Ivor Catt says no. Floyd Sweet endorses him.
The capacitor has been touted as a transmission line (Catt et al). This makes sense, at least to some degree.
.99
Eric D used capacitors as transmission lines in LMD work
LMD - "Tesla transverse and longitudinal electric waves"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-721789270445596549# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-721789270445596549#)
use a length of coax to set pulse width and you can see that it is a transmission line
the reflection turns off the pulse
Here is an interesting quote from Heavyside which Ivor Catt mentions:
QuoteThe answer lies hidden in Heaviside's magnificent, regal statement, "We reverse this." In his Electrical Papers, vol. 1, 1892, page 438, Heaviside wrote;
Now, in Maxwell's theory there is the potential energy of the displacement produced in the dielectric parts by the electric force, and there is the kinetic or magnetic energy of the magnetic force in all parts of the field, including the conducting parts. They are supposed to be set up by the current in the wire. We reverse this; the current in the wire is set up by the energy transmitted through the medium around it....
The discrediting of displacement current merely makes Heaviside's "We reverse this" mandatory. It means that the field must be the cause and electric current an effect, rather than (as Maxwell thought) the other way round.
I have a very good paper somewhere where some gentlemen went to great lengths to prove this and succeeded in showing that the field does indeed cause electrons to drift.
EDIT:Take a good look at a vacuum capacitor. Electrons don't hop off the surface of one plate. The space around the plate "changes" and this induces a change arond the other plate. If you can create the right sort of "change" in the space around a conductor, you can make the electrons drift much like a continuously re-charged capacitor. After all , this is all a magnet does when you move it across a conductor, see?
EDIT 2:Found an old post I made on OU that is interesting:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:dBn2GM-Y67UJ:www.overunity.com/index.php%3Ftopic%3D8100.10%3Bimode+electrons+drift+displacement+grumpy&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Here is the link to the paper that I mentioned above:
http://www.google.com/url?url=http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:9792/saha-edwards-aup.pdf&rct=j&sa=U&ei=vXi_SvL_JNLr_AaK74WCBQ&ct=res&cd=1&sig2=9ivonCUCUzWCr0BQKFcNew&q=electrons+current+diffuses+displacement+conductor+edwards&usg=AFQjCNECf3P_pak1lkQY7cvzDF3KwKKJDw
Here are some references to the TL notion (first link was previously posted by Grumps elsewhere):
J. Edwards:
http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~aupec/aupec04/papers/PaperID84.pdf
B. Miller:
http://download.antennex.com/preview/Nov02/Nov0602/dca-1.pdf
http://www.antennex.com/shack/Apr07/dc_factfan.pdf
http://www.antennex.com/shack/Aug05/dc-final_piece.pdf
I. Catt:
http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm
.99
This all goes to the heart of electron flow in conductors (and between them); what it is, how it works, and if Maxwell was 100% correct.
All very interesting, and seemingly after all this time, we still don't know all there is to know about it.
.99
I personally think more and more that electrons do not travel in a wire. They cannot. If electrons had mass, and if they traveled at the speeds indicated by regular knowledge, then they would have disintegrate all the mass in which they travel, regardless of the voltage/amperage. I have started to call the actual fact that power applied to one end of a wire reaching the other end and to a load as simply being "spin conveyance". I have not had enough time to develop this further into a real theory but in my next video I will be showing something pretty weird that will be able to show this is a general way. lol
Man that would be the top of top to actually discover that electrons in a wire receive a spin cadence from the source, then spin themselves throughout the wire to then convey that spin to the load or next component in the circuit. This explains so many effects that cannot be well explained both in our circuits, induction, sparks, lightning, you name it, it all hold together so well for me. If you Google "spin conveyance" you will only find one post i made a while back. lol
But maybe this is better left for the next generations.
wattsup
A couple references by Tombe about Maxwell's ID:
http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe47.pdf
http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe48.pdf
and a commentary on this by Ricker:
http://www.wbabin.net/science/ricker44.pdf
.99
Wattsup,
It should be noted that there are two distinct velocities associated with electrons:
1) Drift Velocity - relatively slow and is actual "physical" propagation of electrons from one end to the other.
2) Velocity of EM propagation - approaches c, depending on permittivity and impedance etc. This is an apparent propagation of electrons, and is in reality a more or less "domino effect" (simplistic view) of electron movement transferred from one to the next, roughly in the direction of voltage polarization.
.99
The way I see electrons is that they dont really move and if they do, not very fast.
However if you have a string of electrons in a material and induce a charge at one end the charge will propagate along the string of electrons much like a longitudinal wave.
When I visualize an electron I think of a spherical capacitor that can exist with or without a potential. When these spherical capacitors are in proximity of each other a charge when introduced will propagate along the string of capacitors. We are only moving the charge..
This is just my opinion
Indeed DS, much along the lines of the simplified view I outlined above.
Drift velocity (actual electron flow) is quite slow. However the propagation of the "charge" is near c. Electron collision, or repulsion if you will, causes a ripple effect through the length of the conductor.
.99
People equate electron flow to magnetic - and i think this is also wrong - I am conflicted on this one - but at times i think the magnetic field due to its speed may be some form of displacement due to charge velocity.
To visualize electron flow think of a pipe 3 meters in diameter with wet sand being pushed out at 1 cm per hour.. those grains of sand are electrons ;D
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.03.22, 16:47:23
Indeed DS, much along the lines of the simplified view I outlined above.
Drift velocity (actual electron flow) is quite slow. However the propagation of the "charge" is near c. Electron collision, or repulsion if you will, causes a ripple effect through the length of the conductor.
.99
So electrons have an "Ambient" negative charge and then anything we add beyond that point they will propagate at <c
Conduction Electrons
Some points gleaned from various sources:
1) In a vacuum the electric field would cause a charge to accelerate. In a wire, collisions of the conduction charges with impurities, imperfections, and vibrations of the atomic lattice causes the motion of the conduction charges to be slowed down. This represents a loss of energy which is dissipated as heat.
2) Within a metal conductor, even though there are free electrons, there is still resistance to current flow. This can be described by simple models, but apparently only quantum electron theories accurately deal with the behavior of metals under extreme conditions such as very low temperatures. Replacing the idea of electrons as particles with electrons as waves solves the problems of the simpler models. You can picture these electron waves oscillating through the metal lattice (which can also be pictured as a wave-like structure) - the interference of the lattice structure with the electrons causes resistance. This resistance is caused mainly by two things. One is impurities in the metal, which cause irregularities in the periodicity of the lattice. The other is the disturbance or "vibration" of the lattice caused by heat. Since some heat is always present (except at absolute zero) there is always some resistance from this source which prevents the electrons from sailing through.
3) The drift speed of electric charges
The mobile charged particles within a conductor move constantly in random directions. In order for a net flow of charge to exist, the particles must also move together with an average drift rate. Electrons are the charge carriers in metals and they follow an erratic path, bouncing from atom to atom, but generally drifting in the direction of the electric field. The speed at which they drift can be calculated from the equation:
I=nAvQ
where
I is the electric current
n is number of charged particles per unit volume
A is the cross-sectional area of the conductor
v is the drift velocity, and
Q is the charge on each particle.
Electric currents in solid matter are typically very slow flows. For example, in a copper wire of cross-section 0.5 mm², carrying a current of 5 A, the drift velocity of the electrons is of the order of a millimetre per second. To take a different example, in the near-vacuum inside a cathode ray tube, the electrons travel in near-straight lines ("ballistically") at about a tenth of the speed of light.
However, we know that electrical signals are electromagnetic waves which propagate at very high speed outside the surface of the conductor (moving at the speed of light, as can be deduced from Maxwell's Equations). For example, in AC power lines, the waves of electromagnetic energy propagate through the space between the wires which is usually filled with insulating material, moving from a source to a distant load, even though the electrons in the wires only move back and forth over a tiny distance. The velocity of the flowing charges is quite low. The associated electromagnetic energy travels at a speed which is much faster. The velocity factor is a measure of the speed of electromagnetic propagation compared to the speed of light in a vacuum. The velocity factor is affected by the nature of the insulating medium surrounding the conductor, and also the magnetic properties of the materials of the conductor and its surroundings.
The nature of these three velocities can be clarified by analogy with the three similar velocities associated with gases. The low drift velocity of charge carriers is analogous to air motions; to wind. The large signal velocity is roughly analogous to the rapid propagation of sound waves, while the large random motion of charges is analogous to heat; to the high thermal velocity of randomly vibrating gas particles.
4) Metals
Metals are good conductors of electricity and heat because they have unfilled space in the valence energy band. (The Fermi level dictates only partial occupancy of the band.) In the absence of an electric field, conduction electrons travel in all directions at very high velocities. Even at the coldest possible temperature — absolute zero — conduction electrons can still travel at the Fermi velocity (the velocity of electrons at the Fermi energy). When an electric field is applied, a slight imbalance develops and mobile electrons flow. Electrons in this band can be accelerated by the field because there are plenty of nearby unfilled states in the band.
Resistance comes about in a metal because of the scattering of electrons from defects in the lattice or by phonons. A crude classical theory of conduction in simple metals is the Drude model, in which scattering is characterized by a relaxation time τ. The conductivity is then given by the formula
sigma = {ne^2 \tau}/{m}
where n is the density of conduction electrons, e is the electron charge, and m is the electron mass. A better model is the so-called semi-classical theory, in which the effect of the periodic potential of the lattice on the electrons gives them an effective mass (ref. band theory).
5) William Beaty's Speed of Electricity (http://amasci.com/miscon/speed.html)
6) In the classical model of electric conduction, a conductor (ie.
metal bar, wire, etc.) is pictured as a three dimensional array
of atoms or ions and the electrons are free to move about the
conductor. In the absence of an electric field the elctrons
move about in the same manner as gas molecules move about in a
container. The free electrons collide with ions of the 3-D
array and are in thermal equilibrium with them. The speed
with which the electrons are "bouncing" around is on the order
of 10^7 cm/s.
When a potential electric field is applied, the electron
experiences a force and subsequently it is accelerated. The
velocity of that electron is proportional to the force and the
duration that the force is applied. It is inversely proportional
to the mass of the electron.
velocity = q * E * t / m
where q is the charge, E the field strength, t the duration, and
m the mass. So in other words there is no "constant" speed for
electricity.
The net speed with which electrons travel under some field is
called the drift velocity. Here is an example of how to calculate
the drift velocity for electrons in a conductor carrying current:
example
-------
Say you have a piece of 14 gauge copper wire (radius 0.0814 cm)
and that wire is carrying 1 A. We can assume one free electron
for every copper atom in the wire. The density of free electrons
in the wire, n, is
n = (6.02 x 10^23 atoms/mol)(8.92 g/cc) / 63.5 g/mol
= 8.46 x 10^22 atoms/cc
and the drift velocity, v, is
v = 1 C/s / (pi * 0.0814 cm * 0.0814 cm)(8.46x10^22 atoms/cc)(1.6x10^-19 C)
= 3.55 x 10^-3 cm/s
= 0.00255 cm/s
Note that this drift velocity is very small when compared to the
velocity the electron at thermal equilibrium is at "bouncing"
around.
[Moderator note: Another way to look at this is from the perspective of an
electron. For the wire mentioned above, when the current flows, it is just one
electron being pushed into the wire at one end, and another electron popping out
the other end, over and over many times a second. The electrons in between
shift over with a speed of 0.00255 cm/s. However, the speed of the "push" is
close to the speed of light, so that the electron on the far end of the wire
pops out very soon after the electron on the other end is pushed in. I think
your question brings up the additional question of what exactly electricity is.
Is it the electrons, or the movement of electrons?]
.99
just change the properties fo the medium itself:
Hi all,
Somewhat charge related.
Take a glass jar which sits inside a metal container, close proximity. (leyden jar)
Take another metal container that fits inside the jar. Allow enough room for electrical seperation.
Charge the inner container with 30KV or more. The outer remains at earth potential throughout.
You can apply a grounded wire close to the inner and a spark appears...expected...
Charge the centre again but this time with insulated apparatus remove the central container.
Once clear you hold it in your hand so no charge exists on it.
Then place the container back inside the jar again with insulated apparatus.
With a grounded wire discharge the central container.......
Crazy or not a jar of electric with no wires...lol
Steve.
Hi Steve.
There is an excellent video demonstrating this effect. I'll see if I can find it and post it here.
.99
Excellent discussion.
In my experience: A capacitor is analogous to a TL in many ways. In both you can store a charge, dissect and reassemble with the same results as the previous Leyden jar video.
Maxwell does have his description of current flow backwards. Drift current is actual current flow. Apparent current flow is only the group velocity of drift current. Apparent current flow is what most folks think of as 'current'. Above all, any charge flow is in the dielectric.
Keep in-mind most capacitors are an unterminated TL.
WW,
One of the burning questions I believe is: What if the dielectric is effectively removed?
.99
you can't remove the dielectric unless teh entire universe is a conductor
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.03.24, 12:34:18
you can't remove the dielectric unless teh entire universe is a conductor
Indeed!
I think that would require total non-existence. It exists at any point in space at varying impedance and is probably one of the properties of the so-called 'dark matter'.
(still living out of a suit case these days >:( )
however, you CAN modulate the properties of the dielectric
Answer the question guys... ::)
What if you removed the dielectric?
Would there still be a capacitor or TL?
.99
you can not remove all dielectrics from a conductor
air and vacuum is a dielectric, so no matter what you do, a conductor always has a dielectric around it
I always viewed it as the electrons in metals were the charge carriers and the charge stored in the dielectrics is just THE CHARGE!
There are high potentials across most dielectrics just in room enviroment
The dielectric is the capacitor / the metal is the transport device
we can probably detect the aether flow around a conductor when it is changing, but not when it's velocity is steady - might look like a propagating change in vacuum density
hang on - looking for some notes...
If you could remove it then I expect there would be no ability to store or conduct charge. It would be a short circuit.
It wouldn't be a short circuit. There just wouldn't be any potential.
On the Leyden jar video.... I wonder if they ever tried moving all capacitor components to a different location before reassembly.
Or, replacing the glass jar before reassembly?
Or, checking the glass for a static electric charge before assembly?
Might be interesting....
Guys,
I think you kinda missed the boat on this.
QuoteWhat if you removed the dielectric?
Would there still be a capacitor or TL?
Thinking that there can be no capacitor (or TL) without a dielectric, is like saying you can not have an inductor without a ferro-magnetic core within it. :o
Of course you can remove the dielectric! :D ...and for all intents and purposes, we do. Air-capacitors, and vacuum capacitors have no dielectric. There is very little difference in terms of the dielectric constant in each (1.00059 vs. 1.00000 respectively). A dielectric constant of 1.00000 means no dielectric is present.
Look at the Equation for capacitance:
C = εrε0 * A/dwhere ε
r is relative permittivity (introduced by a dielectric), ε
0 is vacuum permittivity, A is area between the plates, and d is the plate separation. In vacuo, ε
r = 1.
This means that C is a non-zero value even without a dielectric.The answer to the question then, is a resounding YES.
.99
And if you change that '1' to a zero?
That is a comparison variable, not an actual quantity.
If I was to remove the plastic or mica sheet from between the plates or even the air.... Yes.
Sorry, I don't think in terms of common values for many things.... including dielectric. Dielectric is space or insulating material occupying that space. When you ask 'what happens when you remove the dielectric?' The answer is there will be no potential because there is no space between the plates.
It goes from an unterminated TL to a terminated TL ;)
So, using common understanding... you can't remove the dielectric. The lowest possible value is '1'. ;D
I didn't miss the boat. I just got off of it Monday night :D
εr is a unitless multiplier. The lowest possible value is indeed 1.0, which in terms of having any influence on the "baseline" permittivity ε0, it is zero.
The equation for capacitance is valid when εr=1.
The point of the question was not to eliminate the vacuum or space, but rather to contemplate what fills that vacuum/space, and how it influences the amount of capacitance, and whether any remains at all when there is no dielectric present.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.03.25, 03:11:07
but rather to contemplate what fills that vacuum/space
Understood. So I have been contemplating it for a very long time. Many will have an answer for what fills that space of abosolute and total vacuum. I don't have an answer I can prove.
My answer is there is no such thing as 'point charge'. Potential is just a variation of charge density measured between two points. Charge is contiguous, space and vacuum be damned. The measured potential is no different than measuring water pressure difference between the leading and trailing edges of a rudder on a moving boat. Unfortunately, we can't see the movement of our rudder in the water because we are on the boat - in the same frame of reference as the rudder.
Feeling kind of rudderless right now. Will sleep on it.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.03.25, 03:11:07
εr is a unitless multiplier. The lowest possible value is indeed 1.0, which in terms of having any influence on the "baseline" permittivity ε0, it is zero.
The equation for capacitance is valid when εr=1.
The point of the question was not to eliminate the vacuum or space, but rather to contemplate what fills that vacuum/space, and how it influences the amount of capacitance, and whether any remains at all when there is no dielectric present.
.99
Tesla stated that the aether was composed of:
"carriers immersed in an insulating fluid"maybe the only difference between a condutor and dielectric is the balance between carriers and insulators
from wikipedia:
Classification of materialsMaterials can be classified according to their permittivity and conductivity, σ. Materials with a large amount of loss inhibit the propagation of electromagnetic waves. In this case, generally when σ/(ωε) >> 1, we consider the material to be a good conductor. Dielectrics are associated with lossless or low-loss materials, where σ/(ωε) << 1. Those that do not fall under either limit are considered to be general media. A perfect dielectric is a material that has no conductivity, thus exhibiting only a displacement current. Therefore it stores and returns electrical energy as if it were an ideal capacitor.
the baseline state of the aether, vacuum, or "empty space" is a dielectric, but you can alter it and change it's properties.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.03.25, 12:18:08
the baseline state of the aether, vacuum, or "empty space" is a dielectric, but you can alter it and change it's properties.
If you are saying that
ε0 is a dielectric, then I would have to disagree.
In an air-core inductor, is the "air" a core?
ε0 and
µ0 are
physical constants derived from the relationships and interactions between electric charges and currents. They are
not dielectrics or cores which affect capacitors and inductors.
.99
I might add:
Not counting any physical aspects, the quantity of inductance and capacitance are affected only by the characteristics of permeability and permittivity (respectively) in and around the elements. Each characteristic has a baseline constant; µ0 and ε0.
Dielectrics and cores are physical objects that increase (by multiplication factor) ε0 and µ0, but they are not the characteristics themselves. As such by definition, they can be completely removed.
An air-core inductor therefore has a µr=1 and effectively has no core. An air or vacuum capacitor is no exception (εr=1), and therefore has no dielectric.
.99
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity
QuoteThe name "electric constant" avoids the suggestion that ε0, which is a derived quantity based upon the defined values of c0 and μ0 as indicated above, is a "property" of anything physical.
Vacuum energy density is not "constant" either, by the way.
If I read you correctly, you're now supporting what I've been saying.
It's certainly not complicated, and it makes perfect sense.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.03.25, 21:39:51
If I read you correctly, you're now supporting what I've been saying.
It's certainly not complicated, and it makes perfect sense.
.99
yes, I am agreeing with you.
is a moving region of space with high permittivity the same as a moving dielectric material? I believe it is.
.99
I will also say I'm agreeing with you. I should have narrowed my comments to the classic. However, on my bench the space between the plates is a dielectric and an air-core coil has a core. The value is '1' but it is still there.
Isn't dielectric of '1' considered as air at 20 deg. C? Air does get colder, here anyway. And the number goes up as temperature increases for most materials.
I would presume that the factor heads for infinity for space truly empty (no aether/dark matter/etc.).
I'll not pursue the number as without it all the other numbers would need to be changed.
Greetings All,
Assuming the ether is constant, the speed of light would never change, period.
A brave assumption.
Well the bent stick effect (refraction) has just destroyed that now hasn't it? A simple statement followed by a fact.
Therefore how much does 'c' change.
Assuming that 'c' can change, wouldn't it be nice to have control of this as a function in some device.
OU would awaken.
The problem with all of this is someone has to make a valid statement/assumption that NO-ONE can disprove.
The problem with that is, are we educated sufficiently to disprove it in the first place.
Now if there ever existed a 3d point of etherless void, it would transmit absolutely nothing.... when we see nothing, its black. problem here 'we see' is a relatively weak point as seeing with your eyes totals an almost insignificant speck on the EMF spectrum complete.
Thinking on a etherless void, if it was ever produced, we can assume that nothing would escape from it (EMF) but think on energy entering it. would it offer total reflection as an open cct TL? if so then the black assumption has gone....its a perfect mirror. If total absorbtion then energy gone forever...WHERE? Would it have its own time line?
From one assumption we now have a 'collection of ideas'. To interpret all this and remain coherent requires the kind of mind required for OU. Given all the mis-info to date there will be a fact discovered within. Ok on cooper pairs ..anti this.....on it goes...
If a guy said 'Ive made a device that puts out an energy field in a given direction', the first thought may be 'has he done it?' The thought required for OU would be 'Oh dear another one with a magnet.
If ethers density could be changed then energy presented 'within' this change, its 'value' would change if the ether returned to 'normal' values.
Isn't OU fun!
Food for thought or insanity....
Steve.
Quote from: szaxx on 2010.03.25, 23:50:13
Food for thought or insanity....
Einstein was right about one thing.... It IS all relative :o
Well, you CAN have a current in a dielectric which produces a magnetic field same as a current in a conductor.
