PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-03-29, 07:46:53
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10
Author Topic: Displacement Current - Does it Exist?  (Read 123425 times)

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3934
tExB=qr
Agreed, assuming by "it" you mean the poles of the charge moving relative to each other.

I respectfully disagree. "Polarization" or "a polarized state"  exists when there are at least two opposing (relative to each other) charge poles, separated by a distance, and coupled by electric lines of force. The two poles forming the potential gradient actually can not exist without each other, and together they constitute what "charge" is.

.99

we are saying the same thing in a diff way 

When the charges separate in a dielectric (if this is actually true) they would have a certain direction if you drew a line between them.  I never agreed with this explanation.

The primary problem with trying to understand how things really work is that we do not have an accurate model to learn from.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3934
tExB=qr
Grumpy. Glad you posted that paper a second time.  He deserves a second read.  There is no confusion between the polarization of the insulator and the displacement current.  I think many should read this, if they wish to understand this stuff.  Even the math is not that difficult.  And to think this is over 100 year old stuff.

How is it that a modern EE, freshly educated, has no idea nor acceptance of the facts?  Interesting, isn't it....

I must excuse myself for a few.  Have a LOT of physics papers to review, and I'm not that fast a reader.

In Roentgen's Experiments, displacement current involved the actual movement of the dielectric while the polarization remained constant.  Polarization current involved changing the polarization of the dielectric.

To .99, by "displacement", I mean what Roentgen showed.

William Beaty brings up some good points in his article on capacitors:

http://amasci.com/emotor/cap1.html

To understand how thing really work, assuming we can, we have to look at the whole picture and aether, space, vacuum, Dirac's Sea of virtual particles, or whatever you call it has to be considered part of the picture.
   
Group: Guest
To understand how thing really work, assuming we can, we have to look at the whole picture and aether, space, vacuum, Dirac's Sea of virtual particles, or whatever you call it has to be considered part of the picture.

"WE" are starting to see, not only the background but also the canvas of this picture. "WE" just need to sneak it in the back door so the neighbors don't become upset. Let's call it 'Dark Matter and Dark Energy' this time and see if it takes hold.

It'll be the new 'sine' of the times  ;D
   
Group: Guest
Loner I wrote this yesterday but couldn't post it bcause the server went down again.  Anyway if it's drifted of topic since then - at least it's still here on record.

aetherevarising, I am not ignoring you, but I must start in this area with a "One at a time" approach.
Actually you are ignoring me.  But I really don't mind.  I'll just answer you anyway.  LOL

I could agree with the "Non-ionic" propagation of "Energy",
.
What exactly do you agree with here?   Wiki's definition of nonionic is this.

Adj
1.   nonionic - not converted into ions nonionised, unionised,
2.   nonionic - not ionic; "a nonionic substance" nonpolar
ionic - containing or involving or occurring in the form of ions; "ionic charge"; "ionic crystals"; "ionic hydrogen"


So.  Presumably then the nonionic propagation of 'energy' would be - the propagation of energy by unpolarised charge.Yet.  As I understand it, the displacement current that lights the neon light must surely have some kind of polarised charge as it can interact with the ionised atoms in that neon?  So why so you say it 'must be without a charge'?

Now, the second and third part of what you said. (Typed?)  Unknowingly, you have stepped into an argument that we have had going for a little while now...  A Non-ionic charge is a good indicator of where my side comes in.  There is NO charge, in the common sense of the term, as far as a comparison with the electrical charge of an electron or positron.  (I"ll avoid the center, for this explanation of my point.)  This is where so much confusion and difficulty comes in, as there IS a charge, but not a magnetic field generating type of charge.
Not sure why you draw the distinction here Loner.  We KNOW that magnetic fields are generated in an electromagnetic interaction - just as we KNOW that electric fields are generated - simultaneously - subject only to the change in either the one or the other.

