Energy Current In Electric Conductors.

[Chan Rasjid]

Dear scientists,

I have just completed a paper:
"Energy Current And Photoelectricity Theory"

Abstract:
"This paper continues with the development of the author's aether Simple Unified Theory (SUT) and the wave-pulse theory of light. The theory may be called photoelectricity, a replacement for electromagnetism based on Maxwell's equations. In contemporary electromagnetism, energy transmission in current carrying conductors is explained based on the Poynting theory; that it is the surrounding magnetic fields of the conductor which is responsible for energy transmission. This paper argues that such an explanation is not convincing. It is hypothesized that the actual mechanism of energy transmission is through apulses(aether wave pulses, almost photon-like), being absorbed and remitted within the conductors. This is the basis of the novel concept of the energy current in electrical circuit. This paper also touches on various related aspects of physics including the Ampere's force law. An integration method for Ampere's forces is explained. Various experiments involving the Ampere's longitudinal forces have been re-examined. Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction for the AC alternators is explained as aether apulses being emitted within the magnets that jump the air gap entering into the armature winding of the alternator; this is the energy current source for the conversion from mechanical to electrical energy in AC alternators."

"Energy Current And Photoelectricity Theory"
"Integration Of Ampere Force And Tripled Railgun"
http://www.emc2fails.com


Best regards,
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.

[crawler]

I have quickly read your paper re energy current (electricity along a conductor) being due to apulse, an aetheric wave effect.
I agree that the Poynting Vector & Poynting Field explanation for electricity is krapp.
I don’t agree that aether has mass.
I dont agree with your photons -- today i believe that photons have mass but zero momentum (& non-zero energy).
I don’t agree that the emission or absorption of photons has a reaction force.
I agree that electricity is a photo effect. It is due to my electons. See below.
If u wish to discuss where the 2 theories agree & disagree i can start a new thread, to not derail your thread.

https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3 ... 6177#p6177

Ok, i have solved electricity.
Electricity is the flow of photons along the outside of a wire.
The photons hug the wire, because (1) Shapiro Delay slows their near side (near side to the copper), & (2) because there is drag from free-ish (conduction) electrons in the copper (slowing the photon's nearside).
I call this semi-confined form of a photon an electon.
Electons, hugging the wire, are therefore slowed by the insulation on the wire -- which might be a very thin layer of enamel.

So, electric energy is carried in the space around the wires (ie in the radiation from the electons).
Plus electric energy is carried in the electons.
And zero electric energy is carried by electrons in a wire.
So, Veritasium & Co are half correct.
But i suspect that they (Veritasium & Co) still reckon that electrons in wires play very important parts in the electricity story -- no, electrons in the wires might heat the wires, & contribute to the resistance (Ohms), but thats all.

[Chan Rasjid]

@crawler,

I think there are many "theories" about almost every aspect of physics. It's the same about how energy is transferred by current carrying conductors - many theories and many not posted here.

At the end of the day, the correct theories are the ones from the top universities like Princeton, MIT, Cambridge,...

Chan Rasjid.

[crawler]

@crawler,
I think there are many "theories" about almost every aspect of physics. It's the same about how energy is transferred by current carrying conductors - many theories and many not posted here.
At the end of the day, the correct theories are the ones from the top universities like Princeton, MIT, Cambridge,...
Chan Rasjid.

In my above comment i included my comments on this board re the Veritasium saga(s). And as u can see i introduced my electons, a photonic form of electricity, like your apulses – but no-one here was very interested in anything to do with Veritasium nor my electon electricity -- & your theory will be ignored likewise – even tho the whole board is all about EU.

This is partly understandable, your apulse electricity & my electon electricity are about electricity along a wire, which has almost zero to do with EU.

I see that u mention energy current rather than mentioning electricity. However, u do use the word electricity at least once.
This tells me that u have read much of Ivor Catt's stuff, & Forrest Bishop's stuff, & praps Heaviside's stuff. Have u?.

[BeAChooser]

Electricity is the flow of photons along the outside of a wire.

Couldn't this be tested by designing an experiment that somehow precludes photons "hugging" the wire?

[Chan Rasjid]

Electricity is the flow of photons along the outside of a wire.

Couldn't this be tested by designing an experiment that somehow precludes photons "hugging" the wire?

If we take photons to be radiation, then it is true there are photons but emitted as heat radiation loss to space, not energy transferred for use downstream.

[crawler]

Electricity is the flow of photons along the outside of a wire.

Couldn't this be tested by designing an experiment that somehow precludes photons "hugging" the wire?

No u cant stop electons from hugging a wire.
However i am told that a long thin straight tight wire to a transmitter fails to carry the electricity if the wire is rough or bent -- the electons escape (jump off).

There is one experiment that can support my electons (& at the same time disprove apulse energy current)(but it cant support apulse ec).
This X involves a comparison of the speed of electricity along a threaded bar compared to a plain bar.
The speed along a threaded bar will be in effect slower due to the extra distance up & down over the threads.
But i havent got a scope. But i bet that Mr Chew has a good fast scope.

[crawler]

My electon electricity immediately explains why the speed of electricity is the same as the speed of light in the insulation on the wire.

Whereas apulse ec fails to explain.
Similarly electron electricity fails.

[BeAChooser]

Electricity is the flow of photons along the outside of a wire.

Couldn't this be tested by designing an experiment that somehow precludes photons "hugging" the wire?

No u cant stop electons from hugging a wire.

But what about photons? Did you mean to say that electricity is the flow of electrons along the outside of a wire?

[crawler]

Electricity is the flow of photons along the outside of a wire.

Couldn't this be tested by designing an experiment that somehow precludes photons "hugging" the wire?

No u cant stop electons from hugging a wire.

But what about photons? Did you mean to say that electricity is the flow of electrons along the outside of a wire?

No -- read my post -- an electon is a photon hugging the wire.

However, i have not said that electron drift is impossible -- only that it is a minor player.
And i have not said that electron flow along the outside of a wire is impossible -- a minor effect mostly.
And i have not said that there is zero energy in the field(s) outside the wire -- a minor effect.
Likewise apulse energy current might exist, in a minor way.

[jackokie]

Kudos to @BeAChooser for proposing experiments to test @Crawler's and @Chan Rasjid's theories. In response to @jacmac's and @demosophist's comments from another topic re lack of responses, my own position is that, like references to Charles Chandler's and Miles Mathis' theories, I see no use personally to sitting around discussing things that lack proof; these discussions can be nuanced and sophisticated but in the end they are the equivalent of a sophomore dorm bull session. Let us somehow scare up the wherewithal to get some experiments done and then we'll have a better grasp of what's happening.

"There are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess." ~ Richard P. Feynman

@Chan Rasjid said:

At the end of the day, the correct theories are the ones from the top universities like Princeton, MIT, Cambridge,...

Like the Big Bang theory, right?

"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, is it reasonable?" ~ Richard P. Feynman

[crawler]

Kudos to @BeAChooser for proposing experiments to test @Crawler's and @Chan Rasjid's theories. In response to @jacmac's and @demosophist's comments from another topic re lack of responses, my own position is that, like references to Charles Chandler's and Miles Mathis' theories, I see no use personally to sitting around discussing things that lack proof; these discussions can be nuanced and sophisticated but in the end they are the equivalent of a sophomore dorm bull session. Let us somehow scare up the wherewithal to get some experiments done and then we'll have a better grasp of what's happening.

"There are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess." ~ Richard P. Feynman

@Chan Rasjid said:

At the end of the day, the correct theories are the ones from the top universities like Princeton, MIT, Cambridge,...

Like the Big Bang theory, right?

"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, is it reasonable?" ~ Richard P. Feynman

Have u got access to a good scope?

[jackokie]

No. What would a good scope cost?

