Electricity Generation

Originally posted by StellarX
I think your following comment explains why you felt you needed to criticize instead of just presuming that the author knew what he was talking about and used short hand or explained it poorly; if you knew you were talking to a trained professional you would have given him more credit.

As much as i hate to dissapoint you, that was not the reason.

The reason was that i noticed some conflicts in his statement and tried to explain them as best i could.

Now that i looked at the entire document (published here) and studied the figure 2 in his "objection 3", i can explain it even better.

First of all, i still don't understand why he is talking so much about misconceptions about how electricity works. I was never thaught those misconceptions. Why is he arguing against unexistant (or at least very old and obsolete) misconceptions? This still confuses me, but i will study the document some more, before commenting on it further.

For now i will only focus on "Objection 3" and "Figure 2", which he claims, prooves electricity HAS to flow through empty space. The same empty space for which he himself at first claimed, that it doesn't flow through (capacitor and transformer) - do you see where my initial confusion about his claims came from?


Ok, let's study the two circuits in Figure 2.

Figure 2 / circuit 1

On the left we have a battery, connected to a light bulb through a capacitor and a switch. When you close the switch, the bulb flashes briefly.

Let's analyze, how it works:
- When the switch is closed, the battery starts charging the capacitor THROUGH the light bulb.
- A current flows through the light bulb, to the capacitor, making the bulb light up.
- After a very short time the capacitor is charged to the same voltage as the battery.
- The electric potential in the capacitor is now at the same level as the one in the battery, so the current can not flow to it anymore.
- The bulb stops glowing.

He says, this means electricity HAS to flow through empty space.

No matter how the energy travels in those examples, it must be able to get through empty space.

But there is NO transfer of electricity through empty space here. All we have is a current flow from one potential to the other. I don't see anything mystical about this circuit. It is exactly how i explained it on the other thread, when i first commented on it.


Figure 2 / circuit 2

On the right we have a battery connected to a primary coil in a transformer through a switch. The secondary coil of the transformer is connected to a light bulb.

Let's analyze, how it works:
- When the switch is closed, we have a CHANGE in the current through the primary coil.
- The magnetic field created by the current flow through the coil changes, because of the brief voltage spike.
- Changes in the magnetic field cause current flow in the secondary through induction.
- The light bulb flashes briefly, because only changes in magnetic field can cause induction.
- After that the magnetic field is constant so there is no more induction and the bulb stops glowing.

Again, this is supposed to proove energy transfer through empty space. Unlike the first example, in this case, he is right. But this energy transfer happens through induction from changing magnetic fields. For changing magnetic fields you need alternating current, but in this case, a voltage/current spike from closing the switch is enough for the bulb to flash briefly. The reason it does not continue to glow is, that after the initial spike, the magnetic field remains constant and can not cause induction anymore.


In my previous reply i guessed the "phenomenon" here can be explained by known laws, and indeed they can. I also presumed the observed brief flash of light most likely happens because of equalisation of two potentials and this too turned out to be true.

I don't see anything special about these circuits.

And the rest of his argument is very confusing. I still don't understand what he is trying to proove or disproove.

First he argues electricity doesn't need a continuous loop and then it seems he uses the requirement for this loop (he just argued against) as proof that energy flows through empty space - this is what i find so confusing.

Then again, he seems to know a lot about electric fields and does a lot of research....

So for the sake of argument, i will consider the possibility, that i am completely wrong about the rest of it and study the document further, until i can say for sure what it's about.


Untill then, if you think you have a better explanation of how those two circuits work, please share it, so we can analyze it and maybe even learn from it.

Thanks!

[edit on 13/1/08 by deezee]

Originally posted by deezee
While i'm very gratefull for your concern, you shouldn't worry too much about my computer skills. Other than building all sorts of electronic devices, i also have to program them and the computers they connect to.

So we are both qualified at things other than disagreeing with other people.

Besides, if you read what i wrote, you would notice i wasn't even completey awake at that time and for some strange reason, this connection error is most likely to happen when i forget to make a copy of the text.

I try not to insult others by discussing important matters while half asleep.

The discussions could be so much more pleasant, if you wouldn't try so hard to to be condescending, every chance you get.

