It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 29
74
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: KrzYma

Do you have any experiment creating a monopole just curious since to my knowledge completely theoretical and oddly you always demand proof when we explain science. However you seem to take take it as fact this theoretical object exists even though science isnt sure because its never been seen anywhere in the universe. Notto mention just the energy to make one is huge it is estimated that the a magnetic monopole would have a mass of about 10^15 GeV, compared to LHC's 10^3 GeV range. I mean even the Higgs was at 125 GeV Range and that was pushing the limits. But in your world a coils with 120 v ac is going to have enough power to create a monopole. If its that easy why arent they all over the place?



NO, B field, to my knowledge, has closed force lines. It is a de-poll force where the end is the beginning of the loop.

I have seen some people claiming to have created an monopole, ...nonsense !




posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

Wow lose your train of thought because you didnt answer my question danced around it. and if that wasnt bad enough you than made no sense. Want to try again? do you even know what a monopole is or how they are made? Any way as i said theoretical and you cant have a monopole magnetic force impossible for the same reason you cant have a monopole bar magnet. Now we have observed something similar called a flux tube they dont have just one magnetic pole but they do have one stronger than the other. so its similar. Is it possible this is what you were referring to and if so id love to hear how Teslas device might create this.


edit on 8/10/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

When will physics and chemistry sit happily with each other.?

Will the paths we are currently on accomplish this.?



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: happytoexist
a reply to: Arbitrageur

When will physics and chemistry sit happily with each other.?

Will the paths we are currently on accomplish this.?
They are just different branches of science and do confirm with each other on the classical and quantum levels



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: happytoexist
When will physics and chemistry sit happily with each other.?

Will the paths we are currently on accomplish this.?
Before 1900, they didn't. We had a periodic table of the elements in chemistry, but we didn't have a good understanding in physics of why this table had the form it did.

Advances in quantum mechanics in the early 1900s helped a lot. In 1945 Glenn Seaborg published a paper about the periodic table that his colleagues told him was too radical to publish at the time, but by 1950, we developed a pretty good understanding in physics of why the periodic table had the form it did. Seaborg's work was accepted and in 1951 he was awarded the Nobel prize, so I think for the most part around 1950-ish is when I see them meshing well.

We still have unanswered questions about the periodic table, like experimental verification of the theoretical "island of stability" thought to perhaps exist somewhere around element 126, but it's hard for me to see this as chemistry until this is confirmed. Most of the higher elements so far are extremely unstable so it's hard to do any meaningful chemistry with something that only lasts, say, 0.1 seconds.

I'm curious about your question. What makes you think they don't already sit happily with each other?



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: KrzYma

Wow lose your train of thought because you didnt answer my question danced around it. and if that wasnt bad enough you than made no sense. Want to try again? do you even know what a monopole is or how they are made? Any way as i said theoretical and you cant have a monopole magnetic force impossible for the same reason you cant have a monopole bar magnet. Now we have observed something similar called a flux tube they dont have just one magnetic pole but they do have one stronger than the other. so its similar. Is it possible this is what you were referring to and if so id love to hear how Teslas device might create this.



yes, I will pick only what I want to answer and comment only on small pieces of any text...


I think we haven't ended the light bulb - electron - Efield talk
I said in my earlier post...

"But there is no collecting electrons on the inside of the bulb, or outside
You now how hard it is to free an insulator once it is charged?
The attraction would be continuous even if the power supply is cut but it is not. "

in my next post I've said
"... you can not switch the balloon off, or the electrostatic force, because as you said not all electrons discharge.
In this experiment the force vanishes if Tesla current is not flowing.

There is no electrons on the light bulb but an pulsing E field "





To answer your question about magnetic monopole...

NO. I don't know any experiments creating magnetic monopole, sorry



Now we have observed something similar called a flux tube they dont have just one magnetic pole but they do have one stronger than the other. so its similar. Is it possible this is what you were referring to and if so id love to hear how Teslas device might create this.


I'm not sure what experiment you are referring to and think it's the wireless transfer of high DC current ?


edit on 10-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
"But there is no collecting electrons on the inside of the bulb, or outside
You now how hard it is to free an insulator once it is charged?
The attraction would be continuous even if the power supply is cut but it is not. "

in my next post I've said
"... you can not switch the balloon off, or the electrostatic force, because as you said not all electrons discharge.
In this experiment the force vanishes if Tesla current is not flowing.
Here's something for you to think about.

When he turns on the apparatus sending "thousands of volts" to the vacuum filled light bulb, he says he sees "arcing", right? (That's how he says he knows it's thousands of volts).

When he turns the apparatus off, he no longer sees the arcing, so whatever those arcs were made of no longer has the source supplying them with the power off.

Now my question for you is, what exactly do you think those arcs he describes are made of?

Here are some hints; it begins with the letter "e":
Vacuum arc

A vacuum arc can arise when the surfaces of metal electrodes in contact with a good vacuum begin to emit electrons either through heating (thermionic emission) or via an electric field that is sufficient to cause field electron emission.


Field electron emission

Field emission (FE) (also known as field electron emission and electron field emission) is emission of electrons induced by an electrostatic field. The most common context is field emission from a solid surface into vacuum...

Field emission in pure metals occurs in high electric fields: the gradients are typically higher than 1 gigavolt per metre and strongly dependent upon the work function. Electron sources based on field emission have a number of applications, but it is most commonly an undesirable primary source of vacuum breakdown and electrical discharge phenomena, which engineers work to prevent.
So engineers are usually working to prevent this phenomenon. That's probably why you don't see it more elsewhere. The experimenters are producing what engineers specifically try to avoid, because the arcing is bad for numerous reasons.

One Tesla project experimenter was experiencing significant health issues as a result of playing around with Tesla devices and not knowing what they were doing nor all the consequences. People who don't know what they are doing shouldn't play with Tesla's high voltage stuff, as some of it is dangerous, and even in this small apparatus we saw the man get shocked in the video. Fortunately it was a small experiment but the larger devices can cause heart fibrillation, meaning your heart stops and you die unless you get zapped with a defibrillator.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

sure dad, I will never play with any Tesla coil, I promise

unfortunately in the county I'm living, possessing a pressure cooker makes you a terrorist,
just off topic but important

so... you are saying electrons collecting inside the light bulb, after power supply is turned on, create an + charge on the outside, and this electrostatic force attracts the copper piece.
Yes ?

edit on 10-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

And if you're getting significant field emission you might be accelerating electrons enough that they make x-rays when they strike solid materials.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

ANy question?

what do you make of Telsa?

was he shunned and raped by JP morgan and tptb due to his superior intellect over any other human being in the history of mankind?



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: Arbitrageur

ANy question?

what do you make of Telsa?

was he shunned and raped by JP morgan and tptb due to his superior intellect over any other human being in the history of mankind?


Ill catch some heat from the Tesla fans but lets talk about the man and not the myth. It’s easy to see why Tesla should have become the focus of an effusive subculture: He was absolutely convinced of his own genius; he promoted his own personality cult of the “great inventor” sort; he enjoyed financial success in early life, and later in life was able to indulge in a bunch of bizarre and grandiose ideas with no results i might add.But he achieved considerable scientific notoriety, despite a flawed understanding of physics and other sciences.At least part of Tesla’s reputation stems from the fact that he was the last of the great inventors to work alone. But realize Tesla was a showman first and foremost. He even claimed he received a radio signal from martians. Tesla coils were actually built because Tesla thought electricity had curative powers.He wanted to make a device where people could enter electric fields thinking this could cure people.

His fans make all kinds of crazy claims like he was the father of robotics invented radio and the laser and yes even florescent lights. Tesla found that gas-filled glass tubes glowed in the presence of his high-voltage coil, but modern neon and fluorescent lighting don’t work this way.So he was very smart but he didnt understand most of the stuff he was playing with to be honest. But it was a time when not alot was known even about electricity.
edit on 8/10/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

Tesla coils by there very nature create magnetic fields basically wastes alot of energy. An inductor converts an electrical current into a magnetic field measured in Teslas , or can turn a magnetic field into a current. Though i could see the static as being poart of the equation im thinking even simpler Tesla coils essentially create a fluctuating electromagnet.

edit on 8/10/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
so... you are saying electrons collecting inside the light bulb, after power supply is turned on, create an + charge on the outside, and this electrostatic force attracts the copper piece.
Yes ?
How do electrons give you a + charge? They have a (-) charge as does the balloon when it attracts the aluminum can. You could say they are "collecting" on the balloon when you rub the balloon on your hair and it takes electrons from your hair. From your question I take it you still don't understand how the balloon attracts the aluminum can, even though I explained it previously.

In the light bulb, I wouldn't use the word "collecting". As I already said I think they are probably being "driven off" of the metal in the light bulb as a result of high voltage, or the heating caused by the high voltage, or a combination of both. What else could the arcs be caused by except electrons? They aren't made of protons or neutrons, right?

