## Observational Notes on Magnetic & Dielectric Experiments

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

### Re: Observational Notes on Magnetic & Dielectric Experiments

BecomingTesla wrote:
I agree. A great example of that behavior are their lab experiments with "magnetic reconnection". There aren't any experiments that systematically rule out induction as the real transfer mechanism between the magnetic field and particle acceleration. They all start with current and Alfven's double layer paper makes MRx redundant and irrelevant in all current carrying environments.

I don't understand the mathematics, or have enough (in fact, any lol) experience working with plasma and discharge phenomena, to be able to critique magnetic reconnection intelligently, so I won't do it until I can.

At the rate you're going, you'll get there soon enough. Going the experimental route first is great. Eventually you'll want to understand the mathematical relationship between magnetic fields and electric fields, but I think it's better to understand the physics first, particularly after my discussions about MRx around the internet. It's easy to get confused by math, and to confuse math with physical reality. Mathematics is a way to "model" the physical universe, but it's not necessarily the same as physical reality itself. For instance we have QM mathematical concepts of gravity, Newton's formulas to model gravity, and Einstein's mathematical models and concepts too. They can't all be correct in terms of the math or the physics, but they could all be wrong on some level. At the most fundamental level, each of them describes gravity somewhat differently. QM and Newton's models of gravity treat gravity as a force, and in the case of QM they have "carrier particles" to transfer energy. GR treats gravity as geometric feature, like hills and valleys, or more like "flat plains" and valleys. It treats gravity more like a geometry rather than a force.

I know magnetic reconnection depends on the concept of frozen-in magnetic field lines, and I understand that Alfven and others have critiqued the concept pretty heavily in its application mathematically in astrophysics.

Ya, he used the "frozen-in" concept for awhile to get certain points across, but eventually people took the concept way too literally. It's really a meaningless term in current carrying plasma however. Current generates magnetic fields and the magnetic "lines" they're describing are actually current carrying filaments, scaled up versions of something you'd see inside of an ordinary plasma ball. As you can see from the plasma ball, the magnetic fields around the filaments, and their location and properties are directly related to the current flow. Nothing is actually "frozen-in".

Alfven consistently and intentionally used circuit theory and double layers rather than MHD theory to describe all high energy events in plasma in space. His circuit model *includes* all the energy contained in the whole circuit (or multiple circuits), whereas MHD models often leave out that circuit energy at their own peril.

https://www.space.com/scientists-measur ... flare.html
https://www.quantamagazine.org/gamma-ra ... -20190501/

That's exactly why the mainstream solar model has failed two critical observational "tests' in just the past couple of months.

So at the very least, I try to maintain a healthy skepticism about it's use in cosmology until I can understand the math and I do have practical experience with discharge phenomena. That seems reasonable to me.

That's a good approach IMO. I did the same thing for a long time. Mathematically speaking, a magnetic field orientation to certain types of events has advantages with respect to understanding the motion of individual (and collective) particles. Energetically speaking the circuit theory approach is superior in terms of accounting for all available energy in the system.

As you get into the math, you'll quickly learn that Maxwell's equations solve for both E and B, but there are underlying physical processes that are happening at the level of physical reality that simply can't be ignored. For instance, in a current carrying environment you can solve the formulas for B (magnetism), but it's still an electric field that's doing the real work in terms of producing the bulk of the particle kinetic energy.

What I did really appreciate in reading Lui's paper was their perspective that MRx and circuit theory are two filters that can be applied to try and understand what's happening when we observe phenomena in space.

Both magnetism and electricity play a role in what happens in space to be sure, but astronomers typically try to "dumb it down" to a magnetic field orientation alone, and ignore the role of the electric fields in space, which is why they often miss the mark by whole orders of magnitude as with the case of solar gamma radiation.

I don't understand the resistance to viewing things that way:

Nor do I as long as you understand the physical processes at work.

without being able to send instruments into the area to take measurements of the conditions in the field, there's an extremely limited amount of information that we can use to construct models for phenomena. The recent discovery that the amount of gamma rays radiating from the sun is actually higher than predicted by a factor of 7-20% comes to mind - we just don't know thru optical/radio telescopes alone, it's not enough. So maybe the conditions of the plasma fit the (very narrow) parameters that can make the frozen-in concept applicable, but maybe they're not. So apply both filters: MRx allows you to explore the deductive potential of the phenomena by using the mathematics, and circuit theory allows you to explore the phenomena inductively by approximating it in lab conditions.

They're both useful.

You're absolutely right that they are both useful approaches in various scenarios, but in term of approximation, a magnetic field approach in a current carrying environment tends to lead to erroneous approximations, as with the case of solar gamma rays.