Deezee: The quote is a good example of what happens when people with little or no knowledge about electricity try to explain it.

Says the man who things that everyone who he disagrees with has 'little or no knowledge about electricity'!

Can we at least agree that having strong opinions results in people sometimes presuming ignorance in others where it might not exist? IF you just want to continue pointing fingers i am more than able to do that too!

From your other posts i get a strange feeling you like to argue a lot. But again, this is another example, where i would love to be prooven wrong.

Maybe then, we could focus on the subject at hand.

In my opinion i only argue with people who i believe to be misinformed, uninformed or plain wrong about any of their given views and given that i obviously very rarely simply stop arguing for the sake of brevity or preventing some ego's from getting bruised.

If you wish to 'focus' on the subject at hand i suggest you 'lead' by example. !

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX


I just spent some time reading the document you were quoting from and some others he published.

Before we continue this discussion, i would very much like to know, what you believe the quote you posted (Objection 3) means. What theory does it support in your oppinion?

Also, what are your ideas or theories related to this field, in your own words? What is your standpoint and your beliefs regarding this subject?

Thanks!

Originally posted by StellarX
I try not to insult others by discussing important matters while half asleep.

Yes, i can see you prefer to do it wide awake. What i can't see, is how i insulted you.

The only consequence of my being half asleep was, that i lost a very long reply to you and then posted that it'll have to wait untill later.

You seem to get insulted very easily for some strange reason. Are you by any chance a new ager?

Originally posted by StellarX
Says the man who things that everyone who he disagrees with has 'little or no knowledge about electricity'!

Actually, i just thought that about someone who confuses the charging of a capacitor with energy transfer through empty space.

Originally posted by StellarX
IF you just want to continue pointing fingers i am more than able to do that too!

You made that very obvious, not only in your replies to me, but also to others, while at the same time i thought, i made it obvious i want to discuss the subject instead of the person posting it. See below.

Originally posted by StellarX
If you wish to 'focus' on the subject at hand i suggest you 'lead' by example. !

That's odd... And there i was, thinking i did just that, by first posting a very detailed analysis of the statement and then another detailed analysis of the circuits in question.

Yet for some strange reason you haven't responded to any of those, but again chose to attack the messenger, rather than discuss the message. Something i see you do quite often and pretty much with everyone.


I offered two very long posts, discussing the subject you brought up, and i was more than willing to continue it, but if you can't focus on it's content, i really don't know what else to do.

If you are willing to finally start discussing it, i am going to forget all this and continue discussing the theories and the science. But if you choose to continue in the same direction instead, i won't have a choice but to stop responding, since the topic here is "Science & Technology - Electricity Generation" and not "Pointing fingers", if i may use your own words. That belongs to BTS, as far as i know.

[edit on 13/1/08 by deezee]

Originally posted by deezee
I just spent some time reading the document you were quoting from and some others he published.

Thanks for reading what your objecting to.

Before we continue this discussion, i would very much like to know, what you believe the quote you posted (Objection 3) means. What theory does it support in your oppinion?

That the EM energy that powers whatever load we attach flows from the dipoles created by the separation of charges at the speed of light in every direction and that loads are powered by only a tiny percentage of this energy flow.

Also, what are your ideas or theories related to this field, in your own words? What is your standpoint and your beliefs regarding this subject?

Thanks!

Maybe these will help to explain my point :

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

but if not i particularly like the briefing that Thomas Bearden prepared for the the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

epw.senate.gov...

Stellar

First of all, i would like to thank you for the change in your approach to this discussion. Maybe now we can get somewhere.

Originally posted by StellarX
Thanks for reading what your objecting to.

I read what i was "objecting" to (the quote) the first time i responded to it. It is true, that one of my assumptions was incorrect - that the person is a self proclaimed inventor of free energy devices - but the fact remains, that after analyzing his other statements my conclusions about the quote itself remain the same.

Did you read my explanation of what happens in those circuits? All of the observed effects can be explained by known laws. I expected i would find an exception to the laws in them, in fact i hoped i would, but i didn't.

In that quote, he is claiming there is an energy transfer through empty space, where there is none. This was the reason for my initial assumption.