Once the electrons are "driven off", if they are surrounded by glass, what effect will they have on the glass? Since they have a negative charge, then I expect the glass will exhibit properties of negative charge since the glass may block the flow of electrons, but it doesn't block their electric field.

However as I said this is an educated guess because there are some unknowns. Dollard says he sees arcing, but it's not shown in the video. I believe he does but it would help if they had zoomed in on the arcing so we could see what it looks like, where exactly is it arcing from/to? What shape or appearance do the arcs have? We can't tell. They didn't even bother to measure the voltage, so we don't even know that.


originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Arbitrageur

And if you're getting significant field emission you might be accelerating electrons enough that they make x-rays when they strike solid materials.
Yes, that's another one of the many hazards one might encounter. The woman I'm thinking of was hacking with a terrible cough like her lungs were severely damaged, after operating a Tesla Coil in an unventilated basement for years. She paid an electrician to upgrade the main service in her house, but she didn't think to pay someone to put in ventilation to remove the ozone. I think in high concentrations that ozone can be pretty nasty. She said she was getting rid of the Tesla coil, but the damage to her lungs was already pretty severe.



originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: KrzYma

Tesla coils by there very nature create magnetic fields basically wastes alot of energy. An inductor converts an electrical current into a magnetic field measured in Teslas , or can turn a magnetic field into a current. Though i could see the static as being poart of the equation im thinking even simpler Tesla coils essentially create a fluctuating electromagnet.
The coils may indeed have electromagnetic properties as you suggest, but since the copper strip is non-ferrous it shouldn't be attracted by a magnet, right? He was asking what attracts the copper strip to the light bulb. I'm not sure it's static electricity, but it seems to behave like a static attraction.


originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: Arbitrageur

ANy question?

what do you make of Telsa?

was he shunned and raped by JP morgan and tptb due to his superior intellect over any other human being in the history of mankind?
Any question about physics. What we can say about Tesla is that he was not a physicist, though he fancied himself one. He was actually a good engineer but a terrible physicist, who claimed radio waves (He called them "Hertzian waves") don't exist. Check out this November 1928 Popular Science article on page 170 about his stunningly bad "theoretical physics", including disagreement with the accepted atomic theory of matter and his disbelief in the electron:

books.google.com... =en&sa=X&ei=5J9TUJPNJYP20gHSyoCoBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=tesla%20believe%20electron&f=false

I'm not sure these denials of accepted physics are signs of a stunning intellect.

Westinghouse paid Tesla over $216,000 dollars for his patents which is about $6.1 million dollars in today's money, which Tesla managed to squader on failed projects like Wardenclyffe until he was basically broke. I don't think we can blame Morgan for that, and again it's not the sign of a stunning intellect to squander your entire 6.1 million dollar fortune, but he obviously had some good engineering skills to enable him to create such valuable patents in the first place.

edit on 10-8-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


In the video i remember him saying something about turning on the battery so i assumed maybe wrongly he was running a current through the strip since the coils were already powered. I would watch it again but last time was 20 min ill never get back.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Arbitrageur
In the video i remember him saying something about turning on the battery so i assumed maybe wrongly he was running a current through the strip since the coils were already powered. I would watch it again but last time was 20 min ill never get back.
He said the copper strip was suspended by an insulating material, so it's not connected to anything electrically. I think it's acting just like the aluminum can in the balloon static experiment.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Arbitrageur
In the video i remember him saying something about turning on the battery so i assumed maybe wrongly he was running a current through the strip since the coils were already powered. I would watch it again but last time was 20 min ill never get back.
He said the copper strip was suspended by an insulating material, so it's not connected to anything electrically. I think it's acting just like the aluminum can in the balloon static experiment.


What makes the tesla coil unusual it the stop gap because it can store 100,000 to several million volts. This means your dealing with extremely high voltage which exaggerates the effects making people think its something new.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

+ charge means surplus / excess of charge
NOT minus or plus which is arbitrary chosen
- charge means insufficient / not enough





I'm not sure it's static electricity, but it seems to behave like a static attraction.

it is electric force, for sure.
it is because of charge difference, sure

but static charge means static, hard to remove the electrons from insulator, right ?
it will not stop attracting till the charge is removed from the insulator.

discharging the glass is not so easy, but the attraction stops after power supply is cut of.

so what happens to the electrons in the glass if this would be electrostatic effect like in the balloon - allu can
would the attraction stop almost immediately ?
NO, like the balloon once charged attracts pretty long time



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Here is another video where some guy experiments with Tesla current


On the end of this video, about 10:00 something interesting is happening.
He created an invisible barrier on an open can.
Crossing this invisible surface with had or grounded conductor without touching the can itself,
this acts as a switch for a light bulb

explanation on this ?