Actually, this part we all agree on,
So.  Back to that question.  I'm actually not at all sure who it is that makes up this school of thought -  that also includes just about everyone all of whom have reached a consensus that displacement current cannot be magnetic in it's material. I'm not actually sure that there IS concensus.

but WHAT that charge consists of, well, I doubt anyone would want to hear all the crazy, ignorant things being said right now.  Short Version...  I am on the side that there is a "Tie-In" to part of the RE effect and that it is closer to an "Electrical" type of field but propagated in the aether, and others want to convince me it is a "Tie-In" to aether basis of gravitational field, but being produced only during the "Change", it manifests itself this way.  I disagree with the others, but cannot prove them wrong, yet.  (We are working on this, much to my regret.  Kills all my other "Fun" stuff for a while.)
To start with RE is what?  Radiant energy?  And then the  effect is what?  Displacement current?   I would put money on it that that current flow - regardless of it's material property - is always an electric effect.  This because it is the thing that moves through space as a result of the moving magnetic fields.  By contrast magnetic fields don't move through space.  They're localised in material.  Only current flows through space.  By definition current flow is the 'electric' part of the electromagnetic interaction - defined by inductive laws.  Therefore - call it displacement current or radiant energy  or anything you like.  If it moves through space then it's the result of changing magnetic fields that proceeded it and generated it.  And again.  Those magnetic fields invariably collapse in a localised area of space.

My question is this, "Do you firmly believe that the dielectric is polarized with an actual standard charge, without any charge carriers?"  This is what I would consider a profound statement, as it belies the electron as the source of the charge, completely.  (I won't start on a description of lepton charge effects here.)
.  What other leptons are there - apart from an electron - that could possibly account for displacement current?  I am also reasonably sure that a dialectric certainly has a polarised condition.  Not sure how the material is doped or arranged.  But I know that it can resist current flow that has a 'like' charge.  And I'm sure too that the polarised condition of the dielectric is determined by the valence condition of it's electrons.  There's got to be an association.  The hell of it is that if the electron is the 'charge' carrier of displacement or any current then it can only ever carry a positive charge which leaves out exactly one entire half of the charge potential evident in current flow.  

The reason I am leaning to the different effects here is that many EE's have done "Extensive" bench tests and many pulse tests of inductors, and yet the charge rates and values are exactly described, relative to standard "electron" charge.  If the displacement Current, meaning only the one around a wire, for now, were involved in the mag field creation, the effects of altering this would be MUCH easier to detect.  I hope you see where I am going with this.
Frankly if you all understand this - I don't.  Are you saying that the magnetic fields around the wire are understood to have an embarrassing dearth of electrons?  Therefore if this is the source or displacement current then it would defy your earlier claim that that electrons or some such lepton are required for current flow?  

To give a simple "Hint" of where this can be researched easily, think of what you get with a simple Tesla Setup, through a spark gap and transformer.  This type of "Energy" is NOT magnetically coupled in the standard sense, and the output IS different than standard conduction current.
Again.  You state - unequivocally - that it is NOT magnetically coupled.  I am entirely satisfied that the collapsing fields around the coil or wire or whatever conductive material is associated with this - is responsible for the movement of that flux through a spark gap.  Therefore it IS magnetically coupled.  Current is always the result of changing magnetic fields.  And I would go further to propose that the 'spark' evident in that 'spark gap' IS the substance of the current that is flowing in the wire.  Just - outside of the wire it can, as one of it's potentials, be visible.  And we all know that what is evident as a spark - whatever else it is - it's certainly NOT electrons.  

(If you were to, just for an hour, accept this as fact, then re-read certain Tesla patents, certain circuit behavior makes a lot more sense.  I don't expect anyone to do that, however.)  Most have seen the simple experiment where the fact is proven that "Current" flows in both directions.  Sticking with standard theory, the electron charge is passing out of the negative, heading to the positive.  The positive to negative charge is not actually defined properly in modern textbooks, although the fact of it's existence is now accepted.  Could these two attributes be connected?  (I can't even offer that part of the theory, yet.)
Loner.  If you accept that displacement or any current is bipolar - being able to move in either direction and determined only by the applied voltage - or direction of the changing magnetic fields - then you'd have no conflicts here.  But then you'd also have to concede that - whatever else current is - it is NOT electrons.  They've got a charge which will not only incline them to move against each other but it would also limit their general direction to only ever move towards a positive charge.  Actually - by the same token if they are repelled by a negative voltage to move anticlockwise, say, then they'd be  attracted by a postive voltage to move in that same direction.  Effectively current made up of a monopole - whatever it's charge - would only be able to flow in one direction.