But the rest of his paper focuses on something else entirelly. Mainly, what he is suggesting is a change in the education approach. Instead of gradually teaching students more and more complicated / detailed theories, he is proposing to discard the old and obsolete ones entirelly and conduct the teaching process with the newest discoveries from the beginning.

The thing i still don't understand, is why he is proposing to discard theories i was never even thaught. In fact even in high school, before studying electrical engineering we were thaught that electricity is NOT the flow of electrons and also which of the old theories are wrong and why.

But maybe the education process is just different in my country. I don't know.

In any case, other than the claim in that quote, i don't have any objections to the rest of his statements.

In fact, i am writing an email to him, asking him to clarify his position on why he thinks there is an energy transfer through emty space, when the circuits don't do anything unusual at all.

I really hope i get an answer, to see what he really meant with that. It would greatly help in this discussion.

Originally posted by StellarX
That the EM energy that powers whatever load we attach flows from the dipoles created by the separation of charges at the speed of light in every direction and that loads are powered by only a tiny percentage of this energy flow.

When and if i get a response from the proffesor, i hope it sheds some light on it all.

Untill then, i would like to hear your explanation on how that circuit prooves energy transfer through empty space. Especially the first one.

It is possible, that you see something in that document, that isn't realy there.

I explained it's operation using known laws and didn't notice any exceptions.

If you think my explanations are incorrect, please explain how, and what you think happens in those circuits.

Originally posted by StellarX
Maybe these will help to explain my point :

There was a reason i asked for an explanation in your own words.

Currently i'm in the process of developing one of the most bizzare devices ever requested from me, but i wil try to find some time off work to read through all that, if you think it's important.

Still, it would be great, if you could sum some of it up a bit, so i know what to look for or pay special attention to.


Untill then...

Originally posted by mazzroth
Electrons always travel at the speed of light, the "larger the current" as you so eloquently put does not mean they travel faster but in larger quantities.

Somebody already noted that the first part of this statement is incorrect. I would like to add that it is grossly incorrect, as the electrons in the conductor are typically crawling very, very slowly. Once the voltage is applied to a conductor, the change in the EM field indeed propagates quite fast but you surely must know with your background that it's still below the speed of light... Think RC, LC etc...

Originally posted by StellarX
And as i have mentioned before we can CLEARLY observe how energy falls into close proximity to the circuit wires from outside of it and that loads can briefly be powered without any electron flows thus destroying the argument that EM flows can or should be associated with electron flows.

This is entirely moot. I can impart energy on a cup of coffee by placing it in a microwave oven. Clearly, there is no electrons flowing between the microwave power source and the cup of coffee, yet it gets hot. The cup, in fact, is the "load".

The initial question was about more or less conventional AC generators and circuits, and I suggest we stick with those.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
This is entirely moot. I can impart energy on a cup of coffee by placing it in a microwave oven. Clearly, there is no electrons flowing between the microwave power source and the cup of coffee, yet it gets hot. The cup, in fact, is the "load".

Which is what i have been trying to get to; we do not required circuits to power loads and if we wish to use them to better regulate and or control the flow of electricity from the source dipole ( which is what batteries and generators do by separating charges) to the attached load.

The initial question was about more or less conventional AC generators and circuits, and I suggest we stick with those.

I did earlier explain my reasons for continuing another discussion in this thread and if you don't know why we are discussing what we seem to just check my earlier post on page two.

Stellar

PS Deezee It think i know understand the nature of your objection, to his objection, and i am surprise that i managed to overlook it for so long! I will elaborate later but suffice to say that objection does not serve the purpose i used to think it did...



[edit on 14-1-2008 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX
Which is what i have been trying to get to; we do not required circuits to power loads and if we wish to use them to better regulate and or control the flow of electricity from the source dipole ( which is what batteries and generators do by separating charges) to the attached load.

Again, the point you are trying to make is moot. Nobody said that circuits are needed in all cases, but in typical industrial and residential applications they obviously are.

The initial question was about more or less conventional AC generators and circuits, and I suggest we stick with those.

I did earlier explain my reasons for continuing another discussion in this thread and if you don't know why we are discussing what we seem to just check my earlier post on page two.

I saw that you were having a beef with deezee, over nothing, essentially, and that was your driving motivation.