See the Rowland, Roentgen, Wilson section on my bench.
Grumps and All,
First,
If say we made a dilectric disc and electrically charged half of it with positive and the other negative.
Spinning this disc in free space, would it impart an alternating magnetic field?
I think we can safely assume it WOULD impart an alternating electric field and as these two are characteristic components of EMF, then assuming the latter would cause the question first asked to be rhetorical.
The next one.
Does a permanent magnet have no surrounding electric field, does the electric field in a charged capacitor have any magnetism?
If detecting this involves movement of the field sensor, then the experiment fails, if the fixed fields themselves diminish then they are (effectively) moving, both indicating a failiure but if this is done for the first time ever in history, think about the errors that can creep in to disrupt physics. How many different theories are still being argued over from the 1800's?
The biggy,
If we connect a permanent magnet to a previously charged disc (as first question) what then? Anyone tried this??? magnetic/electric dilectric. The read from Grumps opens up more doors to what we don't know than where we were before reading. OU is real, it has to be, after all the universe is infinite, isn't it? you can't agree with one without the other.
The more we learn the less we know!
That is definately no understatement.
Put your answers here and see if they differ much. To beat this we need to act as one Outside the box away from convention.
Thought training tidbits
Steve.
Quote from: szaxx on 2010.03.27, 03:37:55
Grumps and All,
First,
If say we made a dilectric disc and electrically charged half of it with positive and the other negative.
Spinning this disc in free space, would it impart an alternating magnetic field?
I think we can safely assume it WOULD impart an alternating electric field and as these two are characteristic components of EMF, then assuming the latter would cause the question first asked to be rhetorical.
The next one.
Does a permanent magnet have no surrounding electric field, does the electric field in a charged capacitor have any magnetism?
If detecting this involves movement of the field sensor, then the experiment fails, if the fixed fields themselves diminish then they are (effectively) moving, both indicating a failiure but if this is done for the first time ever in history, think about the errors that can creep in to disrupt physics. How many different theories are still being argued over from the 1800's?
The biggy,
If we connect a permanent magnet to a previously charged disc (as first question) what then? Anyone tried this??? magnetic/electric dilectric. The read from Grumps opens up more doors to what we don't know than where we were before reading. OU is real, it has to be, after all the universe is infinite, isn't it? you can't agree with one without the other.
The more we learn the less we know!
That is definately no understatement.
Put your answers here and see if they differ much. To beat this we need to act as one Outside the box away from convention.
Thought training tidbits
Steve.
Röntgen used split plates, which is one way to charge the halves of a dielectric like you suggest.
See page 6: http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/reprint/70/836/809.pdf
The first experiment, shown in figure 7, I believe is a clue to the operation of the TPU. Since virtual charges produce a magnetic field, they are also capable of induction. ;)
(By the way, they claim to show displacement current in the second experiement in this paper.)
If you look at the Wilson Effect, you will see that you can produce a continuously restored charge on capacitor plates by placing them perpendicular to a magnetic field and rotating a dielectric between the plates.
--------------------------------------------
The electric field of a perm magnet resides within the magnet. The magneitc field resides in space, which happens to be a dielectric that has some permeability.
If you rotate the vaccum of space, you are rotating a dielectric.
A very interesting thesis:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-8I7AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=rendtorff+vortex&hl=en&ei=DkSyS7XkFomyswOLqcHcBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
(There shold be a PDF link in the upper right corner. Print odd pages as even pages are blank.)
Displacement current is in the direction of the wave front - same axis as the vortex tube...hmm
An excerpt:
QuoteFrom all our previous deductions it follows that the fundamental basis of electricity is the ether vortex tube whose motion through space produces a certain so called magnetic effect, or force, perpedicular to itself and its direction of motion. When the vortices enter substances having a certain permeability (better called polarization resistance) their motion through that medium is retarded and the kinetic energy of the magnet is increased. According to equation (20) there can be no dynamical tubes of magetic force but merely a plane of the resulting effect due to the motion of the dynamical ether votices.
Reading Rendtorff's Thesis, he says that two waves have to be timed so that the ether is curled back on itself to cause the ether vortex, which appears to be synonymous with the cavitation requirement that "TheBuzz" spoke of. Spherics mentioned a timed overlap of pulses. Tesla explained his magnifier with standing waves - waves in both directions. In SM's TPU, both waves are moving in the same direction but one is delayed.
Explosive shock waves produce displacement currents in dielectrics:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD400706&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.03.30, 19:53:29
A very interesting thesis:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-8I7AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=rendtorff+vortex&hl=en&ei=DkSyS7XkFomyswOLqcHcBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
(There shold be a PDF link in the upper right corner. Print odd pages as even pages are blank.)
...
Look over pages 37, 38, and 39
this is the ether wave, Tesla's RE, which can be seen as an oscillation
Looking up Birefringence, or double refraction, and we see that one way to create birefringence is:
"Applying a magnetic field can cause a material to be circularly birefringent, with different indices of refraction for oppositely-handed circular polarizations"
Not sure if this leads to anything, but it is interesting...a magnetic field makes space "directional"
Hi Grumps,
As ever, supplying interesting relevant info in connection with the enigma, answers we all search for.....
I will eventually read all (most) of it and comment.... A little busy at present
Displacing a charge or relocating a charge....sort of dilectric related.....Van De Graaf Charging system. An electric belt. lol
steve
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.04.01, 15:17:59
Looking up Birefringence, or double refraction, and we see that one way to create birefringence is:
"Applying a magnetic field can cause a material to be circularly birefringent, with different indices of refraction for oppositely-handed circular polarizations"
Not sure if this leads to anything, but it is interesting...a magnetic field makes space "directional"
Hmmm.....
Sure works well on magneto-optical drives ;D
CONDUCTION AND DISPLACEMENT CURRENTS IN CAPACITORS
J.Edwards
School of Electrical and Electronic Systems Engineering
Queensland University Of Technology
Even the most basic electrical devices rely upon electromagnetic wave propagation and
associated displacement currents to establish conductor currents. These electromagnetic
waves required to change device currents propagate mainly in the insulating medium of
the device between its conductors, and the associated displacement currents play a
prominent part in establishing the conductor conduction currents. In the case of
capacitors the conductor current is established by displacement currents in the insulating
dielectric medium, as the electromagnetic waves travel in and out of the capacitor due to
reflections off its intrinsic open circuit termination. Displacement currents should
always be associated with electromagnetic wave propagation, even in the simple case of
lumped circuit capacitors. This will be emphasised by considering how electromagnetic
waves and associated displacement currents take a very active part in the charging of
parallel plate capacitors.
http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~aupec/aupec04/papers/PaperID84.pdf
Diffusion of Current Into Conductors
http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:9792/saha-edwards-aup.pdf
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.30, 00:41:31
CONDUCTION AND DISPLACEMENT CURRENTS IN CAPACITORS
J.Edwards
School of Electrical and Electronic Systems Engineering
Queensland University Of Technology
Even the most basic electrical devices rely upon electromagnetic wave propagation and
associated displacement currents to establish conductor currents. These electromagnetic
waves required to change device currents propagate mainly in the insulating medium of
the device between its conductors, and the associated displacement currents play a
prominent part in establishing the conductor conduction currents. In the case of
capacitors the conductor current is established by displacement currents in the insulating
dielectric medium, as the electromagnetic waves travel in and out of the capacitor due to
reflections off its intrinsic open circuit termination.
Hi all. I'm a little bit wary of posting anything here at all. I've just read this thread through - very much a cursary overview. Here's some of the things that I have difficulty with. Edwards starts off - stating that ALL electrical devices rely on electromagnetic wave propation. Nothing explained by what he means by this. Is it the flow of electrons - as a wave? Or the changing magnetic fields - as a wave!? Or what? Or both? Then. Apparently what's required to change these currents that he also for some reason calls 'device currents' - (that's a new reach into yet more confusing terms) propogate in the "
insulating medium of the device between its conductors". This is determined how? By stating it? Or by tests? And then what tests? And what insulating medium? Then. These AND associated 'displacement currents' establish another well known phenomenon '
conductor currents'. They're clearly intended to be different to each other. Exactly how different? Again is some of it based on some material such as electrons? Or what? And then the clincher. The conductor current - in turn - is ESTABLISHED by DISPLACEMENT CURRENTS in the insulating dielectric medium - as these waves 'reflect' off that open circuit termination? Now the waves have a 'reflection'? Or is it a 'deflection'. And exactly what does this imply? That electromagnetic waves, whatever it is that they comprise - always duplicate themselves - in some sort of copy or a reflection? Or do they simply bounce off that medium. What actually is he describing? With the utmost respect - I am that dim or that literal - that I absolutely do not understand any part of this kind of dissertation. The worst of it is that it's clearly earnest and learned and the most of you entirely understand it.
To me it's just gobbledygook? Wish to God I could get to grips with these kind of concepts. I can honestly say that I understand absolutely no part of it and I'm reasonably au fait with some fundamental electromagnetic principles and I certainly have a passing knowledge of the English language. Not sure if anyone is equal to or inclined to a fuller explanation - and certainly there's no obligation. But I'd be the happy recipient of some interpretation of all this that could make some kind of sense. Until then I must just admit that I have no idea whatsoever about what you experts assume to be the properties of electric or electromagnetic energy and the force fields that generate that energy. Would that I did. LOL.
Rosemary
I think Edwards is referring to all currents in a device when he uses the term "device currents", as a broad and general term.
A displacement current is generally considered to be a current that propagates through a dielectric via changes in the polarization of said dielectric. Technicallly, this sort of current is a "polarization current".
A true "displacement current" propagates via an actual change in position of the dielectric.
Both of these forms of current were shown to exist physically and not ot be mere mathematical entities by Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen in a series of careful experiments detailed here:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CCgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbjr.birjournals.org%2Fcgi%2Freprint%2F70%2F836%2F809.pdf&ei=FWv0TPKaH4O78gb-2dTNDA&usg=AFQjCNEJovFU37HH6Kby44Xn5G9UO273QQ&sig2=bcoiJYQN1_K7Zo7GTZcd1A
AND the last page of this article:
http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/reprint/71/842/243
Edwards' term "conductor currents" has the same meaning as "conduction current" and is what most just call "current" and it is propagated through a conductor.
Physicist that study electrodynamics or plasma's are very familiar with these different currents.
An important note is that "conduction current" does not start to flow the moment you flip the switch, it takes a little time.
The stuff about reflections comes from transmission line theory and it not a simple as it appears because voltage and current do not work the same way.
Thanks for the link - very, very much. I could not only open it but am able to understand it - I think - certainly at first read. But I'll need to study it. WOW. Not often that I manage that much from the click of the mouse.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary,
Try this: http://amasci.com/miscon/speed.html
The author doesn't go as deep into this subject as the links provided by Grumpy but you should find it as good starting information.
BEP
This is great. I appreciate all this info, more than I can say, as much confirms what I have thought, and even better, proves several things I had thought are incorrect. (Final Meaning, I am actually learning. This is a good thing....)
A point of interest, as there is SO much here that interests me. I believe that someone stated (Grumpy?) that a displacement current (I think the real reference was to polarization current...) can "Induce" a magnetic field. If this is true, and I actually am "Beginning" to believe this, the the Quest for OU would actually be over. That may sound like a "Arrogant" statement, but I cannot see any reason to question it. IF I can induce a magnetic field from ONLY a displacement current, then I can obtain a conduction current from a displacement current. Directly! I assume all the readers here fully understand that, but no-one is saying it.
As an example, a properly timed pulse fed into coil at the exact rate so as to prevent conduction current, will still have the displacement current associated with it. (OK, two coils, one delayed with good reflection determining freq, etc.) If this coil setup has a separate coil around it, either isolated from the first by a standing mag field, or biased to prevent interaction, then this coil should have standard conduction current induced into it. (I realize the problem of reverse induction, but that could be used to help cancel the initial, undesired conduction. If you see what I mean...)
Is there anything wrong with the above statement? I realize that the methods in the example are crude, to say the least, but even so, with work and a lot of tuning, that should work as a "Proof of Concept".
Does anyone think that is worth a try? I never looked at it from this exact perspective before.... I think I would need a lot of help in determining the physical nature of the coil. (I could pull out the books, but that takes a LOT of desire on my part to actually do. I can be very lazy at times.)
I MUST now re-read all the papers again, with this concept in mind. Give me a few days to process. Thanks very much!
P.S. This also forces me to disagree with Hendershot. I have this "Feeling" that the caps inside the coils are making use out of this very concept and that his units were NOT simply powered by the earth's mag field. Any thoughts on that would also be appreciated. (Be a heck of a way to hide something in plain sight, wouldn't it. The designer might not even know...)
Quote from: Loner on 2010.11.30, 08:50:13
As an example, a properly timed pulse fed into coil at the exact rate so as to prevent conduction current, will still have the displacement current associated with it. (OK, two coils, one delayed with good reflection determining freq, etc.)
Hi Art.
How would you avoid the inevitable rise in conduction current at the flick of the switch?
Conduction current can never be completely halted, but maybe the trick is to tip the balance in favour of the displacement current (DI)? If the coil is wound to maximize inter-winding and stray capacitance (i.e. place a grounded sheath around a tightly-wound solenoid [delay coil]), and hit the coil with fast leading and trailing edges, you just might succeed in obtaining substantially higher DI than the conduction current (CI).
Then what?
.99
This si similar to what Eric Dollard says about the Tesla Magnifier (based on Eric's actual experiments with it) which creates an extremely large displacement current.
Someone was kind enough to scan a copy of his book:
http://www.magergy.com/documents/Energy%20Ebooks/Condensed%20intro%20to%20Tesla%20Transformers%20by%20Eric%20Dollard.pdf
Quote from: Loner on 2010.11.30, 08:50:13
This is great. I appreciate all this info, more than I can say, as much confirms what I have thought, and even better, proves several things I had thought are incorrect. (Final Meaning, I am actually learning. This is a good thing....)
A point of interest, as there is SO much here that interests me. I believe that someone stated (Grumpy?) that a displacement current (I think the real reference was to polarization current...) can "Induce" a magnetic field. If this is true, and I actually am "Beginning" to believe this, the the Quest for OU would actually be over. That may sound like a "Arrogant" statement, but I cannot see any reason to question it. IF I can induce a magnetic field from ONLY a displacement current, then I can obtain a conduction current from a displacement current. Directly! I assume all the readers here fully understand that, but no-one is saying it.
As an example, a properly timed pulse fed into coil at the exact rate so as to prevent conduction current, will still have the displacement current associated with it. (OK, two coils, one delayed with good reflection determining freq, etc.) If this coil setup has a separate coil around it, either isolated from the first by a standing mag field, or biased to prevent interaction, then this coil should have standard conduction current induced into it. (I realize the problem of reverse induction, but that could be used to help cancel the initial, undesired conduction. If you see what I mean...)
Is there anything wrong with the above statement? I realize that the methods in the example are crude, to say the least, but even so, with work and a lot of tuning, that should work as a "Proof of Concept".
Does anyone think that is worth a try? I never looked at it from this exact perspective before.... I think I would need a lot of help in determining the physical nature of the coil. (I could pull out the books, but that takes a LOT of desire on my part to actually do. I can be very lazy at times.)
I MUST now re-read all the papers again, with this concept in mind. Give me a few days to process. Thanks very much!
P.S. This also forces me to disagree with Hendershot. I have this "Feeling" that the caps inside the coils are making use out of this very concept and that his units were NOT simply powered by the earth's mag field. Any thoughts on that would also be appreciated. (Be a heck of a way to hide something in plain sight, wouldn't it. The designer might not even know...)
EUREKA !!!
Hendershot looks similar to Aspden's dual concentric capacitors and both have AC output.
Now, if you can move the displacement current in a circle, hint hint, then you can get a DC output rather than AC (oscillation). Keep in mind that the displacement current is in the field outside a coil of wire, so a coil of wire in a circle, a toroid, is positioned to allow the dispalcement current to move in a circle. You displacement current moving in a circle meets two of the requirements for induction per Willie Johnson (analytical chemist who developed Gyroscopic Force Theory). You also need a force perpendicular to the rotating displacement current, such as gravity or a static magnetic field.
(Grumpy carefully exchanges the Two of Clubs in his hand for the Ace of Spades up his sleeve...)
Abstract
According to Maxwell's theory, the displacement current in vacuum can produce
electromotive force on conducting current. However, the displacement current in
vacuum does not experience electromotive force from conducting current. The
asymmetrical electromotive forces result in non-conserved energy transmission between
any two coils involving displacement current and conducting current. In this work, we
designed and performed the measurements for such effect. We observed the explicit
evidences of non-conserved energy transmission between a toroid solenoid and a
parallel plate capacitor. The measured energy increase is well predicted by the
numerical estimation.
The Pièce de résistance:
Conclusion
Our experimental results indicated explicitly that the energy is not conserved through the
coupling of a toroidal solenoid and a parallel plate capacitor. In general, the effect of
energy non-conservation exists in any system of two circuits if one of them contains a
piece of displacement current.
Very interesting reading G, seems like a hot trail to pursue. Very timely and in conjunction with my recent thinking.
Only one reference given in the paper....anyone able to find it?
I have a torrent link for
Feynman Lectures on Physics :
Feynman Lectures on Physics Volumes 1,2,3 - Feynman, Leighton and Sands
but better not post it here, so if anyone wants it PM me ;)
that is just a reference for the resonance of the circuit:
See atteched and:
http://web.cc.uoa.gr/~pji/Feynman%20Physics%20Lectures%20V1%20Ch23%201962-01-26%20Resonance.pdf
Interesting that there are no other references.
In the article they state:
The total electromotive force along the capacitor circuit equals to the integral of the electromotive force along the gap, which is not zero. In this case, the electromotive forces between the toroidal solenoid and the parallel plate capacitor are not equal. The current in the capacitor circuit can be pumped by the electromotive force from the toroidal solenoid. In the mean time, the capacitor circuit cannot pump the current in the toroidal solenoid. Therefore, the energy in this system is not conserved.
There was an additional electromotive force E21 from the circuit 1 to the circuit 2.
The increased power in the circuit 2 is purely induced by the electromotive force from the circuit 1.
The induced current I21 is orthogonal to the induced current I20.
The consumed power in the circuit 2 was increased to (9.7±0.2) ×10-8 Watt. The consumed power in the circuit 2 was increased by 4.0×10-8 Watt.
In general, the effect of energy non-conservation exists in any system of two circuits if one of them contains a piece of displacement current.
What are they saying in layman's terms?
Hmmm....
Position of the small toroids within a TPU?
Construction of the small toroids?
Reasons for placing the control circuitry witin the TPU?
Why two sets of flat conductor bands appear in the TPU cutaway (not easy to see but I see them).
Possibly the only method where system resonance(entrained resonance) could result in an actual overall energy increase?
more?
My head is spinning! Hit me again!
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=355.0
My cards are on the table and have been. Theories of ENC are not new. I just call them NCE.
No, I don't think I have all and maybe not the correct answers.
WW
P.S.
Surely you have a pic of the TPU cutaway. Look near the top and bottom internal edges of the ellipse. One has two bands in a vertical orientation and the other has two in the horizontal.
hard to say
Are they saying that the amount of displacement current determines the amount of power in a circuit?
Would that mean the in a DC circuit, the amount of dispalcement current that occurs at the intial establishment of the circuit determines the amount of power in the circuit?
A rotating displacement current, would be a very powerful power source. It would be cummulative, adjustable with higher velocity providing more output - limited by the controls and materials.
Holy Crap!
I think so.
I suspect the conductor in the tube coil of the TK device uses the same basic idea.
A combination C and L with matching SRF driven near or at that SRF. What would we have if we had an -L-C tank circuit?
The only real difference is the TK device is most probably A.C. output as opposed to the D.C. output of the TPU. The D.C. is achieved by reversing the inductive side turn direction mid-way to create the difference of potential, aka. Positive and Negative.
New thought...
If all these wild ideas amount to anything we have a new term:
L= Constant Current
C= Constant Voltage
-L-C = Constant Power
Yes. It could be dangerous :D
It looks like everyone participating here agrees that displacement current exist.
Attached is "why" you need HV short pulses to get high dispalcement current density.
(Plug in 10000 V/m and .000000001 S (1 ns) and you get a pretty big current density.)
Further searching along the lines of "vacuum displacement current" leads to Bibhas De's "companion wave".
So, is "radiant electricity" nothing more than a vacuum displacement current?
Once the DI is established with a high current nanosecond spike in a current loop, it would only be necessary to grab it and drag it around the loop to establish further current flow.
Now how do we do that? Using electrostatic plates that are also pulsed?
So the loop must be maintained, making it a very low impedance machine, with 180 degree pick off points around the loop. This would account for the overheating effect since the loop must sustain 10x or more current flow than what is allowed to be picked off the loop.
Quote from: ION on 2010.11.30, 20:53:18
Once the DI is established with a high current nanosecond spike in a current loop, it would only be necessary to grab it and drag it around the loop to establish further current flow.
Now how do we do that? Using electrostatic plates that are also pulsed?
So the loop must be maintained, making it a very low impedance machine, with 180 degree pick off points around the loop. This would account for the overheating effect since the loop must sustain 10x or more current flow than what is allowed to be picked off the loop.
Wouldn't the plates have to be the same or higher voltage as the coil to grab all of the DI?
Aspden's concentric caps make it move one increment per pulse, so what if you pulsed them with DC pulses only rather than his AC?