Regards,
Rosemary

added


   
Group: Guest
"WE" are starting to see, not only the background but also the canvas of this picture. "WE" just need to sneak it in the back door so the neighbors don't become upset. Let's call it 'Dark Matter and Dark Energy' this time and see if it takes hold.

It'll be the new 'sine' of the times  ;D

I SO agree with this WW.  Definitely dark energy.  And definitely a sine of the times.  LOL
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3198
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
read it for yourself:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbjr.birjournals.org%2Fcgi%2Freprint%2F70%2F836%2F809.pdf&ei=TeD5TIWGCYWdlgeBhYjlDA&usg=AFQjCNEJovFU37HH6Kby44Xn5G9UO273QQ&sig2=vaK3ZawYukJhCrwPASRj9w

I've re-read this and also a few others. Where is the debate (i.e. what have I missed)? With these two experiments, Rontgen confirms/proves Faraday-Maxwell.

Papers written by and about Rontgen are difficult to find. See the attached for a translation of a paper I pieced together which is relevant to this discussion. He describes the second experiment and concludes with:
Quote
From these experiments, which were varied in many ways, the result was obtained that the deflection always agreed with that given by Faraday's theory. The change in the dielectric polarization consequently exerts an electromagnetic force, exactly like an electric current flowing through a conductor in the same direction in which the displacement of positive electricity in an insulator takes place.

Quote
Charge is a state of the aether, virtual or otherwise.
That seems in-concise.

Quote
Polarization is just an orientation, like magnet moments aligning, or dipoles aligning together.
No. Polarization is separation (in this case of charge poles). A floating isolated electric dipole is polarized, but it need not be aligned with anything at all.

Quote
Where do the fields reside?  In space?  Yet this empty space has the properties of matter.  Doesn't that seem a little odd?
What is a field? "There are no fields, only potentials!" (Stephan Marinov)...remember? ;D

Quote
An individual charge can have a different charge relative to the space around it, which may be neutral.  
By "individual charge" do you mean a point charge "q" often shown in text books? How can a point charge exist? I don't believe they do. Also, I would expect that "space" is neutral (wrt charge) and therefore not a reference point for any electric pole. I believe space is however a reference point for the movement of charge, and hence why charges in motion (either displacing OR moving as a whole) create a magnetic field.

.99
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3934
tExB=qr
I've re-read this and also a few others. Where is the debate (i.e. what have I missed)? With these two experiments, Rontgen confirms/proves Faraday-Maxwell.

Papers written by and about Rontgen are difficult to find. See the attached for a translation of a paper I pieced together which is relevant to this discussion. He describes the second experiment and concludes with:That seems in-concise.
No. Polarization is separation (in this case of charge poles). A floating isolated electric dipole is polarized, but it need not be aligned with anything at all.
What is a field? "There are no fields, only potentials!" (Stephan Marinov)...remember? ;D
By "individual charge" do you mean a point charge "q" often shown in text books? How can a point charge exist? I don't believe they do. Also, I would expect that "space" is neutral (wrt charge) and therefore not a reference point for any electric pole. I believe space is however a reference point for the movement of charge, and hence why charges in motion (either displacing OR moving as a whole) create a magnetic field.

.99

isn't capacitance separation?

a dipole is aligned to any electric field that affects it, and sure as hell does not cross an electric field sideways

a "charge" is a divergence or convergence of a region of space - i.e. is sinks or it sources - vectors point in or out, per se.

a field is a region of space with certain properties associated with it

if you look at how a moving charge interact with the sea of charges around it, you see it has to create a closed region of divergence - i.e. magnetic field
   
Group: Guest


What is a field? "There are no fields, only potentials!" (Stephan Marinov)...remember? ;D
By "individual charge" do you mean a point charge "q" often shown in text books? How can a point charge exist? I don't believe they do. Also, I would expect that "space" is neutral (wrt charge) and therefore not a reference point for any electric pole. I believe space is however a reference point for the movement of charge, and hence why charges in motion (either displacing OR moving as a whole) create a magnetic field.

.99

Hi Poynty.  You're arguing mainstream here.  So it's right.  But it's also absolutely wrong.  A permanent magnet has a magnetic force field and there are no measurable particles that they know of responsible for generating that field.  No known changing elecrtric interactions are required to create that magnetic field.  And if two or more permanent magnets interact with each other - then again - no changing electric interactions to account for it - yet the field 'grows' in proportion to the force from those interacting magnets.  So. I don't know why you subscribe to any thinking that says there are no fields.  You'd first have to discount a magnetic field.  And that can't be done.

