What is electricity?

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
Oracle_911
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:06 am

Re: What is electricity?

Unread post by Oracle_911 » Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:14 am

2 seasmith

OK, so electrons (and positrons) occurs only under special conditions like in vacuum tubes (when they are on) or beta particles like asymmetrical EM radiation, in plasma like free negative charge carriers. In other words they naturally didn't exists, for they occurrence requires special conditions.

Counterparts- well we have 2 parts in chiral aether, so we have few options for wave guiding
- part A- like positron and similar parts- asymmetrical EM waves
- part B- like electrons and similar parts- asymmetrical EM waves
- both parts- light, radio waves etc.
- combinations of previous 3 options
(I just noticed it resembles with I-Ching- ancient Chinese art-which resembles with quantum states- what is the real age/origin/purpose of the I-Ching?)
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.

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: What is electricity?

Unread post by seasmith » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:55 pm

~
" ... counting that which is going into the past depends on forward movement. Knowing that which is to come depends on backward movement.
This is why the the I-Ching has backward moving numbers."
-ancient commentary from the King Wen period

User avatar
Jarvamundo
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: What is electricity?

Unread post by Jarvamundo » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:53 pm

mjv1121 wrote:Jarvamundo,
"How is the electric current established, what physically happens"
This is what I am interested in. The clue is in the name - physically - take away the "ally" and add an "s" = physics.

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.
This is your assumption
mjv1121 wrote: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.
It seems reasonable to follow that the electrical properties of that which supports the electric-induction we may call an aether. Per Heaviside and basically everyone else at the time.
mjv1121 wrote: 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.
3) the aether supports the fields of induction, that which you refer to as matter are simple carcasses being dragged around as these fields decay. This is found to be true on the experimental level. Electrical Engineering (working stuff) is based on this view. Additionally emitting "trons" cannot resolve longitudinal electric waves.
mjv1121 wrote:
jarvamundo wrote:note to mjv: yes the vacuum also has this property, otherwise 'light' wouldn't 'work'
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.
Again your assumption or 'logic stuffing' is ill placed. The property i referred to is dielectric inductivity, yes this is involved in the phenomena of light. Yes EM waves and light do have a relationship on an experimental level. This is what Faraday worked on towards the end of his career, and extends to radio waves and how we measure magnetic fields... of-course amongst other E&M&light phenomena explored at undergrad level.
mjv1121 wrote:"That light has absolutely no electric or magnetic properties whatsoever has obviously not deterred you in this belief."]
As mentioned before with Solar, don't setup or project these clumsy assumptions.
mjv1121 wrote: Also since we know that electrons emit electric and magnetic fields
where do the emitables come from.
mjv1121 wrote: , for an EM wave to propagate would require the movement of electrons.
again you are on your own here. What happened to asking Solar about properties of the Vacuum?
mjv1121 wrote: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.
Firstly the theory is 'metric expansion', no i do not feel the experimental level conclusively supports this view; Arps work & toleman testing amongst others. But this is irrelevant and distracting to a clear view of your theory.
mjv1121 wrote: 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.
So? Where? Relevance?

I acknowledge your view of the emitting "electron" theory, it just fails on the experimental level, it seems you are on a quest to redefine much of our electrical engineering.

All the best in your pursuits. Agree to disagree moment.

User avatar
Jarvamundo
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: What is electricity?

Unread post by Jarvamundo » Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:10 am

For those interested.... very relevant to this discussion.

Ivor Catt
https://www.fuzemeeting.com/replay_meet ... 73/2226085

"Heavisides most important statement was 'we reverse this'"

well worth a watch, some great animations from forest.

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: What is electricity?

Unread post by seasmith » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:30 am

Jarva,

If you tuned in early you know that Catt just got out of the hospital in the morning, so he may have been still a bit O2 deprived and seemed to drop the thread a little, just at the end when they showed the animation of the TEM reversing at the 'short' at end of transmission line/capacitor circuit.
I would be interested to hear your breakdown of what all you reckon is happening at that instant.
[In layman's terms please, i partied through my one university electronics course]

Thanks,
s

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: What is electricity?