Would you need something to hold the DI state between pulses?
Does DI current result in heat? It is not ionic, so where is the resistnce?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.30, 21:15:22
Wouldn't the plates have to be the same or higher voltage as the coil to grab all of the DI?
Aspden's concentric caps make it move one increment per pulse, so what if you pulsed them with DC pulses only rather than his AC?
Would you need something to hold the DI state between pulses?
Does DI current result in heat? It is not ionic, so where is the resistnce?
I'm not sure how you could grab the DI once it is established, again I'm guessing an electrostatic field around the wire might do it.
I don't have the answer to all those questions, but my guess is the heating occurs in the copper from the accelerated drift velocity of the electrons. The resistance is the normal ohmic resistance of the copper loop, the heating a product of electron collisions with the metal lattice atoms.
I attempted an answer because I thought the question was directed at me. You might want to pose the question to the others that already seem to know the answers, but aren't telling.
What sort of dispalcement current do you get when you pulse a coil with a whole lot of turns?
The pulse enters the coil and then interacts with the other turns as it propagates along the wire. Lots and lots of turns is lots and lots of interaction and induced dispalcement current in all of the turns. The whole coil comes alive with each pulse.
Unless I'm way off, a coil of many turns will produce a lot of displacement current.
You can't rotate a field with one coil like this since the whole thing is active at once, but you could sequence a ring of them.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.30, 20:46:14
Further searching along the lines of "vacuum displacement current" leads to Bibhas De's "companion wave".
So, is "radiant electricity" nothing more than a vacuum displacement current?
'Radiant electricity' or 'radiant energy' has been used as a label for so many unrelated things your question becomes loaded.
My understanding and opinions are these:
The one thing that could be synonymous with RE could be the same thing as displacement current or a companion wave. I differ in what RE is because I don't believe it is only a radiating energy. This is only one mode of propagation. RE and RF are not the same in any context. That is pure idiocy.
RE is just a bad terminology all around.
The basics...
What Maxwell called 'displacement current' was a fudge factor thrown in to make the math work. I have serious doubts he even truly understood the work of Ampere and Faraday. Maxwell's displacement current is on par with magnetic field lines. I can't see how he would use Gauss over Ampere except some statement he made about the math making more sense - relating to current flow.
Folks need to think a little more when they wish to detect and measure these esoteric values. We want to know what the magnetic is doing so we measure voltage and/or current and deduce what magnetism is doing.
We want to know what a coil is doing so we probe the transistor(?).
We switch the negative side of the circuit because it is burned into us that it doesn't matter. After all, negative switching is more efficient and easier to obtain(?).
This is fine if you wish to keep travelling the same roads and you really don't want to find anything interesting.
When you apply voltage to a coil doesn't the whole coil energize at once? Yes, with common measurement and switching methods.
Maybe we should measure the travel of charge vs. current or voltage?
We have all watched the work of Borderland Sciences. These folks weren't quacks.
Whenever we want rotation we do the exact opposite. We apply pulses in sequence around a circle and call it rotation(?).
Pulses are contradictory to rotation. Use rotation to create rotation. Try the most pure sine possible. Remember it takes two.
It is late and I've already gone to far.
Last thought.... High voltage isn't needed. High velocity is. If you want to bully your way to high velocity then high voltage is the easy way but I can't see ever reaching the velocities needed. I don't think increasing the voltage is the answer. Removing everything causing restriction to velocity is.
I play these thought in my head all the time. I don't have the answers. My list of what doesn't work does continue to grow.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.01, 00:20:06
What sort of displacement current do you get when you pulse a coil with a whole lot of turns?
........
Unless I'm way off, a coil of many turns will produce a lot of displacement current.
I'll disagree here.
The amount of displacement current for a coil vs. a straight piece of wire would be the same given the same conductor surface area and shortest point to point distance travelled.
In other words.... the displacement current for a solid copper rod 1 ft. long is probably the same as a coil 1 ft. long given they both have the same conductor surface area.
This seems to have some relevance for what you are talking about i think.
Hi Peterae
I'm familiar with that document, and consider it rather interesting, however, does any of it prove out in testing?
I'll let you know when I run those tests.
The so-called-effects of Radiant Electricity don't all fit with displacement current, but I can't rule out some sort of aether displacement being the same as the horrible term "radiant electricity". Most notably is the RE-mass connection which equates the magnitude of the RE effects with the mass of the object producing the RE (like a coil: more wire = stronger effects). I have not found a mass connection with DI, and spreading it out across a large surface decreases the current density.
Based on my own experience, if aether is excited in a way that casues it to move (contract or expand even) then it will oscillate, but if you can direct it in a circle then it may not oscillate but move around the circular path - like it has to be a closed loop.
Two ways to make aether "move" are to move a large object or to make a sudden change to the "energy" in an object. There is the mass:RE connection.
If we say the charging of a dielectric is DI then the highest DI will be with the greatest dielectric to conductor contact area with the shortest distance between the start an finish points for DI flow. Or, just describe the methods for obtaining the highest capacity for a capacitor.
Any descriptions seem to make matters worse.
What is real displacement current? Is it something being displaced or is it something doing the displacing?
None of the better research says what that something is. Names may be given but no sane sounding descriptions.
All of the following must be proven but it is what I suspect.
How do you create it?
Provided I do understand what it is, simply apply a potential to a conductor. It doesn't matter if the loop is closed or not unless you wish to make it unidirectional.
An easy way is to replace a solenoid coil core with a wire or rod. It seems to work better if the ferrous core is hollow and you place your nonferrous wire or rod down the center of the hollow ferrous core.
How to enhance the effects of DI - reduce the effects of the magnetic and electric vectors.
Reduce the effect of voltage by using lower potentials in lower impedance circuits.
Reduce the effects of magnetic by winding so the capacitive value of a coil is dominant over the inductive value.
1. series opposing bi-filar for a coil net magnetic field of zero.
This reduces impedance, CEMF and increases capacitance. All, will improve velocity.
Ok guys. I'm going to try and give my tuppence worth. If it's wrong then I'm relying on you to correct me. Displacement current was proposed by Maxwell. Here's why. Gravity is a superficial interaction of any material object with a gravity field. They knew this because its rate of interaction is irrespective of the weight or mass of the object (air resistance excepted). Electric energy was different. It related to the mass/conductivity/permittivity - the whole schebang - clearly coming from and interacting with the material itself that allowed that current flow. Now they had a force that was 'reaching inside' the material and it's rate of flow and general effect depended on an atomic interaction with the material. All was more or less resolved in the interaction of electrons as the 'carrier particle' which - in my not so humble opinion - is a load of nonsense. But. Regardless of this, the problem actually came when they had to account for it's being able to travel through air and also through space - such as in a capacitor. ALSO it seemed to have properties of charge because current flow could also be resisted by certain polarised materials. In other words - they could account for it as the movement of those valence electrons however it was seen to 'move'. But while it was bound to the material property of the circuit - it also seemed to move through space without being bound. Maxwell resolved this - by stating that it jiggled a ride on air molecules - using the air's valence conditions - as an where it could. To the best of my knowledge he never addressed the problem of the passage of charge through a vacuum. But I think that this was the actual first use of displacement current.
Since then it's been variously associated with radio frequencies and with all that actual energy that is measured on a coil being subjected to high voltages and fast switching speeds - that is not necessarily dissipated as heat. I have now met with a fair number of academics. And I have never met one who is prepared to do the actual sums related to dissipated energy on the kind of coils that we use which are both inductive and resistive. Apparently the variables are that complex that any such analysis is fraught - not least of which is that the resistance of the coil varies with the frequency. But there is clear evidence that this amount of energy far exceeds what is immediately usable. A true rms voltage reading is staggeringly higher than can be accounted for in it's temperature rise. Perhaps the buzz that now relates to DI ( ? is that the term) - or displacement current which is what I mean - is in all that potential that is clearly measurable here?
But what I don't understand is this? Is displacement current now seen as that current that travels through the air and lights the neons and whatever that are not connected to the actual circuit? Or is displacement current something else? It's hard to get one's mind around this when the terms are so varied. I do think that if neons and or any other kind of light can be lit without any connections to the circuit then that's got to be significant. I've read that this is claimed. I've just never seen it done. If displacement current can do this - then surely that's really significant. It means that energy is available that is definitely NOT being used by the circuit and yet emanates from the material of the circuit. And if one factors this in - certainly into our own analysis - then it also means that all that surplus energy - all that energy that we measure that is yet greater than the heat that is being dissipated - is actually HUGELY exploitable and HUGELY plentiful.
Hope this is all not too simplistic for this thread. If it's any consolation - my questions here are in earnest.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
From aetherevarising:
QuoteI do think that if neons and or any other kind of light can be lit without any connections to the circuit then that's got to be significant.
Rose
I wouldn't get too hung up on lighting neons or any gas filled tubes without a wire connection. It is commonplace for amateur radio operators and RF engineers to tape a neon bulb on the end of a stick and move it along a transmission line looking for peaks and troughs in the standing waves.
A waveform with a high dV/dT will cause the gas to ionize. This is also common with Tesla coils or any coil that is radiating energy in the RF regions. It can also occur under high voltage 60 Hz transmission lines, because although the frequency is low, the dV/dT is high.
I understand how a battery casing that already has a bit of an electrostatic charge will transmit some of the coils sharp rise time into ionising RF radiation. Also note that sulphuric acid is conductive and just a very thin film on the battery case will transport charge over a certain threshold.
hope this helps.
Seeing that my brain is getting overloaded with this, and the small number of quick checks on my bench are inconclusive, I am taking a break and opening up for a quick "Theory" burst, which I usually try to avoid.
I do not, at this time, agree with the statement that "Displacement Current" generates a "Standard" magnetic field. To sound even more out there, I would put forward that it is likely that the displacement current would be responsible for the "Companion Field" that has been mentioned both here and elsewhere. I have taken into account and noticed that some true EE's that I work with refuse to accept the concept of "Current" flowing outside the wire, while at the same time using the differing values of resistance to this flow that differing insulating materials have. I find that very revealing in that it displays certain educational processes.
I would expand greatly on some of the above, but I hate to look too foolish, especially when I don't have ANY solid data to back it up. I can state that in all of the work and study that I have done on Tesla, he carefully differentiates between the
summing it up, "displacement current" is a "broad term" for a non-ionic propagation of electrical energy that produces a magnetic field (in phase with the voltage, by the way, and sounds like a traveling wave)
Technically, it is a region of polarized dielectric that is actually "moving", and if the polarization is changing then it is a polarization current.
Last but not least, all charges, virtual, bound or free, produce a magnetic field when they are "moving" or "changing".
Quote from: ION on 2010.12.01, 22:29:36
Rose
I wouldn't get too hung up on lighting neons or any gas filled tubes without a wire connection. It is commonplace for amateur radio operators and RF engineers to tape a neon bulb on the end of a stick and move it along a transmission line looking for peaks and troughs in the standing waves.
A waveform with a high dV/dT will cause the gas to ionize. This is also common with Tesla coils or any coil that is radiating energy in the RF regions. It can also occur under high voltage 60 Hz transmission lines, because although the frequency is low, the dV/dT is high.
I understand how a battery casing that already has a bit of an electrostatic charge will transmit some of the coils sharp rise time into ionising RF radiation. Also note that sulphuric acid is conductive and just a very thin film on the battery case will transport charge over a certain threshold.
hope this helps.
Hello Ion. Thanks for answering me. My question sort of hung there for a bit. Actually I
am 'hung up' on this effect. You see we get way more heat than is delivered by a battery. But we get way less heat even than is measured as energy being dissipated at the load. And if all that was simply unusable RF then all we have in NOISE. Right now it seems that we can manage that resonating number without noise. But we still have to find out where it comes into the equation. In any event. It is absolutely NOT due to any kind of conductive material related to or leaking from the circuit. We know that. We've done copious tests from rectified AC supplies and that same condition pertains. Lots of noise.
My actual question is this. Are radio frequencies polarised? Do these 'displacement currents' or whatever it is that is lighting the light actually have some property that then resonates with the ionised condition of neon gases? Or do they simply select the appropriate interaction and adjust their polarisation? It's unlikely to be this latter option because we also know that electric current flow does not - as a rule - adjust it's direction of flow without there being some commensurate change in the magnetic fields that induce that flow. If it were an option to the current to alter a 'charge' or 'directional flow inside a magnetic field' then there would be no consistencies which are widely evident. I believe the entire science of electromagnetic energy has been developed around this fact. Also. We know that a magnetic field from a permanent magnet cannot - of itself - simply vary it's north south poles EVER. These properties of charge appear to be fixed.
So. Here's my thought. Could it be that the rate of change in voltage over time - could occur without those collapsing fields also being able to 'fully' discharge voltage every time a current is interrupted. Here's the thing. If there were some material property to the magnetic fields - some kind of associated particle - and if they were somehow broken off or removed from that 'field condition' then they would require a 'rehousing'. They would need to find some area in space that they could 'belong to'. And they would then move through space - at whatever speed - looking for just that condiition. It's not that absurd as a proposal. It would just imply that the aether may have material properties associated with it. But that would also require that - from a DC current - then those fields would definitely also have a fixed polarity or justification - or charge. Call it what you will.
Rosemary
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.02, 04:46:34
summing it up, "displacement current" is a "broad term" for a non-ionic propagation of electrical energy that produces a magnetic field (in phase with the voltage, by the way, and sounds like a traveling wave)
Technically, it is a region of polarized dielectric that is actually "moving", and if the polarization is changing then it is a polarization current.
Last but not least, all charges, virtual, bound or free, produce a magnetic field when they are "moving" or "changing".
i'm lost on this 'a region of polarised dialectric that is actually moving...' How can it be a polarised dialectric? Not sure what you mean. Do you mean that it's 'found' in a region of polarised dielectric? In which case I can still just about 'buy in'. But it's not confined to this 'region' if it is also able to move through air and through a vacuum. And I'm not sure anyway that this is explained by any definition. It leaves out the how, why or what part of those questions. And that's where I personally, am hooked.
aetherevarising, I am not ignoring you, but I must start in this area with a "One at a time" approach.
Grumpy. I must both agree and disagree, and as the "Broadness" of the term "Displacement Current" may be at fault, I wish to make a comment and get your opinion on my thoughts. Again, this is theory for me, even though I have some data to back it up.
I could agree with the "Non-ionic" propagation of "Energy", but I can't accept the word "Electrical" in there as most people would get confused and slide back to standard conduction currents. This is stated just to to clarify where I am coming from. At the deep level, this is an accurate statement, but I don't think I need to explain that situation any further to you. Probably it's the other way around.
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. (Not you and me, but others. They are NOT willing to converse on the net, nor may I even use names without getting yelled at. I'm actually letting a couple watch me type....) 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. Actually, this part we all agree on, 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.)
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.) 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.
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. (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.)
So, now that I have totally confused the issue, I'll re-ask, so as to try and get an answer. I will attempt to comprehend it, though I offer no guarantee. This is worded differently, so as to point the concept in the direction I am looking for, without depending too much on conventional definations, as they can be different, depending on how one learned them. The first leads to the second, and slides into areas you may not wish to bother with. Ignore it if so desired.
1) "Do you think the "Displacement Current" around a wire carries the SAME type of charge as what the "Electron" is theorized to?"
2) If "Yes" - Do you think, therefore, the the "electron" charge is not intrinsic to the particle itself, but is an attribute of the particle structure, or do you have a different explanation? (Insight appreciated, details not yet required.)
2) IF "No" - Do you think that this "Different" "Charge" is capable of producing the same type of magnetic field as a moving charge carrier, like the electron, or would this be a slightly different field? (Any ideas more than welcome!)
Extra Credit for me) Are you of the opinion the the "Proton" is the only source of a "Postive" charge, (Ignore positron, please.) or do you subscribe to the inverted phase of the standing 3d Wave theory. (You can laugh at me now and ignore this...)
I would really appreciate any insight you could give me, as talking with the same, opinionated, people that I am forced to deal with never allows for fully backing off and insuring that self-deception isn't going off the deep end. I was forced to "ignore" the Phase comment, as that can only be applied if certain attributes of this effect are taken for granted. I'm not quite there yet.
Thanks.
P.S. ION, That was an excellent explanation of things that a lot of OU researchers have gotten caught by. I include myself in that as I still must be extremely careful in that area. Working with low dV/dt and low Freq can help, but I still get caught, sometimes. I am very glad to see there is real experience keeping watch. I still have the same opinion that I've had for half a century. I HATE RF. (In a good way, as I use and basically understand it, but it makes things difficult. I leave that to others to play with. I won't get into the real reasons I have "Trouble" with some accepted RF theory.)
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.02, 09:40:43
aetherevarising, I am not ignoring you, but I must start in this area with a "One at a time" approach.
Grumpy. I must both agree and disagree, and as the "Broadness" of the term "Displacement Current" may be at fault, I wish to make a comment and get your opinion on my thoughts. Again, this is theory for me, even though I have some data to back it up.
I could agree with the "Non-ionic" propagation of "Energy", but I can't accept the word "Electrical" in there as most people would get confused and slide back to standard conduction currents. This is stated just to to clarify where I am coming from. At the deep level, this is an accurate statement, but I don't think I need to explain that situation any further to you. Probably it's the other way around.
The term "displacement current" is only a little bit worse than the term "electric". Supposedly, even virtual ions produce a magnetic field when moved. The big question is "what in the hell constitutes a charge in the first pace?". When you consider what a charge is, consider the medium that conveys it as well. Without the force between charges, there is no charge, and the force resides in space. Does the charge produce a change in space or does a change in space produce the charge or either?
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.02, 09:40:43
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. (Not you and me, but others. They are NOT willing to converse on the net, nor may I even use names without getting yelled at. I'm actually letting a couple watch me type....) 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. Actually, this part we all agree on, 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.)
The aether medium has inertia just like anything else that is moving. When you pulse a coil, electric force are invoked, and if intensity and rate of change are of sufficient degree, the medium itself will move and it want to keep on going like anything else in motion. There is also your mechanism of gain and also why he TPU has gyroscopic effects. I give it a cause of 10kv, it keeps going like it was 100kv. What is there to slow it or stop it? Not much.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.02, 09:40:43
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.) 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.
The electron is not source of charge without the aether medium to convey the forces.
Who said the magnetic fields of displacement current and conduction current are in the same orientation?
What parameters were used for those bench tests?
There is the change in polarization of a dielectric such as a plastic that is called displacement current and then there is moving the aether itself and the two are not quite the same.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.02, 09:40:43
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. (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.)
RE may induce conduction current and displacement current, but it is neither of these.Could which two attributes be connected?
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.02, 09:40:43
So, now that I have totally confused the issue, I'll re-ask, so as to try and get an answer. I will attempt to comprehend it, though I offer no guarantee. This is worded differently, so as to point the concept in the direction I am looking for, without depending too much on conventional definitions, as they can be different, depending on how one learned them. The first leads to the second, and slides into areas you may not wish to bother with. Ignore it if so desired.
1) "Do you think the "Displacement Current" around a wire carries the SAME type of charge as what the "Electron" is theorized to?"
I think that charge is just a different direction of spin that is allowing aether energy to flow in or out of the spinning region. I do not have a clear picture of it though. Electron drift may very well be a secondary effect of aether moving... ;) So, I think that aether in motion or a state of change causes currents in matter.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.02, 09:40:43
2) If "Yes" - Do you think, therefore, the the "electron" charge is not intrinsic to the particle itself, but is an attribute of the particle structure, or do you have a different explanation? (Insight appreciated, details not yet required.)
Charge is an aspect of aether interaction with matter or another region of aether.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.02, 09:40:43
2) IF "No" - Do you think that this "Different" "Charge" is capable of producing the same type of magnetic field as a moving charge carrier, like the electron, or would this be a slightly different field? (Any ideas more than welcome!)
I think a magnetic field is a magnetic field as in there is only one type, per se.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.02, 09:40:43
Extra Credit for me) Are you of the opinion the the "Proton" is the only source of a "Postive" charge, (Ignore positron, please.) or do you subscribe to the inverted phase of the standing 3d Wave theory. (You can laugh at me now and ignore this...)
I would really appreciate any insight you could give me, as talking with the same, opinionated, people that I am forced to deal with never allows for fully backing off and insuring that self-deception isn't going off the deep end. I was forced to "ignore" the Phase comment, as that can only be applied if certain attributes of this effect are taken for granted. I'm not quite there yet.
Thanks.
I don't do standing 3D wave stuff. Positrons were shown to exist. Nothing occurs without the aether being involved - nothing.
One of the issues noted by scientists and mathematicians, is the breaking of the "beautiful" symmetry between electrostatics and electromagnetics, in that there is no magnetic equivalent of the mono-pole electric charge in magnetics, i.e. the magnetic monopole.
Well, I would put forth that this may be a backwards approach. Rather, the point should be made that; there is no apparent equivalent of a magnetic dipole in electrostatics, i.e. there is no electric diploe, or dipolar charge.
However, everything must have a "positive" and a "negative" associated with it, because nothing can be completely isolated. There is always something in proximity that can provide a medium in which it's relative counterpart can exist.
There's the on-going question of "What is charge?" Well, isn't it an electric dipole whose oppositely-charged poles occupy different points in space? Unless the two poles occupy exactly the same point in space, there will always be a potential gradient between them, and just as with a magnetic dipole, a pole can terminate on multiple opposite poles simultaneously.
