aetherist, I had penned a reply which includes the above subject (insulation, slowing propagation) lastnight, something I meant to do a few pages back but ran out of time. It is only fair to explain, because it such a well-known result of conventional theory that it often taken for granted, which could leave you believing it is something new when it not.
But empirically so far you seem incapable of following through on a back and forth argument without branching off rapidly and repeatedly to familiar but different places like a fractal. I can understand that! Many on here can probably also relate to some degree, but there will be a limit to how much apparent contradiction or sales-job like attempts to dress up an ill-formed (incomplete) idea that they will swallow. FYI I am past that point, because you are either arguing with or persistently ignoring facts in a very unintelligent way.
But plug the dielectric constant into any online calculator which shows the per-length L and C of a transmission line. You will see that the C increases, but L does not. I don't need to explain (or understand) how that is. But simulate a pulse travelling through a lumped element transmission line, using your choice of cell size. The propagation speed of that pulse slows, a result of the per length increase in C, itself a result of the dielectric. This closely matches measurement.
Maybe there are some differences in the details that are as yet undiscovered, but that doesn't mean the scope traces and descriptions which show slowing of EM energy are grossly wrong.
Re antennas -- my guess is that a transmitting dipole antenna painted with enamel would have to be 50% longer (to give the same frequency).
Re antennas -- no amount of so-called study can tell us the possible cause unless it looks deeply into the (microscopic) physics rather than the (macroscopic) maths.
All of Einstein's Relativity is rubbish. His spacetime is rubbish (actually i don’t think that he believed in spacetime either).https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/fundamentals/article/2016/01/08/why-einsteins-general-relativity-such-popular-target-cranks
aetherist, I had penned a reply which includes the above subject (insulation, slowing propagation) lastnight, something I meant to do a few pages back but ran out of time. It is only fair to explain, because it such a well-known result of conventional theory that it often taken for granted, which could leave you believing it is something new when it not.
But empirically so far you seem incapable of following through on a back and forth argument without branching off rapidly and repeatedly to familiar but different places like a fractal. I can understand that! Many on here can probably also relate to some degree, but there will be a limit to how much apparent contradiction or sales-job like attempts to dress up an ill-formed (incomplete) idea that they will swallow. FYI I am past that point, because you are either arguing with or persistently ignoring facts in a very unintelligent way.
But plug the dielectric constant into any online calculator which shows the per-length L and C of a transmission line. You will see that the C increases, but L does not. I don't need to explain (or understand) how that is. But simulate a pulse travelling through a lumped element transmission line, using your choice of cell size. The propagation speed of that pulse slows, a result of the per length increase in C, itself a result of the dielectric. This closely matches measurement.
Maybe there are some differences in the details that are as yet undiscovered, but that doesn't mean the scope traces and descriptions which show slowing of EM energy are grossly wrong.I think that u are saying that the online calculator has an input box where u can write the speed of light for the insulation (or u can write the permittivity or permeability or something), & that this then affects the calculated speed of electricity in the wire(s) by virtue of the TL's calculated capacitance or something (eg feeding lots of charge into the inductance)(or leakage into the characteristic impedance)(& using lots of elements in the model).
I can understand that we have an almost unlimited menu of smart devices for our elements for our models, & with a bit of luck or good management we can get goodish numbers that can partly mimic some of the traces we see in the AlphaPhoenix X pt1. But the numbers then have to explain all of the traces, especially when the AlphaPhoenix X pt2 is available. No-one has yet explained pt1, not even a part of pt1. And i suppose neither has my new electricity, but i am working on it (slowly).
However, my main problem with old electricity etc concerns what happens before we plug the dielectric constant into the online calculator.
How on earth can the online calculator have electricity propagating along (bare) wires at the speed of light, when the real speed of real em radiation in Cu is only about c/30,000,000, & when the faux-speed of the faux-drift of conduction electrons is only about c/30,000,000,000.
I have explained that my new electricity (ie my new electons) seems to explain what we see near a wire, ie it ticks all of the boxes, so far.
And i am trying to explain that if online calculators give good numbers then that does not necessarily confirm old electricity.
And i can add that if u & everyone else around here accept my new electricity then that duznt necessarily mean that online calculators will need major changes or even minor changes.
Ok, i had a good idea. Can u ask an online calculator to model the electricity along one of your G-string antenna feeder connections. This is a single wire, no return, no earth, no parallel isolated wire, nothing.
Do a model for a bare wire.
And do a model for a wire painted with enamel.
Did u get any sensible results?
Did u get an electricity speed of 2c/3 for the enamelled wire?
Did u have trouble selecting suitable elements?
Did ordinary TL lumped elements do the trick? I am thinking that it would be difficult to have mini-faux-capacitors feeding to fresh air.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments
[...]Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?
Is this the same IEEE that called Heaviside a crackpot when he came up with his equations?
Is this the same IEEE that conceded that his equations worked when they fixed the telegraphy cable?[...]The biggest takeaway here is not that the IEEE were wrong to reject Heaviside, but that the process and progression of scientific understanding at its very core does not and should not look particularly fondly on logical jumps without sufficient evidence.
Seeing as you mentioned quaternions, I find it very difficult to believe that somebody favouring the GA representation of Maxwell could disregard relativity and Einstein-ism... surely sticking with vectors and tensors is the way to go if you're avoiding Einstein? The whole concept of space-time is baked right in there with GA isn't it? Do you have an alternative formulation, because that could be interesting?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-AssessmentsHowever having been given the name that it has been given it still nonetheless applies to me. I am in the upper quartile, ie the smart fellows that habitually underestimate their genius.
[...]
I don’t know of any application of Einsteinian Relativity or spacetime to electricity, except for the silly invoking of relativistic length contraction to explain magnetism near a current in a wire.
[...]
[...]
I wonder whether we will ever figure it all out. My electon electricity is a good start.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-AssessmentsThe authors had the choice of calling that paper -- The skilled have difficulty in recognizing their deflated self assessment of their own competence.
If they had given it that name then it would be easily seen that it applies to me.
However having been given the name that it has been given it still nonetheless applies to me. I am in the upper quartile, ie the smart fellows that habitually underestimate their genius.
Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?
Is this the same IEEE that called Heaviside a crackpot when he came up with his equations?
Is this the same IEEE that conceded that his equations worked when they fixed the telegraphy cable?
It was formed in 1963 from the amalgamation of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers and the Institute of Radio Engineers.
The Heaviside brothers thus could hardly have chosen a less opportune moment to call for adding inductance to telephone lines. In April 1887 they completed their joint paper on the subject and prepared to send it off to the Journal of the Society of Telegraph Engineers and of Electricians. As a post office employee, however, Arthur first had to secure clearance from his superior in the engineering ranks—none other than Preece, who promptly declared the paper worthless and blocked it. Arthur soon acquiesced, but Oliver emphatically did not. Through the summer of 1887 he sent the Electrician caustic letters attacking “the eminent scienticulist,” as he called Preece, but Biggs, though sympathetic, feared a libel suit and declined to publish them. Then in October, Biggs was abruptly removed as editor of the Electrician, a move he later hinted was prompted by his support for Heaviside. The new editor soon cancelled Heaviside’s long-running series of articles, saying he had asked around and found no one who read them.
Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?
Is this the same IEEE that called Heaviside a crackpot when he came up with his equations?
Is this the same IEEE that conceded that his equations worked when they fixed the telegraphy cable?No. Not the same IEEE.QuoteIt was formed in 1963 from the amalgamation of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers and the Institute of Radio Engineers.
Here's the real story, a nice biography of Heaviside by Bruce Hunt:
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.1788QuoteThe Heaviside brothers thus could hardly have chosen a less opportune moment to call for adding inductance to telephone lines. In April 1887 they completed their joint paper on the subject and prepared to send it off to the Journal of the Society of Telegraph Engineers and of Electricians. As a post office employee, however, Arthur first had to secure clearance from his superior in the engineering ranks—none other than Preece, who promptly declared the paper worthless and blocked it. Arthur soon acquiesced, but Oliver emphatically did not. Through the summer of 1887 he sent the Electrician caustic letters attacking “the eminent scienticulist,” as he called Preece, but Biggs, though sympathetic, feared a libel suit and declined to publish them. Then in October, Biggs was abruptly removed as editor of the Electrician, a move he later hinted was prompted by his support for Heaviside. The new editor soon cancelled Heaviside’s long-running series of articles, saying he had asked around and found no one who read them.
No. Not the same IEEE.
It was formed in 1963 from the amalgamation of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers and the Institute of Radio Engineers.
Why use an archaic, imprecise term like "electricity"?
What is it supposed to mean? Electrical charge? Electric field?
What about magnetism? Electromagnetic fields? Are they included in "electricity"?
And let's dispense with the claim that Maxwell's equations don't accurately predict what we measure, or don't include the effects of a dielectric insulator. Or is mysterious or no one can solve them.
Those claims are utter complete bullshit as we all (with one exception) well know.
OK, I hope I'm done feeding the troll.
Or, they would be wrong, if they bothered to explain what they mean.
Why use an archaic, imprecise term like "electricity"?
What is it supposed to mean? Electrical charge? Electric field?
What about magnetism? Electromagnetic fields? Are they included in "electricity"?
And let's dispense with the claim that Maxwell's equations don't accurately predict what we measure, or don't include the effects of a dielectric insulator. Or is mysterious or no one can solve them.
Those claims are utter complete bullshit as we all (with one exception) well know.
OK, I hope I'm done feeding the troll.My new electricity says that there are 3 kinds of electricity propagating/flowing/drifting on/on/in a wire.
The em field or fields are the transmitters of the electrical force or forces.
Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations are probably ok, except of course for the silly (needless) inclusion of the (impossible) displacement current.
But anyhow no-one uses Maxwell's equations i think. Except to confuse skoolkids. I don’t eat bread nowadays hence i guess that i no longer use curl (to make toast).
What it means is that Veritasium & Co are sort of slightly wrong re electricity being in the space around a wire.
Or, they would be wrong, if they bothered to explain what they mean.
The energy & power of electricity is primarily in the electons hugging the wires, not in the space around the wires.
However an electon's field(s) is a part of the electon. A photon includes its field(s).
The fields produce forces that transmit the energy & power of the (negatively charged) electons.
The fields radiate from the electons, & fields radiate from (negatively charged) electrons (in & on the wires) that have been influenced by the electons.
The influenced electrons then produce what can be considered to be the 2 other kinds of electricity.
But electron electricity is a secondary effect of the primary electon electricity.
The field(s) do carry energy & power in themselves.
And, the field(s) do detach from the central main part of the electon. And after they detach they do carry energy & power in their own right. Its complicated. I might explain in more detail later.
I am not sure whether to call it a field or fields. The electro field exists hand in hand with the magnetic field. I need to think it through.
Anyhow, the field(s) carry energy & power & they also transmit energy & power.
[...]I don’t know of any application of Einsteinian Relativity or spacetime to electricity, except for the silly invoking of relativistic length contraction to explain magnetism near a current in a wire.[...]Could you justify to us the grounds you have to claim relativistic length contraction as 'silly'? Are electrons in an accelerator beam not electricity?
I'm only being critical of your theory, I don't intend to be dismissive, there are some concepts you present that do have a (somewhat tenuous) link to actual physics concepts, but it does appear that there is a bit of a discrepancy between your adoption of concepts to explain un-measurable phenomena (literal electron drift velocity) by rejecting the models that explain actual measurable phenomena (special relativity), and that's going quite firmly against the whole premise of science in general.
Key example of the insulated antenna, the paper demonstrates how conventional EM theory and practical measurement agree... it sounds like you're disputing that.
[...]I wonder whether we will ever figure it all out. My electon electricity is a good start.Why is it a better start than the one we already have? You've not actually provided any rational justification for the discrepancies that only you claim to be apparent.
Ok, after reading Heaviside et al, you have come up with a theory that is effectively identical to convention, aside some semantic differences which might collapse to the same meaning once stated or described more precisely.
It seems to me you are trying to invent something new out of something fixed (Heaviside's convention), so are stuck between a conventional description and a host of fanciful imaginings whereby you will invent a world of fake measurement discrepancies - they are not real.
I don’t have a problem with the former, but you will (and then might sidestep) result after result of evidence from measurement, because of the desire above. You won't face facts head on, you need to swerve and obfuscate at every turn. I can only guess that this arises because you know those results might limit your ideas (again, not a bad wish), and so very consciously engage in the swerving and contradictory BS descriptions of reality to avoid getting caught out.
Again, your theory, as stated above, does kind of hold water, and might hold useful insights which could possibly in time seem more correct than convention. But it is a restatement of convention, and you yourself admit that it might result in little to no change in the way things are calculated in practice.
Edit: Where did the "et" go?
What prediction of Einstein's special relativity has been shown to be incorrect?
Ok, after reading Heaviside et al, you have come up with a theory that is effectively identical to convention, aside some semantic differences which might collapse to the same meaning once stated or described more precisely.
It seems to me you are trying to invent something new out of something fixed (Heaviside's convention), so are stuck between a conventional description and a host of fanciful imaginings whereby you will invent a world of fake measurement discrepancies - they are not real.
I don’t have a problem with the former, but you will (and then might sidestep) result after result of evidence from measurement, because of the desire above. You won't face facts head on, you need to swerve and obfuscate at every turn. I can only guess that this arises because you know those results might limit your ideas (again, not a bad wish), and so very consciously engage in the swerving and contradictory BS descriptions of reality to avoid getting caught out.
Again, your theory, as stated above, does kind of hold water, and might hold useful insights which could possibly in time seem more correct than convention. But it is a restatement of convention, and you yourself admit that it might result in little to no change in the way things are calculated in practice.
Edit: Where did the "et" go?The acceptance & adoption of my new (electon) electricity will provide a better explanation for what we see.
It probably wont affect existing practise.
It might allow better & quicker future inventions & designs.
It would be good if Howardlong tested the speed of electricity along a threaded rod. Electons have to go further (hugging the surface) due to the screw thread, hence they will appear to go more slowly (than on a plain rod).
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.