Unread post by webolife » Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:00 am

Whoa... listened to the whole Catt presentation, which I must say was rather painful...
Should have given the Catt World speech about time, c, and energy at the beginning so we could better understand his frame of reference. The field of study was so narrow as to hinder the possibility of application to a unified field view in my opinion. His view of the DC capacitor circuit seems to indicate that he feels the energy flow is AC at a velocity of c. Am I misunderstanding that? I am sorry he was unable to answer the entanglement question, which I think was an appropriate corollary to his circuit field model which seemed to suggest instantaneous resonance happening across the two wire setup from the battery. I am unsure what he was trying to say about action at a distance in the Q/A section. I do appreciate his questioning of the electromagnetic flux model, but feel that most of the things he presented were incomplete and incoherent to me. Perhaps his recent hospitalization contributed to that, or maybe after listening to the entire speech, in which he repeated himself many times, I just don't get it...
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

sjw40364
Guest

Re: What is electricity?

Unread post by sjw40364 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:32 am

Very rarely does one find people able to present ideas as coherently in speech as they do on paper. He has a few interesting papers on the web, I'll see if I can find the links again.

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: What is electricity?

Unread post by Goldminer » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:01 pm

sjw40364 wrote:Very rarely does one find people able to present ideas as coherently in speech as they do on paper. He has a few interesting papers on the web, I'll see if I can find the links again.
So did I listen, and watch. Reminded me of one of the problems with Edison's commercial DC power system. When the switch was engaged under load, an enormous blue light traveled at an observable speed from the generating station to the load. Anyone engulfed in the light was killed. I can't find the link right now.

This link about homo polar motors brings up additional discussion.

.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: What is electricity?

Unread post by seasmith » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:34 pm

Reminded me of one of the problems with Edison's commercial DC power system. When the switch was engaged under load, an enormous blue light traveled at an observable speed from the generating station to the load. Anyone engulfed in the light was killed. I can't find the link right now.
Was it on utube ?

.

User avatar
Jarvamundo
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: What is electricity?

Unread post by Jarvamundo » Sun Dec 04, 2011 5:50 pm

seasmith wrote:Jarva,

If you tuned in early you know that Catt just got out of the hospital in the morning, so he may have been still a bit O2 deprived and seemed to drop the thread a little, just at the end when they showed the animation of the TEM reversing at the 'short' at end of transmission line/capacitor circuit.
I would be interested to hear your breakdown of what all you reckon is happening at that instant.
[In layman's terms please, i partied through my one university electronics course]

Thanks,
s
Yeah this part of the animation was a bit misleading. The capacitor is/should be an open-circuit transmission line. Ivor briefly mentioned this, but yes it can be difficult to pickup from a lecture like that, he only mentioned in passing.

With an open ended transmission line the wave meets a change in the medium, and partially (mostly) reflects. Or another view, as the energy piles up, it has no where to go, so goes back down where it came. That is, more energy arrives, the stress is doubled, the path of least resistance is back down the guiding rails. 1v arrives, loads up to 2v, the best place to go is back down the incoming 1v stress path, and so on. (i hope this isn't too simple)

So in Ivor's model of the capacitor, the forest animation needs to be slightly altered and changed to 'open circuit' termination, in his animation it was the H field that is maximized at the moment of reflection as the wave turns upside-down due to the closed circuit condition, with an open transmission line it is the E-field that is 'doubled' as the wave energy continues to arrive.

So in Catt's model, the arriving energy continue to pile up on each other and double. This summing will 'peter' out as conduction losses of the dielectric waste the energy, and resistive losses of the guiding conductors. Then the capacitor will be 'fully charged'.

I'm still a bit uncomfortable with some parts of the transmission line model of the capacitor, but he does have interesting experiments... use a piece of coax as your capacitor, and look for those 'steps' as the piece of coax charges up.

IMO it was the review of Heaviside contribution, and particularly the establishment of energy in the dielectric with "dragging" decay losses in the conductor which is of importance to this TB discussion. This is how it happens in reality. Charge and current are secondary mathematical entities, to the primary agent, the energy in the dielectric. In my view this is getting us closer to what electricity is.

In my view this philosophically works, we are moving away from heavy electrons and moving to something finer as the primary agent. An analogy might be, realists don't opt for blunt crayons.

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: What is electricity?

Unread post by seasmith » Sun Dec 04, 2011 6:17 pm

Charge and current are secondary mathematical entities, to the primary agent, the energy in the dielectric. In my view this is getting us closer to what electricity is.
jarvamundo

Yes, at least to what is directed, or guided electricity.
Was just reading through the I.Catt book pages linked on Bishop's website:
http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/EMTV2/EMTVolumeII.htm

I can see why the industry capitalists considered him a digital wizard and gave him laboratories to play in.
Now i need the whole books !