So, I submit that "charge" is a potential gradient between two or more points in space. There can not be "charge" without separation.
On the subject of DI, it seems quite clear to me what it is and how it manifests. Maxwell was correct all along, and the terminology "displacement" or "polarization" mean essentially the same thing. The former is the cause, and the latter the effect.
Those still touting that a capacitor is simply an open-ended transmission line (Catt et al), have not given the problem enough thought imho.
:P
.99
dispalcement means it actually moved
polarization means it changed orientation
Roentgen showed this to be the real deal.
I like your reasoning but I must think about it.
So, in your train of thought charge is indeed a property of space, only?
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.12.04, 04:34:55
So, in your train of thought charge is indeed a property of space, only?
I suppose that depends on what your definition of "space' is.
.99
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.04, 04:34:07
dispalcement means it actually moved
Agreed, assuming by "it" you mean the poles of the charge moving relative to each other.
Quote
polarization means it changed orientation
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
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
Charge is a state of the aether, virtual or otherwise.
Polarization is just an orientation, like magnet moments aligning, or dipoles aligning together.
Where do the fields reside? In space? Yet this empty space has the properties of matter. Doesn't that seem a little odd?
An individual charge can have a different charge relative to the space around it, which may be neutral.
Great information from all, but I have some problems with some of the details. Probably semantics.
Grumpy, I must think about your reply to my questions, but I can comment on a couple things with quick and easy responses.
You spoke of orientation of the fields. No one said they were the same.... ;)
The parameters I was talking about are "Conventional, school-type" lab experiments. This standard-type of test and measurement will not properly detect displacement currents, mainly due to lack of correct procedures, but I know of no school that would accept such procedures. I can state that with experience, as I ran into that situation, personally, and I doubt it has changed. I'm wondering if this is part of the reason for lack of understanding of the possibilities by very advanced EE"s and physics people....
IN BOLD, you mentioned "RE". I didn't, and wasn't actually talking about "RE". I was talking about the current that flows from positive to negative, which is something else entirely. This is what and where I am wondering about connected attributes. I am not ready to go into the "RE" production, as this gets into dipole currents and the differences in fields produced. I think that should be enough for this post....
Glad to see you don't do the 3D stuff. Aether involvement is a given, for me.
To another point, brought up by another. The mention of magnetic dipole not having it's relative counterpart is missing the fact that all currents have dipoles, as well. THIS is where a lot of this "Hidden" stuff and effects come from. The tests are conclusive and easy to do. (Rotating mirror is the simplest. I reproduced it myself with a laser printer mirror stack. Simple.) HOW to split these two apart, and work with them individually, or even IF that is possible is not an answer that I have right now, but I am certain that a lot of this is tied together. What I am implying is that conventional current, conventional effect, the companion, unconventional current would then have to have unconventional effects. Saying anything more than that puts me into "Theory" and would require proof before I'll say it.... I truly cannot say that the above mentioned current apply to pure electrostatics, as I have not tested such, but standard DC is a done deal.
Am I making sense or is this just too much. I hope the remark "Splitting the positive" comes to mind.
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.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.04, 05:01:13
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
If you made the same statement with the thought that all charges are actually the same sign with only the difference between them perceived as opposing, we would be in complete agreement. That difference would only be in magnitude, direction of travel or relative velocity between two points in space (space meaning void or filled with matter, it makes no difference except in the ease of force conduction or storage).
Hmmm...
Two of these points, approaching each other or channeled together (forced to almost bump shoulders on the way) would appear to us as 'Negative'. The same two points with increasing space between them (or more space than a 'more negative pair') would appear to us as 'Positive'.
Or maybe, the other way around. Who knows? :)
All, very intersting thoughts!
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.12.04, 09:18:11
If you made the same statement with the thought that all charges are actually the same sign with only the difference between them perceived as opposing, we would be in complete agreement. That difference would only be in magnitude, direction of travel or relative velocity between two points in space (space meaning void or filled with matter, it makes no difference except in the ease of force conduction or storage).
Hmmm...
Two of these points, approaching each other or channeled together (forced to almost bump shoulders on the way) would appear to us as 'Negative'. The same two points with increasing space between them (or more space than a 'more negative pair') would appear to us as 'Positive'.
Or maybe, the other way around. Who knows? :)
All, very intersting thoughts!
Yes, I am saying essentially that. 'SIGN' implies a reference. For simplicity, one side will always be positive relative to the opposite side. "SIGN" has very little meaning imo. What
does have meaning is the presence of a potential gradient between two points or poles. There is no "sign" really, only relative values between poles.
.99
Grumps,
I think I've already read that paper, and I will have a read again.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.04, 05:01:13
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.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.04, 09:04:48
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.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.04, 15:51:09
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
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.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.02, 09:40:43
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
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.02, 09:40:43I 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'?
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.02, 09:40:43Now, 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.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.02, 09:40:43Actually, 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.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.02, 09:40:43but 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.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.02, 09:40:43My 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.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.02, 09:40:43The 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?
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.02, 09:40:43To 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.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.02, 09:40:43(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
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.12.04, 16:34:11
"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
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.04, 06:36:42
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:
QuoteFrom 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
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.05, 02:59:16
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
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.05, 02:59:16
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
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
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.05, 05:34:19
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
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.05, 13:05:03
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.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.05, 13:11:44
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?
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.05, 13:05:03
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.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.05, 13:05:03I 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.
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
Quote from: ION on 2010.12.05, 13:29:56
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
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.05, 14:59:53
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
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.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.05, 15:37:10
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.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.05, 15:29:16
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
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.
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.05, 16:09:25
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
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.05, 02:59:16
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.
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
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
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 (http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-marin.htm). Some of the graphics seem to be missing, but you will get the idea.
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.05, 16:38:13
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.
MileHigh - IF there was an arbitrary interaction of electrons in any of their shells then our quantum physicists would not have been able to predict the range and type of atoms that exist. Nothing arbitrary MileHigh. The valence electrons in any atom can be moved in or out of that structure but that results in a valence imbalance. But all those electrons - are expected to follow a predetermined path the only rule applied is that they never share a path with each other. It's also fundamental to their thinking that they can say NOTHING about the movement of those electrons as a 'wave'. And in their orbit around the nucleus - they're in a wave whether they're in the outer shells or anywhere at all within the atomic structure.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.05, 16:38:13Things 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.
I can agree with this.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.05, 16:38:13There 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.
You're arguing my own point MileHigh. Maybe one day you'll take the trouble to read my work. But you can't 'outlaw' the terminology that is used to describe this. And that's how convention has chosen to describe it.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.05, 16:38:13Take 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.
But bear in mind. The current flow changes. And it changes in relation to that applied voltage. It really doesn't matter what you call it. But convention allows for that change whether or not you want to ascribe a charge property to it - or not.
Rosemary
Just a little comment about dielectrics and dipoles and all that stuff to stay on topic. You slip a dielectric in between two capacitor plates and then you get increased capacitance.
Now I am just going to fly by the seat of my pants here and explore what is going on at the microscopic atomic level. Each atom in each molecule in the dielectric has a positively charged nucleus and a negatively charged electron cloud. When you charge up the capacitor you set up an electric field gradient inside the dielectric medium.
Each individual atom will become deformed under the influence of the electric field. The positively charged nucleus will be pushed one way by the electric field and the negatively charged electron cloud will be pushed the opposite way. However, the atom itself will oppose this deformation of its symmetry because of the same electrical attraction and repulsion forces at play within the atom itself.
In that sense, each individual atom is acting like a mechanical spring and storing the electrical energy that had to be expended to deform it in the first place. In my view the deformed atoms (or molecules) are the "dipoles" and you can see how they are storing energy in the stress of the physical deformation.
There are many ways you can look at a capacitor and this is just one. It's always good to keep a good "top level" view in mind by stating that the space between the capacitor plates has a volume, and therefore can store a certain amount of energy per unit volume. When you put a dielectric into that space between the plates, you have basically added trillions of little energy-absorbing (and releasing) springs. That results in a higher amount of energy that can be stored per unity volume, a.k.a. increased permittivity.
In other words, nothing too fancy here. You can break it down to thinking of the dielectric as mechanical springs that are compressed by the electric field.
MileHigh
lol. Sorry Poynty. I though you were being earnest.
Rosemary
So, in the case of a vacuum capacitor, how is the energy stored in the vacuum dielectric?
Is the vacuum polarized?
If you look at electric induction, when you bring an object with a positive charge near an uncharged object then the uncharged object gains a negative charge. (I posted a page from an article on this several days ago.) The negative charge does not come through "space" or a dielectric from one object to the other, the negative charge is produced by sourcing or sinking electrons at the other side of the circuit.
I'm now questioning the whole "energy is stored in the dielectric" school of thought. I have heard of the test where you can charge a dielectric, remove the conductors and place new conductors on the dielectric and discharge the dielectric. I have also heard of test that showed the previous test is invalid.
I do not agree with the whole separated dipole explanation. If I expend energy to separate the atomic dipole, haven't I just decreased the energy of this dipole? So, the dipole and my charge imbalance are now balanced in the region of the dipole. This is why it resist the flow of charges, and the more the dielectric material can balance the opposite charges of the conductors, the better dielectric it is.
So, our stored energy is not in the dielectric, but the mechanism to keep the charges separated is, and the energy is stored in the separation of the charges, which will violently balance if allowed to.
One question remaining is are additional charges added/subtracted or do the existing charges increase/decrease?
Grumpy:
I am not sure if your questions are being addressed to me, but I will take a crack at a few things.
QuoteSo, in the case of a vacuum capacitor, how is the energy stored in the vacuum dielectric?
Is the vacuum polarized?
I think sometimes you just have to accept things based on empirical evidence and I am sure that there is theory to back it up. They have made measurements on the vacuum and have the measurements for the permittivity and permeability. The vacuum is not polarized because there is nothing in it to polarize.
From Wikipedia:
QuoteThe impedance of free space, Z0, is a physical constant relating the magnitudes of the electric and magnetic fields of electromagnetic radiation travelling through free space. That is, Z0 = |E|/|H|, where |E| is the electric field strength and |H| magnetic field strength.
The impedance of free space equals the product of the vacuum permeability or magnetic constant μ0 and the speed of light in a vacuum c; its value is approximately 376.73031 ohms; its numerical value is a defined constant because the numerical values of the magnetic constant and of the speed of light are fixed by the definitions of the ampere and the metre, respectively.
QuoteSometimes c is used for the speed of waves in any material medium, and c0 for the speed of light in vacuum.[10] This subscripted notation, which is endorsed in official SI literature,[3] has the same form as other related constants: namely, μ0 for the vacuum permeability or magnetic constant, ε0 for the vacuum permittivity or electric constant, and Z0 for the impedance of free space. This article uses c exclusively for the speed of light in vacuum.
So it just "is" and if you want to go down the path of quantum physics I will assume that there are are theories and models to suggest why we ended up at 376 ohms. I am just guessing that the information might be found there.
QuoteI do not agree with the whole separated dipole explanation. If I expend energy to separate the atomic dipole, haven't I just decreased the energy of this dipole? So, the dipole and my charge imbalance are now balanced in the region of the dipole. This is why it resist the flow of charges, and the more the dielectric material can balance the opposite charges of the conductors, the better dielectric it is.
No, you increase the energy in each atomic dipole. That atomic dipole is an electrical field dipole and that will work in the opposite direction of the electric field set up between the capacitor plates. Therefore the atomic dipoles are both storing energy because of their spring-like electromechanical stress and counteracting the electric field between the plates. Therefore for a constant amount of charge on the two plates, slipping a dielectric in between the two plates causes the voltage between the plates to go down. Therefore you can add more charge to the plates to bring the voltage back up to the original voltage. This stresses the atomic dipoles even more and so they are storing even more energy. If you stress the dipoles too much electrons start to get stripped off of the atoms and current flows and the cap discharges because of dielectric breakdown.
The bottom line is if you deform an atom that normally has a spherical shape and turn it into an egg shape due to an external electric field, then by definition that atom is storing energy because you had to expend energy to deform it in the first place. It's the spring analogy again.
You are deforming individual atoms but not necessarily physically deforming the dielectric itself.
Added:
There normally is no dipole, it's only under the influence of the electric field does the dipole come into being.Anyway, I am just flying by the seat of my pants.
MileHigh
Anyway, that's why I think they call it "displacement current." You are displacing the form of the atoms by moving the nuclei in one direction and the electron clouds in the opposite direction. That implies a "current" flowing in the same direction for both the nuclei and the electron clouds. It also implies that without any changing electric field with respect to time (dv/dt) then the displacement current is zero. For a constant electric field strength, the egg-shape deformation of the atoms will not change. The "eggs" only get displaced when the electric field is increasing or decreasing with respect to time.
As I have stated many times in the past, in the capacitor example the "displacement current" due to the deforming "eggs" in the dielectric is identical to real current flowing through the capacitor leads. We also know that a changing electric field with respect to time will produce a changing magnetic field with respect to time, irregardless of whether we are talking about displacement current or not. So it comes as no surprise that displacement current inside the dielectric medium of a capacitor results in a real measurable magnetic field.
Also, even if there are no atoms to deform or "displace" the base vacuum space has an associated permittivity and as a result by definition it has an inherent ability to store energy in the electric field that can occupy the volume of that space (or air at STP which has almost the same permittivity). So a changing electric field in a vacuum can also represented by displacement current because energy is being stored in that space.
MileHigh
The "dielectric dipole are displaced explanation" does not match with electrostatic induction.
In electrostatic induction, there is a current, but it is from the other side of the circuit. A capacitor should not be any different.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.05, 20:09:04
The "dielectric dipole are displaced explanation" does not match with electrostatic induction.
In electrostatic induction, there is a current, but it is from the other side of the circuit. A capacitor should not be any different.
There is only a current if you move the charged object that you are holding closer or farther away from the (formerly) uncharged object. You are implying that the uncharged object has a ground connection so that it can source or sink electrons. If you don't move the object in your hand then no current flows.
So the two examples are quite similar. When you move the charged object, the distance between the charged and the formerly uncharged object changes, and therefore the electric field strength changes. One more time you are back to a changing electric field inducing a current flow in the formerly uncharged object, and therefore there is an equivalent displacement current in the empty space between the two objects. That sounds pretty similar to me.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.05, 22:37:59
There is only a current if you move the charged object that you are holding closer or farther away from the (formerly) uncharged object. You are implying that the uncharged object has a ground connection so that it can source or sink electrons. If you don't move the object in your hand then no current flows.
So the two examples are quite similar. When you move the charged object, the distance between the charged and the formerly uncharged object changes, and therefore the electric field strength changes. One more time you are back to a changing electric field inducing a current flow in the formerly uncharged object, and therefore there is an equivalent displacement current in the empty space between the two objects. That sounds pretty similar to me.
MileHigh
I agree, except for the displacement between the two objects.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.05, 17:10:18
Just a little comment about dielectrics and dipoles and all that stuff to stay on topic. You slip a dielectric in between two capacitor plates and then you get increased capacitance.
Now I am just going to fly by the seat of my pants here and explore what is going on at the microscopic atomic level. Each atom in each molecule in the dielectric has a positively charged nucleus and a negatively charged electron cloud. When you charge up the capacitor you set up an electric field gradient inside the dielectric medium.
Each individual atom will become deformed under the influence of the electric field. The positively charged nucleus will be pushed one way by the electric field and the negatively charged electron cloud will be pushed the opposite way. However, the atom itself will oppose this deformation of its symmetry because of the same electrical attraction and repulsion forces at play within the atom itself.
In that sense, each individual atom is acting like a mechanical spring and storing the electrical energy that had to be expended to deform it in the first place. In my view the deformed atoms (or molecules) are the "dipoles" and you can see how they are storing energy in the stress of the physical deformation.
I get it that you're comfortable with this image. Which means that what I'm going to tell you should make you rather uncomfortable. IF the electromagnetic force were able to reach into an atomic structure then we would be well able to dismantle our atoms - at ease. There is absolutely NO SUCH THING as a spatial separation of the 'electron cloud' and the 'nucleus'. They stick 'like crazy'. The very best that our electromagnetic force can manage is to influence atoms that have an innate valence imbalance. And then it is able to push or pull those
atoms through space to vary the molecular or valence condition of the atoms. But that's it. And certainly - in the atoms that make up your average magnet - there is absolutely NO VARIATION TO THEIR VALENCE CONDITION. And NOR does the electromagnetic force introduce more or less electrons to those atoms via a charge current. It can only work with what's on offer - what's actually in the environment or in the shared space of that atom and that electromagnetic force.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.05, 17:10:18There are many ways you can look at a capacitor and this is just one. It's always good to keep a good "top level" view in mind by stating that the space between the capacitor plates has a volume, and therefore can store a certain amount of energy per unit volume. When you put a dielectric into that space between the plates, you have basically added trillions of little energy-absorbing (and releasing) springs. That results in a higher amount of energy that can be stored per unity volume, a.k.a. increased permittivity.
In other words, nothing too fancy here. You can break it down to thinking of the dielectric as mechanical springs that are compressed by the electric field.
The air gap and the vacuum allow the passage of 'charge current'. And this current can flow in either direction. Therefore - in that sense - they're unpolarised. The minute you introduce a dialectric - then you limit the directional flow of current. This evidence therefore indicates that charge current has a polarised condition. Nothing to do with more or less 'springs'. All you've done is enabled current flow in one direction and prevented it in another direction. And the more dielectric - then the more current that can be either enabled or prevented from flowing.
Rosemary
corrected
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.05, 18:19:52
So, in the case of a vacuum capacitor, how is the energy stored in the vacuum dielectric?
Is the vacuum polarized?
If you look at electric induction, when you bring an object with a positive charge near an uncharged object then the uncharged object gains a negative charge. (I posted a page from an article on this several days ago.) The negative charge does not come through "space" or a dielectric from one object to the other, the negative charge is produced by sourcing or sinking electrons at the other side of the circuit.
Why? Why is there an assumption that because 'charge' equalises through space is there any need to assume that this is sourced by 'electrons at the other side of the circuit'? Why can it not just as well be that charge - being something other than electrons - also influences electrons to change their positions within various atomic and molecular structures. Then you are looking at the 'effect' of charge and not the 'cause' of charge. Then 'charge' the thing that moves through space and equalises the balance of 'charge' may be something extraneous to the atom. Yet not evident. Exactly as the forces are not evident. I think we're all looking for that something - that property in the aether - that is absolutely NOT visible - or as WW put it - 'dark'. The only thing that is known to be extant that is also 'dark' - never having been found - are the actual properties of the forces. Then. Assume that they're 'dark' because they're outside the range of our measuring equipment. That means that they've either got to be too small or too fast or both - to be measured. A whole world out there - but outside our detection - effectively the aether that makes up the vacuum. THEN - it would mean that all that is visible and measurable in our world is being moved and altered and varied in space - as a result of the interaction of aether energies. And if you assume that atomic energy levels also actually comprise magnetic fields - then you'd only need the aether to comprise magnetic fields to allow for those endless interactions. We know that magnetic fields interact directly with other magnetic fields.
I deleted a whole lot of this post as I think I'm drifting off topic.
Rosemary
Rosemary:
I can't make head or tail about what you are talking about, it's simply too overwhelming to think about commenting on all of it, so I won't say much. I am not saying that everything I am saying is 100% correct, I would have to crack open the books and verify it all. However, I firmly believe that what I am saying is fundamentally sound. On the other hand, what you are saying is nearly 100% wrong, and makes very little sense. If you are genuinely interested in capacitors and dielectrics and permittivity, then I suggest that you read up on the matter. That's all I can say.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.06, 05:14:08
Rosemary:
I can't make head or tail about what you are talking about, it's simply too overwhelming to think about commenting on all of it, so I won't say much. I am not saying that everything I am saying is 100% correct, I would have to crack open the books and verify it all. However, I firmly believe that what I am saying is fundamentally sound. On the other hand, what you are saying is nearly 100% wrong, and makes very little sense. If you are genuinely interested in capacitors and dielectrics and permittivity, then I suggest that you read up on the matter. That's all I can say.
MileHigh
MileHigh - you started off by telling me that there's no distinction between a north and south pole. You then explained that a magnetic field results somehow from atomic dipoles. You then explained that atoms become physically 'distorted' by an electromagnetic interaction. I assure you that none of these concepts are supported by mainstream or by experimental evidence. And then you tell me to read up on mainstream science? Exactly why? Isn't it you who perhaps should do so.
And I believe I'm reasonably articulate. If you can't understand what I write then I can improve on that. I'ts correctible. What I
would suggest that you can't open your mind to what I'm saying. That's probably not correctible.
Rosemary
And - may I add. A capacitor does exactly the same thing as a battery. It's able to hold charge - measured as a voltage imbalance. And it can only expend that charge when there is a connection made between its terminals. The question according to Maxwell is how that charge is transferred through the space in the capacitor. He proposed the term displacement current. I have no idea what is referred to here in this thread as displacement current. I keep trying to get an answer. But without having an answer I've proposed that we're talking about the 'gaps' in a capacitor that do nothing to 'halt' the flow of current. And I've proposed how it is that the current can flow through that space - through a vacuum and indeed flow at all.
But. If displacement current is here referring to that extra energy that we all know is measured on a charged inductor - then I want to know more. Because that would be exploitable energy. So. I want to know how this energy is then moved through space - not only through a capacitor - but anywhere at all.