[edit on 14-1-2008 by buddhasystem]

reply to post by StellarX


StellarX...

You asked me via U2U, to "clarify" my position on the subject you posted in another thread.

Even tho you were not very friendly with me from the beginning - only because i pointed out a flaw in a statement - i respected your request, and posted two long and detailed analysis, first of the statement and then of the circuits in question.

You still haven't responded to even one of them.

The circuit you (and the proffesor) said, prooves energy transfer through empty space, does quite the opposite in fact. From the start, i guessed it is just currents flowing between two different potentials and after carefully analyzing it again, i found out, this is exactly what happens.

If you think those circuits proove energy transfer through empty space, please explain how and point out the flaws in my explanations.

So far, i've given you the benefit of a doubt and considered the possibility i was wrong at least twice.

I am willing to do it a third time, but for that you need to contrubute some plausible explanation. If you can't, you shouldn't be using a quote you don't understand, for prooving a point.

For now, i will assume, you can and will await your explanation, of what happens in those circuits, that prooves the convential laws wrong.

Since it was the basis of your(?) theory, you should elaborate on it, before we can continue this conversation.

Thanks!

reply to post by deezee


I did respond to your earlier posts and i had no idea that i was working against time here! I will respond to your clarifications with the due apologies for my earlier disagreements as well as elaboration with examples as to why i still believe that closed circuits do little but destroy the source dipoles that are responsible for the EM energy that in fact powers the loads.

So unless you are in a great hurry i suggest you spend your not so limited time disagreeing with someone else.

Stellar

Originally posted by buddhasystem
gain, the point you are trying to make is moot. Nobody said that circuits are needed in all cases, but in typical industrial and residential applications they obviously are.

But they are not and it's rarely going to be helpful if you presume to know what i am thinking.

I saw that you were having a beef with deezee, over nothing, essentially, and that was your driving motivation.

The objection he had i have now admitted to have been well founded but since he was not particularly diplomatic about it ( i copied the quote) he had a response coming whatever the merit of his original 'clarification'. Why you think i would consciously argue over 'nothing' , by attempting to defend a inaccurate statement, i do not know but i don't like the implications and i suggest you take your insults elsewhere.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
So unless you are in a great hurry i suggest you spend your not so limited time disagreeing with someone else.

What the hell is this supposed to mean? How am i even supposed to respond to this? Where was i even disagreeing with you? All i did was write a post, mentioning which points i would like you to clarify.

I try my best to be civil with you. I CLEARLY state multiple times, i'm ALWAYS going to consider the possibility, that i'm wrong and give you the benefit of a doubt, whatever your position might be. Yet still you somehow manage to get insulted by almost everything i myself, or anyone else has to say.

Originally posted by StellarX
I did respond to your earlier posts and i had no idea that i was working against time here!

I'm sorry if i gave you the impression, that i want you to hurry.

Yes, you were responding. But i got the impression, you were responding to the wrong posts, instead of the subjects you initially wanted my clarification on. I just wanted you to focus on the subject you brought up.

Again, i will repeat: I will consider the possibility that you actually want to discuss the subject you brought up. I will also consider the possibility that you know what you're talking about. If this happens, i will gladly discuss the subject with you.

But if you continue with posts like this, i will simply stop responding, even if you start insulting me or claiming that i somehow insulted you. I am going to assume, this is not going to happen. Please proove me right.

[edit on 14/1/08 by deezee]

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by buddhasystem
gain, the point you are trying to make is moot. Nobody said that circuits are needed in all cases, but in typical industrial and residential applications they obviously are.

But they are not and it's rarely going to be helpful if you presume to know what i am thinking.

Right... Of course, you know best how to deliver electricity to residences w/o wires... Tesla, baby... Or whatever, baby... You keep repeating your mantra about how inadequate modern physics is, which is typical of armchair scientists.

I do not presume that I know what you are thinking, especially since it's a fairly hard thing to guess, from your lengthy and meandering posts.

If Bearden is your hero, that explains quite a bit, though.

Originally posted by deezee
The reason i responded to this quote was, that it seemed to be the basis of the theory.

It's not but it is in my opinion vague and open to misinterpretation; mine was purely misreading or, being the human that i am, seeing what i wanted to.

I did in fact remember it partially wrong. I will try to explain why i understood it, the way i described it previously:

The books i learned from said there has to be a conducting PATH from one (higher) potential, to the other (lower) potential. A COMPLETE loop does not exist, because the two different potentials are insulated from each other inside the power source. If they weren't, they would discharge into one another immediatelly and wouldn't be able to hold a charge.

First off your location would have had a great deal to do with the text books and i am quite sure that the author knows that western text books are prone to misrepresenting the issue. A complete loop may not exist but if we are going to get technical i would point out that neither generators not batteries are 'sources' of power.

13 Many educators would prefer to simply state that the battery drives conventional
current through the battery from 2 to 1, opposite to the Coulomb
electric field between the terminals. This statement, however, appears
to be highly confusing to a novice. Instead, we could say that the
process within the battery causes the separation of electric charges, which
could be represented by an efficient current in the direction opposite to the
Coulomb force within the battery. The efficient current is an imaginary
current, which would close the circuit in accord with charge conservation.
Actually, no charge makes a closed loop in the circuit, but the constantly
occurring redistribution of the atomic charges in the chemical reactions
~decreasing the internal electric energy of the products! causes the gathering
of electrons on the terminal of the battery. This process, although
essentially quantum ~tunneling!, deserves a qualitative explanation.

sites.huji.ac.il...

So i don't understand, why he's saying that most books claim there has to be a COMPLETE loop. The circuit or a load is just a path for the flow of electricity between the two potentials.

sites.huji.ac.il...

Indicates in fig 4 that the energy flux ( Poynting vector) has nothing to do with the potential difference in flows from both terminals/charges. If the author claims that most books text booms suggests a complete loop that i have no reason to doubt it given how the whole EM field is misrepresented in western physics. I think the odds of getting a more accurate view in the former Yugoslavia were high given it's proximity to the education institutions of the former USSR.

This is true. They don't travel across the insulating gap in a capacitor. That's why the insulation is there. But i never heard or read they do.

But the implication is that without such a electron flow loads should not be powered yet we can observe that they are? Do you think that is accurate reflection of his intended claim?

A transformer is something else entirelly. Changing magnetic fields from AC in one winding cause the flow of electricity in the other winding through induction. Again, i don't understand, why he would even mention the exchange of electrons here, but he is right when he says it doesn't happen. The books i learned from never said it does.

Well again i believed that he was trying to point out how electrons are commonly presented as the energy carriers and that

Objection 2 looks at AC circuits in which electrons don’t go anywhere much; they just jiggle back
and forth. So they can’t carry energy from one place to another. It would be silly to have a basically
different theory for AC and DC.

Objection 3: although some books say that you have to have a complete conducting loop before a
current can exist, that is just another misconception. Electrons do not travel across the insulating
gap in a capacitor nor do they jump across the space between the primary and secondary windings
of a transformer. This is so even when the energy source is a battery; I have constructed circuits like
those in figure 2 that show that the lamp lights up briefly when the switch is closed. No matter how
the energy travels in those examples, it must be able to get through empty space. (It is true that if
you want to maintain a steady current in a circuit, then a continuous conducting loop is required.)

In fact i should probably withdraw my partial apology as it is in fact made clear in objection three that beside the absence of a closed loop due to the presence of separated charges in the battery there is a additional gap thus preventing the potential difference that would normally be associated with electron flows.

Again, true. A battery is two different potentials in one package. They are insulated from one another, otherwise they wouldn't be able to hold a charge. The only flow of electricity again only occurs when a circuit or some load connects the two potentials and gives the current a path to flow through.

Which he in his objection proves to be false as the light bulb does light despite the fact that there exists no potential difference due to the absence of a electrical circuit ( or shall i say a return path for the current). Obviously this has nothing to do with the separation of charges in the battery and i am going to use my three week absence of typing ( and critical thinking given the people you get stuck with on family vacations) as excuse for why i were so easily confused!

Ok, this was the part that confused me initially. First he claims there is no flow of electrons between the two potentials in a capacitor or battery.

Well there can not be when the examples clearly shows that circuits are not complete thus now allowing potential differences to exist in them. The energy flows to the bulb despite the absence of potential differences and the then supposed resulting electron flows.