Just one example:
plate B removed, YEM unaffected=
http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/EMTV2/EMTvol2p228-9.jpg

or another:
inductor delay-
http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/EMTV2/EMTvol2p224-5.jpg

[webovivre, wouldn't be too hasty in dismissing a concentric view ]

~

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: What is electricity?

Unread post by Goldminer » Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:31 pm

seasmith wrote:
Goldminer wrote: Reminded me of one of the problems with Edison's commercial DC power system. When the switch was engaged under load, an enormous blue light traveled at an observable speed from the generating station to the load. Anyone engulfed in the light was killed. I can't find the link right now.
Was it on utube ?.
Ah, Here it is! About a third way down the page:
The blue spike phenomena wrote: Before Tesla's invention of the Polyphase AC generator became the industry standard and overtook Thomas Edison's use of DC generators, the DC electrical system was the only system available to deliver electricity to America's homes and factories. Due to the resistance offered by long transmission lines, Edison had to produce very high DC voltages from his generators in order to deliver enough voltage and current to its final destination. He also had to provide additional 'pumping' stations along the way to boost the sagging voltage which dwindled from line losses. A curious anomaly occurred in the very first instant of throwing the power switch at the generating station: Purple/blue colored spikes radiated in all directions along the axis of the power lines for just a moment. In addition, a stinging, ray-like shocking sensation was felt by those who stood near the transmission lines. In some cases, when very large DC voltages surged from the generators, the "stinging" sensation was so great that occasionally a blue spike jumped from the line and grounded itself through a workman, killing him in the process.

Tesla realized almost immediately that electrons were not responsible for such a phenomena because The blue spike phenomena ceased as soon as the current stated flowing in the lines. Something else was happening just before the electrons had a chance to move along the wire. At the time, no one seemed to be very interested in discovering why these dramatic elevations in static electrical potential were taking place, but rather, engineering design efforts were focused on eliminating and quenching this strange anomaly which was considered by everyone to be a nuisance-except Tesla. Tesla viewed it as a powerful, yet unknown form of energy which needed to be understood and harnessed if possible. The phenomena only exhibited itself in the first moment of switch closure, before the electrons could begin moving. There seemed to be a "bunching" or "choking" effect at play, but only briefly. Once the electrons began their movement within the wire, all would return to normal. What was this strange energy that was trying to liberate itself so forcefully at the moment of switch closure?
This article is mostly speculation, but I am confident the phenomenon does take place. I have read about it elsewhere.

.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

Chromium6
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: What is electricity?

Unread post by Chromium6 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:26 pm

Just thought this could be thrown in as well...

---------
Observations on the Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

Note that this runaway system is not creating any energy, and thereby violating the First Law. The energy budget of a supercell is unmistakably thermodynamic, and any electromagnetic forces present have to be conversions from thermal potential, or the energy budget isn't going to work out. But the proposal here is not that the total amount of available energy in the system is being altered. What's being altered is the rate at which work is being performed. And there is no fixed law there, except that all of the factors have to be taken into account, and if the circumstances favor the acceleration of the prime mover, the whole system will run faster, until all of the energy has been expended. And we definitely know that something is altering the rate at which work is being performed. We just can't get there with thermodynamics alone.

To look at it another way, it's the same amount of energy, but the organized toroidal form is consolidating all of the energy released in a small convective complex into one single updraft. So we could have random 30 m/s updrafts in a cluster of thunderstorms covering 10 km2, or we could have one steady 80 m/s updraft, 2 km wide, in a supercell — same energy either way. With thermodynamics alone, we just don't have the organizing principle that will affect this transformation. But with a little bit of encouragement from electromagnetism, the rough thermodynamic form resolves into an organized structure. The consolidation of energy and the reduction in turbulence then results in faster speeds, and this further encourages the form.

So where is the mathematical support for such contentions? Typically this would be a very reasonable question, but consider the complexity of the problem. Reliable estimates of Reynolds numbers are derived experimentally, not theoretically. Not being able to reproduce a supercell in a laboratory (mainly because of the scale-dependent pressure gradient in the atmosphere), we'd have to attempt a computer simulation with the turbulence threshold determined heuristically. The aerodynamic forces would have to be calculated separately for the negative inner core and for the positive double-layer, using guesswork to flesh out incomplete charge density datasets, and then the fluid dynamic interplay between the two layers would have to be estimated. Getting the electric force just strong enough to influence the flow, without overpowering it, would take a lot of trial and error, as near-infinitesimal amounts of extremely powerful forces are always tough to estimate. And after guessing at everything, what will an exact solution prove? It will prove merely that this might be correct. But we already knew that.