And by extra energy I'm referring to this. A careful analysis of the actual energy dissipated on our 'inductive resistors' shows that more energy is available or dissipated than the energy that is measured to be dissipated as heat. By the same token we have more energy dissipated as heat than is measured to be delivered by the supply source. I want to know if that difference in measured energy at the load compared to the energy measured as heat - may be what is referred to by Grumpy and Poynty and everyone as 'displacement current'. Surely that much is CLEAR? SO. What is it that you DON'T understand.
Rosemary
Rosemary:
Sorry I said that I am not going to comment. I have just one follow-up question for you from the discussion if you will permit me.
How does a permanent bar magnet work? You indicated that what I said was incorrect so I would like to hear your views on the subject.
Thanks,
MileHigh
That's a loaded question MileHigh. It's on a par with 'what is energy?' Here's what I know. No-one knows the property of a magnetic field - so how can one say 'what causes' a permanent field in a magnet. In the same way no-one knows the properties of electric current flow. No-one knows the properties of the strong nuclear force. No-one knows what gravity is and no-one even knows what energy is. All that anyone knows is the effect of the forces on material that can be measured. That's it. And frankly, until we've finally and empirically established the actual properties of any of these forces - then we're obliged to speculate. Here's my point. Mainstream's theories are contradictory. And I've yet to find anything that I can identify with outside of mainstream theory. So. Your guess is as good as mine. And this is hardly the place to expound on my thinking about the field. I have a 'take' on this. But I suspect we all do and anyway. It's off topic.
But if you actually want to know what I think it is then I can point you to a couple of links if you PM me.
Rosemary
Rosemary:
Every now and then there are moments on these forums that absolutely blow my mind. You have people that claim to be on the "cutting edge" and they poo-poo the "programmed 'classicists'" and it turns out they don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to their field of supposed "expertise." One of the ones that always sticks in my mind is seeing how clueless and nearly helpless Aaron was when it came to electronics and the use of an oscilloscope when he tried to replicate your circuit after having been "doing electronics" for more than 10 years. What a complete and utter farce that experience was.
You have written an alleged thesis of an allegedly new "magnetic model" and yet you can't explain anything about how a bar magnet works?
Here is a link from the Encyclopedia Britanica for "magnetic dipole:"
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/357033/magnetic-dipole (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/357033/magnetic-dipole)
Quotemagnetic dipole, generally a tiny magnet of microscopic to subatomic dimensions, equivalent to a flow of electric charge around a loop. Electrons circulating around atomic nuclei, electrons spinning on their axes, and rotating positively charged atomic nuclei all are magnetic dipoles. The sum of these effects may cancel so that a given type of atom may not be a magnetic dipole. If they do not fully cancel, the atom is a permanent magnetic dipole, as are iron atoms. Many millions of iron atoms spontaneously locked into the same alignment to form a ferromagnetic domain also constitute a magnetic dipole. Magnetic compass needles and bar magnets are examples of macroscopic magnetic dipoles.
The strength of a magnetic dipole, called the magnetic dipole moment, may be thought of as a measure of a dipole's ability to turn itself into alignment with a given external magnetic field. In a uniform magnetic field, the magnitude of the dipole moment is proportional to the maximum amount of torque on the dipole, which occurs when the dipole is at right angles to the magnetic field. The magnetic dipole moment, often simply called the magnetic moment, may be defined then as the maximum amount of torque caused by magnetic force on a dipole that arises per unit value of surrounding magnetic field in vacuum.
When a magnetic dipole is considered as a current loop, the magnitude of the dipole moment is proportional to the current multiplied by the size of the enclosed area. The direction of the dipole moment, which may be represented mathematically as a vector, is perpendicularly away from the side of the surface enclosed by the counterclockwise path of positive charge flow. Considering the current loop as a tiny magnet, this vector corresponds to the direction from the south to the north pole. When free to rotate, dipoles align themselves so that their moments point predominantly in the direction of the external magnetic field. Nuclear and electron magnetic moments are quantized, which means that they may be oriented in space at only certain discrete angles with respect to the direction of the external field.
Magnetic dipole moments have dimensions of current times area or energy divided by magnetic flux density. In the metre–kilogram– second–ampere and SI systems, the specific unit for dipole moment is ampere-square metre. In the centimetre–gram–second electromagnetic system, the unit is the erg (unit of energy) per gauss (unit of magnetic flux density). One thousand ergs per gauss equal one ampere-square metre. A convenient unit for the magnetic dipole moment of electrons is the Bohr magneton (equivalent to 9.27 × 10−24 ampere–square metre). A similar unit for magnetic moments of nuclei, protons, and neutrons is the nuclear magneton (equivalent to 5.051 × 10−27 ampere–square metre).
I'm absolutely done in this discussion with you and will not respond at all.
MileHigh
Wow, that is interesting.
I won't bother to show how many errors are in the "Quote", and I don't mean copying errors. I went to the link given, and while the measured effects may be "Proven", that is also a description of "Theory" on the formation of these effects. With a little "real-life" experimentation, the initial theory can easily be disproved. This is not to say that the math isn't correct for the effects, but to say that the initial "Cause" or "Form" of energy IS NOT PROVEN.
To "Blindly" accept something, without actually checking it out for yourself, can be very revealing as to what one believes. The only problem that this causes is if any part of the "Initial" parameters is incorrect, then you really are assuming that because the "Math" happens to work correctly, you must know what is happening. Even Einstien admitted that error, so this has nothing to do with knowledge of a subject, but with lack of open mindedness to consider the possibilities.
A stupid story, from my early years. Two people, one a sheep farmer, and one a scientist, drove by a field with a lot of freshly shorn sheep. The farmer said, "Those sheep are freshly shorn." The scientist said, "It looks that way, from this side."
In the above situation, who is correct? The answer is "Both"! The farmer, with his experience, can be 100% sure that he knows what has happened, as this is his area of "Expertise". The scientist knows that "Effects" are inconclusive without ALL the data, or what you see and measure are of NO VALUE. There is NO ONE who can say for sure that both sides of those sheep were shorn, without more data, even though the farmer could exactly figure it out, and the scientist could make assumptions from that.
Difficult point to get across, but I hope this gives an idea of what I think when people talk of absolutes, when the concept is still in the theory stage, especially when the "Data" being measured cannot be defined by itself. Can anyone actually state they know which is "Cause" and which is "Effect"? Anyone can calculate correct values, but what figures are you plugging in? It ends up being back to the old situation of assuming that "If the math works, I am right..." Tell that to Einstein. Interesting field. (Pun Intended...)
Here's a stupid question, as I am not sure this is "On-topic" or not. (I wish I knew...) The propagation of "Energy" on the "Extra" coil in a Tesla MT continues after the coils of wire. (Proven? Recorded data is available...) What form of energy is this, and could this be related to "Displacement Current". I am not talking 'RE" and Tesla made it clear as to the difference. I have not heard/Read of the "Possibility" of a Magnetic field collapsing into a single wire and still maintaining the same rate of dV/dt that was in the coil. IF that is true, what type of energy flow are we talking, as it certainly cannot be standard electron drift, especially as it's measured at pi/2*c speed? Lots of questions. No definitive answers that I can even test. What do you think? (That is addressed to all, if I may.) The more I test the "Fringe" areas, the less I seem to know... There certainly seems to be an energy flow that is "non-magnetic" in nature that still follows conductors, or am I missing the boat here? (I realize that many don't even recognize the "Extra" coil's function. If that's the case, just ignore me as an "unknowing" tinkerer. From original descriptions this flow, in extreme circumstances, was seen on the outside of the coil. Seems to be acceptable to consider that this "Current" could be related to "Displacement Current" in some way. Seeing that I have never, personally, operated an MT at this power level, I cannot verify that observation, so this is very much in the "Theory" area for me.)
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.07, 03:00:33
Here's a stupid question, as I am not sure this is "On-topic" or not. (I wish I knew...) The propagation of "Energy" on the "Extra" coil in a Tesla MT continues after the coils of wire. (Proven? Recorded data is available...) What form of energy is this, and could this be related to "Displacement Current"? I am not talking 'RE" and Tesla made it clear as to the difference.
I have not heard/Read of the "Possibility" of a Magnetic field collapsing into a single wire and still maintaining the same rate of dV/dt that was in the coil. If that is true, what type of energy flow are we talking, as it certainly cannot be standard electron drift, especially as it's measured at pi/2*c speed? Lots of questions. No definitive answers that I can even test. What do you think? (That is addressed to all, if I may.)
The more I test the "Fringe" areas, the less I seem to know... There certainly seems to be an energy flow that is "non-magnetic" in nature that still follows conductors, or am I missing the boat here? (I realize that many don't even recognize the "Extra" coil's function. If that's the case, just ignore me as an "unknowing" tinkerer. From original descriptions this flow, in extreme circumstances, was seen on the outside of the coil. Seems to be acceptable to consider that this "Current" could be related to "Displacement Current" in some way. Seeing that I have never, personally, operated an MT at this power level, I cannot verify that observation, so this is very much in the "Theory" area for me.)
it's a moving electric field
To me, the entire concept of a "displacement current" is now grossly flawed, and Maxwell was not to clear about it in the first place. The amount of charge that is communicated between a positively charged object and a grounded object only requires a changing electric field between the two. A changing electric field is not necessarily accompanied by a conduction current. By the way, Dollard's description of the field around the top terminal of a MT that is conductive, but non-ionic, sounds like an electric field to me. If there is such a monstrous displacement current along the MT coil, then why doesn't Tesla ever mention this? and not a single object attracted by such an enormous field...
I have found papers arguing both sides, to no end. Seems physicist are still arguing about a changing magnetic field producing an electric field. Latest development is that the electric field that accompanies a magnetic field is inducing the current. Who would have thought?
So, back to the moving electric field, they can create an induction-like response without the characteristic magnetic field. Any HV pulse coil produces a very strong time-dependent electric field. Make it very fast and strange things happen.
Who said that there is a monstrous DI associated with a MT ?
.99
@Loner
QuoteI won't bother to show how many errors are in the "Quote", and I don't mean copying errors. I went to the link given, and while the measured effects may be "Proven", that is also a description of "Theory" on the formation of these effects. With a little "real-life" experimentation, the initial theory can easily be disproved. This is not to say that the math isn't correct for the effects, but to say that the initial "Cause" or "Form" of energy IS NOT PROVEN.
The first clue should have been the word "britannica", which is kind of like the sesame street of science. I prefer modern science journals and the classics such as the original works of Maxwell, Faraday, Ampere,Weber and Tesla.
Regards
AC
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.07, 04:03:20
Who said that there is a monstrous DI associated with a MT ?
.99
Eric Dollard: see attached
If you read the whole book: Condensed Intro to Tesla Transformers, Eric is talking about an electric wave, not a polarization of a dielectric as most consider "displacement current" to be. I think the whole polarization explanation was applied later and stuck because it sounds good.
Hooper's "motional electric field" happens to have the same properties...
Anyway, electric fields are heap to create, cheap to maintain, and can be rotated or otherwise moved very quickly. Output is proportional to rotation velocity and magnitude of your perpendicular force, being it a gravity field, a magnetic field, or something else.
Loner:
I don't see any major problems with the Britannica quote. As far as the cause or form of energy being "not proven" goes, that's just the tired old "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" argument. When you guys do all of your experiments with coils I don't hear any of those questions being raised. It's only when you cite some known and established scientific knowledge that the argument surfaces. What is an electric field? What is a magnetic filed? How come that isn't pondered every time the boys and girls talk about Tesla coils when they look for over unity? We are just discussing the mechanism by which a permanent magnet works.
The simple fact is that all of us accept the fact that flowing current produces a magnetic field. This is a directly observable phenomenon and it is very well understood. Think hard drives. In a bar magnet the flowing current comes from the electrons orbiting around certain atoms or molecules that possess a magnetic moment.
If you want to go "extreme nerd" about this issue, I found this link:
http://www.uni-due.de/physik/wende/keune/deutsch/nuclear-moments.pdf (http://www.uni-due.de/physik/wende/keune/deutsch/nuclear-moments.pdf)
AC:
It doesn't matter where you find this information. You could easily find it in anything from a grade-six science book to the most advanced research papers pertaining to high-density magnetic storage. I view your characterization of the Britannica link as being "the sesame street of science" as you starting to play your game again, slowly creeping up and trying to hide below the radar. You could have chosen many other ways to describe the Britannica link instead of using that strange pejorative description. Also in my life experience Encyclopedia Britannica has always been considered one of the better and more respected encyclopedias. Plus as I argue above, the rational for your making that point is wrong anyways, we just talking about the well known and accepted way a bar magnet works. My senses are tingling and I advise you to stop it right now.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.06, 23:28:30
Rosemary:
Every now and then there are moments on these forums that absolutely blow my mind. You have people that claim to be on the "cutting edge" and they poo-poo the "programmed 'classicists'" and it turns out they don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to their field of supposed "expertise." One of the ones that always sticks in my mind is seeing how clueless and nearly helpless Aaron was when it came to electronics and the use of an oscilloscope when he tried to replicate your circuit after having been "doing electronics" for more than 10 years. What a complete and utter farce that experience was.
You have written an alleged thesis of an allegedly new "magnetic model" and yet you can't explain anything about how a bar magnet works?
Here is a link from the Encyclopedia Britanica for "magnetic dipole:"
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/357033/magnetic-dipole (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/357033/magnetic-dipole)
I'm absolutely done in this discussion with you and will not respond at all.
MileHigh
That was an interesting read. Especially for me. I've often wondered why you're that confused about everything. Now I know. It was also a relief to learn that there is - indeed - an atomic dipole. It's any atom that's got an imbalanced valence condition. And more to the point an iron atom doesn't even have to have a valence imbalance yet it is a dipole. What a load of whatever. LOL. And it appears that I was wrong. An electron can indeed be considered a magnetic dipolar particle. I'd give me eye teeth to know who wrote that 'dissertation'.
I also see that you still haven't quite 'done' with this exercsie. I lost my previous post by checking on your latest contribution. I needn't have bothered.
Rosemary
BTW - Here's my take on this kind of thinking. Knock yourself out MileHigh.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38315399/MORE-INCONVENIENT-TRUTHS
Rosemary:
I am quite certain that I am not confused about most things, and now you know how a bar magnet works. I am not really sure what you mean when you use the term "imbalanced valence condition" and I am pretty sure that's not what a typical magnetic moment for an atom or molecule is all about.
I note that you are citing yourself to back up your own arguments. That's not going to work for me, nor would it work in academia.
Anyway, the discussion between the two of us about this topic is over.
MileHigh
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.07, 03:00:33
Here's a stupid question, as I am not sure this is "On-topic" or not. (I wish I knew...) The propagation of "Energy" on the "Extra" coil in a Tesla MT continues after the coils of wire. (Proven? Recorded data is available...) What form of energy is this, and could this be related to "Displacement Current". I am not talking 'RE" and Tesla made it clear as to the difference. I have not heard/Read of the "Possibility" of a Magnetic field collapsing into a single wire and still maintaining the same rate of dV/dt that was in the coil. IF that is true, what type of energy flow are we talking, as it certainly cannot be standard electron drift, especially as it's measured at pi/2*c speed? Lots of questions. No definitive answers that I can even test. What do you think?
The magnetic coupling between the primary and secondary in the setup you mentioned is very low.
Only about 20%.
This from of energy does not involve electron flow.
It is the most pure and true form of electricity and it can be concidered the flow of a charge over or through sub-atomic particles or the flow of sub-atomic particles itself.
Apparently it moves so fast over the windings that the electrons cannot keep up with it and it becomes a massless flow of true electricity.
I only answer to this topic because i have read alot about this setup.
I see certain people fill entire pages talking about what we don't know.
What good is it to talk about that? in stead we should be discussing the things we do know.
:)
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.07, 05:39:58
Rosemary:
I am quite certain that I am not confused about most things, and now you know how a bar magnet works. You are citing yourself to back up your own arguments. That's not going to work for me.
Anyway, the discussion between the two of us about this topic is over.
MileHigh
:) Dear MileHigh. Is there some reason I may not cite my own arguments? I'll gladly do a piece by piece analysis of that quote you cited if you prefer it. It's a really choice example of my general complaint. I'm just not sure that here's the right place. This is about displacement currents. Not dipoles. Or for that matter 'atomic dipoles'.
MileHigh - what I will concede is this. You are really well versed in mainstream thinking - certainly amongst engineers. I see echoes of these concepts everywhere on these forums. And I would never presume to discount all that knowledge that you have. And more to the point. You're also able to articulate it. You have a real facility with concept - that you can get your ideas across really well. It blows me away. And there are subtleties and general excellences which you give with a flourish. I just wish to God you'd get up to speed on dark energy. You'd be a highly competent ambassador. And this new science really needs all the help it can get. It's just that you're that closed minded. If it were a trivial matter I'd understand it. But it's really important MileHigh. For our children and their children - and so on. Our poor planet is getting really hot under the collar. We need to cool it down. Urgently.
Rosemary
OK, I just deleted a couple "Pages" of comments, as Microcontroller gave an interesting point.
If we are here to talk about what we know, then what is the use? This disheartened me.
All my comments to MH, Rose, Grumpy, Poynt99 and AC must be of no use as this is discussing things that we do not know. I have deleted them and forgotten them. (Except that "Pure Electricity" has no electrons. I guess we even need a new name, but as I don't know...)
To Think, I thought that learning new things was the purpose here.
I'll move on, but Grumpy, Electric field is good enough def for me. Obviously, I will wait till I "Know" before saying more.
It is certainly not a displacement current. I was sure Tesla had acknowledged them, but not used them. I will find the
reference and then comment further. For him, Frequency was not Hertz, so translation is required for most of his work.
Time for me to break from research and go back to playing.....
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.07, 06:50:54
OK, I just deleted a couple "Pages" of comments, as Microcontroller gave an interesting point.
If we are here to talk about what we know, then what is the use? This disheartened me.
All my comments to MH, Rose, Grumpy, Poynt99 and AC must be of no use as this is discussing things that we do not know. I have deleted them and forgotten them. (Except that "Pure Electricity" has no electrons. I guess we even need a new name, but as I don't know...)
To Think, I thought that learning new things was the purpose here.
I'll move on, but Grumpy, Electric field is good enough def for me. Obviously, I will wait till I "Know" before saying more.
It is certainly not a displacement current. I was sure Tesla had acknowledged them, but not used them. I will find the
reference and then comment further. For him, Frequency was not Hertz, so translation is required for most of his work.
Time for me to break from research and go back to playing.....
Don't let those comments dishearten you Loner. I absolutely agree with you in that one way we further our understandings is by discussing the unknowns. Besides, many of the topics discussed here
are no doubt known, just not in these circles. I am quite certain for instance, that there is no mystery how a capacitor or electrostatic induction works. ;)
uC, if all we talk about in life is what we know, how can we go further? In order to progress, we have to push the envelope of knowledge.
.99
Loner don't take this too personal.
It was not directly directed to you.
:)
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.07, 05:58:44
The magnetic coupling between the primary and secondary in the setup you mentioned is very low.
Only about 20%.
This from of energy does not involve electron flow.
It is the most pure and true form of electricity and it can be concidered the flow of a charge over or through sub-atomic particles or the flow of sub-atomic particles itself.
Apparently it moves so fast over the windings that the electrons cannot keep up with it and it becomes a massless flow of true electricity.
I only answer to this topic because i have read alot about this setup.
I see certain people fill entire pages talking about what we don't know.
What good is it to talk about that? in stead we should be discussing the things we do know.
:)
There are more unknowns than knowns. I think it was you who said: "You don't know what you don't know."
Over the course of your life, how many times have you asked these same questions? Are you confident that you now have satisfactory answers?
You do bring up a very good point though. There is little discussion of what we think we know.
What about the momentum of this massless flow of electricity? I don't see any mention of that.
What about the gyroscopic effect of the TPU? We know good and damn well that "something" is rotating. "Inertia" is a property of motion, not mass, and if there is nothing mechanical rotating then ther emust be something else rotating.
What else do we know, that we don't tlak about?
Well, we know that in a rotating system, two orthogonal forces are required to induce electron precession which is required for a conduction current. One of these forces can be gravity or a magnetic field.
We know good and well that early TPU's stopped working when flipped over and had a low output. This is indicative that is used the gravitational field of the earth, and that the polarity of the output flipped when the device was flipped, resulting in the wrong polarity to the controls, and no output. We know that the rotating field is CCW in the Northern Hemisphere and CW in the Southern - just like a hurricane.
We know that later models did not have this problem and probably used a static magnetic field inherent to the device that flipped when it flipped ensuring the output polarity never changed.
We know there is a radial electric field rotating in the TPU because it is the only explanation that could be valid. The Gravity Resonance Coil had a similar field, but it was modulated rather than rotating (the goal was gravitational effect not electricty). So, cross the forces of the rotating electric field with the static force field and the electrons precess, if the circuit is closed, conduction ensues, lights lite up, beer get's cold, problem solved...
So, if we know so much, why don;t we have a working device? Apparently, some cannot produce the required rotating electric field, and the rest just don't believe it.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.07, 04:56:04
Eric Dollard: see attached
If you read the whole book: Condensed Intro to Tesla Transformers, Eric is talking about an electric wave, not a polarization of a dielectric as most consider "displacement current" to be. I think the whole polarization explanation was applied later and stuck because it sounds good.
Hooper's "motional electric field" happens to have the same properties...