Now he is saying, energy has to be able to somehow get through empty space in order for the lamp to light up briefly when the switch is closed.
Because of this, i assumed, that he is now claiming there IS a flow between the two potentials inside a power source.

It sure does but he never suggested that there existed a potential difference , and how could there when there is no electrical circuit, and thus electron flow to result in the light bulb briefly lighting up.

But then he says: Again, this is true.

Well sure it is but the fact that what we observed happened at all undermines the claim that electron flows and potential differences are responsible for the electromagnetic flows that results in bulbs lighting up.

But from the last two quotes it would appear to me, it is possible that the brief flash of light he saw was simply coming from equalisation of two slightly different potentials, one of them being the load in this case.

But there is no electrical circuit in which equalisation is possible? Does he suggest that there ever existed a potential difference in that circuit which could result in equalization later on?

But before i can comment on it further i will have to analyze his circuit diagrams. If i can't make sense of it i will consult one of my employees, who has much more experience than me in electrical engineering.

They are hardly that complex!

I think the effect can most likely be explained by known laws. If i am wrong, i will gladly say so. In fact, i would love to be wrong in this case.

Sure they can be explained by known laws and the question, for at least the last fifty years , is why they refuse to do so and acknowledge the implications of acknowledge physical laws.

Continued

Almost from his earliest days as a physicist, Yang had made significant contributions to the theory of the weak interactions--the forces long thought to cause elementary particles to disintegrate. (The strong forces that hold nuclei together and the electromagnetic forces that are responsible for chemical reactions are parity-conserving. Since these are the dominant forces in most physical processes, parity conservation appeared to be a valid physical law, and few physicists before 1955 questioned it.) By 1953 it was recognized that there was a fundamental paradox in this field since one of the newly discovered mesons--the so-called K meson--seemed to exhibit decay modes into configurations of differing parity. Since it was believed that parity had to be conserved, this led to a severe paradox.
After exploring every conceivable alternative, Lee and Yang were forced to examine the experimental foundations of parity conservation itself. They discovered, in early 1956, that, contrary to what had been assumed, there was no experimental evidence against parity nonconservation in the weak interactions. The experiments that had been done, it turned out, simply had no bearing on the question. They suggested a set of experiments that would settle the matter, and, when these were carried out by several groups over the next year, large parity-violating effects were discovered. In addition, the experiments also showed that the symmetry between particle and antiparticle, known as charge conjugation symmetry, is also broken by the weak decays. (See also CP violation.)

In addition to his work on weak interactions, Yang, in collaboration with Lee and others, carried out important work in statistical mechanics--the study of systems with large numbers of particles--and later investigated the nature of elementary particle reactions at extremely high energies. From 1965 Yang was Albert Einstein professor at the Institute of Science, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Long Island. During the 1970s he was a member of the board of Rockefeller University and the American Association for the Advancement of Science and, from 1978, of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego. He was also on the board of Ben-Gurion University, Beersheba, Israel. He received the Einstein Award in 1957 and the Rumford Prize in 1980; in 1986 he received the Liberty Award and the National Medal of Science.

physics.nobel.brainparad.com...

No matter what you may believe about me, i would love to see a working device that opposes the known laws and teaches us something new about electricity (or anything else in science for that matter).

The devices i support do not break known laws but since those laws are not known by very many they are in fact hidden or misrepresented by those who are making a absolute killing under the current energy scarcity paradigms.

It is just that your post was in a thread about free energy, so i thought it was from one of the inventors of perpetuum mobile or ZPE devices... That was how i saw that quote and because i saw some contradictions in it i commented on it.

Now that i read it again, i see i might have partially misunderstood it.

We ALL make mistakes and while i have no idea if the author understands the implications of what he is saying , and at least in my mind, prove, your past posting habits have more than proven that you are open minded and ready to learn. If you leave here with the old views that will probably be my fault so i will keep trying.

made me believe he is suggesting that electrons DO flow through the insulating gap in the capacitor. I mistakenly thought these two sentences were related. It took me a couple of times rereading it now to see how i understood it the first time.

As you rightly discovered they are not related but i hope my earlier clarifications better explains why they are not.

The quote in it's entirety is still a bit odd. It's mostly correct but it says the books claim something they don't, which is another reason i got the impression he doesn't really understand it all. But maybe we just learned from different books.. I don't know

I think the books are in fact different as Sefton certainly had to read a few to arrive at his current legitimate objections.

In any case, it is true that i misunderstood it the first time, which made me comment on the wrong aspect of it.
What i still don't understand is, why he is relating the lack of flow of electricity between the two potentials inside the power source, to the alleged flow of electricity through empty space in his circuits.

He is in my opinion pointing out the fact that electricity flows despite the lack of a potential difference and the supposed resulting electron flows between the separated charges. If you are not aware EM propagates best in a vacuum and in fact never enters the circuit itself only falling into close proximity to the conductors possibly due to the electron flow.

This is what confused me initially and lead to my response.
Before commenting on it further i will first take some time and try to understand everything he has to say.
When i'm done, and if you're still interested, we can continue this conversation.

I hope this helps even if it's a bit later and the discussion already more heated.

Stellar

The following is your response to my first post, where i analyzed the objection, before looking at the circuits. There, i was just explaining my initial understanding of the "Objection 3".

It would have been better if you responded to the post where i analyzed the operation of the circuits, since there would be less confusion, but i will try to answer as best i can.

Originally posted by StellarX

This is true. They don't travel across the insulating gap in a capacitor. That's why the insulation is there. But i never heard or read they do.

But the implication is that without such a electron flow loads should not be powered yet we can observe that they are? Do you think that is accurate reflection of his intended claim?

While i agree electron flow is not electricity, this circuit is not one to proove it. If you look at my second post, where i analyze the circuits in question, i easily explained their operation with electricity flowing between two different potentials. More on this later.

Originally posted by StellarX
Well again i believed that he was trying to point out how electrons are commonly presented as the energy carriers and that

These must be some very old books, he is objecting to. We were always thaught electricity is not the flow of electrons. But i think this is not what you're after.

Originally posted by StellarX
In fact i should probably withdraw my partial apology as it is in fact made clear in objection three that beside the absence of a closed loop due to the presence of separated charges in the battery there is a additional gap thus preventing the potential difference that would normally be associated with electron flows.

What apology are you talking about?

When you're mentioning the "additional gap", you must be talking about the capacitor.. That "gap" in the circuit is a symbol for a capacitor.

Let's start with a discharged capacitor. When you connect it to a battery, it quickly charges to the same voltage as the battery is supplying. For this, some current has to flow to it. This happens very quickly, depending on it's capacity.

Since in this circuit, the capacitor is being charged through a light bulb, the current charging the capacitor flows THROUGH the bulb, making it flash briefly.

Everything going on can be explained by currents flowing between different potentials. Both poles of the capacitor get charged to the potentials of both poles of the battery.

I still don't see "energy transfer through empty space".

Originally posted by StellarX

The only flow of electricity again only occurs when a circuit or some load connects the two potentials and gives the current a path to flow through.

Which he in his objection proves to be false as the light bulb does light despite the fact that there exists no potential difference due to the absence of a electrical circuit ( or shall i say a return path for the current).

Actualy no, because in this circuit the capacitor provides the other potential, to which the current flows through the light bulb, thereby briefly making it light up.

Imagine the load being the capacitor, which in this case is being charged by the battery. The light bulb only acts as a resistor, slowing the charging of the capacitor a little, due to the fillament warming up and providing resistance, with a brief flash of light as a "side effect".

I'm slowly getting the feeling i know, what he is objecting to. Maybe to a very old idea, that circuits have to be COMPLETE LOOPS, with electricity flowing in a complete circle?

Instead, all that is needed, is two potentials, with current flowing between them through a wire or a load, as long as there is a difference.

But i thought that was common knowledge.

So this is NOT what he prooves false, but instead what he prooves correct.

The only thing i still don't understand is the part about energy transfer through empty space. But i hope he sheds some light on that, when and if he answers..

Originally posted by StellarX
the examples clearly shows that circuits are not complete thus not allowing potential differences to exist in them. The energy flows to the bulb despite the absence of potential differences and the then supposed resulting electron flows.

The circuits actually are complete. There is no absence of potential difference. The capacitor acts as the other potential untill it gets charged. And the other circuit is just a normal example of induction at work, during a DC voltage spike at switch ON.

