar... but hey lets reverse it
cheerioKahlil Gibran wrote:Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding
- Jarvamundo
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: What is electricity?
I'd also like to see these ideas expanded.seasmith wrote:oracle,
What is the difference between "counterparts" and "phenomenon" ?What is an electric field?
The field where is the balance between counterparts broken.
What is a magnetic field?
A phenomenon which is created by a moving imbalance in aether (if is it a charge carrier or a standing wave is in this case irrelevant).
Could you map that as you please ?
s
-
- Guest
Re: What is electricity?
Jarvamundo,
The E field and the B field are physical entities. These physical fields are only ever associated with matter (i.e. electrons, protons and atoms). So the EM field is generated by something the matter is doing. Clearly, if the fields are physical, which they must be, and if the fields are not made of electrons and protons, then they must consist of another type of physical material, another type of matter, which we may broadly refer to as aether. Therefore, we are reduced to two possibilities:
1) the fields are emitted by matter - emitted by the particles we refer to as charge carriers - electrons and protons are emitting aether particles which presents to us as EM fields.
2) the activity of the electrons and protons organises the aether (which in this case must be relatively static) to present to us as EM fields.
Clever Mr Clerk Maxwell, who so rigorously explored electric and magnetic behaviour, but in all those years of study never ever found any electromagnetic waves, decided to mathematically investigate this non-existent non-phenomena. The result was that electromagnetic waves would propagate at the same speed that had experimentally been established for light. Lo and behold, light must be an electromagnetic wave. That electromagnetic fields and light (photons) are both emitted by electrons would not seem to be of any consequence to anyone. The obvious conclusion that EM fields and light travel at the same speed, because they are made of the same physical particles and are both emitted by electrons is ignored. The truth is not required, because an explanation has already been printed. Would you also agree that cosmological redshift is a Doppler effect caused by the post big bang expansion of the universe, afterall, the truth is not required, because an explanation has already been printed.
Maxwell and Heaviside were good physicists working within and often beyond the knowledge of the time. Gauss, Weber and especially Ampere were also good physicists. Yet some of the conclusions of these scientists differ.
Michael
This is what I am interested in. The clue is in the name - physically - take away the "ally" and add an "s" = physics."How is the electric current established, what physically happens"
The E field and the B field are physical entities. These physical fields are only ever associated with matter (i.e. electrons, protons and atoms). So the EM field is generated by something the matter is doing. Clearly, if the fields are physical, which they must be, and if the fields are not made of electrons and protons, then they must consist of another type of physical material, another type of matter, which we may broadly refer to as aether. Therefore, we are reduced to two possibilities:
1) the fields are emitted by matter - emitted by the particles we refer to as charge carriers - electrons and protons are emitting aether particles which presents to us as EM fields.
2) the activity of the electrons and protons organises the aether (which in this case must be relatively static) to present to us as EM fields.
The implication here it that you think that light is an EM wave, as in electromagnetic radiation. That light has absolutely no electric or magnetic properties whatsoever has obviously not deterred you in this belief. Also since we know that electrons emit electric and magnetic fields, for an EM wave to propagate would require the movement of electrons.note to mjv: yes the vacuum also has this property, otherwise 'light' wouldn't 'work'
Clever Mr Clerk Maxwell, who so rigorously explored electric and magnetic behaviour, but in all those years of study never ever found any electromagnetic waves, decided to mathematically investigate this non-existent non-phenomena. The result was that electromagnetic waves would propagate at the same speed that had experimentally been established for light. Lo and behold, light must be an electromagnetic wave. That electromagnetic fields and light (photons) are both emitted by electrons would not seem to be of any consequence to anyone. The obvious conclusion that EM fields and light travel at the same speed, because they are made of the same physical particles and are both emitted by electrons is ignored. The truth is not required, because an explanation has already been printed. Would you also agree that cosmological redshift is a Doppler effect caused by the post big bang expansion of the universe, afterall, the truth is not required, because an explanation has already been printed.
Maxwell and Heaviside were good physicists working within and often beyond the knowledge of the time. Gauss, Weber and especially Ampere were also good physicists. Yet some of the conclusions of these scientists differ.
Have a think about it, but remember the most important word: physical."How is the electric current established, what physically happens"
Michael
- Oracle_911
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:06 am
Re: What is electricity?
2 Seasmith i posted a link about the chiral theory of aether, somewhere it is mentioned-part about electrons, photoelectric phenomenon and temperature/heat.
Read it.
Read it.
Standpoint of "scientists": If reality doesn`t match with my theory, than reality has a problem.
Sorry for bad English and aggressive tone, i`m not native speaker.
PS: I`m a chemist.
Sorry for bad English and aggressive tone, i`m not native speaker.
PS: I`m a chemist.
-
- Guest
Re: What is electricity?
mjv: Yes the idea that light is a form of E/M has always bothered me. E/M may be emitted in the same process that causes light, but that does not make the two the same. as you said:
As for the Doppler affect if light was truly constant there would be no red or blue shift of the light itself, just observer moving into or away from the wave crests, which would mean light would not shift if the source approached you and not you the source.
to which I wholeheartedly agree, or the movement of some particle emitting this E/M. As far as I know all electrical and magnetic fields have a limit or effective radius from the emitting particle. E/M waves may propagate over larger distances, but in the end they also weaken or disperse.Also since we know that electrons emit electric and magnetic fields, for an EM wave to propagate would require the movement of electrons.
As for the Doppler affect if light was truly constant there would be no red or blue shift of the light itself, just observer moving into or away from the wave crests, which would mean light would not shift if the source approached you and not you the source.
-
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm
Re: What is electricity?
2 Oracle i did read it (the translation). Further clarification would be appreciated.2 Seasmith i posted a link about the chiral theory of aether, somewhere it is mentioned-part about electrons, photoelectric phenomenon and temperature/heat.
Read it.
Specifically to the questions posted above, not chirality, which is obvious.
s
-
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm
Re: What is electricity?
by sjw40364 » Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:12 pm
mjv: Yes the idea that light is a form of E/M has always bothered me. E/M may be emitted in the same process that causes light, but that does not make the two the same.
Electricity does not equal light, per se. Viewed holistically, electricity (both EM and ES) may be imaged as Transitional phases among the existal states of light, gravity and matter; with the geometries of space (spin-helicity in 4d topologies) ie: aetheric tenegrity, as the modulating parallel circuitry.
In that french KISSmith scenario, as mentioned previously, charge (of unspecified origin) could be viewed as the quintessential common denominator.
Perhaps that is too simple...
borrowed from blazelabs
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests