Displacement Current - Does it Exist?

[BEP]

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.





 

[BEP]

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.

[Peterae]

This seems to have some relevance for what you are talking about i think.

[ion]

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.

[Grumpy]

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.

[BEP]

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.

[aetherevarising]

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

[ion]

From aetherevarising:

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.

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.

[Loner]

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

[Grumpy]

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".

[aetherevarising]

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

 

[aetherevarising]

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.   

[Loner]

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.)

[Grumpy]

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[poynt99]

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.

.99

[Grumpy]

dispalcement means it actually moved

polarization means it changed orientation

Roentgen showed this to be the real deal.

[BEP]

I like your reasoning but I must think about it.

So, in your train of thought charge is indeed a property of space, only?

[poynt99]

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

[poynt99]

dispalcement means it actually moved

Agreed, assuming by "it" you mean the poles of the charge moving relative to each other.

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

[Grumpy]

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. 

[Loner]

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.

[Loner]

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.

[BEP]

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!

[poynt99]

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

[poynt99]

Grumps,

I think I've already read that paper, and I will have a read again.

.99