What is true is that those permanent magnets may have been initialised by changing electric fields that induced those extruded magnetic fields in the first instance.  But once it's fixed - as in a permanent magnet - then it's there fixed into infinity - unless it's artificially removed.  A changing electric field ALWAYS induces a magnetic field.  A changing magnetic field does NOT always induce an electric field.  It points to the possibility that a magnetic field may be a primary force - in the sense that the secondary 'electric' force depends on it - or in the sense that it simply never manifests without it.  Without those changing magnetic fields to induce it.   

Regards
Rosemary   
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

A permanent magnet is something that possesses atoms that have a magnetic dipole and the dipoles are lined up to all point in the same direction.  In a sense it looks like a superconducting loop of wire.  Permanent magnets are initialized by jolting the unmagnetized magnetic material with a very strong external magnetic field.  That arranges all of the atomic magnetic dipoles in the same direction.  This configuration of the aligned magnetic dipoles does not remain fixed to infinity, it slowly starts to decay.  However, some materials for all practical intents can be considered to remain in a permanent configuration.

I see you often talk about North and South poles and treat them as almost distinct entities.  The reality is that there is no such thing as "North poles" and "South poles."  Those are just naming conventions that we use to make it easier to discuss magnetism and make diagrams, etc.  I will repeat, there are no North and South poles at all.  All there is are magnetic field lines that travel in closed loops.  That's all there really is.  Any debates you have seen on the forums about "North vs. South" for whatever topic, are all wrong.  For example, people build Bedini motors and compare "All North" vs. "All South" magnet configurations for their rotors and it's essentially a nonsensical debate.

MileHigh
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3198
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
isn't capacitance separation?
Yes, of course. Perhaps you're not understanding what I'm saying though. The separation (ergo "displacement") I am referring to is between the poles of a dipole, not the plates of a capacitor. But yes, a net "charge" on a capacitor also renders it polarized.

Quote
a dipole is aligned to any electric field that affects it, and sure as hell does not cross an electric field sideways
Of course, but that is not the point. The point is that on a micro scale, a dipole is already polarized, and whether the dipole is aligned with any other dipole or field or whatever, is irrelevant as far as the definition of polarized is concerned.

Polarization (and displacement) occurs when an electric field is applied across a dielectric for example. On a macro scale, the dielectric has now become polarized (i.e. all dipoles oriented the same), but every dipole within the dielectric was already polarized and always will be. In fact the very word "dipole" fits the definition of the word "polarization".

So it's an issue of how and when the term "polarization" is applied, and when speaking of dielectrics we need to be careful because with an applied electric field there are two processes taking place: separation of poles (i.e. "displacement"), and orientation of the dipoles (i.e. "polarization" when speaking in terms of a macro scale only).

.99

   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down

 I will repeat, there are no North and South poles at all.  All there is are magnetic field lines that travel in closed loops.  That's all there really is.  Any debates you have seen on the forums about "North vs. South" for whatever topic, are all wrong. 
MileHigh


Agreed. A simple visualization: clock hands mounted on a transparent base will from the front appear to be spinning clockwise. The same hands viewed from the rear appear to be spinning counterclockwise. The point of view has changed.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3934
tExB=qr
Yes, of course. Perhaps you're not understanding what I'm saying though. The separation (ergo "displacement") I am referring to is between the poles of a dipole, not the plates of a capacitor. But yes, a net "charge" on a capacitor also renders it polarized.
Of course, but that is not the point. The point is that on a micro scale, a dipole is already polarized, and whether the dipole is aligned with any other dipole or field or whatever, is irrelevant as far as the definition of polarized is concerned.

Polarization (and displacement) occurs when an electric field is applied across a dielectric for example. On a macro scale, the dielectric has now become polarized (i.e. all dipoles oriented the same), but every dipole within the dielectric was already polarized and always will be. In fact the very word "dipole" fits the definition of the word "polarization".

So it's an issue of how and when the term "polarization" is applied, and when speaking of dielectrics we need to be careful because with an applied electric field there are two processes taking place: separation of poles (i.e. "displacement"), and orientation of the dipoles (i.e. "polarization" when speaking in terms of a macro scale only).