When a moving electric field goes through a dielectric, it is slowed down, and the dielectric is polarized. I don't see gain there, but rather a loss. Dollard said that a vacuum would provide the fastest field velocity.
Regarding Hooper's "Motional Electric Field", one interesting property is that "it can drive a current without a potential drop": see attached
Rotating electric field causes electron spin-precession, and "precession" is the requirement for "induction" per W. Johnson, so if you can rotating an electric field you should see some output even without the other orthogonal force field. This should make initial tests easier.
A moving electric field should also have an effect on a regualr circuit...
Loner - there is absolutely no reason to be dishearted by what anyone writes. It's just opinions. And thankfully the most of us are trying to find answers. Don't ever assume that someone's opinion is justification for you to change your post. I've often been 'leaned on' to change my post and I think the real reason is because I've probably made a point that 'hits home'. Unless you're being offensive I actually don't think ANYONE can expect you to alter your posts. And frankly - it would be a shame. It's always a pleasure to go back and re-read them. They need to stay as they were.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.07, 19:32:40
Rotating electric field causes electron spin-precession, and "precession" is the requirement for "induction" per W. Johnson, so if you can rotating an electric field you should see some output even without the other orthogonal force field. This should make initial tests easier.
A moving electric field should also have an effect on a regualr circuit...
I know that Grumpy doesn't answer my posts. So I'll address this to Poynty. Presumably you understand it. What is a 'rotating' electric field? Is that rotation the 'circular path' through a circuit? Or is it something else? And if so - then WHAT? To the best of my understanding charge moves through a circuit without any kind of spin that is 'known'. If it's required for whatever reason - then why is it required?
Rosemary
Actually it's just occurred to me. He's probably talking about a motor. Is that right?
Rose,
I may be wrong, but my impression of what Grumpy means is somewhat in a literal sense.
Spherics talks about placing 6 very high inductance air-core coils in a hexagonal pattern (approximating a circle) and pulsing each one in succession with a very brief but high dV/dt pulse. This emulates a rotating electric field.
The idea behind using high-inductance coils allows for tipping the balance between voltage (i.e. an electric field) and current, in favor of the voltage. Current in the coil takes time to build, but the voltage is instantaneous.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.07, 22:22:40
Rose,
I may be wrong, but my impression of what Grumpy means is somewhat in a literal sense.
Spherics talks about placing 6 very high inductance air-core coils in a hexagonal pattern (approximating a circle) and pulsing each one in succession with a very brief but high dV/dt pulse. This emulates a rotating electric field.
The idea behind using high-inductance coils allows for tipping the balance between voltage (i.e. an electric field) and current, in favor of the voltage. Current in the coil takes time to build, but the voltage is instantaneous.
.99
Yes, something like that.
A very intense electric field, such a our HV impulse, will interact with the virtual electron-positron pairs of the "vacuum", and the electric field will also be communicated to other conductors via virtual photons. If you rule out actual electron-positron production (pair production) because we have been told ti takes more energy than we can easily create with our pulsed coil, you are still left wth the photons conveying the change in the electric field during the rise of the pulse. Perhaps these photons are infused with a huge amount of energy by their velocity and this is conveyed to the collector coil.
So, your rotating electric field is continuously radiating supercharged protons to charge the collector of a TPU.
Or you might say that the electric field is dragging the electrons since it is moving. How it is draggin them may not matter.
There are several explanations, all equally valid and invalid, depending on the point of view.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.07, 23:10:08
Or you might say that the electric field is dragging the electrons since it is moving. How it is draggin them may not matter.
I think this approach will work.
Grumpy, I agree. Sounds like a good approach.
Simple "Thought" question, as uC's point was very good, and your "Follow-up" really hit home for me. The TPU concept might just be simpler than anything I have thought of before, and may NOT be as spherics suggested. What I am "Thinking" (Build in process...) is to take the idea of the "Extra" coil, without trying to "Know" it's operation but accepting the effects that seem to appear, and using the "Continuing" propagation part of the effect. The orientation of the coils would be like "Originally" seen on the TPU, and the HV pulse would be sent around. There is a little more to it but that almost covers the basic idea. 2 Phases should be enough, but I'm starting with four, inverse conduction current phase, but same for the Electric field portion. (Don't ask how yet. That's the part that need work and my idea isn't fully vetted out yet.) I also haven't figured a proper load for the HV, as the Cap effect must be accounted for to eliminate any possible reversal. (I guess there is a little more to it. Any suggestions welcome....) Tuned load, maybe, or resistive or maybe even gap between coil "Output" side and 2nd next input. I must test several methods as simple scoping of the waveforms won't cut it here. (A real conduction current load would be nice, but I'm not yet sure where / How to obtain the best coupling. This puts the device into a "Transformer / Translator" co-function, but this seems possible and actually reminds me of Tao's original thoughts, but with a different theory behind it.)
Sorry, as this is not a TPU thread, but then again, you mentioned it first. :)
Rose, I had to take uC's post personally, as it was both applying and not applying to me. I was fairly certain it referred to other things going on, but it really made me think that "What IF?" kind of thought where it hit me, "Why not take what we "Know" and use it, rather then look for answers in things we don't know." It's hard to describe, but my initial reaction is what you read, but in the back of my head, the "Light Bulb" lit, which forced me to post, while I hadn't even figured what lit the bulb. For me, this usually means I heard / read something important, but haven't identified it yet.
Once I got over the illogical / emotional response that made no sense as uC obviously is here for the same reasons as most of the rest of us, the realization hit me, and then I read Grumpy's very calm and intelligent response, and I came to the conclusion that, while it may or may not have been the original reason for the comments uC made, He had a VERY Good point to make. It seems reasonable that all the knowledge that we need, for certain projects, is already out there. I am much better at assembling others ideas into new things than I am making my own new things. I feel it's about time I proved that, even if only to myself.
uC, please believe I meant no offense, and if I sounded slightly "Off the wall" it was because I was unprepared to deal with the reality that slapped me in the face. Thank-You. Really! I've been gathering knowledge for too many years, in many fields, just so that I could properly apply it. I think it's time I attempted to convert some of the raw knowledge into wisdom. If I can now use this stored information while keeping an open mind.....
Grumpy, do you have and opinion / feeling as to the orientation of the coils, relative to the centerline of the diameter? I am leaning away from Spherics 90 degree line, but only from "insight". I'll admit, I am biased as my "Spherics" replication went nowhere, but I never tried the concept in the "Original" format. I'm revamping a small build tonight, but was looking for any ideas and I know you've been at this quite a bit longer than I. Sorry again to insert TPU questions into this thread, but it's on my mind and I think the brain is starting to leak data...... :)
Do no go off on a full-scale build before making a few basic experiments to see if you can produce the necessary moving electric field. Spherics outlined this pretty clearly. As I recall, every failed AVEC attempt never achieved the capacitor charging effect.
You can see above that a moving electric field can induce a current without a drop in potential. Traveling waves from lightning strikes are probably the same thing, and a solar flare probably produces a moving electric field too. This also the source of what is called a displacement current.
Ahhh. What I mean by a "Build" is a small (6") basic set of coils, in a circle, with just a couple extra things, for testing.
I already know that I can get a mag field to rotate this way, but I never tried with "No Current". All I got with the rotating field was a basic transformer, though with weird characteristics. As I could never nail them down well enough to understand, I shelved it, along with a few too many other things. Seeing that my shelves are too full to add to, I figure that I should try these things in different configs before I throw away a lot of "Garbage". (Need room in my work area... Actually, I need to clean as I am a slight "hoarder" of projects. I have a few things made in the early 70's that I still spin up, once in a while....)
If I can get "ANY" seeming results, or even any conduction current that surpasses what I shove into the thing, THEN I'll go nuts with a detailed build. Of course, at that time I'll probably have a bit more interest generated, if I get actual data to post. (That hasn't ever happened yet, but I can always hope...)
I'm sure you can imagine the crude setup, with taped wires on ceramic floor tiles for spark gaps, etc. I'm still deciding how basic to start, as my quick MT check fired up first time. (Still no visible signs on the "Extra", but it's easy to feel the difference with and without it. I won't mention that again.)
By Cap Charging effect, do you mean the "Potential Vortex?" type of effect, or the "Standing HV" type, or something I am not aware of. My Spherics data is dated, with all the original names and such and so I have read it twice but never really put it out these for disection by the masses. I'll re-read to verify.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.08, 05:29:47
By Cap Charging effect, do you mean the "Potential Vortex?" type of effect, or the "Standing HV" type, or something I am not aware of. My Spherics data is dated, with all the original names and such and so I have read it twice but never really put it out these for disection by the masses. I'll re-read to verify.
This one:
Quote...how do you see "it" on a scope? I understand that you pulse the inner and the outer has the DC for the
steady field. Do in need to wrap a coil around the ccu to see "it"?
Reply:
If the steady field is from a battery you'll be able to see on the terminals of the battery.
OR
Charge a 100V cap to 50V. Cut two separate pieces of wire around 8 feet long that has good insulation. Connect one wire to one terminal and the other wire to the other terminal - no circuit!. Curl the wires up into two rough cylinders, diameter unimportant. Place near the CCU. Now pulse the coil whilst measuring the voltage on the cap, and scoping the cap. On the scope it looks like a very short burst of sustained oscillation. Voltage on cap will steadyly rise. Cut wire down to get best pulse definition.
ES induction vs. charging a capacitor by means of conventional DC source.
Is this how Kapnadze et al is getting "extra" electrons? ;)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.11, 04:45:24
ES induction vs. charging a capacitor by means of conventional DC source.
Is this how Kapnadze et al is getting "extra" electrons? ;)
.99
and here I was thinking that only a TPU could light that bulb in your head...LOL! :D
Every flick of the switch starts at ES (electrostatic), but most overlook it as unimportant.
See, you change the charge in your coil and it causes the charge of everything else to change automatically. It is quite eloquent. If the subsequent change in charge requires a current to flow, then so be it! Move your charged object around and the opposite charges follow it.
There is something going on when you first close the switch that makes the electric field go super nova. It is like is not an electric field just yet, like the aether is still forming the field.
Anyway, you should build something now.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.11, 05:19:51
and here I was thinking that only a TPU could light that bulb in your head...LOL! :D
In that case, it would appear
you are the one imposing the limitations. :P
Quote
Anyway, you should build something now.
I'll decide when and what I build, but thanks for the encouragement. ;)
.99
How is the power supply coming along? Still in ICU?
Hey, we could use some sort of electric field meter that can map a field with a little detail. Something better than a simple indication. I had a schematic for one a long time ago that lit a series of LEDs as the field got stronger, but something with a meter or something that connects to a DVM would be nice. Something small and cheap so you can build several of them. When you feel that field move, you know you are not in Kansas any more!
I have a 24-inch Toshiba CRT TV from about 2000 in the bedroom. That's when flat-panel TVs were starting to make inroads, and the CRT TV manufacturers took serious notice. Therefore they designed and manufactured CRT TVs with quality and performance like you had never ever seen before. At least that's what it feels like to me. The screen is perfectly flat and I have never adjusted any of the settings, they are all at mid-point and the picture is perfect.
Anyway, when you stand next to it and turn it on manually, there is a *PAFF* and can you ever feel the electric field that comes off of the front of the screen! It feels like a hammer blow, a huge impulse of energy! It's so cool!!!
The clock is ticking on NTSC television transmission in Canada though, I think there is less than a year left. I never watch TV on it through. I have an S-Video feed from a home theater PC connected up. With a 1 TB hard drive you can load it up with TONS of stuff.
But I love the *PAFF*!
MileHigh
Keep in mind that we are dealing with a transient electric field induction effect, so rate of change per unit time. A CCU coil creates a very strong electric field when you apply a transient pulse to it. This field is accelerating and propagating out from the coil. While in a state of change, this field will induce changes in charge which result in changes in current.
(A transient like MH just mentioned.)
I'm really stuck on a few things that have been posted, so I'm thinking out loud to see where it leads me.
Calling the initial "Charge" from the connection of a voltage source, before the beginning of conduction current, an "Electric Field" is the starting point. Accepting the fact that "Current" flows from both ends is point two. Accepting that the electric charge previously "Defined" (Only for this thought train, subject to re-evaluation at any time...) MUST have "Something" to do with the actual effect of conduction current, as in, this "Charge" or "Electric Field" is what "Pulls / Pushes" (I won't start of the "Wake" concept, here...) the physical "Electrons" (Method of operation not necessary, either...) so as to be the CAUSE of conduction current. First conclusion, the "Current" that is "Flowing" in the opposite direction from "Electron Drift direction" (Also accepted by most as standard conduction current, flows from minus to plus. For those not well versed in classical electrical theory...), must be somewhat involved with the same "Charge" or "Electric Field". This seemingly small conclusion provides many more questions than answers. (Is there anyone who disagrees with this simple, logical conclusion. I'd love to hear the reasons, please!)
I'm staying vague with certain principles, as I wish to keep this un-biased. (Classical guys, too bad for now...) This conclusion leads to two possible explanations, neither of which seems exactly correct, but I have an opinion, and wish to see what others think. This may be slightly off-topic, but then again.... Possibility one, the "Charge" or "Electric Field" also travels in both directions, and is sourced from both sides. Possibility two, the charge causes an aether "Vacuum?", pulling the "Reverse Conduction current" in the opposite direction. (Actually, the aether would be pushing, but let's not pick nits right now...) Of course, possibility two would be the "Simpler" and the one that would be easiest to work with, as this leaves only one type of "Charge" or "Electric Field" that would need to be worked with. Possibility one agrees with Tesla's work, as direction of charge could be modified by which side of the gen the gap was. (I leave anyone more deeply interested in that little blurb to research that area. There is FAR too much data available for me to go into, here.) This little problem is causing me severe design problems, and I'm testing to overcome them.
While the above may sound very "Far fetched", I am sticking with "Knowns" for a while to see how much I am missing, and so as to not "RE-invent" the wheel, as it were. Most of the above is accepted and known fact, though not all is common knowledge. The Standard and Reverse direction of current is well known. Electric Charge is at least accepted and documented, though not as well understood. Directionality of this field is slightly open, as I have yet to see a tested method to prove that polarity is not simply the function of approach or depart. The first "Opinion" part is whether the Charge is what moves the electrons in conventional current. IF that is so, then the second opinion comes in. IF the charge field also is the cause of the Reverse conduction current, then there would have to be those two possibilities above. IF NOT, then the possibility exists (Start laughing here, or say "S***"!) the the reverse conduction current is actually just the charge field itself, in a "reflective?" type of situation. The Hard part is, No Matter what I say or state, if the Charge Field is responsible for Electron flow (A given for me, sorry,,,), then this same charge field, going in reverse direction would also produce conduction current in the reverse direction.
Lots more to say, but certain test is interupting me. Gotta Go.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.11, 16:21:43
I'm really stuck on a few things that have been posted, so I'm thinking out loud to see where it leads me.
...
Yes to entire post.
DC is pretty obvious if you move the electric field in one direction, say you rotate it around and around, constantly changing polarity in the dielectric, constantly telling electrons to move, like a pump. Any book on electrical transients in power systems will mention transients induced by the system and those induced outside of it.
While not clear at this time, applying a force field perpendicular to the electric field, will increase the current by inducing more electrons to move - like it helps the E-field penetrate deeper into the conductor and influence more electrons by minimizing the magnetic field that works against you.
So, how do you implement a moving electric field?
Grumpy, that was part of something I asked before. I have made a couple "obvious" realizations since then.
When I mentioned an MT, I was not implying to use the "Ground", NOR the top load cap. Both are not required nor desired, in this instance. If you can generate a charge field, and feed this into one end of a coil, leaving the other end OPEN, then there is "NO SOURCE" for any standard conduction current, but the Field will still propagate to the end. This is actually the basis for certain advanced, but not well known, Tesla circuits, and that's actually where some of this concept comes from. This is also seems to be where the big argument between Tesla and Hertz seems to be based, as this IS NOT an antenna, but RF people wouldn't accept that fact. I am, right now, learning how to work with this type of "Charge", as I don't seem to be able to find an accurate reference anywhere. (Effects, ect. are not even fully documented. Certainly helps explain how a small flat coil with one wire can be useful....)
If I could get this to move a charge field up a long coil, then I am 9/10ths there. Arranging a coil around a torrid would do it, and only a single phase would be required. Actually, I agree with something you mentioned a while back, just a straight coil would do, for verifying the effect. The problem would come in with what externals have an effect, as I'm sure there will be leakage, etc. and where the charge will go upon disconnecting the source, as it must go somewhere. I am also quite concerned as to what happens when the charge hits the end of the wire of the coil, as it's far too easy for me to get one heck of a HV spark from there, which screws up the whole thing, as now I have introduced standard current, again. (I've said this too many times, without understanding what I was really saying. "Pesky electron flow!") Adding ANY component to the end of the coil would be VERY detrimental, so I need to do a LOT more work here, but the plan is simple, as are the tests I am running. It's just that this is very new for me to be able to actually work with an electric charge field, and be able to see a result. Very steep learning curve, as I am just beginning to really understand how electrical charge fields work... (In my own mind, that is. Theory is one thing, practical experience working with real physical fields is another.) It's hard to get out of the "Reference" mode that I am so used to working with. Hard to reference what charge level is there as there seem to be dynamics in this stuff I never considered when just "Thinking" about it.
If I can induce a conventional current from an electrical field movement, I'll let you know, as I am only to the point of trying to do just what you asked. MOVE a field down a coil (Easy, now...) and get that to DO something in a conventional sense. (Not so easy without falling back to allowing conventional current, which defeats the purpose, at this point.) If that occurs, and I can define the effect, even if inaccurately, I can then post such here, and I'm sure others will be able to fill in the blanks a lot quicker than I could. I begin to question if this is the actual TPU method, or if this is just the beginning thought, or, maybe this is the "Real" method, and a lot of mis-information went on. That's all guesswork for now. Actually, unless we see an original TPU, we would never know for sure, assuming any of this works, anyway.
I like the idea of inducing a field (Magnetic?) at 90 degrees, as if the first part works, pumping the resultant current througjh the center actually produces a 90 degree relationship to the charge field going down the coil, if the center just goes straight. This would be an automatic regulation as the more current drawn, the greater the field, etc. Excellent thought. Of course, I'm going very slow and that part must wait till I can see if the first part actually functions. Be assured, I won't forget it.
I would really feel great if this led to me actually posting something useful, with actual test data to back it up. THAT would be a post I could be proud of. (Which means, it will probably never happen, but I have to keep at this. It's become an obsession. This is when I do my best work, sometimes, as long as I remember to eat and sleep and things like that.) Gotta go play. Oh yeah, food...
Look at an impulse excited coil like a capacitor in which the plates are getting closer as the field is gaining magnitude (during the pulse rise).
Sketch it on a napkin - show a series of three different images each a little further in time - see how the electric field lines change? They are moving out away from the coil in all directions.
Now, since we left Kansas, and Oz is a magical place, let's imagine that we move those plates so fast that the electric field experiences a shock wave.
What happens to the electric field? Is it fractured into thousands of little pieces pieces.
Electric field lines have to terminate on a particle and can not loop. What if they terminate on virtual (or real) ions ripped from the Dirac Sea?
Are they virtual electric fields running rampant?
whew! Sorry Grumpy, you lost me. Brain overload, I guess.
I will assemble that, but certain local situations have taken too much of my concentration and the entire train of though has derailed. I will get back on track and contemplate this, but only when I can really give it some true thought. Must be getting old........
Can displacement current be used as a form of induction? If so, we might expect somewhat anomalous charging in nearby dielectrics from a rapidly discharging capacitor.
Also Grumpy answering a more recent question regarding charge distribution within a dielectric: 'Diffusion of Current Into Conductors': https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=79.msg7174#msg7174
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.09.22, 15:09:26
Can displacement current be used as a form of induction? If so, we might expect somewhat anomalous charging in nearby dielectrics from a rapidly discharging capacitor.
Also Grumpy answering a more recent question regarding charge distribution within a dielectric: 'Diffusion of Current Into Conductors': https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=79.msg7174#msg7174
Topic: Rowland, Röntgen, Wilson, Eichenwald, Nipher, Trouton, Noble, Barnett, et alhttps://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=43.msg283#msg283
Like I said in that thread: As I understand it, no transfer of kinetic energy without motion.
I believe these experiments indicate that if there is a space medium, and it can be moved, then we may achieve our goals of free energy, propulsion, and perhaps improved communication.
Rowland rotated the plates of a charged capacitor and produced a magnetic field.
Rontgen rotated the dielectric of a charged capacitor and produced a magnetic field.
Wilson rotated the dielectric of a capacitor perpendicular to a magnetic field and produced an electric field across the capacitor.
Eichenwald (as I recall) rotated an entire cylindrical capacitor (charged) and produced a magnetic field.
I don't recall exactly, but I think Barnett's experiment was a rotating solenoid concentric with a capacitor, and no current was deduced. This indicates that the magnetic field does not rotate with the solenoid.
(A quick search found a follow-up to this experiment that I have not read yet:)
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512179
The AVEC device (from spherics) is supposed to rotate "space" (aether) [perpendicular to a magnetic field] and induce current sort of like a motionless homopolar generator. I have it assembled now, but need to shorten the pulses considerably to reduce the current required.
The current being a number of charges passing per second, a displacement current does not really exist in vacuum, because of the absence of charges, and in a dielectric partially, we will see why.