Originally posted by StellarX
he never suggested that there existed a potential difference , and how could there when there is no electrical circuit, and thus electron flow to result in the light bulb briefly lighting up.

You are right, he didn't. And that's where my initial impression about him came from.

I have clearly shown, there in fact IS a potential difference, with a circuit in between.

Originally posted by StellarX
the fact that what we observed happened at all undermines the claim that electron flows and potential differences are responsible for the electromagnetic flows that results in bulbs lighting up.

I don't know what else to say but repeat the above.
Please read my second post explaining the circuits operation, before continuing to claim there is no potential difference.

This is what the capacitors are designed to do - hold a charge - a difference between two potentials.

Now i'm really curious how the proffesor is going to respond to all this...

Originally posted by StellarX
But there is no electrical circuit in which equalisation is possible!

Yes there is. It's the one that connects the battery to the capacitor. Equalisation occurs between the battery and the capacitor. It just so happens the bulb is in the way, so it flashes, with the sole purpose to confuse.

Originally posted by StellarX
They are hardly that complex!

I made that statement before looking at them, when i still expected to see something i won't be able to understand / something that opposes the known laws.

Still they seem to be complex enough, to confuse some people and maybe even the proffesor, if he really thinks there is no potential difference.

Continued....

Originally posted by StellarX

Now that i read it again, i see i might have partially misunderstood it.

We ALL make mistakes and while i have no idea if the author understands the implications of what he is saying , and at least in my mind, prove,

After going through it more carefully, i now see i did understand it correctly, the first time i responded to it on the other thread.

The proffesor said "electricity doesn't flow through the insulation in the capacitor" and then said "no matter how the circuits in figure 2 work, they show there must be some energy transfer through empty space, since the bulb flashes briefly"

The first time i thought these two sentences were related, later i thought they were not. Now after thinking about it so much, i understand what he meant.

He meant that while electricity doesn't flow through the capacitor, the energy does, since the bulb briefly flashes.

So i was correct, when i assumed the two sentences were related. But i think by now i have shown, why this is not true.

All we have is a current flow from the battery to the capacitor. The capacitor is not a gap in the circuit. The capacitor is the load - it's being charged. Since it's being charged through a light bulb, this acts as a resistor as it heats up, slowing the charging down a bit, and flashing as a "by product".

Originally posted by StellarX
As you rightly discovered they are not related but i hope my earlier clarifications better explains why they are not.

Well, i just explained how they were related. For some strange reason, the proffesor is looking at the capacitor as a gap - something that prevents the current flowing through the bulb. But in fact the capacitor is the reason the current flows through the bulb.

Originally posted by StellarX
He is in my opinion pointing out the fact that electricity flows despite the lack of a potential difference and the supposed resulting electron flows between the separated charges.

But how can he be pointing that out, since a capacitor is not a "gap" in the circuit, but instead something that is capable of holding a charge, and when connected to a voltage, quickly charges up to the same voltage, by drawing current from it - in this case through a light bulb.

I feel like i'm starting to repeat myself. I must have explained this at least ten times by now. You should have responded to my second post, where i analyzed the circuits and all this would be unnecesary.

In my previous post i wrote "Continued", but there is nothing to continue about.

The only thing i still don't understand is, how a physics proffesor could have made that statement.

Deezee

you wrote ..All we have is a current flow from the battery to the capacitor. The capacitor is not a gap in the circuit. The capacitor is the load - it's being charged. Since it's being charged through a light bulb, this acts as a resistor as it heats up, slowing the charging down a bit, and flashing as a "by product

A capacitor isn't a load at all, on DC it will charge up until the Voltage = the supply voltage ( milli seconds ) then no current will flow. It is seen on DC as an open circuit after the initial charging current stops when the voltage across it has matched the supply voltage supplied to it. When the voltage is removed from the capacitor it will then discharge in reverse to the supply charge it held....a capacitor in series with a "load" ie lamp on DC will flicker with the supply being turned on then go out.

On AC a capacitor is closer to a short circuit but the current will lag the voltage so a phase shift occurs as the capacitor charges and discharges with the alternating voltage applied to it.