We would prefer simulations in which we could expect more stable behaviors, and that would mean working with moderate forces. But if the factors that produced supercells were within normal ranges, supercells would be the norm, not the 1 in 1,000 case. So we cannot rule out unexpected behaviors from forces well outside their normal ranges — we must rule in only those constructs that operate at such extremities — even if simulating them would be extremely difficult.

It's clear to all of those who understand the problem that numeric proof is beyond the reach of current technology. So there is little that can be done. But we can still do more than we are doing now. At the very least, we can begin constraining ourselves to what is physically possible, which the present proposal appears to be. The existing constructs do not meet this criterion, and the increase in rigor would mean that we're making progress. And we can make comprehensiveness a hard constraint. Tornadic supercells have many distinctive properties. No previous proposal has directly addressed the great diversity of phenomena in the problem domain. If we are now considering a possibility that passes a comprehensive range of tests, there will be far fewer reasons to think that we don't know what we're doing.

Therefore, the reinforced toroidal form, with a negative inner core and a positive double-layer, is proposed to be the organizing principle that initiates the transition from a normal thunderstorm to a supercell. The section entitled "Toroids to Mesocyclones" will describe the metamorphosis from a toroidal to a mesocyclonic flow, from which the tornado will ultimately descend.

It cannot be overstated that this is neither an electromagnetic nor a thermodynamic construct. It is a thorough integration of electromagnetic and thermodynamic factors in a unified framework, producing behaviors not possible within either regime all by itself. So it's not an unusually robust open-air thermal system, and it's not a low-energy plasmoid in a high-friction environment. It's thermal fluxes generating charge separations that then modulate the thermal fluxes. To understand these systems, we have to see electromagnetism and thermodynamics as fully intertwined sets of principles.

The study of coupled electromagnetic and thermodynamic forces is a young discipline. Here is a quote from a recent work that describes the types of problems that are being tackled with such interdisciplinary methods.68
Electro-Magneto-Hydro-Dynamics (EMHD) addresses all phenomena related to the interaction of electric and magnetic fields with electrically conducting or magnetic fluids. Electric and magnetic flow control, for example, is a challenging area of mathematical and engineering research with many applications such as the reduction of drag, flow stabilization to delay transition to turbulence, tailored stirring of liquids, pumping using traveling EM waves, and many others. The application of electric and magnetic fields in diverse branches of materials science such as crystal growth, induction melting, solidification, metal casting, welding, fabrication of nanofibres, fabrication of specialty composites and functionally graded materials, or ferrofluids is recently of growing interest. Fully coupled EMHD systems, that is, in situations where the flow-field is influenced by the electric and magnetic fields and where these fields are in turn influenced by the flow-field, are challenging research subjects with applications in geo- and astrophysics (dynamo, magneto-rotational-instability, etc.). Numerical simulations of many important processes (the growth of single crystals, metal casting for aerospace applications, aluminum electrolysis, etc.) require sophisticated tools for coupled fluid flow ~ heat/mass transfer ~ electromagnetic fields. In summary, computational EMHD is a vital subject of recent research with a long list of interdisciplinary applications and scientific problems.
The present work studies tornadic supercells as charged gases, where the gases also contain charged liquid and solid particles. The gases obey fluid dynamic laws, though the viscosity is modulated if the gases are charged. Electric fields also exert forces on charged particles, which then exert aerodynamic forces on the gases. The larger particles are also subject to gravitational and inertial forces. Heat sources and sinks alter the density of the gases, which in the presence of gravity results in fluid motion. Such a crossroads of all other disciplines puts this work squarely within the domain EMHD. This paper will then use "EMHD" to refer to this particular interaction of forces, and the framework that emerges, when clarity requires that the regime in question be identified. At some later date, some sort of term might be coined for this particular EMHD construct, if anyone else begins actively developing a different treatment of the topic using EMHD principles. In the meantime, please consider it to be expediency and disdain for arbitrary coinages, not presumptuousness, that are the reasons for calling this the EMHD construct.
http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/ ... n.php#id_8
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: What is electricity?

Unread post by seasmith » Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:48 pm

Chromium6 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:26 pm

Just thought this could be thrown in as well...
Chromium6,
Were you looking for Electric Clouds-Electric Universe-Planetary Science ?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... &start=315

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: What is electricity?

Unread post by webolife » Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:43 am

Seasmith,
I wasn't dismissing Catt, actually rather liked him at first, I am generally in agreement with his statements about charge and current, just not getting several of the things he said, and listening to the entire message didn't help.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests