But, getting back to coaxial cables. Tony Wakefield did an experiment using a coaxial cable as a capacitor. This discharged at a half of the predicted voltage (ie a half of the voltage predicted by old electricity) taking double the predicted time (ie double the time predicted by old electricity). But as we all know the half voltage & doubled time accords exactly with my new (electon) electricity, where a half of the electons (in a capacitor) are going each way at any one time (ie before the discharge switch is closed). I think he used 18 m of coax, a 9 V battery, a mercury reed switch, & a 350 MHz scope.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm
Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf
[...]
Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf
[...]Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdfI see, so your own theory of electrons isn't even your own theory? It is just a hunch based on a fallacious extension to a fallacious interpretation of a misrepresented version of a genuine theory? Or at least that is how it appears to me; your consistent inability to provide any genuine reasoning of your dogma speaks the loudest volume.
I'm still not totally dismissive of your ideas, after all, below the scale of common household particles (proton, neutron, electron etc), it's surely impossible to even comprehend and futile to even attempt a visualisation. I've personally never seen inside a wire, so sure, why not have electrons hugging wires, or skipping along the surface if the model agrees with those actual measurable quantities - why not?
So, hypothetically, let's say Einstein's work (and countless others' work before and after) was all wrong - what did he have that you don't? Why is he the one whose theory has been so widely accepted? There cannot possibly be such a huge conspiracy that could cause so many physicists to perpetuate a lie and consistently misrepresent results just to keep their funding up... I've met enough physicists to know just how keen any one of them would be to jump up and prove all others wrong. The keyword there being prove, a rational proof is what is required.
Without a rational, indisputable and well-formed proof any theory is irrational and absurd, except when it is asserted wildly on the internet where it is absurd irrational dogma. We could have a 'working theory' still in its early days, but it is just an insult to assert it as a fact.
... i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.
...
Hence i think that we might have a hard time trying to see semi-confined photons (electons) hugging a wire.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp. They are not rational, indisputable and well-formed. They are an insult. They are dogma.
The aether will return -- it never left.
In effect Veritasium believes in Heaviside's energy current, alltho i suspect that Veritasium duznt actually know much about Heaviside, Veritasium probably reckons that it is the Poynting field by another name.
I wonder what a proof of electons hugging a wire would look like.
At present we don’t have a proof that electrons orbit a nucleus. Or that electrons drift inside a wire. Or that electrons even exist.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
You seem to be confusing the contemporary American IEEE (formerly IRE) with the former British IEE (now renamed "IET").
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution_of_Electrical_Engineers[/url]
Note the first line of the wikipedia article on the IEE: "Not to be confused with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE, I-triple-E)."
The electronic–hydraulic analogy (derisively referred to as the drain-pipe theory by Oliver Lodge) is the most widely used analogy for "electron fluid" in a metal conductor. Since electric current is invisible and the processes in play in electronics are often difficult to demonstrate, the various electronic components are represented by hydraulic equivalents. Electricity (as well as heat) was originally understood to be a kind of fluid, and the names of certain electric quantities (such as current) are derived from hydraulic equivalents. As with all analogies, it demands an intuitive and competent understanding of the baseline paradigms (electronics AND hydraulics).
If taken too far, the water analogy can create misconceptions. For it to be useful, one must remain aware of the regions where electricity and water behave very differently.
Fields (Maxwell equations, Inductance): Electrons can push or pull other distant electrons via their fields, while water molecules experience forces only from direct contact with other molecules. For this reason, waves in water travel at the speed of sound, but waves in a sea of charge will travel much faster as the forces from one electron are applied to many distant electrons and not to only the neighbors in direct contact. In a hydraulic transmission line, the energy flows as mechanical waves through the water, but in an electric transmission line the energy flows as fields in the space surrounding the wires, and does not flow inside the metal. Also, an accelerating electron will drag its neighbors along while attracting them, both because of magnetic forces.
Charge: Unlike water, movable charge carriers can be positive or negative, and conductors can exhibit an overall positive or negative net charge. The mobile carriers in electric currents are usually electrons, but sometimes they are charged positively, such as the positive ions in an electrolyte, the H+ ions in proton conductors or holes in p-type semiconductors and some (very rare) conductors.
Leaking pipes: The electric charge of an electrical circuit and its elements is usually almost equal to zero, hence it is (almost) constant. This is formalized in Kirchhoff's current law, which does not have an analogy to hydraulic systems, where the amount of the liquid is not usually constant. Even with incompressible liquid the system may contain such elements as pistons and open pools, so the volume of liquid contained in a part of the system can change. For this reason, continuing electric currents require closed loops rather than hydraulics' open source/sink resembling spigots and buckets.
Fluid velocity and resistance of metals: As with water hoses, the carrier drift velocity in conductors is directly proportional to current. However, water only experiences drag via the pipes' inner surface, while charges are slowed at all points within a metal, as with water forced through a filter. Also, typical velocity of charge carriers within a conductor is less than centimeters per minute, and the "electrical friction" is extremely high. If charges ever flowed as fast as water can flow in pipes, the electric current would be immense, and the conductors would become incandescently hot and perhaps vaporize. To model the resistance and the charge-velocity of metals, perhaps a pipe packed with sponge, or a narrow straw filled with syrup, would be a better analogy than a large-diameter water pipe.
Quantum Mechanics: Solid conductors and insulators contain charges at more than one discrete level of atomic orbit energy, while the water in one region of a pipe can only have a single value of pressure. For this reason there is no hydraulic explanation for such things as a battery's charge pumping ability, a diode's depletion layer and voltage drop, solar cell functions, Peltier effect, etc., however equivalent devices can be designed which exhibit similar responses, although some of the mechanisms would only serve to regulate the flow curves rather than to contribute to the component's primary function.
In order for the model to be useful, the reader or student must have a substantial understanding of the model (hydraulic) system's principles. It also requires that the principles can be transferred to the target (electrical) system. Hydraulic systems are deceptively simple: the phenomenon of pump cavitation is a known, complex problem that few people outside of the fluid power or irrigation industries would understand. For those who do, the hydraulic analogy is amusing, as no "cavitation" equivalent exists in electrical engineering. The hydraulic analogy can give a mistaken sense of understanding that will be exposed once a detailed description of electrical circuit theory is required.
One must also consider the difficulties in trying to make an analogy match reality completely. The above "electrical friction" example, where the hydraulic analog is a pipe filled with sponge material, illustrates the problem: the model must be increased in complexity beyond any realistic scenario.
RETRACTED: Physical interpretation of the fringe shift measured on Michelson interferometer in optical media
V.V. Demjanov
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109016375
I also followed the cornflakes and found echo chamber upon echo chamber of 'krapp' where 1000s of "I rekon"s and "It feels" amplify concepts like "ExH slab". Aetherist is skilled with words after existing in such places for so long, but when confronted with the possibility that electons might have to exceed the speed of light to hug a threaded conductor...Quote... i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.ie, from crest to crest (a point I missed while taking them too 'seriously'). Just making stuff up, on the fly - not even trying any more....Hence i think that we might have a hard time trying to see semi-confined photons (electons) hugging a wire.An active admission it might be non-falsifiable and therefore worthy of endless echoes in a fantasy place of no relevance to industry or science. Knowing full well it won't work forever here.QuoteSTR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp. They are not rational, indisputable and well-formed. They are an insult. They are dogma.They are also correct, to the best of our knowledge. We know SR and GR are theories, and to many people are horribly unintuitive, this fact isn't a problem for science.QuoteThe aether will return -- it never left.Feel-good sound bite of the echo chamber, repeating it here won't increase its chance of echoing, which you know.
You would have known the risks of going outside your comfort zone. Might be time to admit you came here seeking experimental reality not to convince us of anything, but yourself.
In effect Veritasium believes in Heaviside's energy current, alltho i suspect that Veritasium duznt actually know much about Heaviside, Veritasium probably reckons that it is the Poynting field by another name.Earlier on in this thread, I'm pretty sure that the main objection to the Vertiassium video was that only a single perspective was presented in the form of the Poynting theorem. Firstly, it's a pop-science video, it's not a research article, the aim was to present, to a very broad demographic (encompassing all from graphic designers to engineers), that there is more to the transfer of electrical power than the "electron-marble duality" (high-school physics teaching model). I think it served its job very well (just look at that viewer count).
I don't have a particular beef with Poynting's theorem, I deal mostly with separate electric and magnetic fields mostly, they explain the nuances of misbehaving circuits better to me than their cross product does. Just a side note there.I wonder what a proof of electons hugging a wire would look like. At present we don’t have a proof that electrons orbit a nucleus. Or that electrons drift inside a wire. Or that electrons even exist.Very true. I don't have any proof that there's an invisible leprechaun that lives in my butter dish which comes out and sings happy birthday to the cheese when he knows I cannot hear him... hang on, I just need to check something.
My previous use of the term "rational, indisputable and well-formed" was a little improper, it is a big ask of anything to be all those, rational alone would be acceptable.
Removal of Demjanov paper (from above link):
"This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor.
Reason: The article was accepted before the review process was complete.
Further review has revealed that the theoretical and experimental claims made by the author cannot be supported and the article should not have been published."
[...]
Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly.
[...]
[...]Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly.[...]Have you read much of philosophy? I personally found John Stuart Mill's 'Inductive and Ratiocinative Logic' to have a nice treatment of what you're struggling with there, it's a rather old book but there's pdf's knocking around and some reprints over the last couple of decades. The general concept of "what is a name?" can be a bit of a mind-bend for some students, but ultimately may free your thinking a bit.
What you may be seeing as a complete disagreement between theories and interpretations may be more closely related to the role and attributes of the said particle in each theory rather than a disagreement in what 'it' actually is. If you were to ask immediate questions such as "is an electron a beach-ball?", "is an electron a singular irreducible fundamental particle?", "is an electron a particle composed of a combination of quarks?" etc... I could believe you'd get different answers. If you were to ask questions about what characteristics each person would use to detect "an electron", how they would discriminate between it and any other particle, and how these characteristics change with other factors (velocity, temperature etc)... maybe you'd start to see a little more convergence in answers... I'm almost interested enough to consider posing that questionnaire.
Say the results of the questionnaire come in and there's some disagrement, just for fun, we decide to take a subset of the characteristics which were most well agreed with... would those results agree with the drift model?
For those interested in a serious discussion of a topic that one person here finds "silly", here is a description of how special relativity and distance contraction gives the magnetic field due to a current in a conductor:
https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/mrrtalk.html
I first encountered this analysis in E M Purcell's freshman textbook "Electricity and Magnetism", in the Berkeley Series of introductory physics texts. It is hard to fathom that this textbook (subsidized by the NSF) could be purchased for less than $10 USD in 1967. The author of the article cited above found Purcell's discussion a bit difficult for an elementary text, and attempts to elucidate it.
Einstein died when I was only five years old, but I did attend a lecturer by Purcell in the mid-1970s and found him to be very understandable.
Totally plugging my own stuff here, but here's a post I wrote nearly 10 years ago on the topic of seeing magnetism as a consequence of electric field + relativity: https://www.rs20.net/w/2012/08/how-do-magnets-work-magnetism-electrostatics-relativity/
That's cool.
What if an experiment were to give a result vastly closer to zero change in speed than the predicted slowdown due to surface hugging of the macroscopic threadform?
Would you consider a medium frequency (say 100MHz or 1 GHz) result for say the central conductor in a coax threaded vs 'smooth'?
Would you accept that increased loss is different from increased delay?
Not saying I have the intention or equipment, just wondering how you would handle a confounding result if it were to eventuate.
Similar for the painted antenna.I reckon one strike & my new (electon) electricity is out. It has to tick every box.
Delays sound simple to me. If screw threads didn’t have a delay or a delay that was not 100% predictable then i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.
Which reminds me, William Beaty at one time invoked a leapfrogging em field, that leaped out of a wire (where the speed of the em was only 10 m/s), into the insulation (where the speed was 2c/3), & landing back in the wire. Hence he might be happy with my roo-tons (but might prefer to call them frogtons). I could meet him halfway, hoptons.
Losses i don’t understand, sounds complicated.
Effect of frequency sounds complicated, over my head.
Co-axial cables might be over my head too.
Painting a rod would be interesting.
We could paint longi stripes, & see what happens (to the speed of electricity). Adding one at a time, until coverage is 100%.
We could paint transverse stripes, ie one at a time, until the coverage was 100%.
We could have very thin paint, eg less than 1000 nm thick, to find the critical thickness (where the enamel is no longer 100% effective).
Painting a threaded rod would be interesting. A double whammy of slowing.
But, getting back to coaxial cables. Tony Wakefield did an experiment using a coaxial cable as a capacitor. This discharged at a half of the predicted voltage (ie a half of the voltage predicted by old electricity) taking double the predicted time (ie double the time predicted by old electricity). But as we all know the half voltage & doubled time accords exactly with my new (electon) electricity, where a half of the electons (in a capacitor) are going each way at any one time (ie before the discharge switch is closed). I think he used 18 m of coax, a 9 V battery, a mercury reed switch, & a 350 MHz scope.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm
Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf
That's cool.
What if an experiment were to give a result vastly closer to zero change in speed than the predicted slowdown due to surface hugging of the macroscopic threadform?
Would you consider a medium frequency (say 100MHz or 1 GHz) result for say the central conductor in a coax threaded vs 'smooth'?
Would you accept that increased loss is different from increased delay?
Not saying I have the intention or equipment, just wondering how you would handle a confounding result if it were to eventuate.
Similar for the painted antenna.I reckon one strike & my new (electon) electricity is out. It has to tick every box.
Delays sound simple to me. If screw threads didn’t have a delay or a delay that was not 100% predictable then i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.
Which reminds me, William Beaty at one time invoked a leapfrogging em field, that leaped out of a wire (where the speed of the em was only 10 m/s), into the insulation (where the speed was 2c/3), & landing back in the wire. Hence he might be happy with my roo-tons (but might prefer to call them frogtons). I could meet him halfway, hoptons.
Losses i don’t understand, sounds complicated.
Effect of frequency sounds complicated, over my head.
Co-axial cables might be over my head too.
Painting a rod would be interesting.
We could paint longi stripes, & see what happens (to the speed of electricity). Adding one at a time, until coverage is 100%.
We could paint transverse stripes, ie one at a time, until the coverage was 100%.
We could have very thin paint, eg less than 1000 nm thick, to find the critical thickness (where the enamel is no longer 100% effective).
Painting a threaded rod would be interesting. A double whammy of slowing.
But, getting back to coaxial cables. Tony Wakefield did an experiment using a coaxial cable as a capacitor. This discharged at a half of the predicted voltage (ie a half of the voltage predicted by old electricity) taking double the predicted time (ie double the time predicted by old electricity). But as we all know the half voltage & doubled time accords exactly with my new (electon) electricity, where a half of the electons (in a capacitor) are going each way at any one time (ie before the discharge switch is closed). I think he used 18 m of coax, a 9 V battery, a mercury reed switch, & a 350 MHz scope.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm
Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf
Is this the example where "old electricity" doesn't predict the discharge rate of the capacitor correctly?
That Demjanov paper was not retracted by Demjanov, it was removed by the Journal. Hence it was not retracted, & they lied. So, u are supporting censorship, & a lie. And cheering it on.
Leapfrogging electons were the first electons that i thought of in Dec 2021. Shortly after, i realized that simple hugging must be the answer, no hopping. If the screw-thread X does not show the extra delay due to the simple extra distance then that would falsify my electons. And i don’t see how roo-tons could come to the rescue. Roo-tons would fail just as Beaty's silly leapfrogging em radiation must fail to rescue old (electron) electricity from the elephant in the room.
Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly.
Forum members seem to be unaware that Einstein contradicted Einstein. His ideas changed right up to his death. Einstein would disagree with much of modern (supposedly Einsteinian) science. And modern science disagrees with much of Einstein.
Einstein would be thrilled by my electons.
We have facts & we have hot air. I came here & i have tried to point the way to replace hot air with facts.
Can any members here use old electricity to explain the traces for the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 & (later) pt2?
When someone does the screw-thread X, will old (electron) electricity explain that?
My new (electon) electricity might explain (we will see).