.99

Are you saying separation of dipoles by a strong E-field pulls them apart and reduces the force between them? 

Then how is energy stored?
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

A permanent magnet is something that possesses atoms that have a magnetic dipole and the dipoles are lined up to all point in the same direction.  In a sense it looks like a superconducting loop of wire.  Permanent magnets are initialized by jolting the unmagnetized magnetic material with a very strong external magnetic field.  That arranges all of the atomic magnetic dipoles in the same direction.  This configuration of the aligned magnetic dipoles does not remain fixed to infinity, it slowly starts to decay.  However, some materials for all practical intents can be considered to remain in a permanent configuration.

MileHigh - there are many types of dipoles.  But there is no such thing as an atomic dipole.  This material that arranges itself in the same direction is then what?  AGAIN.  What in God's name is that actomic dipole?  If you mean that it's an imbalanced state of the valence electrons in the material of the magnet - then this is wrong.  There is no imbalance in the atomic material making up a magnet.  So.  What exactly do you mean?  Do you mean that the atomic lattices change their alignment in a permanent magnet?  In which case we know this.  So what? That has absolutely not thereby created an atomic dipole.  It has simply rearragned those atoms.  

I see you often talk about North and South poles and treat them as almost distinct entities.  The reality is that there is no such thing as "North poles" and "South poles."  Those are just naming conventions that we use to make it easier to discuss magnetism and make diagrams, etc.  I will repeat, there are no North and South poles at all.  All there is are magnetic field lines that travel in closed loops.  That's all there really is.  Any debates you have seen on the forums about "North vs. South" for whatever topic, are all wrong.  For example, people build Bedini motors and compare "All North" vs. "All South" magnet configurations for their rotors and it's essentially a nonsensical debate.
If you were even arguing mainstream I'd understand this.  Charge is that property in particles that is known to respond to an applied magnetic field.  It is determined by seeing the direction of spin and the amount of spin of a particle INSIDE A MAGNETIC FIELD.  In other words it is determined by it's response to a field.  This is seen to be either in one direction or another or neither regardless of whether it is clockwise or anticlockwise or seen from the back or the front or from above or below.  That is irrelevant.  That charge property is KNOWN to be a fixed characteristic of a particle.  This, in turn is regarded as the charge of that particle which can be positive, negative or neutral - OR north, south and/or either. If the latter it is considered to be neutral.  The magnetic field in a permanent magnet is considered to have a justification.  This because it's properties of charge - or its dipolar field - have distinct properties of charge - exactly as do particles.  One point of one magnet will repel another and one point will attract another.  Those properties are FIXED in the sense that a particle's charge is FIXED.  It cannot vary it's one side from its other side at whim - or subject to vagaries.  it simply CANNOT alter what is considered to be those NORTH/SOUTH poles.  And the one is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT to the other.  If you and Ion prefer to ignore those terms that mainstream have established to describe magnetic properties then that is fine with me.  Personally I have more faith in mainstream science.      

How extraordinary that you deny that there are properties of charge.  No wonder you're so fixated on all that incorrect science.  You really need to brush up on your physics.  With respect.
   
Group: Guest
I see that Poynty simply ignores my question.  Either he CAN'T answer or he never said that there is no such thing as a 'field'.  It's a good technique.  It allows you to discourage discussion at the same time avoiding an acknowledgement of being WRONG.

Golly.  I thought this forum was better than that.  Clearly not.

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
Agreed. A simple visualization: clock hands mounted on a transparent base will from the front appear to be spinning clockwise. The same hands viewed from the rear appear to be spinning counterclockwise. The point of view has changed.

And as for this?  You may as well say that the two ends of a simple permanent bar magnet do not have distinct charge characteristics.  No-one really cares how they're described.  But convention has determined a 'north' as opposed to a 'south'.  If it's the terms you object to then go argue with mainstream.  But don't try and disclaim that there's any difference between the two.  And to OBJECT to my use of MAINSTREAM TERMINOLOGY is taking spurious argument to extraordinary extremes.  What gets me is that you think it's justified.  The only thing that is absolutely empirically and unarguably justified is the magnetic field itself.  No matter where you view it.  