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Im just wondering what if what you say is not accurate.... it would explain a lot!

I would also seem very ignorant to simply wash away Tesla due to being told that he was worthless. i think it would be better to try and disprove his papers yourself, if you can get your hands on them, that is!


Further more.... for anyone who can understand advanced technical language in physics and electricity, i suggest looking up Eric Dollard on youtube! He is basically recreating Teslas works and getting insane results!


edit on 2014-08-11T08:38:38-05:00201408bam3108am3831 by combatmaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur

+ charge means surplus / excess of charge
NOT minus or plus which is arbitrary chosen
- charge means insufficient / not enough
The + and - symbols for charge were assigned before we understood electrons, and we might have assigned them opposite from what we did had we known then what we know now, and in fact some of the related conventions are taught opposite on opposite sides of the Atlantic ocean.

Conventional Versus Electron Flow

By the time the true direction of electron flow was discovered, the nomenclature of "positive" and "negative" had already been so well established in the scientific community that no effort was made to change it, although calling electrons "positive" would make more sense in referring to "excess" charge. You see, the terms "positive" and "negative" are human inventions, and as such have no absolute meaning beyond our own conventions of language and scientific description. Franklin could have just as easily referred to a surplus of charge as "black" and a deficiency as "white," in which case scientists would speak of electrons having a "white" charge (assuming the same incorrect conjecture of charge position between wax and wool).

However, because we tend to associate the word "positive" with "surplus" and "negative" with "deficiency," the standard label for electron charge does seem backward.
So you say "+ charge means surplus / excess of charge". It does not in the modern world, it means the exact opposite. If we had it to do all over again, perhaps it would if we hadn't assigned the symbols "backwards", but you aren't helping by confusing things even more than they already are by contradicting established convention.


it is electric force, for sure.
it is because of charge difference, sure

but static charge means static, hard to remove the electrons from insulator, right ?
I said the physics of attracting the copper strip and the aluminum can appear to be the same. The source of the charge is different as I explained, and I didn't say the electrons are "collecting" on the glass like they do on the balloon, I said they are being driven off the metal as seen by the arcing, while the high voltage source is on, which is different. When the high voltage is turned off, the arcing stops, and the electrons in the "arcs" can return to the metal, because the electrons in the arcs are already flowing, so they aren't stuck on the glass.


originally posted by: KrzYma
Crossing this invisible surface with had or grounded conductor without touching the can itself,
this acts as a switch for a light bulb

explanation on this ?
I agree that's an interesting effect.

It's well known that a Tesla coil can illuminate a fluorescent bulb without touching it, so I suspect this isn't the part that puzzles you, you're wondering about the "switch" effect, right?

This is more a demonstration of the effects of a Faraday cage, or in this example we could call it a "faraday cup" since it's shaped like a cup. A Faraday cage blocks AC EM radiation above low frequencies, so that's why it's off before he sticks his finger in there, the EM field is being partially blocked by the "Faraday cup". When he sticks his finger in there, his finger is actually conductive enough to conduct the EM radiation past the edge of the Faraday cup. A finger is somewhere between copper and glass in conductance, but in this experiment it's conductive enough. If you stuck a glass rod in there it wouldn't illuminate the bulb, unless it had some conductive contaminants on the surface or something.

There are electric body fat measurement devices that rely on lean tissue being a better conductor than fat tissue, so they claim to tell you about how much of your composition is lean by these measurements, so these machines rely on similar properties of human tissue. Here's a link talking about such a device, which if you can figure out how it works you'll understand better why his finger turns the light on and off:

Total Body Electrical Conductivity (TOBEC)


originally posted by: combatmaster
Further more.... for anyone who can understand advanced technical language in physics and electricity, i suggest looking up Eric Dollard on youtube! He is basically recreating Teslas works and getting insane results!
I wouldn't put too much credence in claims made by Dollard; we've been talking about his experiment in all these posts by and replies to KrzYma that you just ignored.

The man claims mainstream science is wrong about where the sun gets its power (mainstream says it's from nuclear fusion). So, if you ask him where then does the sun get its power, he says he doesn't know, maybe another dimension. Some people might think that claim is bordering on insanity when observations fit theory so well, now that we figured out the neutrino production rate matches theory, which we figured out about 10 years ago.

As for disproving Tesla, all you have to do is turn on a radio. He said radio waves don't exist and if he was right, the radio wouldn't work. How hard is that?
edit on 11-8-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join