A current is the effect of coulombic influence between charges in a conductor: when electrons are added to the entrance of a conductor segment, their field causes other charges to move along the conductor by coulombic influence, and after delay, other charges leave the conductor segment. In AC mode, when the frequency is high, the electrons vibrate almost on the spot, the short time of displacement in one direction and the other not allowing them to cover a significant distance, their real speed being of the order of mm to cm/s.
If a circuit is opened, for example between the plates of a capacitor without dielectric, nothing changes: the electrons still influence each other, but through a greater distance than in the mesh of a conductor, that between the plates. This will obviously stop the DC current, and reduce the AC current if the frequency is low. But the electrons vibrating almost on the spot if the frequency is high, they will still be able to easily transmit their influence from one plate to another, and all the more so since a large number of them can accumulate on these plates, the larger and closer they are.
With a dielectric, it is always the same thing, except that the dipoles of the insulator, by orienting themselves in the field, will also transmit the coulombic influence from one plate to the other, facilitating it.
We are therefore dealing with a single effect in all cases (conductor, vacuum, dielectric): the propagation of the Coulombic influence.
The influence propagating through the vacuum or through a dielectric, it is equivalent to having a current that we will call displacement current, except that we cannot act on this current in the vacuum as we act on the one of the conductor, because the charges are only at the level of the plates, and that in all cases we act on charges, never on a current (for example by the Laplace force). The treatment of circuits with large gaps between capacitor plates complicates the calculations because the current is no longer of the wire type, it is necessary to take into account the spread of the coulombic field and the fact that the charges remain at the level of the plates. This is why we cannot hope to use the Laplace force to influence anything between the plates of a vacuum capacitor.
On the other hand, in a dielectric where we also have the so-called displacement current, the one linked to the influence of the charges between the plates and via the dipoles of the dielectric, it is theoretically possible since there are dipoles in the dielectric but in practice it is very limited because the effect is on both the positive and negative charges. The Laplace force, for example, is cancelled out. Only the effect on the charges of the dielectric seen as dipoles seems possible and seems interesting but very difficult to test.
It's good etiquette to have some experimental data or papers to back-up assertions on a forum like this. Or a falsifiable experiment.
Or at least for subjects that have historically had multiple theories/schools-of-thought.
If this request is about what I wrote, it is surprising, since it is only the application of Coulomb's law, which is long proven, and there is no challenge of electromagnetism.
The charges are discrete, separated from each other and influence each other at a distance, but Maxwell's electromagnetism models their current as a continuous flow. So obviously the model indicates a current everywhere along a circuit, even in the space between influencing charges. What I am saying is only to put into perspective the reality of the charges, which are discrete and their average spacing more or less wide depending on the nature of the circuit, compared to the mathematical model where the current is a continuous flow. This does not call into question Maxwell's model, on the contrary!
As I recall, a circular disc capacitor has a magnetic field that is a circle centered between the discs.
So, If I have an open pair of wires, like a long capacitor, and I wrap a solenoid around it, can I charge this wire capacitor with the magnetic field of the solenoid?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.09.26, 14:52:09
...
So, If I have an open pair of wires, like a long capacitor, and I wrap a solenoid around it, can I charge this wire capacitor with the magnetic field of the solenoid?
Of course not. It's amazing how the way of talking makes we lose the thread of reasoning.
It is said that a capacitor is charged by a current or a voltage. But that's just a way of speaking.
A capacitor is only charged with... charges! It is probably too obvious to be imagined :) .
So neither a displacement current, nor a fem induced by a variable magnetic field, can directly charge a capacitor. You need charges, which you have to take from somewhere else.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.09.26, 14:52:09
As I recall, a circular disc capacitor has a magnetic field that is a circle centered between the discs.
So, If I have an open pair of wires, like a long capacitor, and I wrap a solenoid around it, can I charge this wire capacitor with the magnetic field of the solenoid?
Also worth noting that a capacitor can also be 'charged' via relative physical motion, as in a Faraday unipolar generator.
You might call it a 'centrifugal charge displacement generator.'
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.27, 10:24:07
Of course not. It's amazing how the way of talking makes we lose the thread of reasoning.
It is said that a capacitor is charged by a current or a voltage. But that's just a way of speaking. A capacitor is only charged with... charges! It is probably too obvious to be imagined :) .
So neither a displacement current, nor a fem induced by a variable magnetic field, can directly charge a capacitor. You need charges, which you have to take from somewhere else.
Armed with this assertion, we go back to Tesla's radiant energy sources:
https://teslaresearch.jimdofree.com/radiant-energy/
Tesla indicates that RE sources are "space", a Lenard Tube, and a spark gap with reflector.
We can conclude that these sources provide charged particles to charge the capacitor via the collector plates (other plate is ground).
Going back to the Brooks coil that "spherics" said will produce this same RE effect, when placed in a static magnetic field and pulsed with HV DC, we wonder if he was correct.
How can a Brooks coil of 28 AWG magnet wire, with a static magnetic field around it, pulsed with HV DC, produce charges that will charge the battery connected to the static coil, as well as capacitors placed near the coil? Note that the battery and capacitor are not grounded.
Can we rule out any possible wave or field effects that might produce a charging effect?
Are there actually no particles and photons mediating the Coulomb field are responsible like a photoelectric effect?
This is very important. Can we only be dealing with charges?
If we are, then we must determine how these charges are produced.
Do they come from the copper of the coil or the insulation?
Are they pulled from space?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.09.27, 15:23:45
...
We can conclude that these sources provide charged particles to charge the capacitor via the collector plates (other plate is ground).
Of course. Occam's razor. In the air there are ions, therefore charges, easily taken from high voltage conductors. These ions can charge a capacitor.
And also destroy remotely the input of a scope with its unconnected probes, this is what happened to me with my 50 KV power supply.
Quote
...
Can we rule out any possible wave or field effects that might produce a charging effect?
...
Yes we can :).
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.27, 16:57:58
Of course. Occam's razor. In the air there are ions, therefore charges, easily taken from high voltage conductors. These ions can charge a capacitor.
And also destroy remotely the input of a scope with its unconnected probes, this is what happened to me with my 50 KV power supply.
Yes we can :).
This is great!
Proceeding with RE is charged particles, and we keep producing these particles with repeated HV pulses. We take these charged particles and rotate them in a circle, in a static magnetic field. The moving particles align with the magnetic field.
This spinning cloud of charged particles, in a magnetic field is said to induce a significant current into a toroidal coil.
Is this because the particles go into the toroidal coil or a magnetic inductive effect from the moving particles?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.09.27, 17:10:38
...
This spinning cloud of charged particles, in a magnetic field is said to induce a significant current into a toroidal coil.
Is this because the particles go into the toroidal coil or a magnetic inductive effect from the moving particles?
There can be many reasons. Capacitive influence with the winding, influence by magnetic leakage, or "normal" coupling with the torus if ions pass through the central hole.
The question is "what do we want to do with this?". The resistance of an ionic current in air is high, no hope of OU.
A few years ago I played around with my 50 KV power supply. I was using 2 conductors spaced far enough apart to avoid an arc. The two constituted a capacitor between whose plates the ionization of the air was important, and in series I had placed an inductor.
The ionization of the air not being a linear conductor, the system oscillated because of a negative dynamic resistance. By playing with C and L, I could get a signal up to 2 MHz, which I could receive on an AM radio. All this is fun and instructive, but not useful, we do much better with semiconductors!
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.27, 17:41:16
There can be many reasons. Capacitive influence with the winding, influence by magnetic leakage, or "normal" coupling with the torus if ions pass through the central hole.
The question is "what do we want to do with this?". The resistance of an ionic current in air is high, no hope of OU.
A few years ago I played around with my 50 KV power supply. I was using 2 conductors spaced far enough apart to avoid an arc. The two constituted a capacitor between whose plates the ionization of the air was important, and in series I had placed an inductor.
The ionization of the air not being a linear conductor, the system oscillated because of a negative dynamic resistance. By playing with C and L, I could get a signal up to 2 MHz, which I could receive on an AM radio. All this is fun and instructive, but not useful, we do much better with semiconductors!
Yes,, the rotating ions (very fast) are in the center of the toroid, and aligned with the static magnetic field.
The device that I have constructed is supposed to produce at least 2kw, so I don't think the ions are the current supply, but rather a means for inducing current.
The DC field determines the amount of induced current, and it is said that the device can explode if this DC field is suddenly lost.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.09.27, 17:50:09
Yes,, the rotating ions (very fast) are in the center of the toroid, and aligned with the static magnetic field.
The device that I have constructed is supposed to produce at least 2kw, so I don't think the ions are the current supply, but rather a means for inducing current.
It's a hell of a job to make a setup of this size! O0
Note that the ions can't go faster than the air that carries them and that they drag. It can be faster than in a conductor, but still rather slow.
Quote
The DC field determines the amount of induced current, and it is said that the device can explode if this DC field is suddenly lost.
So I hope it will explode, you will be sure it works and that could convince me! :)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.27, 19:02:29
It's a hell of a job to make a setup of this size! O0
Note that the ions can't go faster than the air that carries them and that they drag. It can be faster than in a conductor, but still rather slow.
So I hope it will explode, you will be sure it works and that could convince me! :)
The field has to rotate at a speed that is a factor of the speed of light and 6.
I believe this is faster than ions in air, so I wonder if the ions are along for the ride and the electric field is doing work. (?)
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.09.27, 19:19:49
The field has to rotate at a speed that is a factor of the speed of light and 6.
I believe this is faster than ions in air, so I wonder if the ions are along for the ride and the electric field is doing work. (?)
Ions in vacuum, with very reduced pressure, perhaps.
In air it is impossible, ions are molecules with more or less electrons, and they collide with each other and with other molecules, the air moves with them. It is thanks to this resistance of the air to the ions that the Naudin lifter worked.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.27, 19:27:05
Ions in vacuum, with very reduced pressure, perhaps.
In air it is impossible, ions are molecules with more or less electrons, and they collide with each other and with other molecules, the air moves with them. It is thanks to this resistance of the air to the ions that the Naudin lifter worked.
Quite the conundrum...
There is a definite electric field around those coils.
Can a rotating electric field, perpendicular to a static magnetic field, induce a current?
Willie Johnson's GFT theory predicts that this is true. That is where I got the tExB=qr equation in my signature. (Note that he uses quaternions extensively, and I am not mathematically inclined.)
Topic: Induction in the GFT (Gyroscopic force Theory) Involving Scalar Fields
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2561.msg40498#msg40498
F6FLT
QuoteOf course not. It's amazing how the way of talking makes we lose the thread of reasoning.
It is said that a capacitor is charged by a current or a voltage. But that's just a way of speaking. A capacitor is only charged with... charges! It is probably too obvious to be imagined :) .
So neither a displacement current, nor a fem induced by a variable magnetic field, can directly charge a capacitor. You need charges, which you have to take from somewhere else.
Agreed , here are some of the best explanations I have read which explain what charge is and how it works.
http://amasci.com/elect/charge1.html
WHAT IS "ELECTRIC CHARGE?", 1999 W. Beaty BSEE
http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html
What Is "Electricity"?, 1996 William J. Beaty
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.09.27, 21:03:47
F6FLT
Agreed , here are some of the best explanations I have read which explain what charge is and how it works.
http://amasci.com/elect/charge1.html
WHAT IS "ELECTRIC CHARGE?", 1999 W. Beaty BSEE
http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html
What Is "Electricity"?, 1996 William J. Beaty
AC
This was a conversation across multiple thread topics at the same time between F6 and myself. It went very well.
It started as an attempt to determine what radiant energy in Tesla's patents is, and then determine if Spheric's coils produce the same thing as RE.
Grumpy
QuoteThis was a conversation across multiple thread topics at the same time between F6 and myself. It went very well.
It started as an attempt to determine what radiant energy in Tesla's patents is, and then determine if Spheric's coils produce the same thing as RE.
Not unlike Bill Beaty's explanations for electricity/charge I found radiant energy is not a thing. Radiant Energy is a wide range of effects and phenomena relating to energy proceeding outward from a center ie. radially, to radiate, radiation. This is where most get confused in the same way they do about electricity, charge(s) and energy.
For example, we take a piece of wire and vary it's EM field periodically which can cause it to radiate EM energy which we call an antenna. Fair enough, now we take said antenna and explode it outward as millions of many smaller radiant antennas which also radiate energy as an EM field in that instance. However its problematic because our antenna is now fluid or particulate, each piece of material radiating EM energy but also radiating outward away from the source in every direction in itself. So... what is it?.
Obviously it's problematic when the supposedly physical thing radiating EM energy like an antenna starts physically changing in volume and radiating outward from the source in itself.
Imagine the conversation our mind is having...
Me: I just exploded the antenna.
Mind: You what?, wait, you can't do that.
Me: I just did.
Mind: But, but that creates too many variables, too many problems, too much work.
Me: I just did it anyways.
Mind: Whoa, what?, why do you have to be so difficult?, why change stuff because now I have to work for it?, why not make things easy?.
Me: I don't care, get off your ass and start doing your job, I want to know what is happening and why in every instance.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.09.28, 00:26:01
Grumpy
Not unlike Bill Beaty's explanations for electricity/charge I found radiant energy is not a thing. Radiant Energy is a wide range of effects and phenomena relating to energy proceeding outward from a center ie. radially, to radiate, radiation.
...
I agree. I wouldn't say it doesn't exist, it exists but it is confused with the energy of the classical electromagnetic fields E and B.
These fields have a density energy 1/2*B²/µ + 1/2*E²*ε.
They are found in two forms:
- the near field, near the "radiating" conductors, which is a form captive to the source. The field builds and destroys itself at the rate of the signal period, constantly exchanging its energy with the current/voltage of the source. This field is not really "radiating" even if it is present at a distance of the order of the wavelength.
- The truly radiant form, the electromagnetic wave, which is those near fields detaching themselves from the source and propagating away from it and independently of it, with the transverse E and H fields carrying energy away from the source, which begins to occur at a distance of the order of the wavelength.
There is a continuity between the two. This link (https://www.lesics.com/electromagnetic-radiation.html) that Grumpy presented elsewhere explains it well.
In proximity their effects are powerful, these fields induce currents in everything around them. Even with a 5W walkie-talkie I can crash my PC at 2 meters with certain frequencies. With 100W in an outdoor antenna, I turned off my old TV at 20 meters because its remote control circuit was impacted. A few km away from the European longwave transmitters (there are only 3 left), which had powers between 1 and 2 MW, people heard the radio in their stove by magnetostriction effect, or in their dental amalgams which made diode!
For a radio itechnician, the effects near a Tesla coil are extremely trivial and do not differ from what we have near a radio antenna. If at the time of Tesla, pioneer in the use of these powerful fields, one could be surprised by their effects, today it is really to indulge in a mythology to see anything other than what one sees near a radio antenna. I am not saying that a longitudinal wave with its own "radiant energy" is impossible, but if it exists it will be much more subtle and difficult to identify, because of a low intensity that has gone unnoticed until now and probably a decay in 1/r² instead of 1/r for an electromagnetic wave. No reason to imagine anything by this means to transmit significant energy at a distance, when we are not even able to detect the slightest effect today, except to confuse it, which I see everywhere, with a classical electric field, a magnetic field or a hertzian wave.
Coincidentally, Spherics did state that the RE particles:
As they stream out they are not deflected by anything, affect everything they touch, and reduce affect according to inverse square of the distance from source.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.09.28, 15:23:20
Coincidentally, Spherics did state that the RE particles:
As they stream out they are not deflected by anything, affect everything they touch, and reduce affect according to inverse square of the distance from source.
Inverse square, or inverse cubed?
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.09.28, 15:47:44
Inverse square, or inverse cubed?
He distinctly said "inverse square".
I just came across an interesting paper that explains why displacement currents are a myth.
Let's be clear, displacement currents are a simple way of dealing with problems, and can be used as such, but they are not a physical reality.
In http://www.asps.it/miller.pdf (http://www.asps.it/miller.pdf) Miller starts from Jefimenko's work and explains to us that Maxwell's equations are non-local since they instantly connect distant objects, like B and E, or D and ρ. If they can do this, it is not that B instantly creates E somewhere else (or vice versa), it is that these objects have common causes.
What are the causes?
1. E is a function entirely of electric charge density and current density.
2. H is a function entirely of current density
So when we write e.g. ∇xE = ∂B/∂t, it is not that a varying magnetic field creates an electric field.
The only causes of the effects are the charges, and the movements of the charges. So a displacement current, unlike a charge current, cannot create a magnetic field or electromagnetic waves. This justifies justifies my replies #180 and #184.
Cherry on the cake, this is perfectly in line with relativity.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.11.14, 12:08:14
I just came across an interesting paper that explains why displacement currents are a myth.
Let's be clear, displacement currents are a simple way of dealing with problems, and can be used as such, but they are not a physical reality.
In http://www.asps.it/miller.pdf (http://www.asps.it/miller.pdf) Miller starts from Jefimenko's work and explains to us that Maxwell's equations are non-local since they instantly connect distant objects, like B and E, or D and ρ. If they can do this, it is not that B instantly creates E somewhere else (or vice versa), it is that these objects have common causes.
So when we write e.g. ∇xE = ∂B/∂t, it is not that a varying magnetic field creates an electric field.
The only causes of the effects are the charges, and the movements of the charges. So a displacement current, unlike a charge current, cannot create a magnetic field or electromagnetic waves. This justifies justifies my replies #180 and #184.
Cherry on the cake, this is perfectly in line with relativity.
Seems to have a world of possibilities, as a displacement current lacking an associated magnetic field would not be subject to normal ohmic losses (R=V/I). ;D
Even more provocative since it doesn't require fundamental formulas+principles to be rewritten, just re-interpreted.
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.11.16, 04:25:06
Seems to have a world of possibilities, as a displacement current lacking an associated magnetic field would not be subject to normal ohmic losses (R=V/I). ;D
...
You are going too fast. The absence of a magnetic field created by a displacement current does not mean the absence of a magnetic field "as if it were created by the displacement current".
The movement of charges along the capacitor plates creates a magnetic field of non-trivial topology.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.11.16, 09:04:39
You are going too fast. The absence of a magnetic field created by a displacement current does not mean the absence of a magnetic field "as if it were created by the displacement current".
The movement of charges along the capacitor plates creates a magnetic field of non-trivial topology.
Quotea displacement current, unlike a charge current, cannot create a magnetic field or electromagnetic waves.
That isn't to say there are no losses over distance. Dielectric conductance loss still applies as well as loss/scattering from impedance mismatch.
Theory provides a good foundation for experimenters to know what to look for.
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.11.16, 13:36:10
That isn't to say there are no losses over distance. Dielectric conductance loss still applies as well as loss/scattering from impedance mismatch.
Theory provides a good foundation for experimenters to know what to look for.
C.C
You juxtapose things without any logic between them.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.11.16, 13:55:59
C.C
You juxtapose things without any logic between them.
Just deductive/dimensional analysis.
If
Quote from: F6FLT"a displacement current cannot create a magnetic field or electromagnetic waves."
Then I=0 for a given displacement action. :o
Then, if
V=IR
R=V/I
then, the DC resistance for a displacement action would be 0 or undefined.
(which doesn't mean lossless however because that is only one field component)
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.11.16, 15:02:22
Just deductive/dimensional analysis.
IfThen I=0 for a given displacement action. :o
Then, if
V=IR
R=V/I
then, the DC resistance for a displacement action would be 0 or undefined.
(which doesn't mean lossless however because that is only one field component)
Always a nonsense. A displacement current is never in DC.
And what you say would also be true between the plates of a capacitor, but there can be losses even when the resistance is infinite.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.11.16, 20:37:45
Always a nonsense. A displacement current is never in DC.
And what you say would also be true between the plates of a capacitor, but there can be losses even when the resistance is infinite.
Of course the magnetic loss tangent is not the only factor. I stated as such in both posts as to other loss factors that would affect and limit real performance.
It makes sense too, as otherwise we would have probably detected superconductivity in every capacitor over a century ago. C.C
But back to the subject, "a displacement current, unlike a charge current, cannot create a magnetic field or electromagnetic waves" clearly has some interesting ramifications.
One could envision a circuit with conduction current mostly acting in one direction with displacement current mostly acting in the other direction. Would not such activity appear in-practice as a magnetic monopole?
Why I said there is no displacement current around a coil:
It is clear from the attached diagram that in the space between the plates of a capacitor, the dipoles orient themselves by rotation in the electric field.
Around a coil, the same thing, the dipoles also rotate around their electric centre and orient themselves according to the EMF loop of the electromagnetic induction.
But only in the first case, the dipoles oppose their field to the one imposed by the plates, which creates this displacement that we note D=Ɛ.E.
In the second case, as the dipoles are in a loop, their electric field cancels out over one turn. They cannot oppose the induction EMF.
This explains why if you place a coil in water, which has a high permittivity (80), you will not see any effect on the primary current.
In the case of induction, can the rotation of the dipoles on themselves but without displacement be detected or even used? I think this is a subject that should be worked on.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=210.0;attach=46383;image)
The displacement occurs when the charges in one plate of the capacitor "displace" the charges in the other plate of the capacitor.
During this act of displacing charges (charging and discharging), a magnetic field should exist. Many sources state that this magnetic field is between the plates.