Rosemary
« Last Edit: 2010-12-05, 16:41:59 by aetherevarising »
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3198
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Are you saying separation of dipoles by a strong E-field pulls them apart and reduces the force between them?  

Then how is energy stored?

Yes.

For example, the DC charge on a capacitor is stored (or retained) after the DC supply is removed due to two processes:

1) most of the dielectric dipoles (assuming this capacitor has a dielectric) are oriented in the same direction (perpendicular to the capacitor plates), so we have macro polarization of the dielectric.

2) The attractive force between the poles of the dielectric dipoles has been overcome to a degree, and they are "displaced" (i.e. separated). The DC supply has applied work and energy to do so. The dielectric poles closest to the surface of the dielectric and the electrons (or lack thereof) on the capacitor plates are now in stronger attraction, and this "charge state" remains until it is bled off by connecting the two capacitor plates together. If the electric field of the source is increased, then there is a corresponding increase in the displacement of the dipoles and more dielectric poles being electrostatically-coupled to the capacitor plates.

A capacitor without a dielectric behaves much the same way. In this case however, the electrons and holes on each respective plate become strongly-coupled from the energy put in from the source. They too remain in strong attraction (thus retaining a charged state) until their paths are connected together.

.99
   
Group: Guest
Geologists have found abundant evidence of rare earth metals that have been polarised in one direction and others in proximity that have been polarised in another direction.  The dating related to these finds indicate that their polarisation - DARE I USE THAT WORD - is proof of the earth's magnetic fields having reversed.  That also shows that those fields certainly preceeded and will probably outlasted our history.  ALSO.  It is evident that a magnet - whether rare earth or ferrite or anything at all CANNOT reverse it's poles or change it's poles without having some artificial force applied to effect that change.  That duration of the field is, to all intents and purposes INFINITE.  It is NOT KNOWN TO DECAY OR DEGRADE OR DIMINISH.  What may change is the amount of magnetisation retained in some types of magnets.  So what?  It absolutely does not change the conventional use of the term.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
And as for this?  You may as well say that the two ends of a simple permanent bar magnet do not have distinct charge characteristics.  No-one really cares how they're described.  But convention has determined a 'north' as opposed to a 'south'.  If it's the terms you object to then go argue with mainstream.  But don't try and disclaim that there's any difference between the two.  And to OBJECT to my use of MAINSTREAM TERMINOLOGY is taking spurious argument to extraordinary extremes.  What gets me is that you think it's justified.  The only thing that is absolutely empirically and unarguably justified is the magnetic field itself.  No matter where you view it. 

If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think you knew what you're talking about.  Whatever else I could say about you Ion - then I can't accuse you of this.

Rosemary


I prefer not to argue. I have my own visualizations as do you. Sorry I am not as adept at verbiage as are you, nor do I enjoy jousting. I have a simple mind therefore I try to keep things simple. Thank you for the compliment.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3198
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
I see that Poynty simply ignores my question.  Either he CAN'T answer or he never said that there is no such thing as a 'field'.  It's a good technique.  It allows you to discourage discussion at the same time avoiding an acknowledgement of being WRONG.

Golly.  I thought this forum was better than that.  Clearly not.

Rosemary

I did not see a clear question for me Rose. Also, my impression is that you are talking more about magnets than capacitors, and capacitors, dielectrics,  and displacement current is what this thread is about.

So I am not sure of what are you asking ???

.99
   
Group: Guest
i won't call this thread a constructive discussion.

We do not know if we were to remove the aether from in and around a magnet \, if the field still exists.
The fact that we can create these fields by using electromagnets, and reverse the field by reversing the current, point to the possibility that these fields are in fact a property of the aether itself and not connected to the actual magnet other then the mechanism that is responsible for it's apperance.
You can either heat up a magnet, hit it with a high amp pulse repeatedly, or drop it to make it loose some of it's strength, if it even posesses any.
Im not going into deep discussion on this, so i will join ION and prefer not to argue.

Edit:
I almost forgot, ION wind can generate strong magnetic fields in free space where there is no metal around....that should make you think.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3198
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
i won't call this thread a constructive discussion.

In regards to the topic subject, I respectfully disagree.