I don't understand the mainstream's resistance to embracing the circuit concept in plasma, but they resist it with an irrational passion, even when it makes no sense to do so.

MRx is "usually" (but not always) defined by most people as process that occurs in plasma where magnetic field topology changes result in charged particle acceleration. It's defined a lot like induction, and for very good reason.

Yes, magnetic field energy can be converted into particle acceleration, but that doesn't begin to tell the whole story in current carrying environments.
Michael Mozina

Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

### Re: Observational Notes on Magnetic & Dielectric Experiments

05.15.2019 - Experimental Observations on Dielectricity

[75] Picking up again today with Ch.5 of (S.2). I'm currently at the section on the triboelectric series, but for now I'm going to skip this to test out a new dielectric pendulum setup in the next section, called "are attraction and repulsion equally frequent?"

[76] For this experiment (5.20), I setup two dielectric pendulums, only instead of the typical pith ball wrapped in aluminum configuration (which hasn't been working, and I still can't figure out what I'm doing wrong regarding the ACR mechanism), I suspended two plastic straws off of silk threads. This setup has been very successful so far in demonstrating positive and negative dielectric charge in my last demos with the plastic versoria.

[77] I rubbed the first dielectric pendulum straw (DP1) x100 strokes with the wool cloth (negatively charged), and rubbed the second pendulum (DP2) with x100 strokes of the silk cloth (positively charged). I then grabbed my ebonite friction rod, and rubbed it with the wool cloth until well charged, which I tested against a neutral metal versorium.

[78] Well this is interesting...at first, I found that DP1 reacted strongly against the friction rod - very clear repulsion, but that x100 strokes of the silk cloth wasn't really enough to give DP2 a proper charge; it reacted weakly against the charged ebonite rod, and I couldn't note attraction or repulsion. I took the straw down off the pendulum support, and did many more strokes with the silk cloth until I got a positive result for charge against the metal versorium, after which I re-placed the straw on the pendulum. But when I brought the ebonite rod back to DP2, I found that it wasn't attracted to the rod - it was repelled. This is a contradiction to the results I had in [63] and [68], where I got a very clear attraction.

[79] Time to reset: I wrapped my hand around the straw of DP2 to discharge it, and tested it against the versorium - no charge. I again rubbed the straw with the silk cloth until charged against a neutral versorium, and brought the straw again to DP1 - repulsion again. I don't understand, in [63] and [68], rubbing the plastic straw against the silk was producing positive dielectricity, and a distinct attraction. Now, both the wool and the silk are producing negative dielectric charges, and a very clear repulsion. What is going on?

[80] I discharged both straws of the pendulums and the mobile of the versorium again by wrapping them in my hand. A complete reset. I took one of the straws and tested against the versorium - no effect. I rubbed this straw with the silk again until charged against the neutral versorium, then suspended it again (now as DP1). I rubbed the ebonite rod with wool until charged against the versorium, and then brought it to DP1 - again, repulsion. I rubbed the free plastic straw with wool until charged, and then brought it to DP1 - again, repulsion.

[81] How does this make sense? It conflicts with two previous experiments - plastic rubbed with silk should produce positive charge. For the sake of clarity, I rubbed the glass friction rod with the silk cloth until charged against the versorium, and then brought it to DP1 - attraction, very clear attraction. The glass is positively charged, and the plastic is definitely negative.

[82] I think the answer is clear: in [63], I tested the plastic mobile (rubbed with wool) against the ebonite and glass friction rods, as I just re-did in [80] and produced clear results for positive and negative charge (same as I just demonstrated). In [67], while I setup two plastic versoriums (rubbed with wool and silk, respectively), here is the mistake - I never tested the mobile rubbed with silk against a metal, neutral versorium. Silk is easily the weakest material for producing charge via friction of any that I've tested, and my guess is that rather than demonstrating attraction because it was positively charged, it demonstrated attraction because it was neutral!

[83] Ironically enough, if I look at the triboelectric series in (S.2), it says very clearly that plastic rubbed with acrylic (wool) or with silk will become negatively charged, and this is exactly the result I just produced. So even though I tried to skip it, turns out, this was still a round of triboelectric experiments!

+
silk | acrylic
plastic
-

[84] Above would be the beginnings of our triboelectric series, with silk and acrylic on the same level since we haven't tested one against the other to see which receives which charge. While I'm happy that I've learned more about the TB series, and that I figured out what was producing these very bizarre results, I'm disappointed that again I have no clear setup for dielectric pendulums...(S.2) says within its triboelectric series that paper, when rubbed with silk/cotton, will become negatively charged, but when rubbed with acrylic will become positively charged. This is going to have to be my next experiment. I need find a setup that works.
BecomingTesla

Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am

Previous