Why electricity flows

reply to post by john_bmth


Have you and arbituer read the Tesla paper ( "The dissipation of electricity") discussed in MaryRose' quote?

what was so wrong about teslas ideas? what didnt you agree with about the paper?

reply to post by Mary Rose

My accusations about Bedini are based on quite a bit of research.

His "DVD clarifier" doesn't do what he says, unless you count the "placebo effect", an effect which researchers normally screen out using double-blind experiments, that Bedini does not screen out. This, in addition to the fact that anyone who understands the technology will realize his product is ineffective, because there is no basis in the technology why it can do what he says.

I've not only researched his circuit diagrams and claims about his "free energy" experimenter's kits that he suggests can have overunity by using electromagnetic fields, but I've also gone to a website where experimenters who have bought his kit compare notes with each other on their overunity results, or lack thereof...mostly the latter.

His experimenter customers seem to be doing more to show that the electrical engineers are right and Bedini doesn't have some secret that the mainstream missed. Why do you think he's only selling "experimenter's kits" instead of a real product? If it was really over-unity, he'd sell the product, and sell a lot more and make a lot more. But apparently by suggesting he knows some things electrical engineers don't, he's sold quite a few experimenter's kits. And as far as I know nobody has taken their house off the grid using his "technology" but if you find an example to the contrary, please advise the details, and I'll research that.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Funny, I googled "ampere" and ended up on a very informative set of articles on Wikipedia (first hit of first page). Strange how you skipped pages and pages of informative google results to "end up" on some crank website. But I guess that's Motivated Reasoning for you.

I too wondered how researching ampere leads one to a crank website, but perhaps motivated reasoning is something we can all be guilty of. The more aware among us try to catch ourselves when we do it and re-evaluate our thought process.

As jonnywhite suggested, even Einstein may have been susceptible to this regarding his ""God doesn't play dice" quote, since it seems the opposite is probably true with quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Have you and arbituer read the Tesla paper ( "The dissipation of electricity") discussed in MaryRose' quote?

what was so wrong about teslas ideas? what didnt you agree with about the paper?

I didn't say I disagree with Tesla. Here is a link to it:

nrgnair.com...

To paraphrase, he says that electrical energy can be dissipated in air. And while air is a very good insulator, it's not perfect...a vacuum would be better. So actually I agree with Tesla, if you transmit AC electricity through a wire in air it will dissipate some energy in the air...not a lot at ground level, but certainly more than would be dissipated if the wire ran through a vacuum instead of air.

He uses some confusing terminology, which he admits, as seen here:

The apparatus, oscillator and resonator, being immersed in air, or other discontinuous medium, there occurs - as I have pointed out in the description of my recent experiments before the English and French scientific societies – dissipation of energy by what I think might be appropriately called electric sound waves or sound-waves of electrified air. In Prof. Bjerknes's experiments principally this dissipation in the resonator need he considered, though the sound-waves-if this term be permitted-

"If this term is permitted" acknowledges that perhaps it's not, and at least he understands that it's not really proper terminology. But I understand what he's trying to say and don't have a problem with the idea that some electrical energy is dissipated in air. But some woo people might see that and then start talking about nonsense like electric sound waves, completely ignoring Tesla's reference to "If this term is permitted". Context and understanding make a difference.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arb, just in case -- this is a nice compendium of Tesla's lectures. You will see that Tesla was certainly an "aggressive" thinker, and didn't think twice before filling the gap in the theory at his disposal (and knowledge) with intuition and guesses. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. His explanation of dissipation of energy in gaseous media is far from satisfactory, and it's not his fault -- he was at the cutting edge of this research in his time.

Electrons flow, not electricity.
Maybe someone mentioned it before.
3rd

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You are defined by your word...





Post

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Arb, just in case -- this is a nice compendium of Tesla's lectures. You will see that Tesla was certainly an "aggressive" thinker, and didn't think twice before filling the gap in the theory at his disposal (and knowledge) with intuition and guesses. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. His explanation of dissipation of energy in gaseous media is far from satisfactory, and it's not his fault -- he was at the cutting edge of this research in his time.