Would a reasonably well-equipped community college or tech school have one?
Perhaps we could crowd-fund a scope. I'll put up $100 with the proviso that we collaborate on the project - leaving you and @Chan Rasjid to start the experiment design (I liked the way Safire proceeded). Let's not back into this if we're going to do it - let's get organized and understand the issues and questions of the project first.

[Chan Rasjid]

No. What would a good scope cost?

Would a reasonably well-equipped community college or tech school have one? Perhaps we could crowd-fund a scope. I'll put up $100 with the proviso that we collaborate on the project - leaving you and @Chan Rasjid to start the experiment design (I liked the way Safire proceeded). Let's not back into this if we're going to do it - let's get organized and understand the issues and questions of the project first.

I post my new energy current theory here just as a normal public announcement; no one should expect much discussion making a new theory going "viral" - reaching the halls of Princeton and Cambridge. There are good speculative physics around; there are dumb pseudoscience, and dumber pseudoscience all over the internet - all a result of information overload. No one is that dumb to debate what is dumb with the dumbs! So when we post any new theory here, we should expect more of "who cares" - unless you're from the top universities.

From the Safire homepage:
"The current hypothesis for the origin and functioning of the sun is the gravity-driven ‘Thermonuclear’ model. It is taught in every school on Earth. It has never been proven.
...
There is another quite different hypothesis, the 'Electric Sun' model, which has been 250 years in the making. It also has never been proven."
As you can see, both theories have not been proven.

There is no definite acceptable way to make progress with science. At times, science may start with theoretical hypothesis without definite empirical support. If someone is interested in a new theory, he may design experiments to prove it. It happened with Maxwell who proposed that light is electromagnetic waves. It was experimentally confirmed by Hertz very soon after.

Many aspects of current electromagnetism - in my view - is sheer nonsense. Take just the magnetic force law :F = q(v X B); it is not Galilean invariant and should be thrown away instantly. Instead, they invoke Lorentz transformation, etc...to make it work with special relativity.

The definition of the magnetic field based on the Biot-savart law is pure theory (I have a paper on it). So the only direct use of B is in:F = q(v X B) and no experiment has been done to verify it directly. Even indirect evidence of its working is highly controversial.

The textbook Biot-savart law assumes it works for pure line current; but our real current is moving electrons in the +ve lattice of the conductor body - very different. So it is no even certain a free electron moving in space will have a magnetic field associated based on the Biot-savart law; but the physicists would assume so even though it is never verified. This is the current state of the science of electromagnetism.

On the other hand, if you examine classical mechanics, the science may be said to be rigorous and without flaw. It is for this reason that not many try to find fault with Newtonian mechanics - except Einstein and his followers.

I don't think it is easy to verify how energy is really transferred by conductor cables as in power cables over hundreds of miles away. In the first place, no one can find devices that may follow energy around. "Energy" in itself is not "physical"; only energy would manifest itself physically. On the other hand, an electron may be said to be physical and may be tested physically.

I have not thought of any experiment yet that could verify if energy flows within conductors or outside the conductors carried by magnetic field. At least, I can claim that my energy current within conductor is simply absorption and re-emission of radiation (light/radiation is proven physically). But the Poynting theorem relies on the magnetic field which I have noted is just a definition without any evidence of it being physically useful; its inclusion in Maxwell's theory is very weak at best.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.
http://www.emc2fails.com

[crawler]

No. What would a good scope cost?

Would a reasonably well-equipped community college or tech school have one?
Perhaps we could crowd-fund a scope. I'll put up $100 with the proviso that we collaborate on the project - leaving you and @Chan Rasjid to start the experiment design (I liked the way Safire proceeded). Let's not back into this if we're going to do it - let's get organized and understand the issues and questions of the project first.

There must be many members here who have access to a good scope, for free.
A 1 GHz would do the trick nicely. But 300 MHz would be ok.
Some threaded rod & some plain rod would cost say $20 to $100 depending on what length u wanted -- the longer then the more accurate.
A scope might cost $700 to $3000 on ebay, including good probes.