See figure 17.2 here:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Radically_Modern_Introductory_Physics_Text_II_(Raymond)/17%3A_Capacitors_Inductors_and_Resistors/17.01%3A_The_Capacitor_and_Amperes_Law
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.11.18, 19:18:12
...
During this act of displacing charges (charging and discharging), a magnetic field should exist. Many sources state that this magnetic field is between the plates.
...
It's likely. It remains to be seen what it is created by, most probably by the movement of charges in the plates, even if the magnetic field is around the area between plates.
Nothing but moving charges can create a magnetic field.
Moreover, your link explains it:
"
The quantity ϵ0.dΦE/dt was called the displacement current by Maxwell since it has the dimensions of current and is numerically equal to the current entering the capacitor. However, it isn't really a current — it is just an electric flux that changes with time!"
You can look at displacement current as the separation of opposite charges.
A means to continually apply a displacement might resemble a battery that never runs out of charge.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.11.18, 19:18:12
The displacement occurs when the charges in one plate of the capacitor "displace" the charges in the other plate of the capacitor.
During this act of displacing charges (charging and discharging), a magnetic field should exist. Many sources state that this magnetic field is between the plates.
See figure 17.2 here:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Radically_Modern_Introductory_Physics_Text_II_(Raymond)/17%3A_Capacitors_Inductors_and_Resistors/17.01%3A_The_Capacitor_and_Amperes_Law
Hello, been following this thread with interest, some good opinions.
@ Grumpy, looked @ that link, and his description of the source of the magnetic field doesn't make sense to me. How is the A vector orthogonal to the changing E Field? Isn't the E field from a changing current source is -dA/dt? It's not a cross product? Whats interesting about that is that if you look at the displacement current in parallel plate capacitor, with equal sized plates, with a uniform but changing E field across them with respect to the A vector, then you should come to the conclusion that there is no magnetic field between the plates. Visually, without any math.
Quote from: phoneboy on 2022.11.19, 00:43:24
Hello, been following this thread with interest, some good opinions.
@ Grumpy, looked @ that link, and his description of the source of the magnetic field doesn't make sense to me. How is the A vector orthogonal to the changing E Field? Isn't the E field from a changing current source is -dA/dt? It's not a cross product? Whats interesting about that is that if you look at the displacement current in parallel plate capacitor, with equal sized plates, with a uniform but changing E field across them with respect to the A vector, then you should come to the conclusion that there is no magnetic field between the plates. Visually, without any math.
See the right view of the following image:
(https://phys.libretexts.org/@api/deki/files/23422/ampere.png?revision=1)
It is clear that there is a radial current from the connection point in the center of the plates, current that gives rise to a vector potential, radial as well.
As B=∇×A, there is also a magnetic field which is circular. As its influence extends beyond the plates, it is also found between the plates, where those of the two plates add up.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.11.18, 17:24:34
Why I said there is no displacement current around a coil:
It is clear from the attached diagram that in the space between the plates of a capacitor, the dipoles orient themselves by rotation in the electric field.
Around a coil, the same thing, the dipoles also rotate around their electric centre and orient themselves according to the EMF loop of the electromagnetic induction.
What happens in vacuum where there are no dipoles?
QuoteBut only in the first case, the dipoles oppose their field to the one imposed by the plates, which creates this displacement that we note D=Ɛ.E.
I think you read too much into the word
displacement. Yes D is known as displacement but it is also a flux density that occurs in vacuum where there are no charges to displace. And what do you mean by
the dipoles oppose when their presence
increases the outward force on the charges residing on the plates and
increases the flux density?
QuoteIn the second case, as the dipoles are in a loop, their electric field cancels out over one turn. They cannot oppose the induction EMF.
What do you mean by cancellation? Their presence increases the flux density around the loop. The E field remains the same, the induction EMF remains the same.
QuoteThis explains why if you place a coil in water, which has a high permittivity (80), you will not see any effect on the primary current.
Really? Can you give us details of this experiment? Or is this just your opinion? You use the words
primary current so presumably this is not just a coil but a transformer.
QuoteIn the case of induction, can the rotation of the dipoles on themselves but without displacement be detected or even used? I think this is a subject that should be worked on.
That is an interesting remark. It suggests that a DC charged parallel plate capacitor with a dielectric between the plates could have the effect of the dielectric modulated by a crossed magnetic field that is alternating in magnitude, thus inducing circular E field attempting to rotate the dipoles. Then we should see an alternating current in the DC supply to the capacitor.
Smudge
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.11.19, 08:42:58
See the right view of the following image:
(https://phys.libretexts.org/@api/deki/files/23422/ampere.png?revision=1)
It is clear that there is a radial current from the connection point in the center of the plates, current that gives rise to a vector potential, radial as well.
As B=∇×A, there is also a magnetic field which is circular. As its influence extends beyond the plates, it is also found between the plates, where those of the two plates add up.
If the conducting wire had conical end pieces bringing the current to the whole plate surface and not just to the center, then the radial currents would not exist. Whether the so-called displacement current "flowing" across the gap creates a magnetic field is not considered in that paper.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.11.19, 10:49:03
If the conducting wire had conical end pieces bringing the current to the whole plate surface and not just to the center, then the radial currents would not exist. Whether the so-called displacement current "flowing" across the gap creates a magnetic field is not considered in that paper.
Smudge
In cases where there is no radial spreading of electrons, the longitudinal current does create a circular field around it.
Near the gap between plates, which must remain small to be in the approximation of the plane capacitor, it will be difficult to say if it is not this field that we detect, rather than a hypothetical magnetic field resulting from a current in space which is not a current of electric charges.
Having said that, I can see where you're going with this, perhaps this displacement current would be a current in the aether, wouldn't it?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.11.19, 11:24:22
In cases where there is no radial spreading of electrons, the longitudinal current does create a circular field around it.
Near the gap between plates, which must remain small to be in the approximation of the plane capacitor, it will be difficult to say if it is not this field that we detect, rather than a hypothetical magnetic field resulting from a current in space which is not a current of electric charges.
Having said that, I can see where you're going with this, perhaps this displacement current would be a current in the aether, wouldn't it?
Yes, that is one way to look at it. I think the formula for displacement current density J
D = ∂D/∂t applies everywhere and gave rise to Maxwell's fourth equation Curl B = μ
0(J + ∂D/∂t). That tells you displacement current produces a magnetic field that has curl.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.11.19, 15:03:07
Yes, that is one way to look at it. I think the formula for displacement current density JD = ∂D/∂t applies everywhere and gave rise to Maxwell's fourth equation Curl B = μ0(J + ∂D/∂t). That tells you displacement current produces a magnetic field that has curl.
Smudge
This equation doesn't prove anything. Maxwell's equations don't indicate causality. It's like B=∇xA, it doesn't prove that B would generate A or vice versa, it only proves that they have a common cause. And we know what that is: charges and currents.
In all conductor configurations, conservation laws cause charges and currents to arrange themselves in such a way that their mutual influences are equivalent to what the displacement current would produce. An ether will therefore be difficult to prove experimentally, and until we have this proof, there is no point in assuming it since everything is explainable without it.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.11.19, 15:42:38
This equation doesn't prove anything. Maxwell's equations don't indicate causality. It's like B=∇xA, it doesn't prove that B would generate A or vice versa, it only proves that they have a common cause. And we know what that is: charges and currents.
In trigonometry we have functions like sine, cosine, tangent. We also have the inverse functions written sin
-1and so on. You mention B=curl A. There is also an inverse function A=curl
-1B which means the vector A whose curl is B. It means they both coexist. So a B field coexists with a displacement current.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.11.19, 17:17:10
...
So a B field coexists with a displacement current.
...
The problem is not specific to electromagnetism but to physics in general. The concepts we choose for the models do not correspond to a precise physical reality.
Nobody denies the displacement current. Nobody denies the electronic current. Nobody denies the magnetic field... But these concepts are redundant, the proof is the equalities of the equations. If B=∇xA, then what is physical reality? B ? A ? Neither?
These notions are not tangible realities as if we have identified objects in the universe with intrinsic properties, when all this is just a representation of what we measure.
The question "do displacement currents exist" is nonsense. Our mathematical concepts exist, but only as mathematical concepts, not as physical objects. Each mathematical concept does not correspond directly to a physical object, only to a representation that we have of the effects. An electron is a particle that corresponds to a physical reality that we can discern but are unable to describe precisely. A displacement current is even worse, it's just C/s, what reality can we attach to it? Anything at all.
@F6,
I agree that B, A and displacement current are all just math entities. But to get an idea of whether displacement current really is present around a magnetic core of changing flux (as the math tells us it is) you can carry out a gedanken experiment. You know that if you take a single turn connected to a parallel plate capacitor current will flow, and that includes the displacement current through the capacitor. You could connect a whole chain of these capacitors in series around the loop and current will still flow. Then gradually increase the number of capacitors where each time the actual conductor length gets smaller, we still get current. Taken to the limit we simply have a ring of dielectric material around the core. So a good practical experiment would be to have two wound ring cores that are coupled via a dielectric ring, i.e. the three rings form links in a chain. Then observe the coupling between the two windings. We know that if the center ring were made of conductive material there would be coupling because of the conduction currents in that ring. If coupling still existed with the dielectric ring then that is absolute proof of displacement current.
Smudge
Putting capacitors in series will never prove that the magnetic field comes from a displacement current.
Either the capacitors have connecting wires, and then the ordinary currents in these wires will produce the magnetic field, or they are just plates, and even if they are infinitely thin and the current through them can be neglected, they are only equipotential and will therefore be of no use between the first and the last plate, so that we will no longer be in the approximation of the plane capacitor.
Paper: physical interpretation of displacement current
"There is no way now that the electron can move, so there is no electron conduction current through the capacitor. Here something very primitive happens. These electrons induce a positive charge onto the other side of the capacitor or they push the electrons on the other side of the capacitor plates away from them and pull the positive charges towards them such that opposite chargers are induced on either side of electron."
I agree. You don't need anything between the two plates for the charges of one plate to influence the other.
The coulombic influence does pass between plates as if it were the field of moving electrons, so we do have, in a way, coulomb/s crossing the gap between plates, which is called displacement current.
Quote"There is no way now that the electron can move, so there is no electron conduction current through the capacitor. Here something very primitive happens. These electrons induce a positive charge onto the other side of the capacitor or they push the electrons on the other side of the capacitor plates away from them and pull the positive charges towards them such that opposite chargers are induced on either side of electron."
I think this shows how little most understand about electricity and electric fields.
First, in a metal conductor only the negatively charged free electrons are mobile. The positive charges cannot move only the negative free electrons can move in a conductor. Conventional flow notation was proven wrong decades ago and it's complete nonsense. In Canada all children are taught electron flow notation in grade school and nobody believes (+) charges are flowing in a conductor.
Here is a better model of how charges and electricity actually work in reality.
http://amasci.com/redgreen.html
http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html
As well it boggles the mind that in this day and age so many still don't understand basic electricity, capacitors and what a displacement current is. I mean, it's so simple even a child could understand it.
1)Mobile free electrons with a (-) charge are forced onto the (-) capacitor plate. Only the (-) electrons can move not the (+) protons.
2)The (-) electric field from the excess of (-) electrons on the (-) plate repel any like (-) charges in the dielectric and opposite plate.
3)The opposite plate acquires a (+) charge because the (-) free electrons have been repelled from the plate by the (-) electric field of the (-) plate. No (+) charges moved into the opposite plate because they cannot move, they were already present and stationary in the metal. The opposite plate became (+) because some of the (-) free electrons were removed from it. See amasci red/green link above.
4)The (-) free electrons in the dielectric cannot flow as an electron current but they can be displaced a small amount towards the opposite plate. Any time we have many (-) charges displaced even a small amount the combined (-) electric field can repel any other nearby (-) electrons. The process of electric field induction is taught in every Canadian grade school. I find the fact that so many adults still don't understand electric field induction while most children do a little disturbing.
We could also talk about the actual forces present. One example which stuck in my mind was by A.D.Moore in his book on electrostatics. Moore calculated that if we separated all the (-) electrons and (+) protons or "charges" in a 1 cm cube of aluminum by a distance of 1 meter. The forces pulling the opposite charges together would be 32 million million million pounds. Roughly equivalent to the weight of a steel cube 76 miles x 76 miles x 76 miles in size. I memorized this example because it shows that electric fields can produce unimaginable forces in the right context.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.11.28, 19:15:30
Quote"There is no way now that the electron can move, so there is no electron conduction current through the capacitor. Here something very primitive happens. These electrons induce a positive charge onto the other side of the capacitor or they push the electrons on the other side of the capacitor plates away from them and pull the positive charges towards them such that opposite chargers are induced on either side of electron."
I think this shows how little most understand about electricity and electric fields.
First, in a metal conductor only the negatively charged free electrons are mobile.
...
Science has never said otherwise, since "electron conduction current" in the quote in bold is the current of free electrons in the conductor, yet it should be understood.
Thanks to AC, have we just learned that H+ ions do not move in an electrolyzed solution towards the negative electrode? Have we just learned that plasmas do not contain moving positive charges? Have we just learned that protons cannot be accelerated in a current by an electric field or deflected by a magnetic field, so that the LHC does not exist?
Of course, currents of positive charges also exist. And not only can it exist, but also a current of negative charges is equivalent to a current of positive charges in the opposite direction.
Neutral matter has as many positive as negative charges. It is therefore understood that a deficit of electrons allows the positive charges of the matter to be revealed, and that the displacement of this electron deficit is equivalent to a positive charge moving. The effects are the same, and this effect is the electric current.
The electron carries a charge, but a hole in a semiconductor also carries a charge and this one is positive. To say that the electron IS a charge is only a convenient shortcut. The electron carries a charge, but it is also a mass or a momentum.
So when we talk about charges, we must understand that we are talking about coulombs, and that the electron is only a particular case of charge carrier to which the notion of current is not reduced. Coulombs/seconds are an electric current no matter which particles give rise to it or how they do so.
A flow of electrons is an electric current, but an electric current is not a flow of electrons, this is the confusion that Amasci and AC make but not the scientists who already understood it in the 19th century. It turns out that the scientists were clever enough to assume that the direction of the current was that of the positive charge carriers. So the negative electrons move in the opposite direction of the current. All this is a pure convention, a secondary detail of no real interest, a choice, and certainly not an error.
As for the "induction" that everyone understands, it is still necessary to distinguish that of the coulombic influence at a distance between plates of a capacitor, perfectly expressed in the above quotation, from the induction by a variable current, even if in the second case it is also a result of the coulombic influence.
The interest of science is that it knows how to extract the general principles and formalise the laws of physics, going from the particular to the general, whereas Amasci does the exact opposite: reducing the electric current to particular cases, as we see here with the electron.
Beware of the pseudo-scientific discourse and images for the intellectually deficient that one finds on Amasci, which are to electromagnetism what the phlogiston of the XVIIth century is to thermodynamics: a ludicrous gibberish. If at the time it was still excusable, because science was only in its infancy, today it is no longer, it is disinformation and a return to obscurantism. The same people who would not even know the existence of the electron if scientists had not taught them, William Beaty included, claim to be teaching them what a charge or a current is, when it is clear that they have only a partial and regressive view of it and that nothing they know about it comes from logical and intelligible reasoning based on their own measurements, and which their formulation would allow to be verified quantitatively. If I asked them to prove to me that the electron exists and how much its charge is, these jackasses would be very annoyed, but not Millikan.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.11.28, 19:15:30
I think this shows how little most understand about electricity and electric fields.
First, in a metal conductor only the negatively charged free electrons are mobile. The positive charges cannot move only the negative free electrons can move in a conductor. Conventional flow notation was proven wrong decades ago and it's complete nonsense. In Canada all children are taught electron flow notation in grade school and nobody believes (+) charges are flowing in a conductor.
Here is a better model of how charges and electricity actually work in reality.
http://amasci.com/redgreen.html
http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html
As well it boggles the mind that in this day and age so many still don't understand basic electricity, capacitors and what a displacement current is. I mean, it's so simple even a child could understand it.
1)Mobile free electrons with a (-) charge are forced onto the (-) capacitor plate. Only the (-) electrons can move not the (+) protons.
2)The (-) electric field from the excess of (-) electrons on the (-) plate repel any like (-) charges in the dielectric and opposite plate.
3)The opposite plate acquires a (+) charge because the (-) free electrons have been repelled from the plate by the (-) electric field of the (-) plate. No (+) charges moved into the opposite plate because they cannot move, they were already present and stationary in the metal. The opposite plate became (+) because some of the (-) free electrons were removed from it. See amasci red/green link above.
4)The (-) free electrons in the dielectric cannot flow as an electron current but they can be displaced a small amount towards the opposite plate. Any time we have many (-) charges displaced even a small amount the combined (-) electric field can repel any other nearby (-) electrons. The process of electric field induction is taught in every Canadian grade school. I find the fact that so many adults still don't understand electric field induction while most children do a little disturbing.
We could also talk about the actual forces present. One example which stuck in my mind was by A.D.Moore in his book on electrostatics. Moore calculated that if we separated all the (-) electrons and (+) protons or "charges" in a 1 cm cube of aluminum by a distance of 1 meter. The forces pulling the opposite charges together would be 32 million million million pounds. Roughly equivalent to the weight of a steel cube 76 miles x 76 miles x 76 miles in size. I memorized this example because it shows that electric fields can produce unimaginable forces in the right context.
AC
One implied prediction is that we would begin to see asymmetries start to form with steep-gradient discharges of large magnitude, depending on the polarity and material on either end of the arc
Hakasays
QuoteOne implied prediction is that we would begin to see asymmetries start to form with steep-gradient discharges of large magnitude, depending on the polarity and material on either end of the arc
Indeed, we do see asymmetries everywhere and electrons are obviously the only mobile charge carriers in solid conductors. When we start looking at specific field properties the negative charge carriers and there field properties become really important. For example, only the (-) electrode on an NE-2 neon bulb glows which is useful to determine the polarity of a HV electron current/field.
Did you know almost all the most successful FE inventors used electron flow notation?. They used electron flow notation and infinite element analysis almost exclusively like myself because conventional notation/lumped sum modelling is amateur and doesn't reflect reality.
For example, in some Figuera patents he labelled the (-) terminal as the "origin". Hubbard also claimed the polarity, voltage, frequency of the impulse to start his device must be correct or it wouldn't work. Coincidentally, only Hubbard knew how start his device. Different methodologies and perspectives can often yield better results.
It's no wonder most of the paid shills and trolls don't want anyone to start using electron flow notation, infinite element analysis or start thinking outside the box. They want good little sheeple all thinking and doing the same ordinary things so they can be controlled.
Here's a clue...
Suppose we wanted to drastically increase the charge density by magnitudes in one specific area of a solid material. We could always add more free (-) electrons because there mobile but we cannot add more (+) protons because there stationary within the material. Now ask yourself how we could utilize or capitalize on this specific property to produce asymmetries within a system. Don't think in terms of lumped sum elements that's for amateurs. Think in terms of a string of individual elements(infinite elements) each having specific properties but also interacting with each other and there surroundings.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.11.29, 18:20:25
...When we start looking at specific field properties the negative charge carriers and there field properties become really important. For example, only the (-) electrode on an NE-2 neon bulb glows which is useful to determine the polarity of a HV electron current/field.
...
Nonsense. Negative charges are not more important than positive charges, the question is symmetrical. And you just proved yourself the opposite of what you say, without even realizing it. Because if it is on the side of the negative electrode that the neon bulb glows, it is therefore on the side of the
positive charges of the neon, attracted to the negative electrode!
Here is a good resource on neon's for the experimenters here...
https://www.giangrandi.ch/electronics/neon/neon.shtml
I have used neon's like the NE2 in my circuits for years as ionization detection/modulation devices.
For example, many building unique motors or generators with high turn coils may have HV or ionization control problems. I had such a problem building an Adams motor/generator variant. I was pulsing a blocking oscillator(self-oscillating joule thief) like so ( high frequency on, wait X time, high frequency off, wait X time). Then to limit/modulate the discharge voltage I used an NE2 as a coil ionization detector which partially grounded the transistor base through a resistor to limit the input current.
Here is another good link describing how PAGD (Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharges) in neon/vacuum tubes can produce strange effects.
http://rexresearch.com/correa/correa.htm
These experimenters basically wrote the book on Autoelectronic Emissions and have decades of first hand experience. Not just flapping there gums about supposed textbook theory but decades of real experiments.
AC
The displacement currents do not create a magnetic field. Only a displacement of real charges can. I think I have said this before, but this recent paper explains why:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/ac8705
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.12.27, 13:33:29
The displacement currents do not create a magnetic field. Only a displacement of real charges can. I think I have said this before, but this recent paper explains why:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/ac8705
Now I understand why I did not get any voltage on the capacitor placed between the two solenoids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGN65lse5yE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGN65lse5yE) :-\
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2022.12.28, 17:42:39
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGN65lse5yE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGN65lse5yE) :-\
NASA had also carried out highly accurate tests and thought it had seen this thrust. But its most recent work invalidated this hypothesis. Experimental artefacts related to electrostatic forces in the environment or arc leakage were the likely cause of a (weak) thrust. NASA has abandoned this route to propulsion.
"
No performance was observed from the NACAP under soft (1 torr) or hard (10–7 torr) vacuum
conditions. Figure 32 shows that NACAP performance rapidly falls to immeasurable levels as
the pressure is reduced. In hard vacuum even with potentials above 50 kV, there was no measurable
performance observed."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20040171466/downloads/20040171466.pdf