Yes , he was an "aggressive" thinker.

I'm actually pretty impressed with some of his insights that were ahead of his time. But for reasons that you cite, he got a lot of the details wrong and that example was no exception.

Originally posted by StareDad
Electrons flow, not electricity.
Maybe someone mentioned it before.
3rd

I did mention something about that before, didn't you read the thread?.

I'd describe the electron movement in AC as more of a "wiggle" than a flow, since there isn't real net movement. The electromagnetic fields travel at typically 96% the speed of light in power transmission lines, which is a lot faster than a wiggle with a net speed of about zero.

reply to post by Americanist

You know, speakers and microphones of the earliest electrical designs that could convert back and forth between sound energy and electromagnetic energy were developed in the 1920's. Yet now, I guess some people are excited about the fact that there are variations possible on the methods developed nearly a century ago. Who'd have thunk it?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Americanist

 

You know, speakers and microphones of the earliest electrical designs that could convert back and forth between sound energy and electromagnetic energy were developed in the 1920's. Yet now, I guess some people are excited about the fact that there are variations possible on the methods developed nearly a century ago. Who'd have thunk it?

Arb, while Americanist's post is off-topic, I must say that I'm reasonably impressed with this item. The effect (spin wave) may or may not be subtle (you can look it up and see that it can account for energy loss in certain applications, even today), but the physics behind it is hardcore and it's hard to make a measurement like this. In other words, it's not for woo-woos. Translation -- this area of physics has always been hard for me.

But I guess your point was that getting energy out of sound is not new. It's not.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

As jonnywhite suggested, even Einstein may have been susceptible to this regarding his ""God doesn't play dice" quote, since it seems the opposite is probably true with quantum mechanics.

In order for your denial of Einsteins statement to be true...wouldn't the laws of physics have to not exist?

I think i get what your saying... but is it that once bodies are formed,, and we can observe quantum mechanical functions existing,, are these quantum functions now obeying the macro physical laws, or being effected by them? or does the evasive way in which these quantum functions react to one another and interact and travel and what they can do an absolute of the universe,, that is an absolute mystery?

but you say its a playing of dice,, because they travel randomly,, though not randomly they are effected by whatever fields and forces they are effected by which every micropico second decides where a quantum particle will travel ( if that is loosely how it works).. and from all these quantum interactions since the begging of the universe this probabilistic, orderly, stable universe has arisen.. so could all that dice play have led to other types of universes? a second after the big bang? a year after? a second after that? ,,, or is there a limit, a threshold, a probable state in which the most primal quanta of the universe was destined to interact so that it would form a stable, functional system?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

His explanation of dissipation of energy in gaseous media is far from satisfactory, and it's not his fault -- he was at the cutting edge of this research in his time.

thanks for the link... can you perhaps touch on how we now know energy dissipates in a gaseous medium?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
In order for your denial of Einsteins statement to be true...wouldn't the laws of physics have to not exist?

No idea what you mean, read jonnywhite's post, if you don't understand it, research it.

but you say its a playing of dice

On one roll of the dice, you have no idea what number will pop up. But on thousands or millions of rolls of the dice, you can predict statistically what the dice will do.

Quantum mechanics is like that. Fire a single photon through the double slit experiment and you can't predict where that one photon will arrive, just like you couldn't predict one roll of the dice.

But fire millions of photons and you can predict what pattern they will form statistically, just as you can predict what portion of millions of rolls of the dice will be say, "snake-eyes"(double ones).

So a single event isn't exactly predictable, but many events are statistically predictable whether you're firing photons through a double slit or rolling the dice.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

His explanation of dissipation of energy in gaseous media is far from satisfactory, and it's not his fault -- he was at the cutting edge of this research in his time.

thanks for the link... can you perhaps touch on how we now know energy dissipates in a gaseous medium?

There are three mechanisms I can think of right away, when applied to a wire, as in the Tesla discussion:
* EM radiation leaking (because a conductor will act as an antenna) -- strictly speaking, this will also apply to a vacuum
* dielectric losses
* corona discharge

Depending on the conditions, these three will be of varying relative importance.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From johnbedini.net:

. . . Tesla's Discovery and Application of Radiant Energy

. . . Only after conducting exhaustive experimental trials for the next three years, did Tesla announce this stupendous discovery in a paper published in December, 1892, entitled "The Dissipation of Electricity". . . . The transformer that Tesla referred to in the 1892 paper did not operate on magnetic/electric field induction created by alternating currents. It operated in an entirely new domain of physics based on abrupt discharges of electrostatic potentials and the subsequent release of kinetic Radiant Energy from the omnipresent ether. Tesla was now operating under entirely new rules which he referred to as "dynamic" electro-static forces and had, by now, completely abandoned any further interest in the AC waveform. The genesis of the Lodge misunderstanding, however, began a few years earlier with the publication of certain mathematical formulas by a brilliant Scotsman named James Clerk Maxwell. . . .

From tfcbooks.com, "On the Dissipation of the Electrical Energy of the Hertz Resonator" by Nikola Tesla, which references work by Prof. Bjerkness, published in the December 14 issue of The Electrical Engineer:

The Electrical Engineer — December 21, 1892

Anyone who, like myself, has had the pleasure of witnessing the beautiful demonstrations with vibrating diaphragms which Prof. Bjerknes, exhibited in person at the Paris Exposition in 1880, must have admired his ability and painstaking care to such a degree, as to have an almost implicit faith in the correctness of observations made by him. His experiments "On the Dissipation of the Electrical Energy of the Hertz Resonator," which are described in the issue of Dec. 14, of THE ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, are prepared in the same ingenious and skillful manner, and the conclusions drawn from them are all the more interesting as they agree with the theories put forth by the most advanced thinkers. There can not be the slightest doubt as to the truth of these conclusions, yet the statements which follow may serve to explain in part the results arrived at in a different manner; and with this object in view I venture to call attention to a condition with which, in investigations such as those of Prof. Bjerknes, the experimenter is confronted.

The apparatus, oscillator and resonator, being immersed in air, or other discontinuous medium, there occurs—as I have pointed out in the description of my recent experiments before the English and French scientific societies—dissipation of energy by what I think might be appropriately called electric sound waves or sound-waves of electrified air. . . .

. . . Taking the above views, I believe, that in the experiments of Prof. Bjerknes which lead him to undoubtedly correct conclusions, the air is a factor fully as important, if not more so, than the resistance of the metals.

reply to post by Mary Rose

It operated in an entirely new domain of physics based on abrupt discharges of electrostatic potentials and the subsequent release of kinetic Radiant Energy from the omnipresent ether.

It's sad to see a thread that was started as a legitimate discourse in physics, to become a toxic waste dump for all sorts of pseudoscience and woo-woo crap.

I withdraw all of my critique directed at the OP. You did well, Sir, and I'm dismayed at persons undermining your honest effort at educating people on matters pertaining to electricity.

And I seriously object to the off-topic here.

reply to post by buddhasystem




That's hilarious. And, rather pompous, to say the least.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

That's hilarious. And, rather pompous, to say the least.

I don't see any pomp here other than coming from you, with all those "new domains of physics", "radiant energy" etc, and it's pomp because you possess ZERO knowledge of physics in the first place. Copy-paste from the woo-woo sites is the only thing you are capable of.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I don't see any pomp here other than coming from you, with all those "new domains of physics", "radiant energy" etc, and it's pomp because you possess ZERO knowledge of physics in the first place. Copy-paste from the woo-woo sites is the only thing you are capable of.

Your "woo-woo" is other, open-minded, careful people's diligent investigation - despite ridicule, which is a sign of weakness.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From johnbedini.net:

Continuing:

Hertz Waves

Hertz used the damped oscillating currents in a dipole antenna, triggered by a high-voltage electrical capacitive spark discharge, as his source of radio waves. His detector in some experiments was another dipole antenna connected to a narrow spark gap. A small spark in this gap signified detection of the radio wave. When he added cylindrical reflectors behind his dipole antennas, Hertz could detect radio waves about 20 metres from the transmitter in his laboratory. He did not try to transmit further because he wanted to prove electromagnetic theory, not to develop wireless communications.

Hertz was uninterested in the practical importance of his experiments. He stated that "It's of no use whatsoever ... this is just an experiment that proves Maestro Maxwell was right - we just have these mysterious electromagnetic waves that we cannot see with the naked eye. But they are there."[3] Asked about the ramifications of his discoveries, Hertz replied, "Nothing, I guess." Hertz also stated, "I do not think that the wireless waves I have discovered will have any practical application." The art of radio was left to other to implement into a practical useful form. His discoveries would later be taken up by entrepreneurs looking to make their fortunes. Marconi's 1895 experiments followed Hertz's work (among others) by using a spark source in what became known as a spark-gap transmitter.

Maxwell's Equations

Using mathematical models, James Clerk Maxwell had earlier suggested that two different types of electrical disturbances could possibly exist in Nature. One type was a longitudinal electric wave which required alternating concentrations of densified and rarefied pulsations of electrostatic fields that moved along a single vector (today, we refer to these as standing waves or scalar waves). Maxwell ultimately rejected this idea because he was convinced that this type of wave propagation was impossible to achieve, but his assumption was erroneous and would later portend formidable consequences for Tesla and the world at large.

Maxwell's second wave postulation was that of a transverse electromagnetic wave that exhibited a rapid alternation of electric fields along a fixed axis that radiated away from its point of origin at the speed of light and was detectable at great distances. Maxwell had more faith in the existence of this type of wave and encouraged experimenters to look in this direction. It was the discovery of this type of wave that Hertz had laid claim to, but Tesla was meticulous and fastidious in replicating Hertz's experimental parameters and he could not obtain the results claimed by Hertz.

Tesla discovered a fundamental flaw in Hertz's experiment: Hertz had failed to take into account he presence of air in his experiments. Hertz had mistakenly identified electrostatic inductions or electrified shockwaves as true electromagnetic waves. Tesla was saddened to bring this news to the distinguished academician, but felt scientific honesty was paramount if progress was to be achieved. Tesla visited Hertz in Germany and personally demonstrated the experimental error to him. Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the 'accepted' theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental "laws" of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


To be honest, someone who was an ATS member was on a visit and I thought I could impress him (he´s electrical engineer, too) with the explanation provided on the first page. He asked me where I got this and so I showed him and he asked me if he could type a response because he did not wanted to log in. (Mods, if this is a problem, I can tell you the screen name), He said its a good explanation for someone who has absolutly no idea. But if you have a little understanding -iho- of the things (like me,just some car electronics) it makes it worse.

And electro magnetics is not included in that explanation.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I don't see any pomp here other than coming from you, with all those "new domains of physics", "radiant energy" etc, and it's pomp because you possess ZERO knowledge of physics in the first place. Copy-paste from the woo-woo sites is the only thing you are capable of.

Your "woo-woo" is other, open-minded, careful people's diligent investigation - despite ridicule, which is a sign of weakness.

I confess my weakness, Mary. I'm too weak to extract anything useful from complete lack of evidence. Your mileage may vary. And I don't see anything "diligent" in what you call "investigation". If you were diligent, you would have bought that $4 multimeter that I suggested you do many times, and you would check that resistance. What sort of "carefulness" are you talking about? Did you carefully observe that, for example, Tom Bearden's machine is nowhere to be found? Did you carefully observe how this fool failed to read the paper of Dr.Klimov, and still proceeded to refer to it on the internet, as if it demonstrates some kind of "overunity"? Sorry but just like with complete lack of evidence in all these woo-woo cases, your diligence and care are nowhere to be found. Just sticking with facts.