Quote
We do not know if we were to remove the aether from in and around a magnet \, if the field still exists.
The fact that we can create these fields by using electromagnets, and reverse the field by reversing the current, point to the possibility that these fields are in fact a property of the aether itself and not connected to the actual magnet other then the mechanism that is responsible for it's apperance.
You can either heat up a magnet, hit it with a high amp pulse repeatedly, or drop it to make it loose some of it's strength, if it even posesses any.
Im not going into deep discussion on this, so i will join ION and prefer not to argue.

Edit:
I almost forgot, ION wind can generate strong magnetic fields in free space where there is no metal around....that should make you think.


This thread is not focused on magnetics. How is that impression coming across  ???

.99
   
Group: Guest

What is a field? "There are no fields, only potentials!" (Stephan Marinov)...remember? ;D
By "individual charge" do you mean a point charge "q" often shown in text books? How can a point charge exist? I don't believe they do. Also, I would expect that "space" is neutral (wrt charge) and therefore not a reference point for any electric pole. I believe space is however a reference point for the movement of charge, and hence why charges in motion (either displacing OR moving as a whole) create a magnetic field.

.99

Here's where you stated that 'there are no fields'.  I can't get my head around this Poynty.  What do you mean?  Just remember there are those of us who are LITERAL.  I can't manage these terms if you mean something else than 'field'.  There certainly are 'fields' and they certainly have potentials of charge.  How can anyone argue against the existence of a field?  And then you state that the distribution of charge creates the field.  If you mean exactly this - then you're also proposing a material property to the field - which I entirely agree with - and which is very good news.  But are you aware of the fact that this is denied by Mainstream?  There the argument is that carrier particles move as a field.  That's been the basis of my complaint since forever.

Sorry for being rude.  I'm just supremely irritated because I don't understand mainstream's terminology - or your own.  But right now I'm actually feeling mortified.  I think you're actually subscribing to the same concepts I do - which is that the field itself is made up of particles.  It's just that they're tachyons which puts them outside our frame of reference or measurement.
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

An atomic magnetic dipole is an atom that has outer electrons that are in a fixed orbit.  That's in contrast to most atoms where the outer electrons are in a shell that will change orientation randomly.  When the outer electrons are in a fixed orbit then the atom itself is a small magnet, i.e.; an atomic magnetic dipole.  That's all a bar magnet is, a bunch of atoms with magnetic dipoles that are lined up.

Things like bar magnets can't last forever because of increasing entropy.  Slowly but surely some atoms fall out of the majority alignment.  That's why when you heat or bang a bar magnet it can loose some of it's magnetism.  That's what I was referring to in my original posting.

There truly is no such thing as "North" and "South."  The magnetic lines of flux are vectors that have magnitude and direction so you can arbitrarily say that "North" is when the  vectors are pointing towards you and "South" is when the vectors are pointing away from you.  The key point is that the lines of flux travel in closed loops so there is no true "North" or "South" associated with a closed loop.

Take the example of a generator coil.  If a "North" pole passes by the coil, then that is indistinguishable from a "South" pole passing by the same coil.  All that you have to do is swap the output wires of the coil connected to your probe and then the waveform on your scope display will be identical.

I apologize because this is off-topic and I will stop here.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Ion - I've amended my post.  My comment was ENTIRELY UNJUSTIFIED.  Abject apologies.  I was just angry as I felt that everyone was either ignoring me or deliberately misunderstanding me - or simply perversely disagreeing with me.  But you shouldn't have agreed with MileHigh's point.  He's wrong.  Of course there's a difference in charge.  We all rely on this to generate any kind of interaction on any level at all. 

As I see it what's happened here is that Grumpy WW and Poynty all have the advantage of understanding each others terms.  I don't have that advantage.  I'm still trying to establish whether displacement current is all that extra energy that we measure on our load that does not generate heat but is nonetheless measurable.  In other words we have loads of extra energy over and above our gains measured in heat.  If this is useable - to light lights or anything at all - then there's an awful lot of energy still to be exploited.  And I can't get my mind around how this moves through space - is all.

Regards,
Rosemary
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3198
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Rose,

Regarding my tongue-in-cheek mention of "There are no fields, only potentials!", that was something said by the late highly non-mainstream researcher Stephan Marinov. Sorry if that threw you off.

You may be interested in reading his Annus Horribilis. Some of the graphics seem to be missing, but you will get the idea.

.99
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-03-29, 07:46:53